Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 093

Wednesday, July 26 2000

• RE: Avodah V5 #92
• Nedarim question
• Re: kavanah
• Re: Dominant cultural values
• Re: What is Neis? (was Re: The Holocaust: Divine Retribution?)
• Re: kavanah
• Re: Dominant cultural values
• Re: Dominant cultural values
• aliyah / ketuvot
• Re: Dominant cultural values
• Re: Rashi Chayei Sara
• Re: medrash

> I looked for the Gra but could not find it. Obviously, there is no Sifrei
> on Bahar and it should be Bechukosai anyway. I checked the Gra's hagahos to
> the Sifra on both Bahar and Bechukosai and the Sifrei on Nitzavim. I also
> checked the Aderes Eliyahu, Kol Eliyahu, and Divrei Eliyahu. Lo matzasi.

The Gra can be found in Aderes Eliyahu at the end of the tochacha in Sefer
Devarim. IIRC, in Parshat Nitzavim.

KT,  Shimon (Andre) Isaacson  

Has anyone noticed that the leshon haGemara in Nedarim is more Aramaic than
in other masechtos?  I don't mean the specific nedarim which the Gemara
describes,  which follow the rule of leshon benei adam;  I mean the shakla
vetaria of the Gemara itself.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Halacha recognizes kavanah al tnai (eg recommendations for counting sfira
before tzait or "making up" a tfila that you're not sure you prayed). While
I understand this concept on an intellectual level and on a practical one
if it is understood as a separate thought prior to the actual maaseh, I'm
not sure one can actually maintain this bifurcated kavana during the actual
maaseh (ie if you are able to maintain a separate level of consciousness while
counting the omer, what is your intent at any one point in time - in my mind
it's a boolean variable(0 or 1 and nothing else). Do others see it differently?

Does anyone know the earliest source for this concept?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 7/24/00 7:21:11 AM US Central Standard Time,
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> There was a din diRabbanan which said that you can't leave food on a fire...

> With the invention of new types of ovens, rabbanim had to pasken how to
> apply this idea to the that oven....

I see your point, but I think you're being too categorical. Not many folks
want to stoke an open fire in their kitchens anymore. So while the din is
the source of the p'sak, the p'sak has for all practical purposes become the
equivalent of the din. We ask about blechs, not stone fire shields. Something
like that could be said about almost any rule of Jewish law addressing any
feature of modern life that lacks an identical 2000-year-old counterpart.

As a practical matter, even a theoretical one, I'd argue that the din and
the p'sak are equally interpretive. The Sanhedrin didn't really "legislate"
in a political or transactional sense. It did not create law by mere charter
or delegation, as agents of the king, the state, or the people. The Sanhedrin
interpreted Scripture, and implemented policy to carry that interpretation
out. That's what a modern posek does, although he is supposedly bound by a
deeper layer of precedent.

David Finch

In a message dated 7/24/00 6:33:53 AM US Central Standard Time,
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Actually, anything we can PREDICT is natural, IOW, if you set up the same
> conditions, the same will occur again. At least, in the statistical sense.
> "Neis" not only means "miracle", it also means "flag". It's those events
> that call attention to His existance by being out of the routine. Nature is
> therefore merely that which is predictable and taken for granted.

> FWIW, we can't explain much of physics, while we can explain most nissim. Said
> explanation might include G-d. But you can't define nature by saying that we
> can't use supernatural explanations -- that's appealing to the concept in its
> own definition.

I agree with your last statement. I also agree that science is in the
business of making predictions, and that under the scientific method only
that which can be reliably predicted (and therefore replicated) can be
"true." But that's all we're talking about -- a cautious way of expressing
what is true in the present. Anything we cannot verify through the scientific
method as true must be treated as unproven, unidentified, and unknown, i.e.,
supernatural or nonexistent. Nature and science remain synonyms for each
other. That doesn't mean that explanations for all of HaShem's creations
don't exist. It means only that nature is always limited by the current
state of man's feeble intelligence.

David Finch

On 25 Jul 2000, at 8:35, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Halacha recognizes kavanah al tnai ...
> Does anyone know the earliest source for this concept?

I would guess the Gemara in the Second Perek of Brachos that 
talks about tfillas tashlumim, no?

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 06:35:38PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: I see your point, but I think you're being too categorical...

This statement strikes me as odd. How are we to have a non-categorical
legal system? The rules for dinim are different than for p'sakim -- so we
need to have clear definitions of each.

: As a practical matter, even a theoretical one, I'd argue that the din and
: the p'sak are equally interpretive. The Sanhedrin didn't really "legislate"
: in a political or transactional sense. ...                      The Sanhedrin
: interpreted Scripture, and implemented policy to carry that interpretation
: out. That's what a modern posek does, although he is supposedly bound by a
: deeper layer of precedent.

A modern poseik applies pre-existing prohibitions and obligations to new
situations (such as a new kind of stove). (Which is why precedent plays such
a central role.) That is very different than inventing one where none had
existed before.

Sanhedrin really did legislate. There is no pasuk prohibiting shehiyah. It's
a new law. Similarly, reading megillah and lighting neir Chanukah were
invented without any pre-existing pesukim. Nor for crushing medicine or tuning
an instrument on Shabbos. Or washing one's hands before bread, or assinging
tum'ah to touching sifrei Torah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jul-00: Revi'i, Pinchas
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 39a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 14

In a message dated 7/25/00 8:35:16 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Sanhedrin really did legislate. There is no pasuk prohibiting shehiyah.
> It's a new law. Similarly, reading megillah and lighting neir Chanukah
> were invented without any pre-existing pesukim. Nor for crushing medicine
> or tuning an instrument on Shabbos. Or washing one's hands before bread,
> or assinging tum'ah to touching sifrei Torah.

The Knesset legislates; the Congress legislates; Stalin's Presidium
legislated. The newness of their law isn't what makes the law legislative.
It's the process and the accountability, the extent to which the rulemaking
body must account to a textual process beyond the desires of the source of
the body's power (i.e., the people, the king, the dictator.)

Courts make new law too. The American constitution, for example, says nothing
about integration, busing, schoolroom quotas, etc. But all of these devices --
laws, really -- were created and enforced by the courts forty years ago to give
effect to very vague and amorphous language in the equal-protection clause
of the constitution. Did the federal courts "legislate" these rules? I think
not. They created the rules as mechanism to enforce their interpretation of
the broad language of the constitution. The constitution was to the federal
courts what Scripture was to the Sanhedrin.

That's what the Sanhedrin did. Its laws were interpretive, much like the
enforcement powers of federal courts. Compare that to a truly legislative
body, whether the body reports to a plebescite or a dictator.

David Finch

At the end of ketuvot Rav Yehudah says that it is prohibited to
go from Bavel To Israel.

On a historical level I have never understood this gemara.
First his rebbe Rav moved from Bavel to israel and there are hints
that Shmuel also went to learn under Rebbe.
In that generation R. Oshaya and R. Eleazar moved to israel and
possibly R Ami (if it is the same person).

Earlier R. Chiyya and his sons moved to israel and a little earlier
R. Natan moved. I haven't tracked down all the tannaim who originally
came from Bavel but certaibly the most famous is Hillel who seems to
have come twice once while studuying under Shemaya&Avtalyon and later
at the time he baecame Nasi.

Given all this activity how could R. Yehudah claim there was a prohibition.
At the least he would be required to bring a tannaitic opionion that
supports his view and not a pasuk.

Eli Turkel

On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 11:07:21AM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: The Knesset legislates; the Congress legislates; Stalin's Presidium
: legislated. The newness of their law isn't what makes the law legislative.
: It's the process and the accountability, the extent to which the rulemaking
: body must account to a textual process beyond the desires of the source of
: the body's power (i.e., the people, the king, the dictator.)

I'm not sure why your definition of legislation is tied to accountability. By
that rule, an absolute dictator doesn't legislate.

: Courts make new law too. The American constitution, for example, says nothing
: about integration, busing, schoolroom quotas, etc. But all of these devices --
: laws, really -- were created ...

State and local legislative bodies.

: That's what the Sanhedrin did. Its laws were interpretive, much like the
: enforcement powers of federal courts.

I'm trying to avoid a discussion of American law or of English language. There
is a difference in kind between saying that concept XYZ is in the mood of
the laws already existant, or would prevent the accidental violation of laws
that are already enacted, and saying that XYZ is an instance of those laws.

If the word "legislation" shouldn't appeal to the first two cases, I apologize
for distracting the conversation.

For example: there is a d'Oraisa concept of pirsumei nisa (PN). Had Anshei
K'nesses haGdolah said that reading megillah qualified as PN, they would have
been paskening a din d'Orasia. But they went further than that: they obligated
mikrah megillah in particular. This need for a particular kind of PN fits
the hashkafah outlined in the Torah. But it's not what the d'Oraisa itself
would have required.

OTOH, when Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai argued about shevisas keilim
(whether ones posessions need to rest on Shabbos), they were arguing about
what Hashem's intent was when He assur-ed melachah for animals. The resulting
vote in Sanhedrin was an interpretation of Hashem's preexisting law, not a
new creation. This is what I mean by p'sak.

-mi

In continued off line discussion the following 
> The change was proposed by the MHRZV on the Midrash Rabbah who cites a 
> Yalkut on  Tehillim 37 with the alternatee girsa

See also the RaDal on the Medrosh Rabbah who also changes the Girse in the 
Medrosh based on RASHI on the B"R.

>  So what have you gained?  You've gained answering Rahsi but now you have a 
> shver  midrash and a contradition between them.

The fact that the Girse in the B"R and Rashi Al Hatorah are the same, and the 
fact that the Mizrachi Sifsei Chachomim and Gur Aryei etc. do not introduce 
Girse change, requires one to consider this as the possible right Girse, one 
would need to bring proof from other Kisvei Yad or early prints.

>  The MHRZV has at least eliminated one machlokes

There is another issue here as well, that I mentioned off list, the Mizrachi 
holds that since it says (BReishis  18:12) that Sara said "Achrei Vlosee" 
(and see Rashi there), which was when she was 89, one could not say that at 
100 she was like 20, however the Rebbe in a Sicha says that we could say that 
once it returned to her, it remained on.

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 10:02:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I am sure that Rambam does not hold that all agadata is a metaphor.
: In any case does this apply only to aggadata or also to medrash.

To quote the Rambam, printed in the Vilna sha"s on 123b, 2nd column (*)
"Vehakat":
    And the third kat, and they -- as H' "Lives" -- are very few, until it
    isn't proper to call them a "kat" except in the way it's said that the
    sun is a species and it is unique, and they are those people for whom
    the greatness of the Chachamim z"l is clear. And they are the best
    of all of them, which we find in all their words teach about topics of
    great truth. ...

So he acknowledges that it's the position of the mi'ut, but says it's the
only correct position in very strong terms. It looks like this is intended as
chizuk to other members of this kat who may get doubts because of being in
such a small mi'ut.

    They know that they [Chazal] a"h don't speak foolishness (?), and it is
    known as true to them [those in the 3rd kat] that their [Chazal's] words
    have to them a nigleh and a nistar. And they, IN ALL THAT THEY SAY
    OF DIVARIM HANIMNA'IM THEY SPOKE OF THEM IN A WAY OF RIDDLE AND PARABLE
    For this is the way of the great sages. Therefore the greatest of sages
    started his book and said to understand mashal umelitzah, derech chachamim
    vechidusam...

Obviously the stress is mine.

(* Given that "amud" means column, both a physical column and a column in a
seifer Torah, this citation probably would more accurately read daf 123 amud
dalet. It's the fourth column on the blatt.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Jul-00: Revi'i, Matos-Masei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 42b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 15

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]