Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 125

Thursday, March 13 2003

• Re: Who's afraid of dinosuars?
• Fwd: Re: Fwd: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
• RE: Toras Purim
• Re: Shoshanas Yaakov & Purim
• Re: Mishleiach manos
• Re: Zecher amalek
• Re: gadol ha-dor
• Re: Who is a posek?
• Re: Austritts, Cont'd
• Re: earliest mincha
• Re: mamzeirus
• Who's afraid of dinosuars?
• Re: evolution
• Re: Toras Purim 5763, part 2: Megilla and Eydus
• Who can create a mosquito?
• Re: Who can create a mosquito?
• Re: evolution
• Re: Free choice vs. foreknowledge
• Re: Egel HaZahav and Chronology
• Re: Mah Tovu
• Re: krias hatorah
• Hora'as Sha'ah
• R' Yosef Karo's Maggid
• Re: Who is a posek?
• Re: Who is a posek?

In a message dated 3/11/2003 3:18:58 PM EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> So, in short one can believe that everything was created just short
> of 6000 years ago in a moment. The exploding star that is 1 million
> light years away from us never existed. God created the light from such
> an explosion "midstream" to make it look like it existed 1 million light
> years ago. But I choose to reject that explanation in favor of one that
> is in concert with science.

There is a pshut way to answer this
5763 refers to the creation of Adam in Ch. 2 of briu'as ha'alom The big
bang - which may be either 5.9 days ealier or 15 billion years earlier -
is the creation of Ch. 1 of Breishis

Einteinian relitivity - AIUI- can explain how 5 days from one perspective
ca n actually take billions of years from another perspective, because
time - lik e space - is relative to your perspective.

IMHO it is a big mistake to date 5763 to the first day of creation.
Adam wa s created on R'H of year 2, with the hyptoetheical 25th of Ellul
of year one coresponding to day of of the Bria. This highly convolutted
construct is a BIG CLUE that Chazal counted the calendar from ADAM and
left the entire pre-historical era to Year 1 or rather the last 5 days
of year 1 - all of which is really an amorphous construct.

What is clear is that Adam - as a bria chadasha -is just 5763 years old
- an d the torah dates from the time that concepts such as bechira are
formed - and not before.

Then we can say Teiku to the pre-history stuff and really need not be
concerned one way or the other about how long it took.

Furthermore, any anthopological evidence of "humans" before Adam is from
a Torah POV not a bar dei'ah v'dibbur, which as accordging to Rashi are
the quintessential elemtns for Adam Harishon and what makes him a BRIAH
as per the Rambam, a new creature - sort of yeish me-iayin.

Even if you accept evolution up the kazoo of primordial creatures, there
is no way the Torah would construe man as having evolved from animals;
Adam - human is sui generis. Even im timtze lomar that the human body
is from the animals, da'as and dibbur are essential and they are Divine
gifts and may no t be relegated to evolutions. They constitute a complete
break with the past.


FWIW, when engineers consider machines as evolving, they mean that each
successive model is more complex and based upon the previous model PLUS.
They do NOT mean the Darwinina bioolgical model of some kind of mutation.

So AISI, each creature evolved from an earlier one in the sense that
HKBH engineered the universe by creating successively more complex
creations. IOW HKBH's first creatures were simple and each Cerature
Created became more and more complex. It does not imply that Creature 2
mutated from 1 at all. This is Darwin's model, of course. Rather HKBH
created things from simple t o complex, much alike an engineer would
start making a simple automobile such as the Model T and 75 years later
make the more complex Taurus instead This is indeed how Ford's evolved
but not by mutation!

Similarly, anyone reading the Torah will see that life forms were
Created more-and-more complex. You don't need Darwin to see that HKBH
started with Grass and ended up with the most complex Creature of all -
Chavah! --smile--

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

The following good natured rebuke came in from a correspondent:

You should get Malkus..........mamash..... Gedolay HaNistar have said 
everything you mechadesh already and the latest is in the Shelah among 
other places...either you are not quoting bshem omro an aveirah right out 
from the Megillah, plagiarizing or...
Go see RYEmden's Megillah in the Siddur....

To which I responded:

I do not have a Shla"h - which thing is in the Shlah?
I do not have a RYEmden siddur either - what is there?
I am quite pleased to be mechaven! But to what?

To which he responded:
>How can you not have a Shnei Luchos HaBris and claim to fame? the 
>11,12,13,14,15 = 65
>
>And no RYEmden Siddur...he brings down the 65 times Haman is in the 
>Megilla etc and all the hiddens Shem's of HaShem etc
>
>Really, it is comical ...you at least have the Bnei Yissoschars' sefarim?
>
>I even have a sefer Bris Kehunas Olam which is quoted there from an odd 
>non-Rebbe talmid of the Maggid that many quote from today without 
>attribution....
>
>You must at least have A Megale Amukos?

To which I now respond:

Baruch she'kivanti. I looked up the Shela"h (I have the CD) - he does
not have the 65th pasuk idea, but adds to the shem Adnus idea that 11
is the Vav-Heh of the shem ha'mefurash, 15 is the Yud-Heh of the shem,
and 12+13+14=39, the word "Lat," which in Aramaic means curse, i.e.,
Arur Haman (obviously connoting the hamtaka of gevuros when surrounded by
chadasim), and is also, doubtless, the number of malkos my correspondent
would bestow on me :-) . The Shela"h adds more, ayain sham (Derush
l'parashas Zachor).

I do have a BY - rarely use it, unfortunately - and I think I have a
copy of the MA, but have never used it.

>>> Mattan Torah in the Midbar was bechinas yiras ha'onesh, wile Purm
is bechinas yiras ho'romemus...But where is the romemus? The answer is
clearly: "B'makom gedulaso sham attah motzeh anvesanuso." This is not
a paradox that is true, but rather a statement that Hashem's gadlus,
kaveyochol, is his anava...."Bi're'osam yachad techeles Mordechai" -
"techeles domeh l'yam, yam domeh l'raki'ah, v'raki'ah domeh l'kisei
ha'kavod." Why not jump directly to raki'ah? Because the chiddush is
to see how yam - even that which is covered "ka'mayim la'yam mechasim"
- is connected to kisei ha'kavod -not to see how raki'ah is connected,
that's pashut!<<<

Just to add my 2 cents to what others already pointed out, that kabbalas
hatorah was the supreme level of ahavah, see Noam Elimelech, P' Titzaveh,
in conjunction with a long hesber (i.e. too long for me to write) of
the 11,12,13,14,15 of the mishna.

N.E. writes:
"Kiymu v'kiblu, which is darshened 'kiymu l'ma'alah mah sh'kiymu l'matah',
yisrael accepted the Torah in the days of Achashveirosh - lichorah, is it
possible that until the days of Achashveirosh yisrael had not accepted
the Torah? Rather, [it means] they could not reach this **ratzon of
ahavah** until witnessing the great nes done for them in the days of
Achashveirosh, for when a nes is done for a person, one comes to a true
level of ahavah. This is 'orah-zu Torah', they came to the ahavah and
ohr of Torah through the greatness of the nes..."

Techeiles leads to kisay hakavod , which is a mixture of yirah and ahavah,
din mixed with rachamim. However, N.E. is medayek that Mordechai went
out "*blevush* techeiles", the din represented by techeiles was covered
by a levush and was rachamim gemurim.

"Birosam yachad techeiles *mordechai*", davka the enveloped "techeiles
mordechai" (ahavah and rachamim) was the siman hanes, and not the
"ure'isem oso" of techeiles of tzizis (yirah).

-Chaim

In a message dated 3/12/03 8:22:25 AM EST, goldsteinjoel@yahoo.com writes:
> Chazal tell us l'gabei simchas YT we go chatzi lashem and chatzi luchem
> Rav Hutner brings b'sheim the Vilna Gaon that Purim and Yom Kipur are
> two sides of one coin YK is the Lashem side and Purim is the luchem side

And on the other side of the coin Erev Y"K we eat for 2 days, Erev Purim 
(Prozim) we fast.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

There are those that are maddayek from the Mechabur "shtai manos" that
even one min that CAN BE split to two is acceptable.

DS

In a message dated 3/11/2003 3:18:00 PM EST, charlesf.brown@gs.com writes:
> . 2)
> whem formulating the mitzva to remember, the rambam adds "l'orer aivaso"
> - it must be used as a vehicle to arouse hatred, not a history lesson.

Does the above dichotomy meant to imply imply that history lessons are
not meant to be used for his'orrerus?

Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Carl:
>>I don't get this. Imagine a Tzibbur has a right to reject a shliach
>>tzibbur who plays by all the local rules
...
> I meant an individual reciting Kaddish, not a Shaliach Tzibur. While
> that may happen in some shuls, it is rare (except in shuls whose nusach
> is whatever the Shaliach Tzibur happens to use).

ein hachi name - That's what I meant to say and imply that an individual
saying Kaddish is defacto a Shaliach Tziburr WHILST reciting kaddish!
And ergo he should play by the Tzibbur's rules

An exception might made for an ad hoc minyan for Mincha etc.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

It is said over that if a sefer is accepted in later generations then it
is a siman from shamayim. The Chazon Ish writes in Igris that the MB has
a din of Sanhedrin even though HE argued himself. This would seem to say
that if he is your Rav across the board fine(like in Bnei Brak) but for
the klall we should follow the MB. The mechaber of the Badei Hashulchan
(accepted sefer on Yorah Deah) told my father, that his Rebbe R' Hutner
told him, that if you learn through a sugya TOTALLY and you argue on
a posek now a days you can put it in your sefer. You will notice he is
rarely makel like RMF in his sefer on niddah.

DS

In a message dated 2/26/2003 6:37:05 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> No, my comprehension is quite good, thank you. I see your chilluk. I
> contend that it is not mechallek. (The SE, BTW, was he a Grossgemeinde
> kind'a guy? The Hidesheimer seminary was pro-Austritts - do you know
> that he was against the official policy?) I have not seen any ra'ayah,
> other than your contention and your claim that it is otherwise.

Hildesheimer AFAIK was pro-Austritt's OTOH, and OTOH, was less strident
against the Grossgemeinde as were the Frankfurt Hirschians. IOW, the
ideal of separatism wsa there but the tone was a bit friendlier - at
least towards the Observant members of the Grossgemeinde.

The Berlin Seminary had a more progressive attitudes towards Zionism,
Wissenschaft, and Bernard Revel's Yeshiva as opposed to say their cousins
in Frankfort.

AISI, the Breuer Gemeinde's version of Austritts has caused great
tension with say E.G. YU, while it is my firm belief that the Berlin
version might have had cordial relations YU even while pursuing their
flavor of Austritts. I think Marc Shapiro's book made this clear.

FWIW R. Prof. MS Feldblum A"H of the Bernard Revel Grad School saw
himself as a follower and successor to R. DZ Hoffmann....
  
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/12/2003 8:23:41 AM EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> There are four places in the Igros Moshe where R' Moshe asserts -
> based on a mesora from his father - that the time of chatzos is fixed
> the entire year. In one of them - some had asserted that the yeshiva
> calendar was incorrect. I was told that after his petira - R' Dovid
> conducted the yeshiva according to everyone else's concept of chatzos.

Even w/o sha'as zmaniyyos, Chatzos is at a differnet time depending upon
whre you are wihtin a given time zone. IOW the Easternmost potion of
a time zone has an earlier Chatzos then does the Westernmot portion,

So it is possible that chatzos is fixed all year, but it is still not
fixed at every location using standard time.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

I was once learning with a well known Posek in Flatbush and someone called
in with a shaileh. Can a woman who couldn't carry a child give her egg to
her sister. The shaileh being that the brother-in-law would be fertilizing
the egg of his sister-in-law. The Rav paskened that the status "mother"
goes after birth and the woman who gave the egg is not even the mother.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>I really suggest reading up on the state of the debate. Your
>arguments have been addressed and rebutted. There may be newer and
>better arguments, but that requires catching up on the material.
>See <http://www.talkorigins.org>...
>I'd start with "5 Major Misconceptions About Evolution",
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>.

Not that I know anything about this subject, but in
the interest of fairness you should also tell people
to check out <http://www.trueorigin.org> especially
<http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp> a rebuttal to tyhe "5 Major
Misconceptions About Evolution" article.

Granted that the evidence for evolution is there, and it seems distasteful
that Hashem would deliberately plant evidence to deceive us. But the
evidence is also there that we earn our paychecks (at least the secular
world takes this as a given), whereas we all know the parnasa is from
Hashem. Why shouldn't this latter "deception" be distasteful as well?

On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 11:53:48PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> The basic oxymoron: the pasuq starts "timcheh" and ends "lo tishkakh".
...
: Why not learn it as "timcheh" but until you're m'kayem "timcheh," "lo 
: tishkach." That strikes me as pshat in the pasuk. 

Because that would rule out the role of the mitzvah in yemos hamoshiach.

Purim, which the gemara says is the most likely to survive the ge'ulah,
you're now making the least!

-mi

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

RHM:
> You cannot say that the evolution of a mosquito is trivial.

Your daughter's experiments do not involve the "evolution of a mosquito."
You haven't said what they do involve, but I'm guessing some heritable
trait of the mosquito changes in the course of several generations in
response to environmental changes. No one has a clue how to create a
mosquito, or a gnat, or an amoeba, from a creature that wasn't already
a mosquito. Breed mosquitoes for a thousand thousand years and they will
still be giving birth to baby mosquitoes.

I am further guessing that whatever trait "evolves" in your daughter's
evolution experiments, the gene for it was already present in the moquito
population she started with. I am willing to hear that I am wrong.

Toby Katz

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 12:20:32AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Your daughter's experiments do not involve the "evolution of a mosquito."
: You haven't said what they do involve, but I'm guessing some heritable
: trait of the mosquito changes in the course of several generations in
: response to environmental changes. No one has a clue how to create a
: mosquito, or a gnat, or an amoeba, from a creature that wasn't already
: a mosquito. Breed mosquitoes for a thousand thousand years and they will
: still be giving birth to baby mosquitoes....

How do you know? Isn't that a huge extrapolation from what's possible
during the course of a semester and what's possilbe over a million
years?

Lema'aseh they've found animals that until then were "missing links"
between one labeled species and another. We simply labeled ther gaps
before it and after it as two new missing links and said that evolution
has yet to find a transitional animal. That ends up being definitionally
true, and meaningless.

: I am further guessing that whatever trait "evolves" in your daughter's
: evolution experiments, the gene for it was already present in the moquito
: population she started with. I am willing to hear that I am wrong.

Also, I again refer you to what the opposition says on talkorigins.com,
you'd have to resort to guessing less often.

There are entire new features found in popultions that have evolved in
the labe. Not just differences in population statistics of the color
of peppered moths. There are even new features that make it impossible
for members of the new population to breed with members of the old --
speciation.

Evolution is occuring. That much is provable fact. Something which (as
I noted earlier) will keep the pharmeceutical industry busy.

The fossil record seems to indicate that evolution had occured.

I don't know then how someone -- especially someone who has no problem
with the notion of an old universe -- would deny that evolution is how
G-d created the species.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

From: rach elms79 [mailto:rachelms79@hotmail.com]
> Granted that the evidence for evolution is there, and it seems distasteful 
> that Hashem would deliberately plant evidence to deceive us.  But the 
> evidence is also there that we earn our paychecks (at least the secular 
> world takes this as a given), whereas we all know the parnasa is from 
> Hashem.  Why shouldn't this latter "deception" be distasteful as well?

Indeed it is; which is why I dislike your formulation (and that of Rav
Dessler)--it does seem illogical that Hashem would deliberately deceive us.
Rather, the view that I support (based on Rambam, Ramban and others) is that
there is an interplay between our hishtadlus and Hashem's hashgacha--"im
Hashem lo yivneh ir, shav omlu bonav bo"--the world & nature are real, and
man harnesses nature, but w/o Hashem's guidance, success will not come.

Look at the Avodah archives (searching keywords bitachon and histadlus)
for more on this issue.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 01:15:56PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:> What it means is that Hashem is giving the ko'ach and mamashus to the
:> chotei to do his cheit. In a manner, He is participating ("up close") in
:> allowing the sin to happen. "Bederekh she'adam rotzeh leileich..." This
:> is discussed at length at the begining of Tomer Devorah.
...
: Distance means G-d's non-interferance to right wrongs...

That's not the definition I assumed. I took "distance" to mean the
difference between HQBH biKhvodo ube'Atzmo doing something vs al
yedei shali'ach, or by allowing humans or teva (if teva really exists)
to act.

Which is why I spoke of being "up close" but still allowing -- and
even helping -- wrongs being perpetrated.

-mi

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

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:05:08AM -0600, sholom@aishdas.org wrote:
: I have read an amazingly awesome (imho) sicha
: from the Rebbe on the various chronologies. (See
: <http://www.chabad.org/Parshah/Article.asp?AID=1329>).
...
: The L Rebbe notes that there are _three_ chronologies: described by
: Ramban, Rashi, and the Zohar - and then learns a lesson from all three.

We touched on this sichah in our discussion of eilu va'eilu in Avodah's
early days. The question is applying such plurality when the machloqes
is over historical fact.

Perhaps it's possible to darshen the sevarah of each even if two
of the three sevaros lead to deductions that weren't born out
by metzi'us. After all, in halakhah as well, the pesaq is one of
many right answers -- why not in history?

-mi

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

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:52:37AM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:> Given chazal's peshat on the pasuq, as quoted by Rashi, why does the
:> pasuq need a BhM me'at? After all, the tzeni'us of how the "common"
:> home was aligned is also included in the praise of "tovu"!

: We can say the posuk at any time; the Q was whether we should say it
: while entering a bais ovail...

To me the question wasn't when should we say it, but when are we
permitted to.

I thought the Q was when we could say it lesheim shevach, and therefore
avoid issues of talmud Torah beveis avel (or TT before birkhas haTorah).
I therefore argued that the shevach would be appropriate entering any
bayis ne'eman and therefore Mah Tovu need not be thought of as TT in
this context.

That parenthetic remark about birkhas haTorah brings me to...

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 11:58:42AM -0600, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
:>                 Does the fact that there is a 2nd chiyuv, a matbei'ah
:> tefillah -- which is therefore derabbanan -- not make it also a qiyum
:> of limud TSBK?

: That is the 2 deyos in S"A 46:9, see M"B there. Issue comes up for saying
: selichos before birchas hatorah.  Ain hachi nami, maybe saying pesukim as
: tefillah is not the same cognitive process that we call t"t.

How do they differ? Or, to put it more accurately, how are they guaranteed
not to overlap?

I sometimes find new he'aros while davening. Is that not TT?

For that matter, how do we define the "cognitive process" of TT when
simply chazering pesuqim of TSBK whose peshat we understand -- or even
if we don't?

-mi

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

On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 11:31:12AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Since acc. to Rosh, R' Eliezer freed his eved to make a minyan for parshas
: zachor, that at least must be a chovas hayachid of keriya b'tzaibbur.
: If every keriyas hatorah worked this way, it would fit nicely as a a
: "ke'eyn d'orasya tikkun".

: R. YBS has a distinction between t'fila shel tsibur and t'fila
: b'tsibur. If you apply this to krias hatorah, there would be no proof
: form the above. It might also remove the proof form the milchamos;
: perhaps, even, that is how R. Chaim obviated that proof.

Since RYBS repeated this chiluq besheim Reb Chaim, the answer is effective
whether R' Chaim said it or not.

-mi

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:58:36PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Hor'as Sho'a is not really an excpetion, rather it is a temporary
: suspension in a limited circumstance. The ikkar hadin remains intact

I like R' Moshe Koppel's description.

Ratzon Hashem is far too complex for any set of rules. In that sense,
halachah is like rules of grammar. It captures the proper use of the
language but is necessarily overly simplified and overly safe.

Someone who is really in touch with the language can take poetic
license, and can express something clearly while still defying
the rules we all studied in school.

A navi, who is in communication with ratzon Hashem, is similarly
capable of following that ratzon in ways that defy the halachah
as codified. But these things are exceptions, merely for the
special case, the sha'ah.

-mi

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

On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 07:45:13AM -0500, I sent the Hakhel bulletin
which said
:                                                       The Mishne Berurah
: (ibid., seif katan 1) writes that l'chatchila one should come to shul
: early so that he does not have to skip, because the seforim write that
: the Maggid [Eliyahu HaNavi] warned the Bais Yosef (R' Yosef Karo Z'TL)
: to come to the Beis Hakenesses early so that he would daven in order,
: without skipping, because one who skips is Mehapech Tzinoros (upsets
: the channels of prayer to Heaven).

I recall R' Aryeh Kaplan saying that RYK's maggid was the mal'ach
that embodied Mishnah. RYK was a gilgul of R' Yehudah haNasi, and
through his learning was able to communicate to the mal'ach of the
earlier halachic work.

-mi

On 12 Mar 2003 at 21:32, Dovid S & Avital Lipsett wrote:
> It is said over that if a sefer is accepted in later generations then
> it is a siman from shamayim. The Chazon Ish writes in Igris that the
> MB has a din of Sanhedrin even though HE argued himself. This would
> seem to say that if he is your Rav across the board fine(like in Bnei
> Brak) but for the klall we should follow the MB.

I'm glad you reopened this issue. A few months ago we had an argument on
this list as to whether the MB intended his sefer to be used to pasken
halacha l'ma'aseh. People brought evidence from his hakdama that he did
not so intend it. I just learned through the hakdama and I have to say
that I just don't see any evidence that the MB did not intend the sefer
to be used to pasken halacha. Aderaba. In the fourth paragraph from the
end he writes, "gam beiarti bo bimkom she'nimtza deos bein ha'poskim
es maskonas ha'achronim l'halacha al kol din." Sounds like paskening to
me. Comments?

-- Carl

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:29:57AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:                   I just learned through the hakdama and I have to say
: that I just don't see any evidence that the MB did not intend the sefer
: to be used to pasken halacha. Aderaba. In the fourth paragraph from the
: end he writes, "gam beiarti bo bimkom she'nimtza deos bein ha'poskim es
: maskonas ha'achronim l'halacha al kol din." Sounds like paskening to
: me.

Sounds like bringing a survey of pisqei halachah of various acharonim
to me. IIRC, RSM included this line in his translation.

The question is whether "maskonas ha'achronim" means a single maskanah
of numerous acharonim, or the maskanah reached by each acharon.

-mi

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


[ 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         ]