Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 030

Friday, October 26 2001

• Re: T'kheles: Bsal Tosif
• Ikkarim:Addendum
• Re: Ikkrim
• ikkarim
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: limits of kedushah?
• Re: limits of kedushah?
• [Im] Kabbalah [Who] Nekabel
• Im Kabala
• re Birkat haBanot
• Re: re Birkat haBanot
• Re: Birkas Habanim
• Re: re Birkat haBanot
• Re: bakashot on shabbat
• RE: tircha d'tzibura
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: techeiles
• Re: havaat shalom bein adam le'havero u-vein ish le-ishto
• Hebreww in bathroom

At 07:06 PM 10/25/01 -0400, Avrohom Weidberg wrote:
>Also, I heard in the name of Rav Shlomo Miller, a Rosh Kollel here in
>Toronto and a leading Posek, who raised the possibility that wearing
>sofek T'kheles may be a problem of Bal Tosif/Bal Tigra, given the
>disagreement among Rambam, Ra'avad and Tosefos as to whether one, two
>or four strings are blue.

With so much widespread full observance of Yom Tov Sheni in Eretz Yisroel
today, I cannot understand how one then worry about BT vis a vis Techeles.
The inconsistency is obvious.

(Rabbi Miller, however, may well be the greatest posek in North America
today.)

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

The full description of the Chasam Sofer's position requires  YD II #356
in addition to Beitza 5a which I cited previously.

            Daniel Eidensohn

In reply to Marc Shapiro's recent post:

1) The BACH in TUR Orach Chayim 671 avers that the Rambam holds that
"mitzvot einam tzrichot kavanah" so your thesis that the Rambam holds
that there is no heavenly reward for a mitzva done without kavanah
doesn't hold water.

2) IBN EZRA: open up the Mavo of the Yam Shel Shlomo on Bava Kamma (2nd
page, 1st column) and see how the Meharshal and others saw the Ibn Ezra
and others of his ilk as those who engendered kfira and apikorsut.

3) YOUR LIST OF *GEDOLIM* (who hold unorthodox views): reminds me of the
"Meet of K'Tanim" column in the 1979 parody NOT THE JEWISH PRESS where
you could read about Reb Shlomo Chayim Hochlieber, the 'Krotz of Blitta'
who once remarked that eating on Yom Kippur wasn't so bad as long as
you bentched :-)

Josh

with regard to the ikkarim and R Eidenson's post
R Eidenson argues what I believe are two separate issues:

b) (Implicit, so my apologies if I misunderstood) the interpretation
of the 13 ikkarim that are normative are not necessarily those written
and meant by the rambam - they are the way that the hachamim later on
understood them.

This is a very different issue than what was originally discussed.
It is a statement that there is a normative theology which is present in
Orthodoxy, which is somehow based on the 13 ikkarim, but does not always
reflect what the Rambam specifically wrote as the ikkarim. Others have
suggested a similar position.

whether or not there is such a nomative theology is another issue.
However, it in essence concedes the issue to R Schapiro. After all, the
original discussion started out with the assertion that the 13 ikkarim
(not an annotated edition with our own hagahot of where we differ)
constitute normative theology, and R Schapiro showed that that is wrong.
Regardless of how one views the halachic acceptability of prayer to
malachim or suggestions that our text of humash is at least slightly
different, these positions are clearly incomptible with the ikkarim
as written, even if they are accepted by many gdolim. The question is
therefore the empiric and halachic evidence for such a normative theology.
There might be one accepted in the Israeli haredi community, but that
is not quite the halachic universe.

a) The fact that one can find a few opinions that disagree with the
ikkarim does not obviate the fact that they are accepted as the standard.

This raises another set of issues (see below). However, what Prof Schapiro
has shown that while there may be a fair amount of lip service to the 13
ikkarim as representing normaive theology, there is evidence of large
numbers of rabbanim (extending to mainstream rabbanim today) who have
disagreed. (not that they necessarily said that they rejected this ikkar,
but wrote thngs that are incompatible with these ikkarim). The fact that
many do accept them as standard does not make them itself standard. As I
recall (myarticle is lent out), among the authorities who disagree with
different aspects of the ikkarim (just to talk about textual accuracy
and prayer to intermediaries) are , the minhat eliezer, R Weinberg from
Ner Israel - not quite academics, and not quite outcasts...(I wonder
which listmember would dare apply nebach epikoros to any of them...)

Lastly, with regard to the issue of psak in hashkafa:

The issue has been debated before here on other matters. It is not quite
clear that the opinion in the letter on Astrology is quite as applicable
for our purposes.

with regard to halacha, clearly bet shammai is no longer a valid opinion,
even though it remains part of torah - elu ve'elu. The understanding
has always been that it is not a theoretical rejection of the validity
of the position, but rather a practical one that choices have to be made.

However, with hashkafa, the statement of elu ve'elu remains. we had
a discussion long time ago about the rambam's position on shedim -
what should happen if there would be several generations that would
reject it? Would it no longer be a valid part of Torah? The necessity for
decisions in hashkafa is not quite the same, and elu ve'elu does mean that
it remains a valid opinion. (Question: You would study bet shammai as part
of talmud torah. Assume that there was a unviersal consensus that rejects
Ibn Ezra, or rejects the Moreh Nevuchim. would study of them, which is now
considered epikorsut, be considered talmud torah ??. Elu velu inherently
means that the opinions which are rejected, in hashkafa, remain viable.)

However, there are some opinions that are so far outside the mainstream,
held by relatively few unimportant figures, that one can argue shari lan
mari and were never really viable, and don't constitute a valid precednt.
I think that this is what the Rambam is arguing. The entire weight of the
tradition (not just his generation or his school) by his reckoning rejects
the opinion of these few, allowing one to say that this is not a valid
opinion. The Rambam in his cited tshuva does not talk about the rejection
of a consistently held shitta merely because it is currently unpopular.

It is hard to say that the positions described by Marc Schapiro falls into
this category. The sources are too numerous, and too contemporaneous,
to be able to reject them as easily as some would like as merely the
work of an academic. (unless one would extend epikoros (or at least
nebach epikoros) to truly remarkable extents).

Indeed, the belief that the same principles apply to hashkafa as to psak
is a breathtaking hiddush, and I wonder about the sources. The Hatam
sofer seems far more limited in its intent. While the statement of
Hillel on mashiach has generated some literature, including the Hatam
Sofer about how positions can become rejected, the extent to which it
has been suggested here seems novel and unprecented,

(vehadash assur min hatorah :) :)))
 
Meir Shinnar

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 04:11:45PM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: 1) Transmission of the Torah. The rambam's ikkar is not merely that
: hashem gave the torah on har sinai, but that the text that we have is
: identically the same as that of Moshe rabbenu.

Is it really?

Here is R' Lazer Abrahamson's translation of the 8th Iqar (I presume
via the Hebrew) taken from <http://members.aol.com/LazerA/13yesodos.html>.
I do not see any claim about letter-for-letter accuracy. Rather, that
none of the Torah was intentionally changed or interpolated, and that
the *ideas* (see my other post in the Limits of Kedushah thread) are
the same.

-mi

> The Eighth Foundation is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means
> that we must believe that this entire Torah, which was given to us from
> Moshe Our Teacher, may he rest in peace, is entirely from the mouth of
> the Almighty. In other words, that it all was conveyed to him from God,
> blessed Be He, in the manner which is called, for lack of a better term,
> "dibur" - "speech". [Since God does not actually "speak" in a literal
> sense. - Lazer] It is not known how it was conveyed to him, except
> to Moshe, may he rest in peace, to whom it was given, and he was like
> a scribe writing from dictation, and he wrote all the incidents, the
> stories, and the commandments. Therefore [Moshe] is called "mechokek" -
> "scribe" (BaMidbar [Numbers] 21:18).

> There is no difference between [verses such as] "And the children of
> Cham were Kush and Mitzrayim" (B'Reishis [Genesis] 10:6), "And the
> name of his wife was Meheitaveil" (ibid. 36:39), and "And Simnah was
> a concubine" (ibid. 36:12) and [verses such as] "I am HaShem your God"
> (Shemos [Exodus] 20:2) and "Hear O Israel" (Devarim [Deuteronomy] 6:4),
> for all of the Torah is from the mouth of the Almighty and it is all
> the Teaching of God (Toras HaShem), perfect, pure, holy, and true.

> One who says that verses and stories like these [in the first group]
> were written by Moshe out of his own mind, behold! He is considered by
> our Sages and Prophets as a heretic and a perverter of the Torah more
> than all other heretics, for he believes that the Torah has a "heart"
> and a "shell" [i.e. an meaningful part and a meaningless part] and that
> these historical accounts and stories have no benefit and are from
> Moshe our Teacher, may he rest in peace. This is the meaning of [the
> category of heretic who believes that] "The Torah is not from Heaven"
> [which is listed in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) as one who has no
> share in the World to Come]. Our Sages, may their memory be a blessing,
> explain that this is [even] someone who says that the entire Torah
> is from the Almighty except for a particular verse which was written
> by Moses alone. And on this [person, the Torah writes], "For he has
> scorned the word of God... [his soul shall be absolutely cut off, his
> sin is upon him]" (BaMidbar [Numbers] 15:31). May God, blessed be He,
> forgive the statements of the heretics.

> In truth, however, every word of the Torah has within it wisdom and
> wonders for one who can understand them, and the full depth of their
> wisdom can never be attained. "Its measure is longer than the earth,
> and broader than the sea" (Iyov [Job] 11:9). A man has option but to
> follow in the footsteps of King David, the anointed of the god of Yakov
> (Jacob), who prayed, "Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things
> in your Torah" (Tehillim [Psalms] 119:18).

> All this is also true for the explanation of the Torah, which was also
> received from the mouth of the Almighty [the Oral Torah]. The manner
> in which we today make the Sukkah, Lulav, Shofar, Tzitzis, Tefillin,
> and other items is precisely the manner that God, blessed be He,
> instructed Moshe, who then instructed us and Moshe was reliable in
> relating [God's word].

> The verse which teaches this foundation is "And Moshe said, 'Through
> this you shall know that God has sent me to do all these things, for
> they are not from my heart." (BaMidbar [Numbers] 16:28)

> The Igros Moshe says (I'll find the exact cite, if you want) that if a
> tape cassette has divrei Torah on it, it MAY be brought into that room,

Couldn't find source for the above but - Try

YD I #173 page 346
YD I #172 page 346
YD II #142 page 241

> My understanding from that is that the question of what one may or may not
> read there

See Mishna Berura 85 (5-8)

> (As an aside, I often think that the strongest evidence for an external
> Soton who actively tries to induce us to sin (as opposed to an internal
> Yetzer Hara, whose main job is in the decision-making process) is that
> most of my best Chidushim strike me out of the blue, when I am in that
> "smallest room in the house".)

The Tzitz Eliezer vol 13 #1 goes through all these issues. He also cites a
Yerushalmi that a bathroom is the place where a person is likely to think
of chidushi Torah and it is considered onas - therefore one is allowed
to be in a bathroom of a shul - even though one will hear the davening.

                                Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:40:02AM -0500, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU wrote:
: One knows that one must go "mi-.huts la-ma.haneh " [Dev. 23:13-14;
: but cf. Ibn Ezra] for certain physical purposes. From SA O.H. 85 we
: know that when one is engaged in such activity all (?; cf. MA there [my
: thanks to my brother for pointing me to this]) things kadosh are not to
: be entertained. However, given the *Sefer ha-.Hinukh's* (cf. *.Hayei Adam*
: 1:4 and second *Bi'ur halakhah*) idea of 6 zekhirot re. HKBH that one must
: have in mind constantly --– which, by definition, includes time spent in
: "mi-.huts la-ma.haneh" activity -- onew wonders what, if any, the(se)
: limits of kedushah are....

I would first want to make a pair of distinctions:
There are things that are tamei lehalachah, and there is the spiritual
and mental state called tum'ah. I presume the connection is that those
objects are deemed tamei because of their ability to cause the person
a spiritual state of tum'ah -- but that does not mean they are identical.

Similarly, there is halachic and aggadic qedushah as well.

Someone who is michutz lamachaneh is so because of he is halachicly
tamei. He might be fixated on divrei Torah every waking minute, and have
perfectly mastered all of his ta'avos gashmiyos. But, if he saw a nega,
he is still sent michutz lamachaneh.

Now, what is he being prohibited from -- engaging in things that are
halachicly qadosh, or pursuing the spiritomental (TM) state that
aggadita calls qedushah? I would assume the former, since assuring the
latter means that he is putting his entire life-mission on hold. Even
the chiyuv to remain michutz is itself part of that pursuit!

I therefore do not think that these machshavos are included, because
they revolve around of a different use of the word "qedushah".

: 1) A Jewishly-printed English Tanakh. Since, as has been opined on this
: forum, the English word "God" has no inherent kedushah (one assumes "Lord"
: has less; and the other words even less) might merely reading it not be
: as counter-sacred as one might have thought initially? Or is kedushah
: related to the sentence, paragraph, etc., as opposed to individual words?

Again, I would apply this chaqirah. There is the qedushah of the sheim,
which is a halachic status, and the aggadic qedushah caused by someone
thinking about the ideas. The question of whether the ideas (which is
what I assume you mean by "sentence, paragraph, etc.") can themselves
create halachic qedushah is itself unclear to me.

Is one chayav to bury parashah sheets that are careful not to include
any sheimos but rather use H', D', or other twice-removed kinuyim? Or
is this "merely" a well accepted hanhagah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

From: David Hojda <dhojda1@juno.com>
> Where does the phrase [Im] Kabbalah [Who] Nekabel come from? Does it
> originate with the ibn Ezra?

I thought it is mentioned by Rashi (al Hatorah).

SBA

My handy dandy low tech CD says that the phrase does not appear in Shas.
It references the similar phrase "Im halacha hi nekabel ve'im ledin yesh
teshuva", found in Yevamos 76b, Kerisus 16b and Sifri Ki Setze.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

SBA wrote:
> It and the PY quote the Zohar - that before bentching anyone one
> should say "Yisborach Shmoy shel HKBH", as one should first 'bentch'
> Hashem...

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> If you're bentching multiple children, does this need to be said 
> before each child? Or does saying it once cover the entire family? 

Good question. 
But as it is only a few words - I say it each time.

SBA

At 11:29 AM 10/25/01 +1000, SBA wrote:
(Deleted)
>Finally, for those seeking a (200 year old) nusach habrocho - for both
>girls AND boys, see the abovementioned PY - who has documented his
>personal nuscho'os - which include Y'vorechecho and Yesimcho for both
>boys and girls.

Great post. In our family both father and mother give the berachos -
but we also did so after Havdolo. Any makor for that?

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Rabbi Mordechai Tendler told me that Rav Moshe Feinstein did not do it
erev Shabbos but only erev Yom Kippur.

            Daniel Eidensohn

From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
> It and the PY quote the Zohar - that before bentching anyone one
> should say "Yisborach Shmoy shel HKBH", as one should first 'bentch'
> Hashem (and if not the brocho will not be mekuyam ..)
<snip> 
> Further to earlier posts on this subject, I have asked around and found
> that the 'generic' Ashkenaz/Oberland minhag seems to be the father [only]
> bentching both sons and daughters, most before Kiddush but some before
> saying Sholom Aleichem.

As my father did not have the minhag (nor did his father), and I
adopted it for my daughters on my own, I have, for "Yisborach" reasons,
as well as convenience, elected to bentsch my children AFTER Kiddush,
while lining up for washing. This way, HKBH gets His bracha first and
guests don't have to wait.

Stuart

see tosfot bavli brachot 48b - matchil reference to yerushalmi-elu
kesharim in mesechet shabbat

ss
joel rich

On Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:33 PM, Gil Student <gil_student@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> I would venture to guess (emphasis on guess) that davening during
> the time of the gemara was not necessarily shorter than it is today.
> Just what was said was less and was therefore said much slower. The
> extra 2 minutes of amidah was maybe an extra 10 or 20 minutes.

On what are you basing this assumption?

kt
sk

Marc Shapiro wrote:
>What I believe is that he denied *heavenly* reward and punishment for 
>performance of mitzvot.

>A mitzvah performed without understanding of the divine intent etc. does 
>not lead to reward.

In other words, according to the Rambam a mitzvah must be performed with all 
the proper kavanos (to misuse the kabbalistic term) in order to be rewarded. 
This is a far cry from denying that mitzvos are not rewarded.  They are 
not rewarded if they are performed *improperly*.  I don't see its relevance 
at all to the discussion of ikkarim.

>Ralbag did *not* believe in yesh me-ayin. He thought ths was impossible, 
>even for God. He believed that the world was created from formless matter, 
>a concept which so many philosophers, incl. Aristotle, rejected (because 
>while you can have form without matter, you cannot have matter without 
>form)

Yes and no. Ralbag rejects the Aristotelian view of the eternity of the
universe and the Platonic view of the creation from pre-existent matter.
Rather, he merges the Platonic and Maimonidean views. Ralbag himself
writes (Milchemos Hashem 6:1:17; tr. Feldman vol. 3 p. 300) "The world
is created from something insofar as it is generated from [some kind]
of body; it is created from nothing insofar as this body is devoid of
form." He believes in a creation from nothing, if one defines formless
matter to be essentially nothing. Would Rambam consider this to be ex
nihilo? No. But Ralbag believes that it is a modified version of it.
"[I]t is created from nothing insofar as this body is devoid of form."

>R. Moses Taku did not make up his views, however strange they appear today. 
>He must have received them from his teachers.

Or derived them from texts, as you later assert. Did R. Moshe of Taku
explicitly say that he learned it from his teachers (not that it really
matters)?

>He stresses that Hazal agreed with him.

Of course he does. So does everyone. The Conservative movement (or
at least the classical version), lehavdil, also believes that they are
following in Chazal's footsteps.

>The thrust of his argument is that nowhere do Hazal deny that God has a 
>form.

Except in Targum Onkelos.

>On the contrary, they are explicit over and over again that God does have a 
>form, and that man is created in this form,
>and there are even halakhot which depend on this.

There are not. And if you look in every relevant passage in the gemara
you will find explanations from the gaonim on how to read the passage
in an incorporeal framework.

>For example, while many of them did not believe that God had a body, they 
>did believe that he "moved," "rested" etc (a violation of the principle).

I think this falls under the category of a "slight" difference from
Rambam's ikkar.

>All this is a complicated story and I am glad I will have the opportunity 
>to set out my arguments at greater length in a book-length study.

I look forward to disagreeing with your book <g>.

>P.S. Despite what David Berger has written, I don't see how a view once 
>advocated by gedolei Yisrael can now be invalid.

Because, contrary to what you wrote repeatedly in your article and again
in your response to R. Avraham Gordimer, this is an halachic issue.
While most matters of belief do not have halachic ramifications, the
definition of a heretic does. Therefore, the thrust of poskim defines a
heretic and what was once a belief that did not define one as a heretic
(who, in certain cases, must be thrust into a pit and may not be removed
from it) has now been defined by poskim as a belief that defines one as
a heretic.

Gil Student

On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 12:27:14AM +0000, Seth Mandel wrote:
>: The other point is the color. The Rambam says "hatzavua' kiftukh
>: shebakohal, v'zo hi d'mut haraqia' hanir'eit la'ayin b'tohoro shel
>: raqia'," "dyed as blue eyeshadow, and this is the appearance of the sky
>: visible to the eye b'tohoro shel raqia'," which we are getting to.. . .

Avrohom Weidberg asked:
> What does the word "kiftukh" mean here? I thought it meant faded.

Faded or mixed with white--correct. But kohl is a sort of black that
is starting to lighten to bluish-grey (it is antimony trisulphide). The
common theory of colors (Aristotle) was that blue is admixture of white
and black (or probably more correct "light and black"). Therefore in
chullin 47b and Niddah 19a, kohl is given to be a sort of black just
beyond the range that pasuls/metameh. (In my seifer, p.230 there is a
whole discussion). So patuch shebkohl would produce true blue (and not
light blue).

> Also, I heard in the name of Rav Shlomo Miller, a Rosh Kollel here in
> Toronto and a leading Posek, who raised the possibility that wearing
> sofek T'kheles may be a problem of Bal Tosif/Bal Tigra, given the
> disagreement among Rambam, Ra'avad and Tosefos as to whether one, two
> or four strings are blue.

When Rav Miller was in EY and I spoke with him, he said that more than
one string of techeiles may be bal tosif according to Rambam (which
I agree to and therefore only wear according to Rambam); but he said
nothing of bal tigra the opposite way "lo yehai ela lavan."

From: "Seth Mandel"
> R. Micha: <I want to clear up what seems to be conflicting claims....
> <The Maharsham, RCOG, and RYES aren't "none of the gedolim". The latter
> two were viewed by many to be THE poseqim of the generation... Do we
> have anything other than skepticism about Radziner sources, to deny
> this claim?>

> R. Micha, there is no disagreement between R. Singer and me. We are both
> quoting the same source, R. Borshtein's book. R. Singer was probably
> quoting from memory, and what he said astonished me so I looked it up.
> Look it up yourself, please. P. 183 about R. Chaim Berlin

etc. etc.
However the Maharsham (who I believe could be called THE poseik of that
dor for sure wore Radzyn techeiles and even wanted to be buried in that
tallis, as he wrote in his tzavaah (to be found at the beginning of his
"Techeiles Mordechai" on Chumash).

> First, the Arukh does not identify t'kheles; he identifies Tyrian.

As techeiles

>                                                                   Second,
> there is no shalsheles traceable to the Arukh. NOBODY before him
> identifies it as coming from the royal-purple producing mollusc.

Did you expect them to write that it is murex trunculus?

> The sources for identification are hundreds of years later.

Well, not all. Midrash Hagadol does read: "Amar R. Chiya etc.shekain
darkan shel melachim porphyra shelahen techeiles."their purpura cloak IS
of techeiles. I don't understand how what RMS answered RAvyah applies over
here. And yes, the chavos Yair identifies it later, and we still haven't
received a satisfactory explantion why to ignore it. Mekor Chayim is a
halachic work, and if this ws just a hypothesis of his this was not the
place to bring it up. Also, he is coming la'afukei what people commonly
say about the chilazon's blood color--that it comes out blue. If he
wasn't sure about his idetification, why would he contradict them? And
the purpura described by the ancients looks like the one nowadays; if
you really think it doesn't fit Chazal's description, don't you think
the Chavos Yair would have noticed?

> R. Micha: <Alternatively, you have to explain why every couple of
> centuries people make the same false identification without even making
> the dye.>

>           Adrabbo, since
> early rishonim like Rashi knew that there was such a dye, why did they
> not make the identification?

I seriously doubt Rashi or the Taosafot knew about the dye, but I cannot
prove that--like you can't prove they did.

> Again, you are missing my point. I am not claiming that the g'moro is
> giving signs to positively identify the hillazon. I am claiming that we
> need some evidence to indentify it. That evidence must either come from
> a) the g'moro; b) the rishonim; c) archeology. If there is no evidence
> in b), I went to a). Since the evidence from a) is ambiguous, at the
> very least, and poses some difficulties for Murex,

I think the information amassed in my seifer is pretty solid. Have you
looked at it?

>                                                     we look to c). And
> since there is no evidence in c), what are we left with? The discovery
> that a color-fast blue dye can be made out of a mollusc that was used
> in the purple dying industry.

It may interest you to know that the only animal known to produce dye
(forget blue dye) in ancient times as well as now (besides insects) is
the purpura/murex snails. And in chazal on the chilazon is mentioned as
a dye producing animal. Add that all of them produce blue, and the only
fast substitue are the indigo producing plants (kalailan/indigo/isatis),
I think "the discovery that a color-fast blue dye can be made out of a
mollusc that was used in the purple dying industry" is significant. (that
the purpura of th ancients produced BLUE Ideal with in the next
post--yins' with my seifer can get a preview, p.235).

> R. Shlomo Taitelbaum writes: <Does anyone know what the supposed Brisker
> position that a cheftza shel mitzva MUST have a mesora is based on?>
> Rather than having me answer, or quoting R. Hershel Shachter, as R. Chayim
> Twerski did in his piece, go to the source that I quoted: Shi 'urim
> l'Zekher Abba Mari, vol.1, p 220-239, which matches my recollection of
> the shiur. This was transcribed from a tape recording of RYBS's yortzeit
> shiur in memory of his father (not word for word, of course, the original
> was in Yiddish, but faithfully).

Yes, that is where I got it from in the first place, but all that can be
"learned out" is that a mesora can't be dismissed with logic etc. But that
without a mesora we cannot identify with logic he just states as a fact
(what's the fancy latin expression for that?) and the posuk sh'al avicho.
You mean there is nothing better than that?

> And it is not "supposed."

The "supposed" is that it is being understood in context.

On Wednesday 24 October 2001 9:21, you Mordechai <Phyllostac@aol.com> wrote:
> Why in the mishnah (from Maseches Peiah IIRC) ...        does it say
> havoas Sholom for 'making peace' and why elsewhere (e.g. in Kaddish)
> do we ask for asias Sholom ('oseh Sholom bimromav hu yaaseh Sholom
> aleinu...) ? What is the difference, etc. ?

Only Hashem can create and thus guarantee peace. Man can only bring about
the possibility of peace, genlty conditioning others to follow his advice,
for he has no access to his fellow's inner thoughts.

Arie Folger

> A lot of good questions. My only contribution is that R. Yosef Engel in
> his Gilyonei HaShas to Avos 2:1 has a long discussion whether one can
> learn Hebrew, which certainly includes dikduk, in bathroom (if you think
> about it, bathroom is lashon nekiah). He concludes that it is permissible.

R. Chaim David Halevi in Aseh lecha Rav paskens that one cannot read
ktav ashurit in a bathroom no matter what the topic and so prohibits
all hebrew including secular newspapers etc.

Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]