Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 005

Wednesday, September 26 2001

• Rambam's iqqorim
• Pruzbul
• Shabbath Shuva
• Rashi Question
• WTC stories
• Re: WTC stories
• RE: WTC stories & hashgacha
• Re: WTC stories & hashgacha
• RE: WTC stories & hashgacha
• Re: WTC stories & hashgacha
• RE: WTC stories & hashgacha
• RE: WTC stories & hashgacha
• Re: Rambam's iqqorim
• Re: Hashem judging on RH
• Re: Rosh HaShana
• Re: kefirah or not?
• RE: Hashem judging on RH
• RE: Hashem judging on RH
• Vidui
• Re: R Berel Wein - mainz addendum

Levi Reisman wrote: 
>WADR, it appears that the status only two of the Rambam's ikkarim were 
>disputed, ... The others, as far as I know, are not in dispute, at least
> by authorities of the Ramam's era...

Gil Sudent: 
> Which is why RYGB said that he thought that Shapiro proved the antithesis
> of his point. IMHO I think that Shapiro's point remains... However,
> I think that Shapiro went overboard on a... In regard to Creation Ex
> Nihilo (Beriah yesh me'ayin), all he really has from the mainstream is
> a debatable Ibn Ezra. Ralbag himself says that he believes in beriah
> yesh me'ayin, albeit in a different way than Rambam...

I do not wish to comment on Shapiro's article directly -- other than
my summary observation that I believe he did a nice job of outlining
and documenting his conclusion and thus I'd have to disagree with
RLR. Under the heading of "you can sometimes be too subtle" I found
another distinguished poster's suggestion that Shapiro had rather <proved
the antithesis of his point> impenetrably off the mark and would welcome
clarification. Of course one hopes that we are not witnessing a new cycle
of reflexive and ad hominem based rejection. But I would like to follow
up on the issue of the rambam's opinion of ex nihilo creation within
the broader context of a discussion of the rambam's true beliefs. My
main contribution to this discussion is the posting on the avodah
archives of a columbia undergraduate paper written last year by one
of my (now graduated) daughters that provides a pretty decent review,
imnvho, of the esoteric approach to the rambam's avowed belief in
ex nihilo creation. In particular i found the arguments advanced by
Herbert Davidson (and referenced in nomi's paper) quite compelling
and a reference well worth looking up and reading in its entirety
-- at least if you're into that sort of thing (which ordinarily i'm
not). And while esoteric interpretations of the rambam hold for most
mainstreamers -- most especially to the overwhelmingly vast majority
of yeshiva trained talmidim who have never heard that such approaches
even exist -- a faint whiff of gleam-in-the-eye-quackery, somewhat
akin to the attitude assumed by shakespearean scholars towards those,
usually quite intense individuals, purporting to identify Baconian
cryptograms in Hamlet, we must not forget that it is the rambam
himself who assured us (you can check out nomi's paper for the mareh
moqom [at <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/rambam_creation.htm> -mi])
that he would be lying to you here and there. Once that is accepted --
(and would we want to call rambam a liar by doubting his word? but wait,
didn't he just say that he was... ouch -- conundrum city, lemme outa
this sentence....) the only issue is identification of just where it
is he may have lied (some of you may prefer "deliberately mislead") to
you. And esoteric excavators have long pointed to ex nihilo as a likely
candidate. But check it out for yourselves. Reactions invited.

Mechy Frankel 			W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com 	H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

I agree with R' Mechy;  I don't understand the universal writing of
pruzbulim.  I for one am owed no money and chose not to write a pruzbul. 
A few days before R"H I lent someone a dollar whom I don't know and
didn't expect to meet again.  I asked him to wait until after R"H and
then,  it having become his due to shemitas kesafim,  to give it to
tzedaka.  In retrospect I probably had no right to ask him to do so.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
<<Why not have Yom Kippur immediately after Rosh haShana? For most of
us the days between are a let-down rather than a heightened experience
of mitzvoth and tshuva.>>

I would argue that hi hanosenes; that this is a first opportunity to put
your "New Year's resolutions" into practice; YK right after RH would be
TOO much of a high to have any long lasting meaning.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rashi mentions in Ha'azinu that the reason Hashem invokes shamayim
va'aretz as eidim is that if we behave, the eidim will pay us back,
and if ch"v not likewise. However Rashi mentions in this context, on the
positive side, that the shamayim will give tal, and on the negative that
it will not give rain.

1.  Why does Rashi switch?
2.  Why does Rashi use the example of tal when the Gemara in Ta'anis says
that it is not ne'etzar?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

We've all heard so many  stories about people who *should* have been at the
WTC and weren't. There must have been people who would normally *not* have
been there but were.  There were people who were late because of selichos
and were *saved* by that zechus. Weren't there others who went to very
early selichos (meritorious) and got to work on time and perished? We tend
to only hear one side of the stories.  Maybe I am not sounding very nice,
but I don't see this as "this person was saved by that zechus", but rather
it is all a sign of Hashem running the world.  Many were destined to die,
but many were destined to live.  To accomplish this, Hashem arranged for
certain trains not to come or to come late, for certain minyanim to run
late, some to get caught in traffic, etc... Similarly, He arranged for some
to be on time, or for someone to have a meeting at WTC when they normally
aren't there, etc.... I feel so sheepish, but I feel like I have become
almost immune to the *saved* stories. Is it so bad to see this just as
Hashem orchestrating? Isn't that also a great recognition and even
revelation of Hashem?

mendel

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 05:41:21PM -0400, Mendel Singer wrote:
:                                  Weren't there others who went to very
: early selichos (meritorious) and got to work on time and perished? We tend
: to only hear one side of the stories.  Maybe I am not sounding very nice,
: but I don't see this as "this person was saved by that zechus", but rather
: it is all a sign of Hashem running the world....

I am inclined to agree. Sechar mitzvos behai alma leika.

Pretending otherwise despite the huge evidence we witness every day is
fooling oneself. Even in this particular tragedy, what about all the
ehrlecher people who were /not/ saved, the people who went in to save
others and despite being sheluchei mitzvah were nizakin, Abe Zelmanowitz
hy"d who stayed behind to help a handicapped co worker, vechulu?

I harped on this subject about a month ago on Avodah. How can one build
a hashkafah that presumes ideas about the "real world" that aren't
lima'aseh true? Any ma'amarei chazal that seem to argue such a point
are IMHO very obviously being overly understood.

One particular point of misunderstanding is that Chazal seem to have
used a pedagogic form in which relative statements are made in absolute
terms. Sechar ba'olam hazeh (as opposed to hakeren kayemes lo li'olam haba)
is only one of many factors that goes into what really ends up happening.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: Mendel Singer [mailto:mes12@po.cwru.edu]
>                                       Maybe I am not sounding very nice,
> but I don't see this as "this person was saved by that zechus", but rather
> it is all a sign of Hashem running the world.  Many were destined to die,
> but many were destined to live.  To accomplish this, Hashem arranged for
> certain trains not to come or to come late, for certain minyanim to run
> late, some to get caught in traffic, etc... 

See the discussion around
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n095.shtml#03 and
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n054.shtml#01. Your statement
makes sense according to Rav Dessler who views nature as non-existent.
But according Rambam/Ramban, couldn't one say that someone who normally
came to the WTC at 8am every day could have died even w/o deserving
death (= olam k'minhago noheg), unless Hashem felt that this person was
particularly righteous and therefore interfered with the natural order?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:56:12PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:                                                                   But
: according Rambam/Ramban, couldn't one say that someone who normally came to
: the WTC at 8am every day could have died even w/o deserving death (= olam
: k'minhago noheg), unless Hashem felt that this person was particularly
: righteous and therefore interfered with the natural order?

And, as I pointed out in that Avodah discussion, the Rambam's physics
isn't the physics of today. Olam keminhago is not longer considered to
be a deterministic statement. Two very different outcomes could both be
bederech hateva.

For example, a single quantum event could be the difference between
the proverbial "butterfly flapping its wings in Africa" which then
causes (or prevents) a gust of wind in New York by which someone has
to chase his yarmulka and miss his bus and therefore wasn't on flight
93.

Whether or not the butterfly effect is real WRT weather patterns, the
basic idea holds. "For want of a nail, the horse was lost..." If you chase
the chains of causes -- and every event is the convergance of numerous
such chains -- several are going to boil down to non-deterministism.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>  ... as I pointed out in that Avodah discussion, the Rambam's physics
> isn't the physics of today. Olam keminhago is not longer considered to
> be a deterministic statement. Two very different outcomes could both be
> bederech hateva.

So is your point that had the Rambam been living in the 21st century,
he would have said that hashgacha pratis affects us in all our actions?
Or just that there is a greater amount of hashgacha pratis than we once
thought, though Hashem still avoids interfering with the natural order?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 10:34:25AM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> And, as I pointed out in that Avodah discussion, the Rambam's physics
:> isn't the physics of today. Olam keminhago is not longer considered to
:> be a deterministic statement. Two very different outcomes could both be
:> bederech hateva.

: So is your point that had the Rambam been living in the 21st century, he
: would have said that hashgacha pratis affects us in all our actions? ...

No, I would simply say that we have no idea what the Rambam would have
concluded. Therefore, we really use it as a makor in either direction.

: just that there is a greater amount of hashgacha pratis than we once
: thought, though Hashem still avoids interfering with the natural order?

One could say this -- that there is HP that is neis nigleh or neis nistar
and there is HP that is getting the appropriate outcome /within/ teva.
One could be zocheh only to the latter, or to neis nistar, or could
even be a R' Chanina ben Dosa.

Or perhaps you can say that the Rambam's objections to universal HP was
only because he didn't know the latter existed, and therefore he would
be maskim that everyone is zocheh to the latter.

The second question would be whether there exists any event with only
deterministic causes. If you believe the answer is no, then the Rambam's
objection to the REED's position is based entirely on a mistaken notion
of how the world works. IOW, proper sevara, but to a metzi'us that
doesn't exist.

But without access to the Rambam, I refuse to guess what he would have
said.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>:> And, as I pointed out in that Avodah discussion, the Rambam's physics
>:> isn't the physics of today. Olam keminhago is not longer considered to
>:> be a deterministic statement. 

At the time R. Shalom Carmy
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n015.shtml#03 and
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n020.shtml#04) disagreed with the
notion that the Rambam depends on a deterministic view of the universe
and pointed us to his book "Jewish Perspectives on the Experience of
Suffering" (which at the time had not been published). In the book,
he assumes that the Rambam's view is as valid today as it ever was.

Assuming for argument's sake that RSC is correct, do you agree or disagree
with my statement:
:                                                                   But
: according Rambam/Ramban, couldn't one say that someone who normally came to
: the WTC at 8am every day could have died even w/o deserving death (= olam
: k'minhago noheg), unless Hashem felt that this person was particularly
: righteous and therefore interfered with the natural order?

Is there any argument w/i the Rambam that death always involves hashgacha
pratis?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

From: Feldman, Mark [mailto:MFeldman@CM-P.COM]
> Is there any argument w/i the Rambam that death always involves hashgacha
> pratis?

I guess the gemara in Chagiga (4b) where the Malach Hamates killed the wrong
Miriam..

mmb

At 04:03 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
>Gil Sudent:
>>Which is why RYGB said that he thought that Shapiro proved the antithesis
>>of his point....
>>I think that Shapiro went overboard on a... In regard to Creation Ex
>>Nihilo (Beriah yesh me'ayin), all he really has from the mainstream is
>>a debatable Ibn Ezra. Ralbag himself says that he believes in beriah
>>yesh me'ayin, albeit in a different way than Rambam...

>I do not wish to comment on Shapiro's article directly -- other than
>my summary observation that I believe he did a nice job of outlining
>and documenting his conclusion and thus I'd have to disagree with
>RLR. Under the heading of "you can sometimes be too subtle" I found
>another distinguished poster's suggestion that Shapiro had rather <proved
>the antithesis of his point> impenetrably off the mark and would welcome
>clarification. Of course one hopes that we are not witnessing a new cycle
>of reflexive and ad hominem based rejection....

As the distinguished poster (thanks, I guess, although the next line kind 
of makes me wonder how real a compliment I am receiving) I am ready to 
clarify, but I do not know what. RGS obviously understood my perspective, I 
assume RMF does as well.

GCT,
YGB

In a message dated 9/20/2001 9:58:19am EDT, turkel@icase.edu writes:
> It occured to me that since the second day of RH is only rabbinical it is
> not clear that it affects G-d's modem of judgement...

It is within the power of BD to set up Yom Tov (as in mekdesh Yisrael).
So unlike Shabbos Breishis which is fixed by HKBH at ma'aseh Breishis,
Yom Tov is subjective, i.e. subject to BD.

q: So can Chazal tell HKBH when to Judge?
a: not exactly 

but

q: Can Chazal tell HKBH when the schedule for RH is?
a: yes - and possibly even to making one day into two...


In a message dated 9/21/2001 3:20:44pm EDT, turkel@icase.edu writes:
<snip>
> The Baal Hamaor claims that the original custom in EY was to keep only
> one day RH and that was only changed by the talmidei haRif.
> That leads to the strange conclusion that people in EY were judged on
> only one day and people outside EY are judged on 2 days.
> When the custom in EY changed then presumably G-d changed the way
> the heavenly court judged also?
<snip>
> Again the problem is that RH did not always have 2 days

A) re: 1 Day RH in EY:
FWIW this is is hinted at by Kallir who composed only one day's worth of 
Piyyutim.

B) re: 2 different standards for EY and Chutz:
this is nothing new.

C) re: the change of Minhag from 1 Day to 2.
LAD In general - changing established minhaggim is problematic.  One Caveat: 
if the minhag  was in flux and not universally accepted as psak, it can swing 
the other way.

Therefore leshitassi, it is likely that 1 day RH in EY was not universally 
agreed upon even if it had been once the prevaling psak. 

Gmar Tov
Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

>A) re: 1 Day RH in EY:
>FWIW this is is hinted at by Kallir who composed only one day's worth of 
>Piyyutim.

Note this comment assume that Kalir lived in Geonic times.
I am completely convinced by this. I noted that "Artscroll" accepts
the shita of Tosafot that Kalir was a Tanna.


>C) re: the change of Minhag from 1 Day to 2.
>LAD In general - changing established minhaggim is problematic...
>Therefore leshitassi, it is likely that 1 day RH in EY was not universally 
>agreed upon even if it had been once the prevaling psak. 

Again my question was philosophic not halachic. Assuming that the minhag
changed between 1 and 2 days RH in EY did the judgement of hashem change
each time the minhag changed. What happened if in EY the minhag was
not universal but different communities kept 1 or 2 days of RH. Did G-d
judge each community according to their individual shita

(BTW today in Jerusalem there are different customs within the same
neighborhood for when to layn the Megilla for Purim)

Gmar Tov, Eli Turkel

In a message dated 9/6/2001 3:28:10pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org wrote
[not on Avodah, but I gave myself reshus to post it <grin>]:
> Textually speaking, the Rambam's ikkar rules that someone who limits their
> belief to a particular messiah is a kofer.

> Mimetically speaking, we always considered such a person a kofeir. 
> Regardless of the liturgical version of the ikkar.

> The only standard by which it isn't kefirah would be a textual treatment
> of the liturgy "canonized" by mimetics. This is the tack you're taking.

Q: if a person conisders themselves as conforming to the ikkarim as they 
understand it but the majority considers him deviant is he a kofer or merely 
a toeh?

IMHO I would allow for some flexibility in how to interpret the ikkarim IF 
the person doing so was otherwise Shomer Mitzvos - IOW Observant.  I  would 
only presume kfira if a person was otherwise non-Observant.

OTOH if a person is Observant and blatantly contradicts the ikkarim then I 
would agree that such an Observant person is not conforming to minimum of 
Ikkarim. IOW, a Jew for J is a kofer no matter how otherwise Observant.

I would be more lenient if a person would say that Moshiach will come some 
day but is in the form of a committee and not an individual or other 
"unconventional" interpretations. I might consider such a person To'eh but 
not Kofeir.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

On Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:18 PM, <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com> wrote:
> q: So can Chazal tell HKBH when to Judge?
> a: not exactly
> but
> q: Can Chazal tell HKBH when the schedule for RH is?
> a: yes - and possibly even to making one day into two...

Back when RH was one day, if no witnesses came to BD until the second night 
of Tishrai (which would have started RH if no witnesses came forward) and 
then two witnesses came  and said they saw it last night wouldn't RH would 
have been missed altogether? Wouldn't that mean that the BD caused HKBH not 
to judge at all that year?

From: Stuart Klagsbrun <SKlagsbrun@agtnet.com>
>Back when RH was one day, if no witnesses came to BD until the second night 
>of Tishrai (which would have started RH if no witnesses came forward) and 
>then two witnesses came  and said they saw it last night wouldn't RH would 
>have been missed altogether? Wouldn't that mean that the BD caused HKBH not 
>to judge at all that year?

If hashem strictly follows what the bet din decress then he would judge
on the second day. If he follows the "emet" and what is in the Torah then
he would judge on the first day.

In general I agree with the question. Even if bet din declared in the late
afternoon that it was RH (originally allowed) then it would appear that
the din of RH would have occurred in only a few minutes.

BTW does G-d judge according to local time or EY time?

Eli

For those who actually get this email before Yom Kippur (sorry for it being
so late), I'd like to suggest a possible kavanah to have during the first
paragraph of Vidui.


The Rambam gives two texts for Vidui. In Hil Teshuvah 1:1 he writes:
	... Keitzad misvadim?
	Omer, "Anah, H', chatasi avisi pashati lifanekha, ve'asisi
	kakh vikiach. Veharei nichamti ubosheti bema'asai. Ule'olam
	eini chozeir lidavar zeh."
	Vezedu iqaro shel Vidui....

Note that Iqar Vidui is being described as:
    1- Approaching HQBH
    2- Admitting guilt
    3- Spelling out the particular cheit
    4- Bushah
    5- Azivas hacheit

His description of Vidui said with qorbanos is quite similar (Hil Ma'aseh
Qorbanos 3:15):
	Keitzad misvadeh?
	Omer, "Chatasi, avisi pashati vi'asisi kach vikach vichazarti
	bis-shuvah lifanecha. Vezu kaparasi."...

I assume that "Ana, H'", the formal approachment to G-d, is redundant
in light of the physical approachment of the qorban -- whose very name
is from "qarov".

The omission of bushah makes sense post-teshuvah. The person shouldn't
still be carrying a sense of embarassment. Which is why we don't remind
a ba'al teshuvah of his earlier state.

The relocation of "lifanecha" to after "kach vikach" could simply be
stylistic, so that a second "lifanecha" wouldn't be necessary after
mentioning teshuvah.

All these differences, though pale in comparison to their distance from
the version of Vidui in Hil Teshuvah 2:8. There the Rambam spells out
Vidui as all of Yisrael is noheig as:

	Havidui shenahagu bo kol Yisrael, "Aval anachnu chatanu."

The Lechem Mishnah ad loc points us to the origin of this three word
Vidui, Yuma 87b. R' Mareidah recalled that the only part of Vidui that
Shemu'el stood for was these three words, and so the gemara deduced that
this is the iqar Vidui. I assume this is becouse on must stand for vidui
and Shemu'el thought that standing for this alone was sufficient. (Perhaps
because of some dechaq, such as age, he couldn't stand longer.)

So which actually is the core of vidui?

Baer (who has "aval anachanu chatanu" without mention of "va'avoseinu")
translates "aval" as "ela" along the lines of "but" or "rather". "We are
not azei panim ... AVAL ..." But doesn't Yuma imply that "aval" is the
start of a phrase? Baer answers that the gemara meant that Shemu'el stood
for the whole paragraph. However, like in many quotes, it was mekatzeir.

Bemechilas kevodo, there are a few difficulties with this teirutz. First,
it's rare if ever that the gemara quotes the /end/ rather than the
begining portion of a longer text. Second, the Rambam and Lechem Mishnah
treat this halachah as a stand-alone quote; they don't discuss combining
this Vidui with the other.

What does "rather" mean? We use is to connect two propositions, both
considered true simultaneously (like the word "and"), where the first
is stated in the negative and the second elaborates in the positive. For
example, "I won't be going to work tomorrow, rather I will be observing
Yom Kippur."

I would like to suggest that in this case the first proposition of the
"aval" is not a stated text, but to all of life until this point. It's a
succinct statement of azivas hacheit. More than that -- the second clause
is an elaboration of the first, describing the essence of why the negative
is negative. It's a statement of learning from one's mistakes, that there
was some tachlis to them now that one learned to stop. Akin to Reish
Lakish's statement that teshuvah mei'ahavah can turn them into zechuyos.

Vehara'ayah, we find a Vidui in chumash that begins with "aval", with no
preparatory clause. The brothers, in their encounter with the Viceroy
of Egypt, say "Aval asheimim anachnu, ..." (The "vi'asisi kach vikach"
portion elided.) Targum sham renders "aval" as "bequshta", which Rashi
follows as well saying it means "be'emes".

Yes, this is the underlying reason, the emes, behind why I'm avowing
to stop.

"Aval anachnu chatanu" could have just been "aval chatanu". I think it's
siginificant that we draw attention to "anachnu", our selves. It's not
"violence erupted", it's "I was violent". An admission that not only
the ma'aseh has to be addressed, but also the personality issues that
lead to it.

If we take the brothers' Vidui as the origin of this one, it's even more
so -- "Aval asheimim anachnu" doesn't describe an activity, that's in
the rest of the pasuk. "Asheimim" is an adjective, a self-description.

Perhaps we change it into "chatanu" for reasons similar to why so
many social workers and psychologists avoid labeling. If someone
defines themselves as "an angry person", they minimize their ability
to change. "What can I do? That's what I am!" So, again let me stress
*perhaps*, Chazal changed the lashon into something less definitional.

But even without this speculation, we have a means of differentiating
between the Vidui of 1:1 and of 3:8, of explaining why there are two
iqarim to vidui. And why we combine them to say both.

The first vidui is on the ma'aseh. The second on the whole attitude that
lead to the ma'aseh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two how look in the same direction.

--part1_7e.1b6a69b1.28e3767e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en

In a message dated 9/7/2001 1:28:08pm EDT, mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com writes:
> Just noticed you had also asked about <Bavel to Mainz>.  The spread of
> learning to france-germany is generally not attributed to bovel at all,
> rather to italy (with its palestinian roots) with an act of economic
> colonization - the emigration of the kolonymous family from lombardy
> at the invitation of one of the french charlies (prof agus a"h of yu
> was convinced it was charlemagne....

As many of you might already know, Professor Agus is my primary source
for my opinions and postings of the evolution of Ashkenazic Minhag.

Professors Kanarfogel, Ta Sma, and Ch. Soloveichik general say much the
same with some differences.

FWIW - one Agus Ideosyncracy to which I subscribe - is that Tosafos
was reconcilling the Bavli more to Ashkenazic Traditions as opposed
to insisting on internal consistency. This means that Tosafos was
not advocating pilpulism in general - rather only when he needed
to reconcile. Prof. Kanarfogel (aiui) holds the more tradtional
interpretation, i.e. that Tosafo s was NOT being so much Traditional and
rather was presuming and fostering internal consistency within the Talmud.

Agus holds that Bavli was a superior document and a better redacted text
tha n its peers, but was not the primary source for Ashkenazim when/where
Ashkenazic Minhag differed.

I have often interpreted this as analogous to the Rema's Mappah on
RY Karo's SA, IOW in both case the ratified text became normative in
Ashkenaz ONLY wit h specific caveats.

The weakness to this line of resaoning is that Tosafos never articulates
thi s agenda befeirush. Then again, by way of analogy, the Bavli doesn't
articulate what prompts it to reject peshat in certain mishnayos...

R, Kanarfogel's premise assigns more power to the text of the Bavli for
innovation. Based upon Agus, I assign more power to Tradition in how to
understand a text in its normative Halachic sense - iow as opposed to
simple parshanus.

Gmar Tov
Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard

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


[ 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         ]