Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 107

Tuesday, February 18 2003

• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus - answer key
• Re: tehillim hachida
• Re: tehillim hachida
• Re: Torah difficulty
• Re: Chamushim
• Re: On the origin of drashot
• Re: talking/tfillin
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus - answer key
• Re: Half a pasuk
• Re: Half a pasuk
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus - answer key
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus
• Re: Self Evident Apikorsus - answer key
• Re: Half a pasuk
• Re: Torah difficulty
• Re: Torah difficulty
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun

having given you the chance to separate the wheat from the chaff so
to speak, or the real koif'rim from from the look alikes, here is an
answer key.

> 1. i'm not really sure if these letters/words were actually part of the 
> original torah text, so lets just mark them for later removal or 
> confirmation.

1. Ezra Hassofeir, per B'midbor rabboh

> 2. of course the bible critics are quite correct. the torah does contain
> many contradictory versions from different perspectives that are not
> harmonizable as the traditionalist approach has it.

2. R. Mordechai Breuer

> 3. to say our torah is like moshe's torah should not be understood
> literally, because it isn't. rather it should be understood in the general
> sense, i.e. it is for all intents and purposes the same as moshe's.

3. R. Yaacov Weinberg z"l (late rosh yesivoh of ner israel)

> 4. The Priestly code is a rather late development.

4. Julius Wellhausen

> 5. Ezra changed words of the torah

5. Oakhloh V'oakhloh

> 6. Ezra changed words of the torah, but that only restored the original
> version which moshe had.

6. halivni

> 7. the sof'rim changed words of the torah

7. Rashi

> 8. there really is no religious objection to investigations of Lower
> Bible Criticism (i.e. those that deal with purely textual-girsoh issues).

8. R. Hirschenson, Malki Baqqodesh

> 9. of course there are verses in the torah that are post-moshe (and not
> just the joshua 8 or 12)

9. Ibn Ezra, rasbam, R. avigdor

> 10. anshei k'neses hagg'doloh wrote some parts of chumosh

10. Midrash Tanchumo, R. Yehudoh Ha'chosid

> 11. dovid hammelech did some chumosh editing. took out hallel haggodol
> from b'midbor and stuck it into t'hilim.

11. R. yehudoh Ha'chosid

> 12. what we mean by saying moshe wrote down torah was the main narrative,
> but here and there additions that didn't add up to a real section is OK.

12. R. Yom Tov Elem

> 13. when writing down words nobody much paid attention to matters like
> precise spellings or little conjunctives let alone moleh v'choseir.
> this was an individual thing by the scribe. what they faithfully preserved
> was the meaning.

13. Ibn Ezra

> 14.  you know, that version of the torah which the Rambam himself had
> was not identical to our own.

14. R. Yaacov Kaminetzky

a few notes. i tossed in one softball - #4 - just so even the least
apikorsus sensitive souls amongst us might find something at which
to throw a metaphorical rock since i know that's when arivimites
feel happiest. the other note is that i really am not familiar with
halivnis latest work and my one liner summary is based entirely on the
book reviews which RSBA (?, or someone) copied and which evidently was
considered a prima facie demonstration of apikorsus. in the context of
the spread of opinions represented by 1-14 above it seems to me rather
(SMALL c) conservative. finally, many more citations could have been
brought and other "outrageous" opinions could have been cited but i
thought this was sufficient to make the point. i should also mention
that i found a number of the citations (5, 8, 9-12) in shapiro's tum
article on maimonidean principles.

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

From: <sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
>> (- note the "velomed" - that's from
>> the Sansan l'Yair (which I saw inside) that says also "yilmad."

>> Eh??
>
> Nisht "zohgen," nohr "lehrnen."

Are you should that this doesn't really mean 'saying'  - as we do?
How does one 'learn' Tehillim? With Rashi? Metzudos?

>> I am not sure what the heter is to print Tehillim al pi Alef Beis.

>> Does this need a hetter? The Chido says he saw such tehillims in his day.

> The Chida did not print them!

But neither did he condemn them. 
Aderaba he talks about using it as a segula against problems.

> The issur to write a Sefer Torah like this is in Berachos 12b (paraphrasing):
> "Kol parashah d'lo paskei Moshe anan lo paskinan lei."

I don't have a gemoro here but IIRC it's "Kol piske" - and if so would
IMO mean - not to mangle a posuk - rather than saying them not in order.
After all, are all the kapitlech and psukim from tehilim that we say in
our tefilos in proper order?

> such a sefer is b'geder sefer she'eino mugheh and Al tashken
> b'oholecha avlah.

Only if your above conclusions are correct.

SBA

"SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au> writes on Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:27:17 +1100: 
>> Nisht "zohgen," nohr "lehrnen." 

> Are you should that this doesn't really mean 'saying'  - as we do? 
> How does one 'learn' Tehillim? With Rashi? Metzudos? 

Yes! Learning alos mitigates the problem RDR raised from YD 179:8. The
Chida knew very well how to write "yomar" if that is what he wanted
to say.

As to how to learn, I imagine any way is good, but me'stamah the Chida
meant to learn in some Kabbalistic manner.

> But neither did he condemn them. 
> Aderaba he talks about using it as a segula against problems. 

No, he does not talk about using *them*. 

Who knows how they were printed, really? 

But the fact that none of us are aware, with our collective knowledge,
of any such "Likkutei Tehillim" being printed in the last 200 or so
years until the 2000's says something...

> I don't have a gemoro here but IIRC it's "Kol piske" - and if so would IMO 
> mean - not to mangle a posuk - rather than saying them not in order. 
> After all, are all the kapitlech and psukim from tehilim that we say in our 
> tefilos in proper order? 

Then I suggest you get a Gemara out and learn the sugya (are you back
in Tasmania?). The sugyah is talking explicitly about saying a pasuk
out of the context of its parashah.

While there is clearly a heter to say isolated pesukim in tefillah
k'sidram even if it is not a whole parashah, there is no heter to print
(and perhaps even to say) pesukim in random order - again, this is a
Sefer Torah, but I imagine that there is a similar geder for all of
Torah she'b'Ksav.

>> such a sefer is b'geder sefer she'eino mugheh and Al tashken 
>> b'oholecha avlah. 

> Only if your above conclusions are correct. 

Correct. Did I claim that even if I was incorrect on all my hanachos I
would be correct about this one?!

YGB 

In Avodah 10:103, Rabbi Bechhofer responded to a question about the war
with Midian, where we were told (Bamidbar 31:17) to kill even the "taf",
which is usually translated as "children" or "infants".

Rabbi Bechhofer wrote <<< The innocents amongst these eight nations who
are willing to accept the seven laws are not to be killed. This surmise
is based on a comment by Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk I recently
saw. The Rambam rules that even women and children who were not part
of the group judged guilty in an "Ir ha'Nidachas" (the city that was
idolatrous) are put to death. Reb Chaim says that it is impossible
to accept that utterly innocent individuals are executed. Rather,
this refers to individuals who were idolatrous, but were not properly
forewarned. This means that if the majority of the city's males were
properly forewarned and testimony against them met all parameters, then
other guilty parties against whom not all the parameters of testimony
may exist are included in the penalty - but not innocents. >>>

I want to make sure that I am understanding this correctly, so I offer a
paraphrase of what I think it means: Reb Chaim refers to three distinct
groups: (A) People who were guilty of idolatry, and can be convicted
of that in court, are obviously put to death. (B) If most of the city's
males are in Group A, then the city becomes an Ir haNidachas, with the
result that people who committed idolatry are also put to death even if
the were not properly warned. (C) But people who were actually innocent
of idolatry would never be put to death.

The first surprising thing about this opinion is that the story is no
longer about a Jewish army which invaded Midian and killed all the men,
boys, women, and older girls. Now the story requires the army to examine
each individual, to see whether they belong to Group A, Group B, or Group
C. But, okay, the Torah doesn't say how long the battle took, maybe they
really did investigate each individual, and all those Midianites were
so dedicated to their ways that many/most of them did their avodah zara
while the Jewish army was watching.

My next question is: How would Reb Chaim explain the word "taf"?

The Torah goes out of its way to tell us that these penalties apply not
only to the men and women of Midian, but also to their "taf". If Reb
Chaim holds that innocents are exempted, then he must concede that it
possible for a "taf" to be guilty of idolatry, at least in Group B.

The Torah also tells us that a *female* taf is exempt if she is below
the age of "yodaas ish". (Bamidbar 31:17-18) This teaches us that not
only might an *ordinary* taf be guilty of idolatry, but even an unusually
young girl can be guilty of idolatry, and would be executed were it not
for the Torah's explicit exemption.

Rashi explains these pesukim as saying that this exemption applies only
to a girl who is too young to be *fit* for sexual relations, which I
understand to be 3 years old. If Reb Chaim agrees with Rashi on this,
he would have to be saying that it is possible for a girl aged 35 months
to be guilty of idolatry. It is difficult for me to imagine that such
a young girl has the mental capacity to actually be guilty of idolatry,
but if Reb Chaim says so, then I'll accept it.

Alternatively, perhaps Reb Chaim rejects Rashi, and says that even older
girls can avoid execution, as long as she hasn't actually *had* sexual
relations. In this case, the Torah's use of the word "taf" should not be
understood as referring to infants, or even young children, but to minors
in general, so that an older boy or older girl would be executed as a
member of Group A or Group B, even if still below the age of being an
adult. Does anyone know if Reb Chaim explicitly speaks about this Rashi?

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 1/22/2003 9:06:09 PM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Point #2: We are told that 80% of the Bnei Yisrael were not worthy of
> being part of the Exodus, and died during the plague of darkness. Only
> the other 20% were worty enough to be Redeemed.
> 
> Question: Last Shabbos, Beshalach, on the pasuk "A fifth of the Bnei
> Yisrael made aliyah from Eretz Mitzrayim" (13:18) a friend asked this
> question: Were any attempts made in Mitzrayim to be mekarev the other 80%?

Question:
among the 20% survivors were MANY resha'im - E.G.: Dassan and Avirom
So how come all Resh'aim did not perish BEFORE the Exodus?

Answer:
I have my own peshat on this, but I'll let the Chevra respond first

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

In a message dated 1/30/2003 4:49:58 AM EST, afolger@aishdas.org writes:
> If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, 
> as applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
> was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
> generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
> bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
>   paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
>   Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

question:
What about the chumra of "ein choltin" on Pesach, whose source is AIUI
Ganoic and not Talmudic

I was planning a more elaborate post on this issue showing the Mishnah,
the Rambam and the SA and how it has evolved.

More later BEH

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/14/2003 7:09:51 AM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> The trumat hadeshen based on the gemorah menuachot 36a holds that even
> on chol hamoed if you put on tfillin without a bracha you still can't
> talk between putting on the shel yad and rosh. Does anyone know if this
> is the generally accepted rule? Would it apply if you put on tfillin
> before the zman in the AM?

I heard also that between shel yad and shel rosh of Rabbeinu Tam which
are put on w/o a baracha one should not be mafsiks which is IMHO it is
a problem to put on Tefillin of RT during Chazaras Hashatz although
not such a big problem in taking off Tefillin - because between shel
yad and shel rosh one could not answer therefore one is in a sense not
being yotzei listneing.

But I have no sources. nay help would be appreicated

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/17/03 9:51:15 PM EST, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com writes:
>> 3. to say our torah is like moshe's torah should not be understood
>> literally, because it isn't. rather it should be understood in the general
>> sense, i.e. it is for all intents and purposes the same as moshe's.

> 3. R. Yaacov Weinberg z"l (late rosh yesivoh of ner israel)

Yes, Marc Shapiro's red herring. When the Gemara (Kiddushin 29 or 30)
says the same thing. RYW was saying "We are not bekiim in Chaseiros
and Yeseiros", but in a different way.

Raffy

From: sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
> A number of years ago I adopted the minhag of just starting from "Yom
> HaShishi" as I believe there is a leniency for less than three words.

Isn't that the reason for our minhag (doesn't everyone do it?) of saying
'Vayhi erev vayhi voyker' in an undertone?

SBA

RYGB:
:> A number of years ago I adopted the minhag of just starting from "Yom
:> HaShishi" as I believe there is a leniency for less than three words.

As in "'Zeh Keili' anu, ve'amru 'Hashem yimlokh le'olam va'ed'".

(Note the comma between "anu, ve'amru".)

On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:28:13pm +1100, RSBA wrote:
: Isn't that the reason for our minhag (doesn't everyone do it?) of saying
: 'Vayhi erev vayhi voyker' in an undertone?

But that's still half a pasuq. I do know people who start with "Vayar
E-lokim es kol asher asah vehinei tov me'od; vayehi erev..." Last time
around this is where RGD (IIRC) posted the idea that dividing along an
esnachta could be sufficient for this din.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 2/17/2003 9:51:15 PM EST, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com writes:
> >7. the sof'rim changed words of the torah

> 7. Rashi

I'm not sure which Rashi...
R. Dr. MS Feldblum taught us that the term Tikkun Sofrim was not literally
a change of the text BY the Sofrim but was an idomatic way of saying the
text is using a euphemistic circumlocution somewhat like using lashon
sagi nahor.

> >8. there really is no religious objection to investigations of Lower
> >Bible Criticism (i.e. those that deal with purely textual-girsoh issues).

> 8. R. Hirschenson, Malki Baqqodesh

I have maintained this on this list for years that Lower Criticism
is kosher
Again RDMSF claimed that Sanhedrin 100 only prohibited stating that Moshe
introduced a letter on his own, it did not preclude scribal errors from
creeping into the text. The editions of the Rambam in Shas have this as
a possibility but I have seemd that Kafach has the Rambam's shita that
the Torah's WE have do not have a single change...

Leshitassi, the Rambam's 13 ikkarim are to counter very specfic
hereisis. The moslem Heresy is that the Tanach is a corrupted book and
is unreliable. Implicit is that the Jews corrupted it consciously.
The extreme oppostion is that every nekudah is MiSinai, but this
extreme reaction is IMHO tafosta mrubah.... rather waht is fair to say
is that various texts were innocnetly corrupted by scriabla erros with
no intention of altering the text for any agneda. Similarly, Ezra
was doing restoration not innovation. Of course this concedes that
the Moslem polemic as a grain of truth . So the safest way is to deny
it 100%. as abovve a rigid position creates its own set of difficutlies
to maintain. And just because we concede some possible errors does not
mean that we are modeh bemiktzas in any negative way

Now what do we do with Torah Codes, gmatiras, and other remazim? if we
do not have a 100% accurate picture of hte Sinaitic Torah, what good is
all of our drashos based upon an even slightly altered text?

Here is my answer: any alteration of the Torah that has subsequently
been ordained as Halachic sets up its own parameters, and you could
say that HKBH endorses the current verions as inevitable or bashert,
af al pi it is not what was said bediyyuk on Sinai.

Lemashal, we do not have to go back to Sinai to determine whether
Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin is correct as opposed to Rashi. We follow the
Halachic process such as it is. If someday we discover that Rabbeinu
Tam was the version that conformed to Sinai then we would re-consider
the matter, but IMOH it could never passul Rashi's Tefilin retroactively.
IOW what is Kosher today IS what is Kosher

And any attempt to find out what the original text said is IMHO only for
theoretical puprsose and in and of itself would not Halachically alter
any Torah

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

On 17 Feb 2003 at 18:39, Michael Frankel wrote:
> i am always impressed by demonstrations of the finely tuned apikorsus
> antennae possessed by members of the list and thought i'd try an
> experiment. Consider the following baker's dozen quotations/paraphrases
> and maybe RCarl, or others, could let us know just when that apikorsus
> gauge goes past critical. RCarl might want to slip into some old clothes
> before reading further. (make that BD+1, i added one more just before
> sending this)

The statement that I implied was apikorsus was the implication that 
the Torah was "divinely inspired" rather than min ha'Shamayim. That's 
(AIUI) standard C doctrine denying Torah l'Moshe mi'Sinai.  

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

In a message dated 2/17/2003 9:51:15 PM EST, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com writes:
> >7. the sof'rim changed words of the torah

> 7. Rashi

I'm not sure which Rashi...
R. Dr. MS Feldblum taught us that the term Tikkun Sofrim was not literally
a change of the text BY the Sofrim but was an idomatic way of saying the
text is using a euphemistic circumlocution somewhat like using lashon
sagi nahor.

> >8. there really is no religious objection to investigations of Lower
> >Bible Criticism (i.e. those that deal with purely textual-girsoh issues).

> 8. R. Hirschenson, Malki Baqqodesh

I have maintained this on this list for years that Lower Criticism
is kosher
Again RDMSF claimed that Sanhedrin 100 only prohibited stating that Moshe
introduced a letter on his own, it did not preclude scribal errors from
creeping into the text. The editions of the Rambam in Shas have this as
a possibility but I have seemd that Kafach has the Rambam's shita that
the Torah's WE have do not have a single change...

Leshitassi, the Rambam's 13 ikkarim are to counter very specfic
hereisis. The moslem Heresy is that the Tanach is a corrupted book and
is unreliable. Implicit is that the Jews corrupted it consciously.
The extreme oppostion is that every nekudah is MiSinai, but this
extreme reaction is IMHO tafosta mrubah.... rather waht is fair to say
is that various texts were innocnetly corrupted by scriabla erros with
no intention of altering the text for any agneda. Similarly, Ezra
was doing restoration not innovation. Of course this concedes that
the Moslem polemic as a grain of truth . So the safest way is to deny
it 100%. as abovve a rigid position creates its own set of difficutlies
to maintain. And just because we concede some possible errors does not
mean that we are modeh bemiktzas in any negative way

Now what do we do with Torah Codes, gmatiras, and other remazim? if we
do not have a 100% accurate picture of hte Sinaitic Torah, what good is
all of our drashos based upon an even slightly altered text?

Here is my answer: any alteration of the Torah that has subsequently
been ordained as Halachic sets up its own parameters, and you could
say that HKBH endorses the current verions as inevitable or bashert,
af al pi it is not what was said bediyyuk on Sinai.

Lemashal, we do not have to go back to Sinai to determine whether
Rabbeinu Tam's Tefillin is correct as opposed to Rashi. We follow the
Halachic process such as it is. If someday we discover that Rabbeinu
Tam was the version that conformed to Sinai then we would re-consider
the matter, but IMOH it could never passul Rashi's Tefilin retroactively.
IOW what is Kosher today IS what is Kosher

And any attempt to find out what the original text said is IMHO only for
theoretical puprsose and in and of itself would not Halachically alter
any Torah

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

On 18 Feb 2003 at 15:28, SBA wrote:
> From: sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
>> A number of years ago I adopted the minhag of just starting from "Yom
>> HaShishi" as I believe there is a leniency for less than three words.

> Isn't that the reason for our minhag (doesn't everyone do it?) of saying
> 'Vayhi erev vayhi voyker' in an undertone?

I actually say the entire pasuk in an undertone and then start Yom 
HaShishi out loud. 

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

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

At 09:19 PM 2/17/03 -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>I want to make sure that I am understanding this correctly, so I offer a
>paraphrase of what I think it means: Reb Chaim refers to three distinct
>groups: (A) People who were guilty of idolatry, and can be convicted
>of that in court, are obviously put to death. (B) If most of the city's
>males are in Group A, then the city becomes an Ir haNidachas, with the
>result that people who committed idolatry are also put to death even if
>the were not properly warned. (C) But people who were actually innocent
>of idolatry would never be put to death.

Yes.

>The first surprising thing about this opinion is that the story is no
>longer about a Jewish army which invaded Midian and killed all the men,
>boys, women, and older girls. Now the story requires the army to examine
>each individual, to see whether they belong to Group A, Group B, or Group
>C. But, okay, the Torah doesn't say how long the battle took, maybe they
>really did investigate each individual, and all those Midianites were
>so dedicated to their ways that many/most of them did their avodah zara
>while the Jewish army was watching.

No.

R' Chaim was not speaking retrospectively but prospectively. I do not
think that incidents in Tanach have to be taken not at pshat-value.

>My next question is: How would Reb Chaim explain the word "taf"?

The same way he explains nashim in the Rambam on ir ha'nidachas (again,
prospectively, not referring to specific historical incidents in Tanach).


Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> This definition seems to totally ignore (what I view to be) the main
> question of the original asker, which was: What about the infants and
> children?

The mitzva is to destroy a civilization; killing people is the means
to that end. In terms of halacha l'maaseh it doesn't affect us, since
only God has the authority to tell us when a civilization is so depraved
that it must be destroyed. In terms of theory it does affect us, and
the point is precisely that sometimes we have to kill the innocent to
prevent them from growing up to become guilty (there is a similar point
in ben Sorrer UMoreh, which also never comes up halacha l'maaseh).

David Riceman

In a message dated 2/16/2003 7:56:24 AM EST, mgofman@zahav.net.il writes:
> Poskim do not make up their own halachos. If they poskin a certain way in
> the Rambam, it is because they sincerely believe, with all intellectual
> honesty, that the Rambam meant it that way.

Have you ever asked a poseik this personally?

Better, have you ever asked a poseik the following
How did you read the Rambam this way when it goes completely against
your own shita on the matter?

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 2/16/2003 4:43:41 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I don't understand this phrase. Are you saying there are things in the
> Torah its Author didn't intend? Lich'orah, if some conflicting connotation
> is there, it's because He wanted it to be there.

This is really simple
HKBH sees all possible interpretations at the beginning
Furthermore, unlike us, He is not bound by time so He saw every pshat
ever conceived or that will be conceived already

OTOH, I can tell you this, and we have a classic aggedita to back this
up, it is quite likely that OUR pshat in a passuk was completely NOT
perceived by Moshe Rabbeinu at any time in his life.

Fuithermore, I can say that statments in Mishnah may be construed in a
way dtotally different then intended.

Lemashal, I am now learning eilu Ovrin. According to Kahhatti Rashi
and otehrs hold that it is really simple, that is you are oveir if
you leave any of these things around. Bartenura et. al. change Ovrin
to mean Meva'arin. I claim that if the Mishnah MEANT meva'arin w/o
meaning Ovrin it could have stated it that way. It is pashut to read
it is written and get pshat.

Either you are overi on these imn hattorah because hztai shiur is assur
min hatorha
af al pi that you do not get malkos
OR if you pasken like Reish Lakeish why not say you are overi midivrei
Sofrim


As fas I can see this meva'arin is pilpulistic. Nevertheless, rov
Rishonin like meva'arin better. Now jsut maybe saying meva'arin conforms
the Mishan ot PSAK HALACAH, but it's a big kvethc on pshat.
Did those Rsihonim who reconfigured Ovrin to Meva'arin really believe
that this is better pshat in the Mishnah?

OR

Did they kvetch it because if you left it alone as written it would tend
to promote a pshat that was knegged the bottom line psak.


The first claims that the Mishnah was written in the most obscure way
to fool you and you need Chazal to bail you out. Taken this to its
l;ogicla conclusion you can never know pshat in anything and the words
toe'h bidvar Mishnah are seomthing to be expected not avoided.

OTOH

The latter just claims that Rishonim were quite capable of an obje ctive
read but felt that most people would be misled so they forced a less
pshat-orioented read to conform with the way we pasken

OR there is some other reason for the Mishanh not saying what it means.
Take your pick

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <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         ]