Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 031

Monday, April 30 2001

• 5 Iyar on 2 Iyar
• RE: Rambam and Yerushalmi
• Re: yom tov sheni
• Yoga and music from AZ source
• Re: minhag not to say kaddish and lack of shliach tzibbur until borchu
• sefira customs
• Rambam and Yerushalmi
• RE: Rambam and Yerushalmi
• Re: Rambam and Yerushalmi
• Yom Ha-Atzmaut, Medinas Yisroel and Chillul Hashem
• Re: yom tov sheni
• Re: yom tov sheni
• Yom Tov Sheini and 72 Minutes
• Does the Torah include all of Maddah?
• Re: Pesukei Dezimra
• Re: Yoga and music from AZ source
• Re: Yoga and music from AZ source
• Re: Yoga and music from AZ source
• Re: Yom Ha-Atzmaut, Medinas Yisroel and Chillul Hashem
• RE: Yom Tov Sheini and 72 Minutes
• RE: Yom Ha-Atzmaut, Medinas Yisroel and Chillul Hashem
• Tefillot on Shabbat
• sinath hinam
• Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?

I seem to remember there being a machlokes over moving up Yom Ha'atzmaut
due to Shabbos with R. Ahron Soloveitchik being (surprisingly) contrarian.
Can anyone elaborate?

Gil Student

>> What is the status of the Mehcilta/Sifra/Sifrei and Tosefta after the
>> redaction of the Mishna?

> That of a baraisa.

Question:
What is the status of Tosfos in relation to the Bavli?
Answer:
You CAN learn the Bavli on its own, but you cannot learn Tosfos as a limud
w/o the gmara on the daf.

Q: So now just what is the status of Mishna vs. Braissa?
A: You can learn Mishna stand alone, but you cannot learn Braissa stand
alone. I would suggest the same for Tosefta. I.E. it's OK to learn a
masechta in Mishna w/o the Tosefta, but it is not ok to learn the Tosefta
w/o first learning the Mishna.

Even the names hint at this:
Mishna - that which is repeated (related to v'shinantam)
Tosefta (like Tosfos) additions, that which supplements...

Q:  Therefore what does excluding Braissa and Tosefta from the Mishna imply?
A:  While Braissa and Toesfa may still have Halachic weight, they are not
the "trunk" - rather they act as a branch. The Mishna is the trunk:

Q: Who learns Mishna
A: Everyone 

Q: Who learns Tosefta?
A: Advanced Scholars, who have completed the related Mishna first

Q: How does this about applying to Bavli (TB) and Yerushalmi (TY)?
A: The TB is the like basic text of TSBP (analogous to Mishna) The TY is a
supplemental text analogous to Tosefta

Q: Who learns TB?
A: Everyone

Q: Who learns TY?
A: Advanced Scholars who have completed the related TB first

Q: Is TY less authoritative than the Bavli?
A: Not necessarily.  Just as a given Braissa or Tosefta may modify the
simple Peshat in a Mishna, so too our understanding of a Halachah from a TB
may be subject to modification after seeing the TY.  

So if we entered a Beis Medrash headed by the Rambam, he probably would be
instructing us to:
1) Learn the TB first
and 
2) To enhance our understanding of a Sugya consult the TY.  

Q: So can TY overturn a TB?
A: Can learning Tosfos overturn our understanding of TB?  Why should TY be
less influential on our learning of TB then TY

---------------------

Q: Well can't you learn Mechilta/Sifra/Sifre without Mishna?
A: Technically you can. Let's say it has no Halachic weight in a vacuum.

Q: Rich, Why do you assume that the format of the Mishna came AFTER the
format of Tosefta/Sifra/Sifre?
A: This relates to the age of the structure.  The first structure was
Tanach.  AISI it progressed from the Tanach structure to an independent one.

Q: How do you know that?
A: There is a pattern.
1A) Structure: Tanach
1B) Followed by: Midrash Tannaim, Meforshim
2A) Structure: Mishna
2B  Followed by: Tosefta, TB, TY, Rif, Rosh etc.  
3A) Structure: Tur
3B) Followed by: SA, Levush, SA harav, Aruch Hashulchan etc.   

{FWIW, the Rambam, Cahye Adam and the KSA came up w/ structures that were
apparently followed only by their respective nos'ei keilim}

Q: What about post-Mishnaic material in Mechilta etc.?
A: I'm referring to STRUCTURE not CONTENT.  Rebbe devised (or perhaps
followed R, Akiva etc.) in the structure and organization of the Mishna, its
content was probably around a long time. Conversely, any post-rebbe Braissos
in Mechilta, etc. followed the old pattern even if the content was new. 

Q: Did the Rambam and Tur invent their structures?
A: Apparently they were based upon the structure of the Mishna but slightly
modified. 

Ko; Tuv,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote in Avodah V7 #29:
>With the arrival of Talmidei Rema (i.e Eastern European and German
>Ashkenazim to Israel) they overruled the Gra's minhag hamakom and now
>Tefillin IS worn on chol hamoed {at least amongst Ashkenazim.}

If "Israel" refers to Eretz Yisrael, this is not entirely accurate.

>What's wrong with that scenario?

Only the metziut.  Even Ashkenazim in Israel do not put on tefillin on Hol 
Hamo'ed.

                 IRA L. JACOBSON
                 mailto:laser@ieee.org

This is a conversation we had offline.

From: Roxane Peyser [mailto:Peyserr@aol.com]
> I am an AVODAH subscriber.  I, too, take yoga classes.  However, I recently 
> stopped attending because the new instructor was playing Hare Krishna music.   
> My husband and I discussed it (though not with our Rabbi -- Rabbi Ilan 
> Feldman of Atlanta -- yet).   
> 
> My question is this:  While it is my understanding that the yoga exercise 
> class itself isn't avodah zara, do you know of any reason why the Hare 
> Krishna music would add a new wrinkle, perhaps changing the nature of the 
> class from mere exercise to something in the nature of A/Z?? 

> I don't mean to put you on the spot.  I just haven't had time to bother Rabbi 
> Feldman lately, and I happened on this timely issue in today's AVODAH email. 

I seem to recall hearing in the name of the Rav Lichtenstein that it is
problematic to listen to a tape of music that was composed and performed
specifically l'shem AZ (e.g., church music). You can't have hana'ah from
something that is a cheftzah of AZ. I think that the distinction with
Yoga is that Yoga is not a cheftzah; it's an idea. You could probably
take a piano and play the Church music yourself; you just can't listen
to a tape of music that was performed in a Church.

However, my memory is somewhat fuzzy on this--did anyone hear Rav
Lichtenstein's shitah on Church music?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Re: The omission or saying of different kaddishim etc., R' Mordechai
Phyllostac@aol.com wrote: <<I believe Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l also wrote
against 'ribbui kaddeishim'.>>

Just an interesting (?) sidelight or back up:

The title of O"Ch, Siman N"H (55 )in the Arukh Hashulhan, namely: "Dinei
Kaddish v'shelo l'harbot b'kaddishim". Although the title tells all,
one can continue into the details that follow it.

Note, too, the statement of the Ben Ish Hai that in Baghdad the custom is
that the kaddishim that separate sections of the davening, (e.g., before
barukh she'amar, before bar'khu, after shmone esrei, etc.) are not said
by the chazan but by one of the aveilim. The BI"H is very annoyed at this
because the aveilim are sometimes 'amei ha'aretz who slur, mispronounce,
skip, rush through ve-khu'.. I know that the paragraph number is 16 and
IIRC in parashat Vaychi or thereabouts.

And a CQ's usual slightly twisted nit pick: I noticed R' Mordechai's term
"ribbui kaddeishim" as quoted quote above. I thought that both the male
and female varieties were banned by Torah law. And 'ribbui"!!??

k't, David

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Whence and why the minhag mentioned here not to do melacha from sunset
> to shacharis?

See KSA 120:10
And
See piskei MB sk 5 there

Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: Joelirich@aol.com
>> 1) accept the rule or paradigm literally as is, and pilpulistically make
>> everything fit.
>> or
>> 2) come up with a rule that is more accurate and inclusive with fewer
>> exceptions, even though it might not fit the words so literally.

Doesn't this really describe 2 approaches to tsbp in general?

You probably read my mind! <smile>

KT,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

From: Wolpoe, Richard [mailto:Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com]
> Just what IS the status of the Yerushalmi anyway?
> 1A) The Bavli was basroi. Therefore if it is not in the Bavli, then it
> does not matter...
> 1B) The Bavli was basroi. Therefore Yerushalmi can never over-ride a
> Bavli. But Yerushalmi MAY fill in some gaps
> 2) The Bavli was basroi. But when the Bavli was silent, it leaned on
> the Yerushalmi.
> 3) The Bavli never saw the Yerushalmi. They are completely independent.
> 4) The Yerushalmi could have been equal to the Bavli, but it was not
> preserved, transmitted, nor redacted as thoroughly.
> 5) TB and TY are equally authoritative in Halachah and hanghaga. But the
> Bavli is superior pedagogically....

> Here is an educated guess. Generally, Sephardi Rishonim would lean
> towards 1-2-3. The Ashkenazim probably would lean towards 3-4-5.

How about: none of the above.

Here's my view on the Ashkenazim (based on classes with Dr. Chaim
Soloveitchik):

(a) Early Ashkenaz halacha was based on E"Y. Impliedly, it followed the
Yerushalmi, E"Y Midrashei Halacha, Maseches Sofrim, etc. The Yerushalmi
may not have been considered binding on the inhabitants of E"Y in the
same way that we consider the Bavli binding today, but it was probably
a major influence.

(b) Ashkenaz halacha during the period of the Rishonim--starting from
Rashi's time considered Bavli, not Yerushalmi, to be binding, but often
was not willing to give up the halachic practice of their ancestors.
Therefore, to the extent possible, they tried to square Ashkenazic
practice (not particularly, the Yerushalmi) with the Bavli. Where the
Bavli was clear, the Bavli generally won out, but where there was some
ambiguity, Ashkenazic practice often won out.

(c) During the period of the Achronim, the tide shifted more and more
towards the Bavli. The Gr"a often paskened against Ashkenazic practice.
The Mishnah Brurah and subsequent achronim have furthered this trend,
especially as today many don't ascribe importance to the custom of the
common people (in contrast to the Aruch Hashulchan, who often defended
minhag Yisrael).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Eli Turkel wrote:
>>>>                           I don't know that it needs to be said that
>>>> many of the mekoros for the Rambam are from the Yerushalmi or midrashim
>>>> that were lost....

>>> Someone else wrote a while ago that Ri Migash followed by Rambam always
>>> paskened like the Bavli against the Yerushalmi.
>>> How does that square with this?

>> It doesn't. It's wrong.

> Which one is wrong ?

That the Rambam paskens like the Bavli over the Y-mi.

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

R' Micha had mentioned that "all the [recent] posts about Yom ha'Atzma'ut
which are written as though everyone here agrees to observe it," and
that he was concerned that no one answered back.

So as to provide some balance, I offer the views of R' Yaakov Weinberg,
zt'l, on this issue (again, from a question and answer session at a
Torah Umesorah convention.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q'S & A'S FROM TORAH UMESORAH CONVENTIONS:
"MECHANCHOS"

QUESTION #53:
We are all aware of the tragedy that most of the founders as well as
the members of the present government of Medinas Yisroel were and are
anti-Torah. As a result, the yeshiva world has basically adopted an
ambivalent, hands-off attitude towards the incredible developments in
Eretz Yisroel of the last hundred years. How should we present the concept
and existence of Medinas Yisroel-in its present form and as an ideal?

ANSWER:
Eretz Yisroel is the land for which the Torah was given. K'lal Yisroel
is not complete and cannot fully live a Torah life outside of Eretz
Yisroel. (One cannot live a full Torah life in Eretz Yisroel either
until Moshiach, but a great deal more can be done there than can be done
outside of it.) Through all the generations, K'lal Yisroel strove to live
in Eretz Yisroel. It is an incredible thing that both the students of
the GRA and of the Ba'al Shem Tov built whole kehillahs there... It is
a central place and it is not possible to teach Torah without pointing
out that it is the place for which Torah was intended...

But, the problem of Eretz Yisroel from shanim kadmoniyos is that living
there requires that you keep the Torah. And in Eretz Yisroel it is a
little difficult, even more difficult than in chutz l'aretz, because
of all the mitzvahs that are dependent on the land: maaseros, terumos,
shevi'is... There are an enormous number of mitzvahs that are dependent
on the land and that are not at all easy to carry out. It is difficult
even to know how to do them, never mind to actually do them. Therefore,
there was always a reluctance to go to Eretz Yisroel because of the
fear of being "b'haichal ha'Melech," which it literally is, and not
doing the will of the King. That was always a major difficulty for Jews
wanting to go to Eretz Yisroel. Baruch Hashem it has become much easier.
There are sefarim that clarify the halachos, there are whole approaches
now to make keeping the mitzvahs a lot easier-there are others who do
the work and we can buy foods that have already been mufrash.

But obviously it has to be an enormous heartbreak that there should be
the terrible tension between shomrai mitzvah and non-shmorai mitzvah in
Eretz Yisroel.

With regards to the medinah-how can a Jew who believes in the Ribono shel
olam relate to the medina? It is anti-God from its inception. When they
proclaimed the State of Israel they made it clear, officially, that there
is no God of Israel. The only other nation in the world that followed
this path was Communist Russia. These were the only two countries in the
world who, in proclaiming their freedom, refused to mention God. As a
compromise, they accepted "Tzur Yisroel," the Rock of Israel, so that it
should not, chas v'shalom, be the God of Israel or of the world. "Tzur"
gives everybody the option to interpret it any way they want. You cannot
relate to a medinah that is built on such a premise.

You have to understand more deeply. The medinah not only rejects God
but also rejects the whole history of K'lal Yisroel since the churban
until the establishment of the State. The "galut mentality" is not
only deprecated but is also dealt with contempt, and all those years of
K'lal Yisroel's mesiras nefesh, harbatzas Torah, building and creating,
are looked at as an aberration and are rejected. How can you relate to
a medinah that does that? We cannot. We can relate to the Jews in Eretz
Yisroel-frum or not-to their needs, their safety, their financial well
being. But to the State-it is impossible for a Jew who has a Ribono shel
olam, a Jew who has a respect for 2000 years of Jewish history, to relate
to the medinah. It is impossible. So we have to speak about Eretz Yisroel,
about its importance and preciousness, and about the waiting of all of
K'lal Yisroel to come back to it, without dealing with the medinah. We
cannot deal with the medinah-it is impossible.

I am just going to ask a question and I am sorry if it will offend
someone, I really would like not to. How can a Jew celebrate a Yom
Ha'atzmaut, the day of the proclamation of the State of Israel that
rejects God as being involved? I would ask you to think a minute and see
whether you can think of a greater chilul Hashem that has occurred in
all the history of K'lal Yisroel, from creation until the day that the
proclamation was made, than the proclaiming of a State of Israel without
God? The United States is under God; England in under God; France is under
God... Communist Russia and Israel are not under God! I am asking you in
all honesty, can you think of a deeper, more far-reaching chilul Hashem
that has ever taken place in the history of the world than that-than
Jews officially rejecting God? This is an awesome chilul Hashem. If we
had a bais din it would be a day of fasting and mourning. It would be a
Tisha B'av. A day in which a Jewish state was proclaimed by officially
rejecting God is literally a Tisha B'av, a churban she'ain kamohu. I am
asking you to be a little honest-how can you celebrate a day that such
a chilul Hashem took place? The truth is the truth; I do not know how
you can live with it.

On 26 Apr 01, at 13:40, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
>> What's wrong with that scenario?

> Only the metziut.  Even Ashkenazim in Israel do not put on tefillin on
> Hol Hamo'ed.

Some of us do b'tzina....

-- Carl

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.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

At 09:14 27/04/01, Carl Sherer wrote:
>>> What's wrong with that scenario?

>> Only the metziut.  Even Ashkenazim in Israel do not put on tefillin on
>> Hol Hamo'ed.

> Some of us do b'tzina....

Most of us certainly don't.  Nor do we keep 2 days of yomtov.

                 IRA L. JACOBSON
                 mailto:laser@ieee.org

This past Pesach, on motzei Yom Tov (yontif), I offered two fellows
a ride home from shul. 72 minutes had not yet elapsed, and one of the
fellows declined the ride, as he always waits for 72 minutes. The other
fellow, who also usually waits for 72 minutes, happily accepted my offer,
since he held that, even those who are machmir for 72 minutes for melacha
after Shabbos, only wait for 45/50 minutes on a motzei second day yontif.
He insisted that this is the "Lakewood" practice.

The first fellow disagreed vehemently, and sent me the following e-mail:

"Out of curiosity, I decided to check my sources i.e. Lakewooders, to
verify what R' [Ploni] said to me Motzaei the first days '... in Lakewood
they only keep 45 minutes or so..... Motzaei yom tov sheini, it's like a
Taanis only d'rabanan...'
He wondered what my sources were. This surprised me because the halacha
is that we do things on y.t.sh. like on y.t. rishon davka (except for
specific ones mentioned in halacha, this not being one of them) not to
be m'zalzel in its kavod. To me shortening the zman for "oys yom tov"
sounded like a direct affront to its kavod. My Lakewood sources never
heard of such a thing and were equally surprised. Its your call but if
he normally keeps 72 and is somech on this l'maaseh he might want to
recheck his sources...Kol Tuv"

I relayed this message to R' Ploni, and he held his ground. Does anyone
know of any sources relating to this issue that I can show to either
fellow?

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh

From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com]
> Not really. AIUI it is a source of debate amongst
> Orthodox Jewish theologians, as to whether Mada was
> included in Torah SheBal Peh or not.

Anybody know which rishonim/achronim say what on this issue?

Also, other than Pirkei Avos--"hafoch ba hafoch ba, d'kulah ba," is there
any explicit mention in the Gemara of the idea that the Torah contains all
of Maddah?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 10:31:15PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I don't understand someone's post about ending off davening with kaddish
: being a sour note. What's wrong with yehei shelama rabba and oseh shalom
: bimeromav?

As I posted in response to the first part of RSM's article, the idea of
ending on a "sour note" is the exact opposite of the original intent of
kaddish!

The gemara refers to "yehei shemei raba" as something said after learning.
De Sola Pool argues (based on the references to shiurei aggada closing with
an aftara about the ge'ulah) that kaddish evolved from the same notion as
the common "ad bi'as go'el tzedek bimheirah biyameinu amein" (or similar)
with which so many derashos end.

Kaddish was added to tefillah so that its sections too can end on a happy
note.

It would be ironic if kaddish's association with aveilus turned the whole
core of the tefillah on its head.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Come to the AishDas Yom Iyun on Avodas Hashem
micha@aishdas.org            Sunday,  April 29th 2001,  12:00 - 2:00pm  in
<http://www.aishdas.org>     Kew Gardens Hills, Queens NY!  For more info,
(973) 916-0287               see <http://www.aishdas.org/yomiyun.html>.

On 26 Apr 01, at 16:10, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> However, my memory is somewhat fuzzy on this--did anyone hear Rav
> Lichtenstein's shitah on Church music?

I don't recall hearing this from RAL, but unless the tape itself was
made l'shem AZ, where is the Cheftza? Suppose there's a piece of music
that was composed specifically for AZ. The Symphony Orchestra performs
it outside the context of AZ (e.g. in a concert hall), and makes and
sells a tape. Where is the Cheftza of AZ? The music itself surely is
not a Cheftza!

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

From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> I don't recall hearing this from RAL, but unless the tape itself was 
> made l'shem AZ, where is the Cheftza? ...

I'm really speculating here: Maybe the case is where there the tape is made
of an actual Church service (maybe even with the Christian prayers)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 27 Apr 01, at 2:35, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> I'm really speculating here: Maybe the case is where there the tape is made
> of an actual Church service (maybe even with the Christian prayers)?

Actually, that makes sense, if you assume that the particular church
service is unique.

I remember hearing several years ago from R. Yitzchak Mordechai Rubin
that in Israel, where most of the reporters and technicians are Jewish,
a radio report recorded on Shabbos is assur olamis, because it is unique
to the moment on Shabbos when it was recorded.

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

I remember seeing a letter from the Chafetz Chaim (printed in vol. 3 of
his collected writings) in which someone asked why the mashiach has not
yet come. The CC answered that everything that needs to be fulfilled has
been except for a great chillul Hashem. Once we have that, the mashiach
can come.

Gil Student

From: Stein, Aryeh E. [mailto:aes@ll-f.com]
> "Out of curiosity, I decided to check my sources i.e. Lakewooders, to
> verify what R' [Ploni] said to me Motzaei the first days '... in Lakewood
> they only keep 45 minutes or so..... Motzaei yom tov sheini, it's like a
> Taanis only d'rabanan...'
> He wondered what my sources were. This surprised me because the halacha
> is that we do things on y.t.sh. like on y.t. rishon davka (except for
> specific ones mentioned in halacha, this not being one of them) not to
> be m'zalzel in its kavod. To me shortening the zman for "oys yom tov"
> sounded like a direct affront to its kavod. 

Maybe it depends on whether 72 minutes is viewed as a din or as a chumrah.
After all, when it comes to gebrokts, people eat it on YT acharon--wouldn't
eating chometz on Pesach be considered an affront to kavod?  

Also, the fact that refuah is permitted on YT sheni implies that we don't
try to pretend that YT is deoraissa; we just make sure not to be mezalzel in
its kavod because otherwise the amei haaretz won't keep it at all.  Since
the issue of 45 vs 72 depends solely on whether the kedushas hayom is
deoraissa vs drabanan, why try to pretend that it's deoraissa?  Why should
this constitute a lack of kavod, esp. as 72 minutes is a chumrah kept by
b'nei yeshiva, who should know enough to realize that this isn't an issue of
kavod.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
> I remember seeing a letter from the Chafetz Chaim (printed in vol. 3 of
> his collected writings) in which someone asked why the mashiach has not
> yet come. The CC answered that everything that needs to be fulfilled has
> been except for a great chillul Hashem. Once we have that, the mashiach
> can come.

To be honest, in the context of "mechulal sh'mi bagoyim" as found in
Tanach, my guess is that the greatest chilul Hashem in recent times was
the Holocaust--the Chosen Nation was dragged through the mud. In fact,
religious zionists believe that that chilul Hashem was necessary for
Hashem to grant us the gift of Medinat Yisrael.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Now that we have some experts in tefillah on the list, I thought I might
ask a question that has been bothering me lately.

Each of the first three tefillot on Shabbat is structured around a 
passage from Torah.  Arvit is Vaychulu, Shacharit is Veshamru, and
Musaf is the Musaf.  In each case, the scriptural passage is introduced
by some prose describing it and its context.  Musaf talks about 
restoration of sacrifices, arvit talks about Hashem consecrating 
Shabbat at the moment of creation - both appropriate to their Torah
passages.

So why is shacharit the way it is: the introductory passage talks about
Shabbat being given in the Aseret haDibrot, so you would think the passage
would be {Shamor/Zachor} et yom hashabbat lekadsho - but noooo, it's 
Veshamru.  If the intro is supposed to be relevant to the passage, why
does this one have a different passage, not relevant to the intro?

  At lunch on Shabbath someone asked about translating the above.  All the
parallels we could think of, e.g. shmirath shabbath, imply that it should be
translated "hatred of hinam [whatever hinam would mean in that context]".  Yet
no one translates it that way.
  If in fact it means "hatred without cause/function" can someone think of a
parallel grammatic construction in Rabbinic Hebrew?

David Riceman

From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com]
>> Not really. AIUI it is a source of debate amongst Orthodox Jewish
>> theologians, as to whether Mada was included in Torah SheBal Peh or not.

"Feldman, Mark" wrote:
> Anybody know which rishonim/achronim say what on this issue?

The Rambam (around the middle of part II of the Moreh) and his son (my copy of
Milhamoth HaShem is still out on loan) both say no.

> Also, other than Pirkei Avos--"hafoch ba hafoch ba, d'kulah ba," is there
> any explicit mention in the Gemara of the idea that the Torah contains all
> of Maddah?

The midrash about R. Yehoshua knowing the period of gestation of snakes.

David

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


[ 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         ]