Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 067

Thursday, December 14 2000

• RE: "vayyishaq yaakov lerachel"
• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• zechus of living in Eretz Yisrael
• Tolerance
• RE: Tolerance
• RE: Tolerance
• RE: Tolerance
• Re: Tolerance
• Re: Tolerance
• Re: Tolerance
• RE: Tolerance
• RE: Badekin
• Re: MIRESISHIS HASHONO...
• Re: Get vs kiddushin
• Re: TY and gezeros
• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• Re: Female Rabbis
• Woman and learning
• Re: Woman and learning
• RE: Tolerance

SBA:
> But if we accept that Rochel was a still a young child at the time -
> 'alles iz farentfered'.
> 1) Kissing your 5 year old cousin is no big deal.
> 2) At the time she was a 'ketana' - 7 years later she was no longer a
> 'ketana' but ''hatzeiro'.
> 3) At the age of 5 she was simply too young to get married and
> 4) 7 years later - she was of a marriagable age and there was no need
> to wait any longer.

gut gezogt.

The question is which came first?

Did the Midrash KNOW about Rachels' 5-year old age (let's say al pi mesorah)
OR
As a result of nuemrous kushyos did the Midrash DEDUCT (induct?) Rachel
as being 5?

[Deduce? -mi]

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

> BTW, who wrote "She'arim Metzuyanim Bahalachah"?  I'm not familiar with 
> that sefer, and as I'm in the middle of AZ, I'm definitely interested 

R. Chaim Elazar Braun.  His most famous work is the She'arim Metzuyanim 
Bahalachah on the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch.  However, his son has been publishing 
the SMB on shas for a while and is (I believe) still publishing more.  Another 
good sefer on Avodah Zarah is the two volume Seder Ya'akov.  The author's name 
escapes me but it was published in Bnei Brak.
     
Gil Student

The Da'as Zekeinim writes on 'va'yira Ya'akov meod' that Ya'akov was
afraid because Eisav was traveling in E. Yisrael, while Ya'akov was
coming from chu"l, and the zechus of E. Yisrael would help Eisav.

If the zechus of being in Eretz Yisrael can help even Eisav harasha
despite Ya'akov having a havtacha, maybe klapei shemaya the seculurists
living in Israel have more going for them then we think...

[This is part of a thread from Areivim. Some of the societal issues of
tolerance were deleted, so that we can focus here on the theoretical
basis.

[I also recommend reviewing mention of halachic pluralism in the archive. It
was a hot topic in volumes 1 and 2. -mi]


SBA <sba@blaze.net.au> wrote:
> I would say that the Shulchan Oruch is intolerant.
> 'Tolerance' has led to C and R.

Tolerance in the spirit of Elu V'Elu is what I am talking about. THe
SA incorporates Machlokes into it's Psak by chosing Three Rishonim
and siding with the Rov. But tolerance does have it's limits. No one
should tolerate clear Halacha violation as in C or R. (Micha and I have
a running argument about this.)

Obviously, when Poskim disagree, one of them must be wrong but both
have legitimacy in Halacha becuse we don't know who is right and who
is wrong. This is of course because our Mesorah has been diluted over
time and has, therefore, incorported Machlokes L'Shem Shomayim as to
what the Halacha really is.

Tolerance of differing Hashkafos by ALL segments of Orthodoxy is one of
my ultimate goals (at which I am failing miserably).

HM

From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com]
> Obviously, when Poskim disagree, one of them must be
> wrong but both have legitimacy in Halacha becuse we
> don't know who is right and who is wrong. This is of
> course because our Mesorah has been diluted over time
> and has, therefore, incorported Machlokes L'Shem
> Shomayim as to what the Halacha really is.

I disagree with the view that one of the two views must be wrong.  I believe
that the concept of elu v'elu divrei elokim chayim leads to the conclusion
that both views--though contradictory--are emes.  (Most of the rest of this
post appeared a year and a half ago.)

My views on elu v'elu are (loosely) based on the articles by Rabbi
Michael Rosensweig in both the Torah U'Maddah Journal (vol 1 OR 2)
and in the volume by the Orthodox Forum entitled "Halakhic Authority
and Personal Autonomy."  He noted that the brother of the Marahal
emphasized that each person is different and that is why the Torah
was given with shiv'im panim; in fact, each person at Mt. Sinai
understood something slightly different. 

Excerpts from R. Rosensweig's article "Rabbinic Authority and Personal
Autonomy":

pp. 99-100: "[T]he diversity and range of perspective in parshanut
and hashkafa is impressive and wholly acceptable to Chazal. 
Statements like: shivim panim la-torah . . . and u-kepatish yefotzetz
sela . . ., and the view expressed by Ramban . . . where he
formulates the notion of Torah as a divine text formed by the
infinite combinations of divine names, allowing it to serve as
creative exegetical source for all types of knowledge simulaneously
are representative of this approach. . . ."

 "This approach pervades discussions of Jewish philosophy even when
positions that are developed are mutually exclusive.  Debates rage on such
fundamentals as the eternity of the universe, free choice . . . .
Passionate argumentation regarding the very legitimacy of such basic
orientations as philosophy, Kabbalah, Hasidut, and Musar characterizes this
approach . . . .  Clearly, diversity of opinion and multiplicity of meaning
are not only acceptable but contribute to and are consistent with the
attainment of the religious ideal in Judaism."

He also quotes Maharshal from the introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo on
Bava Kamma(p. 108):

"One should not be astonished by the range of debate and
argumentation in matters of halakhah. . . .  All these views are in
the category of divrei Elokim hayyim as if each was received directly
from Sinai through Moshe.  This is so despite the fact that Moshe
never projected opposing perspectives with respect to any one issue. 
The Kabbalists explained that the basis for this is that each
individual soul was present at Sinai and received the Torah by means
of the 49 paths (tzinorot).  Each perceived the Torah from his own
perspective in accordance with his intellectual capacity as well as
the stature and unique character of his particular soul.  This
accounts for the discrepancy in perception inasmuch as one concluded
that an object was tamei in the extreme, another perceived it to be
absolutely tahor, and yet a third individual argues the ambivalent
state of the object in question.  All these are true and sensible
views.  Thus, the wise men declared that in a debate between true
scholars, all positions articulated represent a form of truth."

R. Rosensweig states on pp. 120-1:

"R. Feinstein [intro to Iggerot Moshe] suggests that the underlying
principle of eilu ve-eilu divrei Elokim hayyim demand that we treat a
rejected opinion relating to a halakhic concept . . . with a full
measure of reverence even if we are familiar with and still not
convinced by its argument  The climate of debate between Bet Shamai
and Bet Hillel as related in Yevamot (13b-14b) eloquently expresses
this theme:

      "Though these forbade what the others permitted, and these
regarded as ineligible what the other others declared eligible, Beth
Shammai, nevertheless, did not refrain from marrying women from (the
families of) Beth Hillel.  Nor did Beth Hillel (refrain from marrying
women) from (the families of ) Beth Shammai. . . .  This is to teach
you that they showed love and friendship towards one another, this
putting into practice the Scriptual text, 'Love ye truth and peace.'"

> Tolerance of differing Hashkafos by ALL segments of
> Orthodoxy is one of my ultimate goals (at which I am
> failing miserably).

I think that it's much easier to be tolerant if you believe that each of the
darchei haavodah is emes.  In fact, in some respects, many people
intuitively believe this: many yeshivaleit will agree that chasidim have a
valid derech of avodas Hashem.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

"Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> wrote:
> I disagree with the view that one of the two views must be wrong.  I believe
> that the concept of elu v'elu divrei elokim chayim leads to the conclusion
> that both views--though contradictory--are emes. 

and 

> I think that it's much easier to be tolerant if you believe that each of the
> darchei haavodah is emes.  In fact, in some respects, many people
> intuitively believe this: many yeshivaleit will agree that chasidim have a
> valid derech of avodas Hashem.

I do not disagree with R. Rosensweig. (see below)

Let me see if I can distill the common view which I do not think will oppose
his (and your) treatise while still remaining faithful to my original thought.

As a point of fact, two opposing views cannot both be fact. Something which
is white cannot also be black. It is either black or it is white. It cannot
be both. Yet facts are not always clearly perceptible. Sometimes it it is
difficult to tell what is black and what is white, especially if there is not
enough light on the subject in question. Depending on how well sighted we are
and how much light is shed on it the subject may seem to be varying shades
of gray. Then there is the matter of comparison. If you take a darkly shaded
object that looks black standing by itself and place it next to a absolutly
black object it will look gray. If you place it near an absolutely white
object it will look black. There are many ways to look at something and
speak the Truth about it eventhough the Truth, filtering through varying
circumstances and perspectives and sometimes shielded from us completely
(Hester Panim) will sometimes be viewed exactly opposite by 2 people, both
of whom are telling the truth.

While there is an absolute Truth, we can't always know it. We can only use
our best judgement and integrity to arrive at what we sincerely believe to be
the Truth. G-d allowed Man to be the final arbiter of that Truth even when it
contradicts the Truth G-d Himself defines. This is exemplified in the famous
case of the Tanur Achnai where there was a Bas Kol from Heaven saying the
Tanur was Tameh, and The Chachamim saying Tahor. We Paskin like the Chachamim.
So much so that we put into Cherem even someone so great as R. Eliezar (I think
it was him, I can't remember) for Paskening like the Bas Kol. (Lo BaShomyim He)

So, Elu V'Elu, to me means that even though two opposing facts CANNOT be
objectively True, it is indeed subjectively true. G-d has in effect set the
parameter for our definition of ultimate Truth: as long as it is done L'Shem
Shomayim Truth was given over to finite and imperfect Man to determine and
to the extent that there is Machlokes L'Shem Shomayim, Elu V'Elu Divrei
Elokim Chaim.

HM

From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com]
> As a point of fact, two opposing views cannot both be
> fact.  Something which is white cannot also be black. 
> It is either black or it is white. It cannot be both. 
> Yet facts are not always clearly perceptible.
> Sometimes it it is difficult to tell what is black and
> what is white, especially if there is not enough light
> on the subject in question. 
<snip>
> While there is an absolute Truth, we can't always know
> it. We can only use our best judgement and integrity
> to arrive at what we sincerely believe to be the
> Truth. G-d allowed Man to be the final arbiter of that
> Truth even when it contradicts the Truth G-d Himself
> defines. 

I believe that R. Rosensweig goes much further than this.  There is no
single truth to the exclusion of other truths (even if they are
contradictory).  Compare to wave vs. particle theory in physics (I know
nothing about this beyond the rudimentary; Micha, you're welcome to
elaborate).  Differing views have different elements of truth: drash vs.
pshat, etc.  All are divrei elokim chayim.

From R. Rosensweig's article:
} Maharshal from the introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kamma(p. 108):

} "One should not be astonished by the range of debate and argumentation in
} matters of halakhah. . . .  All these views are in the category of divrei
} Elokim hayyim as if each was received directly
} from Sinai through Moshe. . . .  The Kabbalists explained that the basis for
} this is that each
} individual soul was present at Sinai and received the Torah by means of the
} 49 paths (tzinorot).  Each perceived the Torah from his own perspective in
} accordance with his intellectual capacity as well as the stature and unique
} character of his particular soul.  This accounts for the discrepancy in
} perception inasmuch as one concluded that an object was tamei in the
} extreme, another perceived it to be absolutely tahor, and yet a third
} individual argues the ambivalent
} state of the object in question.  All these are true and sensible views.
} Thus, the wise men declared that in a debate between true scholars, all
} positions articulated represent a form of truth."

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes
>Let me see if I can distill the common view which I do
>not think will oppose his (and your) treatise while
>still remaining faithful to my original thought.   

>As a point of fact, two opposing views cannot both be
>fact.  Something which is white cannot also be black. 
>It is either black or it is white. It cannot be both. 

Those of us reared on modern physics start from a premise that regards
this kind of dichotomy as archaic (ie a form of Newtonian physics -
which granted works extremely well for large systems, but is shaky at
the margins).  The idea that truth must be either/or was, in our view,
shattered by the realisation that light is both a particle and a wave -
despite the fact that particles and waves have characteristics which are
as much the antithesis of each other as black and white.

With an understanding of modern physics, the concept of elu v'elu takes
on a much deeper and resonant meaning than that found in your more
classical explanation - ie  the truth is indeed different depending on
the point at which you are measuring the experiment (eg at the edge of
the slits of a two slit experiment which will show light to be a
particle passing through one butonly one of the two slits, or as a
screen behind the slits, but with no measurement at the slits, which
will show light to be a wave, providing classic wave interference
patterns which require some part of the light to have passed through
both slits)

Regards
Chana

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:17:01PM +0000, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
: With an understanding of modern physics, the concept of elu v'elu takes
: on a much deeper and resonant meaning than that found in your more
: classical explanation - ie  the truth is indeed different depending on
: the point at which you are measuring the experiment...

RYGB's article on eilu va'eilu (<http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eilu.htm>)
quotes the Ritva (Eiruvin 13b) which gives that kind of shitah.

> The French Rabbonim asked how it is possible that these and those are the
> living words of Hashem when these forbid and those allow. They answered:
> When Moshe went up to receive the Torah, he was shown in every issue
> forty-nine manners in which to forbid and forty-nine ways in which to
> allow. Moshe asked Hashem about this. Hashem told him that the Chachmei
> Yisroel in every generation, were to decide which manners to follow
> in their specific times and places . (See also Chagiga 3b; Avos 5:17,
> and the Maharal in the Derech Chaim there).

Even more so, until you take a measurement, both states co-exist. Unlike
RHM's Artistotilian assumption, that the law of excluded middle must
hold. This is closer to modeling the opinion of R' Tzadok (Resisei Laila
17; translation mine):
    Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person,
    simultaneously arises its opposite... When it comes to the realm
    of po'al (action), it can't be that two [contradictory] things are
    true simultaneously. In the realm of machshavah (thought) on the
    other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing
    without considering the opposite.

RYBS discusses halachah not having an excluded middle. Perhaps this is
what the rishonim on Kesuvos mean when they say "isah lashon safeik hu".
But that's saying that two contradictory chalos can apply to the same
situation. That's involving safeik, not machlokes. Or is it...

RYBS's example (Yarchei Kallah, Elul '82) was bein hashmashos. The case
he brought was that of an esrog that is used only for part of succos.
The gemara concludes that since it was sanctified for a mitzvah on a
given day, you can't get hana'ah from it on that day. Bh"Sh is included
in that day. However, there is a safeik, whether Bh"Sh is part of the
previous day or part of the next day. Therefor, since it is holy for
Bh"Sh, it is not to be used the entire next day either.

RYBS points out the obvious setirah. Mima nafshach, either: 1-
Bh"Sh is part of the first day. In this case, the esrog is holy and
prohibited until the end of the first day, which would be the end of
bein hashmashos. 2- It is part of the second day. Then, the esrog should
be prohibited until the start of Bh"Sh. If you want to play safe, then
prohibit personal use until the end of Bh"Sh. Prohibiting it the entire
next day is declaring bein hashmashos to be actually part of both days. It
continues holiness from the previous day, and thereby continues it into
the next as well.

Back to the topic at hand -- the safeik WRT bein hashmashos is that of
p'sak. We don't know how to pasken about when a day ends. Not one of
indeterminate reality. It would seem that RYBS holds that divrei E-lokim
chaim gave Bh"Sh the staus of both days.

R' Moshe's position is closer to Harry's. He holds that "divrei E-lokim
chaim" refers to the sechar of an honest pursuit of emes -- not that HKBH
actually gave us both. I lost my makor, though.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Chana Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Those of us reared on modern physics start from a premise that regards
> this kind of dichotomy as archaic (ie a form of Newtonian physics -
> which granted works extremely well for large systems, but is shaky at
> the margins)....

Not being a physicist I am basicly ignorant of the wave/particle theory
of light, and like Moshe know only the most basic elements of that theory,
which AIUI are both legitimate and fact based (as in your illustration below)
yet contradictory.

But I still maintain that black cannot be white. The wave/particle theory
tells us that, through observations in the laboratory we can see that the
phenomenon of light, exhibits properties that can only be explained through
wave theory and we see properties of light that can only be expalined through
particle theory. We then deduce that light is both a wave (non substance)
and particle (substance) resulting situation that is self contradictory yet
true. (But then again I seem to remember somwhere in the deep recceses of
my mind that light does have a measurable albeit infinitesible mass. Didn't
Einstein determine this as part of his theory on black holes?)

But in any case, is it true that the nature of light is a self contradictory
conundrum? It is my contention that we just don't understand the Truth
about light and base our present theories on what we can NOW observe
in the laboratory. Falling short of knowing ALL the data we resort to
a theory based on present scientific/observational technology and data
which is self-contradictory and offer it as proof that black can be white
simultaneously.

But I intuitively believe the jury is still out on how light really works.

(BTW are there any other phenomena where contradictory explanations are used
to explain them?)

With all this being said, even if the theory of light IS the self contradictory
one science presently ascribes to, that does not mean that there is a parrallel
definition on a philosophical plane. As I indicated in my original post,
I intuitively believe that there is an absolute Truth which G-d ordains
and gives Man the right to determine Halachic decisions based on his own
understanding of that Truth even if he is wrong. What G-d wants of Man is not
to be perfect in his understanding but to be thorough and honest in seeking
that Truth. G-d then gives him the power to act on that understanding as
though it were the Truth.

So, Shamai's Truth and Hillel's Truth are Divrei Elokim Chaim. But as the Bas
Kol by Tanur Achnai demonstraed, there is an absolute, heavenly ordained Truth.

HM

Harry Maryles:
> So, Elu V'Elu, to me means that even though two opposing facts CANNOT be
> objectively True, it is indeed subjectively true. G-d has in effect set the
> parameter for our definition of ultimate Truth: as long as it is done L'Shem
> Shomayim Truth was given over to finite and imperfect Man to determine and
> to the extent that there is Machlokes L'Shem Shomayim, Elu V'Elu Divrei
> Elokim Chaim.

Here is another spin.

In the realm of lamdus we can devlop parallel systems that fit miltiple
paradigms

In the realm of hanhaga, that is not usually possible.

That's why R. Yehoshua could calculate a different date for Yom Kippur
but re: klal Yisrael only Rabban Gamliel's version is the "done deal"
- as per R. Akiva.

So multiple explanations flourish with regard to Torah. But when it
comes to psak it is narrower. Psak is a cutting off, i.e a cutting off
of options. Lamdus permits parallel versions, it is ambigous. Psak must
be finite.

So learning Beis Shammmai's shita gets us the same Schar of Talmud Torah
as learning the shita of Beis Hillel' but that is not the case wrt to how
we recite Shma. When one recites shma kidivrei Beis Shammai one can be
"nischayav benafsho".

And this is one of the reasons I do not like Chumra, it tends
to fuzzy psak. Psak by definition ought to be decisive, at least
whenever possible. There was no chumras accpeted re: R Eliezer's Tanur,
R. Yehoshu'as YK, or Beis Shammai's hatiya. I'm sure the list will find
gazillions of cases that there WERE chumras, of course. Hopefully you
get my point nevertheless.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Chana Luntz:
> Our m'sader kedushin required it - although in retrospect I think it was one 
> of the things we should really have taken up with him and objected to.  I 
> believe it is based on a mordechai holding that badeken is the real
> kiddushin, and that RYBS was in favor of insisting on this.

I am surprised that the rabbi here did not follow the nusach and minhag of
the Sefardim. AIUI the guiding principle is to conform with local minhag,
e.g. when I daven as a Shatz for Edot hamizrach I used havarat Sefardit,
as well as the proper Sefardic Nusach, as best as I can.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 02:57:20AM +1100, SBA wrote:
: The way I heard it was - that at the beginning of each year, we expect
: and hope it will be 'HA'shono - THE year of our Geulah. However at the
: end of the year we realise that it was another plain and usual year: -

: M'reishis (at the beginning - we are confident it will be) HASHONO,
: Ad achris - (but at the end - it is just a:) Shonoh.

I heard the same ma'amar, but with a different focus. A person enters a
new year deep in teshuvah, with such big plans that this will be THE
year that I actually change. Even though at the end, "so went another
year".

: To this the Satmar Rebbe added: from the K'dusha - Mussaf on Shabbos
: (Nussach S'fard): "Hein Go'alti Eschem" - the year that Hashem sends
: us the Geula,

Acharis kireishis -- we actually will succeed

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 11:30:28PM +0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: a) the requirement of lishma - ie that a get must be given with the
: intent for this particular woman....
: b) the need for a get not to be given b'ones - ie the requirement for
: ratzon ...
: c) a requirement of belief in Torah.... And such a question may make sense,
: give than a mumar l'avodah zara cannot bring korbanos ...

I was arguing something much less lomdish.

(a) and (b) imply a need for kavanah. One can't be acting lishmah nor acting
biratzon without consciously deciding to act purposefully. Without thinking
"this is the way you divorce someone", you can't get to "I'm doing this to
divorce someone", nor (a) "I'm doing this to divorce this particular woman",
nor (b) "I want to divorce her by doing this".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 06:09:43PM -0500, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
: >> The TY allows changes in such halachos without a b"d gadol mimenu
: >> bichachma ubeminyan as soon as the metzi'us changes in a way that causes
: >> the cheshash to evaporate.

: However, this idea jibes with one of RRW's observations some time back.
: Sephardim like a code, Ashkenazim don't.  ...                This would
: then reflect this TB vs. TY dichotomy, that TB requires gadol bechochma...

One minor problem: as stated in my original post, the TY we're discussing
is the Tif'eres Yisrael on Edios 1:5.

-mi

>                                                 E.g., the beginning of
> R.H. "hu achashverosh hu daryavesh hu artachshasta" should not be taken
> literally

I have often pointed out that these chazals might refer to having
same/similar souls or persona (gilgul)...

> In this specific case, I can't accept Rachel being 3 years old as
> pshat.  A 3 year old, even in ancient times, could not possibly be
> entrusted with herding an entire flock of sheep to the well to drink! ...

The agenda to make Rivka 3 is brought down in Rashi. Since one waits TEN
years for his bride to conceive therefore why did Yitzchak wait TWENTY
before Vaye'etar. By making Rivka 3, ten years are discounted due to her
being not rauy l'biah. Plus the besura of Rivka's birth would co-incide
chronologically with the Akeida which fits the sequence of the text...

RYGB:
>Diyuk:
>All men have the "potential" to be poskim.
>Not so all women.
>Intrinsic difference with exceptions.

It seems obvious to me that while men are into universal TSBP eduation, 
for women it's an ad hoc, i.e. to meet a tzorech.

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@zahav.net.il>
> And yet Shabbat 92 states explicitly the conditions of Nevu'a and we
> know that the term "Ashir" does not mean rich in material things, but
> rather spiritually rich, or "Eizehu Ashir -- HaSame'ach BeChelko".

	tThis is not 100% correct. I believe the Rambam and the Drashos
haRan both learn Ashir to  mean that the Navi must be wealthy. The Drashos
Haran explains that this is so in order for the people to accept him as a
navi. 

In a message dated 12/13/00 4:33:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
CMarkowitz@scor.com writes:
>                              I believe the Rambam and the Drashos
>  haRan both learn Ashir to  mean that the Navi must be wealthy.

See Kesef Mishna Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 7:1

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On 13 Dec 00, at 16:55, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> So multiple explanations flourish with regard to Torah. But when it
> comes to psak it is narrower. Psak is a cutting off, i.e a cutting off
> of options. Lamdus permits parallel versions, it is ambigous. Psak must
> be finite.

> So learning Beis Shammmai's shita gets us the same Schar of Talmud Torah
> as learning the shita of Beis Hillel' but that is not the case wrt to how
> we recite Shma. When one recites shma kidivrei Beis Shammai one can be
> "nischayav benafsho".

How do you shtim that with the Chazal that says that l'osid lavo 
we'll hold by Beis Shammai? If psak truly means cutting off, 
shouldn't that apply then as well?

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm

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


[ 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         ]