Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 080

Thursday, December 27 2001

• Re: Moshiach
• Re: Moshiach
• Re: Moshiach
• Re: Moshiach
• Re: Moshiach
• Re: Rav Ashi's S'michoh
• Re: Rav Ashi's s'mikhoh
• Re: Avodah V8 #78
• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: Halachic Methodology
• Re: halakhah methodology
• halachich methodology - Survey of Sources

In a message dated 12/26/01 10:39:39am EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> That is the problem with using G-d's Omnipotence as an argument as this
> argument can explain any abberation one wishes it to. What makes the
> resurrection Shtus, IMHO is the limiting aspect of the dead Rebbe as the
> only candidate if from the dead. Why not make it Moshe Rabbenu? What
> better candidate can you have?

IIRC it seems we learned from Shas that IF a Moshiach were indeed from
the dead it would be Daniel.

The entire idea of a Dead Moshiach coming back contradicts the Kabblistic
notion that each generation has a Moshiach-in-waiting.

Anyway, focusing upon Moshiach as a PERSON instead of a concept seems
dangerous to me. Therefore the svara for changing the Nusach from
"umeivi Go'el" to "umeivi Ge'ulah" would make sense to me if I were not
so old-fahsioned about Traditional Nusach! --smile--

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

--- Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
>  From my uncle. ...
...
> 2. Just what is wrong with possibility of immaculate > conception??? Is
> that our beef with Chr.? Do we object to that in
> principle?

Is Dr. Schochet saying that imacculate conception is a logical
absurdity? Or is he saying the opposite, that we don't object to
immaculate conception in principle? IIUC the question "Do we object
to that in principle?" sounds rhetorical ... and that we really don't
object to it at all. Is that true? If so, I find it incredible that he
so easily accepts one of the basic tennents of Christian doctrine which
they cite as one of the proofs of Jesus's divinity.

> 3. Resurrected Moshiach is no shtus at all (or are you accusing Chazal
> etc. of shtuyos when they are the ones who suggest this re Mosheh, Dovid,
> Doniel etc.?!). 

No, I'm not accusing Chazal etc. of shtuyos when they are the ones who
suggest this re Mosheh, Dovid, Doniel.

It's the "etc.?!)" part of his statement to which I object. This "etc"
which he adds to the Gemmarah over there is being used by him to validate
the possibility of someone other than "Doniel" as being Moshiach.
IIRC the Gemmarah was very clear. If the Moshiach is from the living,
it is...(I don't recall who the Gemmarah mentioins over there) if from
the dead it is Doniel. DONIEL, NOT THE REBBE! There was no etc.

> Limiting it to one individual
> exclusively, and saying that Gd is restricted to the appointment of one
> individual, THAT is shtus.

That IS shtus but that is not all that is Shtus.

> 4. He falls into Berger's (and certain roshei yeshivos') trap by feeling
> constrained to distance himself from Chr. beliefs. What about their belief
> in G-d, the Bible, the concept of Moshiach, the prophetic values etc. -
> will we now have to distance ourselves from these as well? We are defined
> by our truth and not by the differences between us and them.

Yes we are defined by our truth but it is not so much how we are
defined that is the issue here. It is about the absurdity of the above
statement comparing Christian doctrine favorably with Torah. Is Dr.
Schochet inclined to closer identification with Christian doctrine? If
so he is doing a fine job by defending one of the cardinal tenents of
Christianity, that of the ressurection of Christ.

> 5. His suggestion that from an intellectual point of objectivity
> we should also have to defend the possibility of "truth" in Islam or
> Chr. demonstrates his unbelievable ignorance of his own roots. 

Now that... is a cheap shot.

> It is like suggesting a defense for the possibility of a square
> circle. 

I was not suggesting that at all. Religious belief is not based on
logical absurdities which is how he is trying to characterize Islam. No
one would beleieve in a square circle as it is an inherently impossble
definition. This is very strange as a moment ago he felt that much of
Christainity is OK by us but now he considers it unbelievable ignorance.

> Even a ben
> chomesh lemikro knows the possuk of atoh horeisso loda'as etc. which ipso
> facto disproves the possibility of any other religion. 

It does? What is it about "atoh horeisso loda'as" "You have been shown
to know" ... Ki HaShem Hu HaElokim"... "that HaShem is G-d" "Ein Od
Bilvado"... "There is no one else, only He alone" ... that Christianity
or Islam would object to? Last time I checked Isalm beleieved that
there is only one G-d and even Christianity beleives that too only
they believe that the ressurected Messiah will be some sort of godly
manifestation. Christianity maintains it is monotheistic allthough we
consider it dualistic and some form of Shituf.

As a matter of fact if you consider what DR. Schochet is saying it sounds
as if the only real difference between Christianity and Lubavitch belief
in a resurrected Messiah is that the former deifies him and the latter
doesn't. At least MOST Lubavitchers don't.

> 6. His definition for "belief" relates exclusively to credulity or
> blind faith, not to emunoh. In Judaism there is no such thing: atoh
> horeisso LODA'AS!

Emunah IS more than justy blind faith but I don't know that dependinig
soley on these words as being anything but blind faith

> 7. Is Moshiach just a title? Let him learn the defin. of Moshiach in
> Hilchos Teshuvoh. Just because Moshe Rabeinu and Moshiach are the greatest
> prophets etc. does not mean that I have to go to them. 

Is Dr. Schochet saying that if someone else other than the Rebbe is
Moshiach... he is not going?

That reminds me about what R. Chaim Shmulevitz said when he had heard
that Lubavitchers consider the Rebbe Moshiach: "Az Er Iz Moshiach... Gei
Ich Nit!"

...
> 8. "We all know about techiyas hameissim." From the way he writes -
> obviously not. Just what is his problem or difficulty with what I
> wrote? He offers a typical example of mixing chitim and se'orim (in his
> vernacular: apples and oranges).

Is he saying that the Rebbe's re-incarnation will be separate and apart
from the general Techiyas HaMeism?


> 9. "so-called gedolim" - all those who think like he does because they
> do not know, or do not study, the sources, which in halochoh is regarded
> korov lemeizid.

Who does he mean by "so-called gedolim"? R. Chaim Shmulevitz? The Brisker
Rav? Rav Shach?

HM

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> 2. Just what is wrong with possibility of immaculate conception??? Is
> that our beef with Chr.? Do we object to that in principle?

I haven't been following this discussion (I'm not on Areivim, where
most of it seems to be taking place), but I think there's improper
terminology here. Immaculate conception is the doctrine (dogma?) that
Jesus (and Mary for Catholics) were born without taint of original sin.
Since we don't believe in original sin (neshama shenatata bi tehorah
hi is a bit of anti-Christian polemic we say every day) we do object to
that in principle (at least its restriction to only one or two people).

David Riceman

Dr. Schochet wrote:
>Do I believe it to be shtus? In principle absolutely no. How can I? I would 
>be limiting G-d...

>1. Your corresp. is obviously unaware of the meaning of Divine omnipotence

I believe the correspondent's problem, or at least mine, is that of
course we limit G-d. We limit Him to fulfill what He promised as revealed
in Tanach and Chazal. Otherwise, how can we limit G-d to definitely
reward mitzvos and punish aveiros? Should we not leave Him the option of
not rewarding mitzvos? To take your proposal, I am willing to swear in
G-d's name that Moshiach will be from "geza Yishai". Do you object to my
limiting G-d in that fashion? I'm sure not. Similarly, the contention is
that the idea that the deceased Lubavitcher Rebbe is definitely Moshiach
is against the inspired words of Chazal. If that contention is true,
then the idea is shtus.

>and run into problems with the views re Moshe Rabeinu, David Hamelech, 
>Daniel, Baal Shem Tov etc. - all of which are authoritative.

Unless all those ma'amarim were talking about the *potential* Moshiach
of the respective generations, like Chizkiyahu HaMelech.

>c) I will defend any legitimate proposition and attack its arbitrary 
>rejection

Are you suggesting that the rejection of the proposition that the dead
Rebbe is VADAI MOSHIACH is arbitrary?!?

>involves the principle of the resurrection of the great tzadikim before the 
>coming of Moshiach (as stated categorically by the
>rishonim and elaborated on by Radvaz etc.) which vast majority of even our 
>so-called gedolim were unaware of

I do not know of which gedolim you are speaking but I would assume that
almost every Rosh Yeshiva is familiar with this Radbaz, if only because R.
Elchanan Wasserman quotes it in his Kovetz Shiurim (vol. 2 #29), probably
the quintessential yeshivishe sefer.

However, as you correctly pointed out, this Radbaz is not a chiddush.
The Radbaz writes in two teshuvos (2:839,3:644) from the Ritva in
the name of his rabbeim that there will be two techiyos hameisim -
one "samuch levias haMoshiach" for tzadikim and one at the end of
yemos haMoshiach for everyone to be judged. The phrase "samuch levias
haMoshiach" is somewhat vague as it can be a little before or a little
after bias haMoshiach. Only a little vaguer, Rav Saadia Gaon writes in
Emunos VeDeyos (7:1) that the first techiyah will be "bizman hayeshuah"
(Rav Kaffih's translation). Similarly, Rambam writes in his Iggeres
Teiman (ch. 6) that it is possible that this techiyah will be before,
during, or after bias haMoshiach - he is not sure (Rambam only holds of
one techiyas hameisim, but it is this earlier one).

Presumably, Dr. Schochet is suggesting that the Moshiach can be among
those who are resurrected. However, since the Rambam seems to be open
to this option, we have a problem within the Rambam. Granted, this
techiyah can be before bias haMoshiach. But who says that the Moshiach
can be among those resurrected? The Rambam writes in Hilchos Melachim
(uncensored - 11:5) that if the Moshiach does not succeed then he is not
the one sent by Hashem but is a nisayon. How can anyone not succeed if
it is possible for him to be resurrected as Moshiach? If he dies before
bringing world peace, he can fulfill it when he is resurrected. Since the
Rambam allows for the possibility that tzadikim will be resurrected before
bias haMoshiach, how can he say that a potential Moshiach can not-succeed?
Evidently, even though tzadikim may be resurrected before bias haMoshiach,
Moshiach cannot come from among the resurrected. Otherwise, the Rambam's
condition of not succeeding is meaningless. Once we have concluded that
the possibility of a techiyah before bias haMoshiach can still exclude
Moshiach himself from being among the resurrected, the fact that the
Radbaz and many others hold of a techiyah before bias haMoshiach proves
nothing regarding a resurrected Moshiach.

Gil Student

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 02:42:19PM -0500, RYGB forwarded from RIS:
: 1. Your corresp. is obviously unaware of the meaning of Divine
: omnipotence, i.e., that it does not relate to logical absurdities (see
: Emunos Vedeos, Moreh, Ikkorim etc.)

OTOH, see Derech Hashem. The Ramchal argues that logic itself is a beryah,
so how could HQBH be limited by it?

This does not speak to the real objection. I just wanted to point out
that it's subject to machlokes.

: 2. Just what is wrong with possibility of immaculate conception??? Is
: that our beef with Chr.? Do we object to that in principle?

Not the conception, but the concept of man-god certainly.

What if someone would say r"l that Hashem did something unjust or
downright evil. Would you except his argument that you must either agree
with him or be limiting H's omnipotence?

Similarly, one cann not invoke the idea of "omnipotence" to support the
claim that there was a man-god, or that some given eschatology can't
be kefirah.

: 3. Resurrected Moshiach is no shtus at all (or are you accusing Chazal
: etc. of shtuyos when they are the ones who suggest this re Mosheh, Dovid,
: Doniel etc.?!). Limiting it to one individual exclusively, and saying
: that Gd is restricted to the appointment of one individual, THAT is shtus.

So then you concur -- the meshichist position is shetus. What's this whole
argument about, then?

: 8. "We all know about techiyas hameissim." From the way he writes -
: obviously not. Just what is his problem or difficulty with what I
: wrote? He offers a typical example of mixing chitim and se'orim (in his
: vernacular: apples and oranges).

Now /you/ are equating apples an oranges: equating his rejection of a
pareticular suggestion about techiyas hameisim with rejecting ThM bichlal.

One can believe in ThM without believing in gilgulim. Not all
reincarnation is ThM. Belief in techiyas hameisim does not mean that one
believes that a particular individual -- or anyone -- wil be resurrected
/before/ yemos hamoshiach.

Or even during. It could be after, as per the Ramban, who sets "olam
haba" to be the period /after/ Yemos haMoshiach, when people will be
living eternal post-ThM lives.

But whether ThM /could/ be understood as being before mashiach, and in
fact providing mashiach, the belief is without backing in mesorah. To
protest this gilui panim baTorah does not mean denying an ikkar.


-mi

PS: RYGB, please fwd back.

-- 
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 who look in the same direction.

That the semicha of Bavel was not that of EY is muchach from many places
in the Yerushalmi, in its treatment of Rav Kahana (plain "Kahana" in
the Y-mi) and in its treatment of "Rav VChanina Chavreihon d'Rabbonon."

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

Not that I'm complaining about Rmicha's splendid orchestration of these
listings but it is a bit disconcerting to encounter a response to my note
prior to its original appearance in avodah. But lo'inyon:
RRWolpoe writes: <... please calrify the title Rav had -- i.e. the Talmid
of Rebbe..>

The title rav had was -- da da dum -- "rav". In effect, the very same
title by which his own master (r. yehudoh han'nosih) was known, i.e. rabbi
(stom), with the elision of the final vowel because of his bavli locale.
Indeed -- we should certainly cite rav as a support to Breuer's thesis,
since rav certainly received an eretz yisroel s'mikhoh from rabbeinu
haqqodosh himself (or possibly from r. chiyoh, but that's a different
historical problem), and thus -- in the prevailing perception that only
israeli s'mikhoh conferred the title, rav should have been known as
"rabbi" (abba). Eloh mah? israeli rabbi=bavli rav.

Rrich writes further: <TB says Ravina Rav Ashi so hora'ah but Tosafos and
others continue using Talmudic methodology as if nothing was finalized. >
Not quite sure what is being asserted here, but the notion of sof ho'ro'oh -- 
whatever that might mean -- has nothing much to do with tos methodology. New
situations continued to arise which required p'saq, even if older chain of
ho'ro'oh had broken.

[2nd email. -mi]

R. Teitz writes:
<Although I do not claim, by any stretch of the imagination, any b'kius
in history, I must take issue with the statement that Rav Ashi was a
musmach, and that the only difference between EY and Babylonian s'michah
was k'nasos -- -- unless we are talking about two different kinds of
s'michah. The one which I refer to -- ish mipi ish back to Moshe Rabeinu
-- is required for k'nasos, malkos, death penalties (although, of course,
with no Beis Din in the lishkas hagazis, there were none either in EY
or Bavel), kiddush hachodesh, ibur hashanah and more. This s'michah was
certainly not possessed by Rav Ashi and Ravina, since it had already
been allowed to lapse from the time of Hillel Hanasi, who antedated Rav
Ashi by generations. >

I'm assuming you are referring to hillel n'si'oh in fourth century
(the calendar guy) rather than the original hillel. But in any event --
though this is one shittoh (i think ramban subscribes to it) there are
plenty of others which choleiq and move the timeline further out.

<Can you tell me of references in Talmud Bavli of any Bavli amora'im
who had s'michah? Or are you equating mumcheh with s'michah? >

nope. never suggested mumcheh =musmoch. Mumcheh is an "expert". Musmoch
means he has received r'shus l'horos (though of course you would
like to think that such r'shus was given only to mumchim). As for
references in talmud bavli -- howzabout p'sochim 49a, "..nofqu mineih
t'rei b'nei s'mikhei, rav sheishes b'reih d'rav idi v'rav y'hoshua
breih d'rav idi...". for a geonic appreciation, you might want to check
iggeres r. sh'riroh gaon in response which explains the difference in
titles, rebbi, rav, and none -- "...ki rabbi mi'chakh'mei eretz yisroel
has's'mukhin b'sanhedrin she'lohen....d'samkhinon leih v'qoru leih rabbi
ve'y'hovin leih r'shus l'meidon dinei q'nosos, v'rav mi'chakh'mei bovel
has's'mukhin bi'yeshivos she'lohen."

<(Parenthetically, if the title change between Bavel and EY was a question
of pronunciation, why was it only applied to Bavli chachamim? The Bavli'im
should have dropped the final consonant when referring to their Israeli
counterparts as well. Just as we find names of the same people pronounced
differently in Bavli and Y'rushalmi; e.g., omitting the lead aleph from
names such as Elazar and Avun by the Y'rushalmi., so too we should find
the title rabi applied to a person in EY, and that same person titled
rav in Bavel.>

hardly compelling. While the words are used identically as a result of
a linguistic shift, it hardly follows that they would apply the local
dialect to the still living "foreign" usage which after all still sounded
different, in the face of the continued usage and self identification
by the foreigners. the famous soccer player pele was still articulated
pe'lay by the american sportsters, not "peel". One doesn't always
homogenize a living foreign usage. For another matter, the elision could
certainly have been accompanied by a vocal shift as well. As in the common
talmudic expression "omroh li aim" which is always semantically equal to
"omroh li imi" with the elision of the final yud. Whether the bavli'im
pronounced the elided noun as "aim" or preserved the "original" syllable
"im" is unknown and doesn't affect the argument in the slightest.

<The Gr"a says that r-b-y has the nikkud "ribbi." If the titles are the
same except for elision of the final yod, shall we then conclude that the
Babylonian pronunciation is "Rib?") >
who am i to yoreid l'sof da'as hag'gra? Suffice it to say that i don't
understand it, many others disagree, and thus see no particular reason
to accept it. having said that, i don't believe the pronunciation affects
the argument anyway -- see remarks above l'gabbei "aim/im".

Another point which might be made -- if rav was a new title specifically
developed for those geographically challenged chakhomim who could not
receive the true israeli s'michoh, why is it that those chakhomim in
eretz yisroel without s'michoh are never referred to as rav. I.e. its
always ben azzai and never rav shimon ben azzai. Again, so we don't
lose sight of the "b'sheim om'ro" I also want to stress that i have,
for the most part, been providing j. breuer's tarbitz perspective.

<Enlightenment is anxiously awaited>
hope that sufficed. If not, may need to check out nearest ashram. .

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

> Because to the Brisker, including RYBS, halachic evolution is from the
> textual sources only. Not from gains in secular knowledge, not from
> minhag. Therefore, anything justifiable from the texts is "okay" fluidity,
> anything else is not.

Even for the Briskers, I should think, "halachic evolution" is an
oxymoron if predicated on textual sources only. At least theoretically
the actual practices involved in halacha can literally change, of course,
from a reconsideration of text alone i.e., a rehashing of machlokess
in the laboratory conditions of a Brisk yeshiva. But laboratory change
doesn't mean "evolve." The latter implies something more complicated,
something that interacts with all the influences of the world at large,
including political upheaval, migration, social and communitarian
concerns, interaction with goyishe culture, etc., etc.

RYBS didn't exactly deny this. He simply wanted to live within a purified
Judaism that stood above it.

David Finch

On 12/26/01 I wrote:
>>1. As to the SA/REMA in CM25 applying outside of the area of CM and >>thus 
>>to Issur Ve-Heter: the SA/REMA make several references to Issur >>Ve-Heter 
>>situations.

and RabbiRichWolopoe@aol.com commented:
>Indeed you are correct.  AFAIK though in the Tur and the nos'ei Keilim 
> >{ayein sham} the issue of isur v'heter ONLY comes up re: loss or 
> >property. - eg. if I treif up your chicken by being toeh bidvar mishan 
> >OR beshikkul hada'as by psak cause you a loss.  The Tur etc. does NOT 
> >address the case of - If I publish a sefer suggesting that all >chickens 
>SHOULD be treifed based upon my svara whilst ingoring all of >the 
>subsequent poskim.

>This is critical to understanding the difference in dayan she'ta'a and
>the case of simply ignoring precedent in the more academic side of psak

This comment illustrates, IIUC, that a Dayan/Posek is involved in Horaah
and his decisions are binding on the Toein,Nitan/Shoel because they
are Horaah.

A Mechaber who writes a sefer in not involved in Horaah but in Talmud
Torah. If, based on the erroneous sevarot of the latter, a Rav paskened
incorrectly, the Horaah (and therefore the Taut) is that of the
Dayan/Posek, not of the Mechaber.

The elevation of a SEFER to being an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE that must
be considered in Pesak, however is quite another matter involving,
it appears, widespread acceptance by Chachmei Yisrael over an extended
period of time.

So this example illustrates that the process of Pesak requires
deliberation by the Dayan/Posek and therefore it follows, IIUC, that even
if a Sefer has become authoritative by reason of widespread acceptance, a
Dayan/Posek cannot merely rely on such authority without first considering
the specific Halachic issues involved in the case before him, as Horaah
emanates from the Dayan/Posek, not from the Sefer.

KT
Eliyahu

In a message dated 12/26/01 8:11:47pm EST, acgerstl@hotmail.com writes:
>>This is critical to understanding the difference in dayan she'ta'a and
>>the case of simply ignoring precedent in the more academic side of psak

> This comment illustrates, IIUC,  that a Dayan/Posek is involved in Horaah 
> and his decisions are binding on the Toein,Nitan/Shoel because they are 
> Horaah....
> The elevation of a SEFER to being an AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE that must be 
> considered in Pesak, however is quite another matter involving, it appears, 
> widespread acceptance by Chachmei Yisrael over an extended period of time.

> So this example illustrates that the process of Pesak requires deliberation 
> by the Dayan/Posek and therefore it follows, IIUC, that even if a Sefer has 
> become authoritative by reason of widespread acceptance, a Dayan/Posek 
> cannot merely rely on such authority without first considering the specific 
> Halachic issues involved in the case before him, as Horaah emanates from 
> the Dayan/Posek, not from the Sefer.

Yes this certainly makes sense
The questions remainsing to me are
A)  can (e.g.:)
1) the Rema  2) Mishna Brura 3) Aruch haShulchan  or  4)  R. Moshe Feinstein 
pasken based upon a Minhag or precedent that is in conflict with the Gmara?

And 
B) When they pasken a Halachah based upon a Post-Talmudic minhag or precdent 
only - e.g. Kitniyos - what status does THAT have?     

[2nd email. -mi]

In a message dated 12/26/01 4:56:00pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Because to the Brisker, including RYBS, halachic evolution is from the
> textual sources only. Not from gains in secular knowledge, not from
> minhag. Therefore, anything justifiable from the texts is "okay" fluidity,
> anything else is not.

Quick points. I BEH will start an artilce on how varous "isms" influenced
poskim

Maharil and REma: Minhag
Rambam: Philosophy - espeically Aristotle
Other Sephardim and Gra: Kabbalah 

IOW there are zero poskim who are Talmudic purists - at least since the
Rif! I will BEH send you an artilce off line on Tashlich that I just
received today.

> We find the same thing earlier in the Gra, where he recommends abandoning
> various nuscha'os that are not found in Shas. Because to the Gra, Shas
> has that higher threashold, but rishonim do not.

Yep that is a Sephardic model that has support from the Rambam, Rif,
Ri Migash, and BY to name a few.

Most Ashkenzic Rishonim do NOT follow this w/o at least some reservation.
Rosh and Tur are gray on this.

Tsoafos, Maharil, Maharam, Rema, Aruch haShulcahn have made major
modifcatoins to this

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

RSW wrote:
> Yet RYBS - who felt that Minhag was easy to set aside was adamant that
> dictums such as Tav lemeisavv were immutable and permaent and never
> subject to change. Hence his position against Rackman was firm and
> inflexible. You cannot undo chazakos in Shas at all.

I listened to the pre-RCA 1974 convention shiur of RYBS, where he made
his statement concerning tav lemeitav tan du. It seems that Rackman's
proposal was coming up for a vote at the RCA, and RYBS solicited a
(small) number of talmidim to a(n unusual?) shiur. The tape records
his amazement at the larger than expected turnout, and although I do
not remember whether he mentions Rackman by name, he clearly refered to
him. He proceeds to give a shiur on the nature of horaah in Sanhedrin,
and the status of geirim WRT talmud Torah and hora'ah.

After the shiur is over, he explains his opposition to Rackman's proposal,
and pleads from his talmidim (whom I believe he called colleagues)
and includes his interpretation of 'hazakot such as tav lemeitav tan du.

RYBS's position on 'hazakot is quite difficult, as there are cases where
we overrule previously held 'hazakot, based upon nishtaneh hatevah or that
sicial circumstances have changed. Thus, I believe that his interpretation
of tav lemeitav was not as much a general approach to 'hazakot of 'hazal,
but a particular approach to that 'hazakah. I cannot recall the raayot I
had for this approach of mine on the spot, and would appreciate comments
from the 'hevrah about 'hazakot that obviously changed, especially those
on which RYBS expressed himself.

I will, however, rehash from memory the thrust of RYBS's argument: tav
lemeitav is not based on probabilities, but is the result of a drashah
from the punishment of 'Havah, vehu ymishol bakh, or a similar passuk
that points out that man is moshel over woman. Obvious questions on this
approach is whether vehu yimshol bakh is a tzivuy or a metziyut, and
wherehence does such a drashah come from, considering that the gemarah
makes inferences from tav lemeitav that reflect a probabilistic source,
not a drashah?

One gets the impression, from listening to the tape, that RYBS wasn't
even talking about a general approach to tav lemeitav, as much as an
attack to Rackman's proposal. If I am right in my impressions, then his
opposition to Rackman is much more subtle, though real nonetheless. Also,
it would place RYBS as a "fluidalist" WRT certain gemarot, WRT the thread
on halakhik methodology.

Before I or anybody else becomes too convinced of my interpretation, I
would like to ask the 'hevrah whether RYBS mentioned his interpretation
of tav lemeitav in other circumstances as well, or only in Rackman
related shiurim?

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

More Rambam - Source:  Zvi Lampel's 
Maimonides Introduction to the Talmud Judaica Press 1975

The entire book is worth a read; Chapter 4 is very important
re: Gzeiros see p. 91

Once a gzeiro is consented upon b ythe Sages no dissension from the Gzeria is 
thereon permitted; and once its prohibition becomes widesrepad among al lthe 
Jewish populatoin that Gezeira can never be repealed...

fn 51 a Gzeiro may not be repealed EVEN {emphasis MINE} if the original cause 
for the decreeis inapplicable...

____________________

Perhaps a takkanah such as Mayyim acharonim is different- and if the 
reatoinale goes aways so does the Takkanaha. But a gzeira such as Shchikas 
Sammamin - once accepted cannot be repealed anymore, period - at least 
according to the Rambam.
---------------------

Ch.. 7 pp. 143-144
Therefore the Mishna was the BASIC {empahsis MINE} text to which all other 
works were secondary and subordinate...

_______________

comment: AISI by extension:
Therefore the Talmud Bavli was the BASIC Amoraic text to which all other 
works were secondary and subordinate... 

-----------------------------------
re: Aggados ch. 8 p. 152
The Sages presented their Drashos in a style which the mind of a fool will 
reject them out of hand becasue of his way of thinking. It is improper to 
assign the deficiency to the Drash; one may rather suspect that the 
deficiency is result of his own intellectual shortcomings...

_________________________________

My comment. Sometimes a Halachic principle has hidden agenda, too. That
is perahps why the Gra did not go along with Tosfos's reasoning re:
Mayyim Acharonim and melach Sdomis becasue the Gra was sensitive to
unarticulated meanings hinted at in the text. OTOH, Tosafos was not
leigslating against the Bavli, he was merely being melamed zchus on a
minhag; iow giving it a rationale post facto.
   t
------------------------------------

Raificatoin of Talmud,
Ch. 10 pp. 173-174  

However every word of the babylonian Talmud, all of Israel is obligated
to follow..because all of the words of the Talmud were consented upon
by all Israel.

....

Al of the Geonim who lived in ... Israel Babylon, Spain and France ...
clarified the Talmud's concepts to the people.

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

1) Sorry Reb Michah but this sounds more like Schechter's model of
ratfication by Isreal as making the Talmud binding - as opposed to
it being Torah miSinai.-- smile-- Of course the contents had to be
from Sinai as a pre-requisite... but that is not sufficient in and of
itself... ve'n kan mekmomo leha'arich

2) Rambam seems to endorse Rashi and maybe Tosafos as being explicators
of the Talmud as oppose to modifiers thereof. IOW, I would assume that
poskim like Tosfaos had latitude when dealing with the text of the Talmud
despite the fact that every word is authoritative it does not preclude
interpretatoins that might not be obvious from the text.

3) I'm not sure that the Rambam would buy into over-riding TB with
Yerushalmi etc. but he probably would go for it being used to EXPLAIN
or MODIFY our understanding of a Talmudic sugya.

BEH I will sooon post on the shorter sources found in the Tur and Sa.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

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


[ 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         ]