Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 032

Thursday, June 3 2004

• RE: Electricity on YomTov
• Re: R. Belsky and sheitels
• Re: R. Belsky and sheitels
• Re: sheitels (or shaitlach)
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Kiddush in shul
• Re: rov
• Re: VIDC
• Re: orla
• Re: Nusach shmoneh esreh hakadum b'eretz yisrael
• Re: Avodah V13 #31
• Re: Godol Me'Rav-Rabbi, Godol Me'rabbi-Rabbon, Godol me'rabbon -- sh'mo".
• Nusach shmoneh esreh hakadum b'eretz yisrael
• Water Issue
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels (or shaitlach)
• being dressed
• Re: tied back or braided
• electricity on yom tov
• Re: Disputing Previous Generations
• Re: Nusach shmoneh esreh hakadum b'eretz yisrael

On Mon, 31 May 2004 22:16:30 -0400 "JosephMosseri" <joseph.mosseri@verizon.net>
wrote:
...

I would add that Ravi Avraham Aharon Price of Toronto (who was known as
a great talmid chacham and was the author of several sefarim-although
I am unaware of whether he has written on this topic) had permitted an
electric kettle to be plugged in on Yom Tov. I never however discussed
his reasoning with him and I therefore don't know how far he went in
permitting the use of electricity on Yom Tov.

KT
Eliyahu

R. Belsky just left for EY to attend a grandchild's bris. I have been
informed that he will meet with R. Elyashiv re: sheitels.

On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 17:24 -0400, sm@aishdas.org wrote:
> R. Belsky just left for EY to attend a grandchild's bris. I have been
> informed that he will meet with R. Elyashiv re: sheitels.

Someone sent me his letter to Rav Elyashiv, it's a very dirty fax, so
going to try and clean it up.  should be on my page soon.

shaya

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> But the etzem davar that people feel embarrassed
> to be naked seems to be innate. Teenagers who were brought up together in
> the old Communist kibbutzim, where kids showered together from infancy,
> started covering themselves and refusing to shower together when they
> reached puberty, all on their own; 

My intuition tells me to agree with you. But how do you explain the lack
of any embarrassment by small children who will walk around entirely
naked in front of everyone? Don't they "learn" shame?

Tznius is a big item in my son's house. He will not allow even his
2 year old to wear anything but a long sleeved dress. My 9 year old
granddaughter is very cognizant of Tznius, yet often forgets herself and
walks around in less than Tznius fashion. My strong suspicion is that it
is learned behavior. Those Kibbutz children you mention must have somehow
learned a sense of modesty from sources outside the home or perhaps
the parents themselves somehow transmitted those "archaic feelings"
to their children. Societal values penetrate the home environment no
matter how much parents try to prevent it. It doesn't work in homes
that shelter their children by not allowing TVs etc. into the home, nor
does it work in a Godless Kibbutz that tries to shelter their children
from the minimally Tznius societal value of covering one's naked body
in mixed company.

The truth is, I just don't know. But I think it is at least possible
that shame vis-a-vis Erva is a learned behavior. That does not, however
lessen our Halachic requirements WRT matters of Erva and Tznius. In
matters of Erva there is an absolute Halachic imperative. In matters
of Tznius as it applies to dress codes beyond the requirements of Erva,
understanding the source of shame can put those Halachos in perspective
and allow variance amongst divergent Halachic cultures such as Sephardi,
MO, Chasidic, and Charedi.

> We had that tznius, we've largely lost it. A yerida in our madreiga,
> I claimed and still claim. 

Perhaps we did. But I'm not convinced that it is a yeridah of an innate
nature.

> I also said that the Torah seems to assume
> that a woman--at least, a married woman--would be embarrassed to have her
> hair uncovered in public. I have no doubt that that's how it used to be.

I'm sure you are right. But it is very possible that such embarrassment
was generated by a societal value and not necessarily a innate sense
of embarrassment. If I am not mistaken it is historically a relatively
recent phenomenon that woman do not cover their. Women in virtually all
civilized cultures used to covered their hair. That this custom fell
into disuse does not necessarily mean that our generations have lost
any innate sense of modesty.

HM

At 04:12 PM 6/2/2004, Akiva Blum wrote:
>> I'm sorry, which Rambam are we referring to again? In Lulav 8:1 he says
>> that shel AZ lo yittol l'chatchila v'im nottal yatza. Is that the one?

>Yes

I see no evidence from the language of the Rambam to your prior assertion. 
Indeed, he does not even use the term b'di'avad here, does he?

YGB 

At 11:51 AM 6/2/2004, David Riceman wrote:
>>  The consensus,
>>  IIRC is that safek l'chumra does not apply to mitzvos aseh. Hence,
>>  als the aseh of Biur AZ, one would be entitled to refrain so long as
>>  one was using the object in question for a mitzva

>When one takes the sheitel off is there a mitzvas biur? If so, the heter's
>not very useful.

It would still be useful if the sheitel is only a safek AZ, which we assume 
to be the case.

YGB

RSBA wrote:
> After all how many non-chassidic shuls is kiddush [or havdolo] made?
...
> IIRC, the tiny Sydney Adass shul [which is 'official' a CS-
> nusach Ashkenaz shul -- still makes kiddush and havdolo.

> And once when visiting Sydney and davvening Friday evening
> in a 'mainstream' shul [mit kaum a minyan]
> - - the chazan/gabai/president made kiddush - 

Every Nusach Ashkenaz shul I've ever davened at on a Friday night,
except my own, makes kiddush on Friday night.

RSM wrote:
> R. SBA is perhaps being misled by the situation in Australia into
> thinking that most non-chasidish do not make qiddush.

I don't think it's true in Australia either. The 'mainstream' (Anglo-
Jewish) shuls in Oz in which I remember davening on Friday night (East
Melb. and Great) make kiddush. I suggest RSBA ask people who daven at
Caulfield, Elwood, St Kilda and other Anglo-Jewish shuls in Melbourne what
happens on Friday night. (A quick trip down to the Lubav kollel should
elicit the info on Moorabbin, Brighton and perhaps South Caulfield.)

At 06:19 AM 6/2/2004, [Micha] wrote:
>On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 11:09:08AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
>: If bittul be-rov determines the safek how does chozer ve-naor work?

>Chozeir veni'ur works not in a case of bitul, but in what I called "kol
>deparish" and RML subsequented quoted RYBS as calling a "heter hanhagah".

>This is exactly why one needs three kinds of rov, not two.

Huh?

Chozer v'nei'or relates specifically to bittul b'rov, and not to kol 
d'parish. What am I missing here?

YGB 

At 11:34 AM 6/2/2004, you wrote:
>>  what does "heter hanhaga" mean and how does the invention of the concept
>>  add understanding?

>As I understand it and it may not be how others may, there are some cases
>when the issur is not botel as such and remains but we have a heter to
>disregard it. Sort of a gavra heter, not cheftsa heter.

Even more problems (gotta love dem Briskers!) - how is this anything more 
than sheer divrei nevi'us? From whence does such "papal dispensation" emanate?

YGB 

At 03:46 PM 6/2/2004, RSG wrote:
>Actually, the classic case of safek orla in chu"l is muttar(SA YD 294:9)
>is to buy produce that was picked from a field that has in it vadai orla.
>So though you are correct that taaruves is with vadai orla; yet , safek

Since I did the AS Orlah, I can state that this is not necessarily the
case. Quoting myself:
 
and outside the Land he goes down and purchases, provided that he does not 
see him picking.
 
I.e., in other regions outside the Land of Israel (excluding Suria),
a Jew may enter a non-Jew's orchard [even if the orchard definitely
contains some orlah trees] and purchase fruit that the non-Jew has
already harvested, provided that he (the Jew) does not actually see
the non-Jew picking fruit from the orlah tree (Rav, Rash, Rosh). ==8p==
 From Rav, Rash and Rosh it is not clear whether the orchard in question
consists of both orlah and non-orlah trees or consists exclusively of
orlah trees. Presumably, however, the Tanna here is discussing the same
orchard that he discussed in regards to the Land of Israel and Suria,
so that according to Rav, Rash and Rosh's explanation above (s.v.
v...k§r...g¨v e‡p§x), the case here is also one of an orchard that
consists of both orlah and non-orlah trees.

Accordingly, Rav and Rosh (see also, more explicitly, Ran to Kiddushin
38b) explain that the difference between Suria and other areas outside
the Land of Israel is that in Suria the transaction must take place
outside the orchard (that consists of both orlah and non-orlah trees),
while in other areas outside the Land of Israel, the transaction may
even take place inside the garden, as long as the Jew does not actually
see the non-Jew picking fruit off his orlah trees. This is evidently
permitted because there is a remote chance that the fruit was brought
here from another orchard (see Mishnah Rishonah). Thus, when the Tanna
says: and outside the Land he goes down and purchases, "going down"
is synonymous with entering the field (see Rav, Rosh). Within the Land
of Israel, though, any case of doubt must be treated as prohibited.

Rashi (to Kiddushin loc. cit.) also explains the mishnah to mean that
outside the Land of Israel a Jew may approach a non-Jewish owner of an
orchard containing both orlah and non-orlah trees and ask to buy fruit
(Rashi to Kiddushin loc. cit. suggests as an alternative understanding:
that the doubt involves an orchard of trees concerning which there is
a doubt if they are beyond the three orlah years or not). According
to Rashi, however, even in other areas outside the Land of Israel the
transaction must take place outside the orchard (This is also how the
case is described in Tosefta 1:8; see also Ran to Kiddushin loc. cit.,
p. 30). The novelty in this lenient ruling is that the Jew may ask to
buy fruit despite the fact that by requesting the fruits he is in effect
telling the non-Jew to pick the fruits from the mixed orchard and create
a condition of doubtful orlah.

Rashi (to Kiddushin loc. cit. s.v. sckcu) then explains the three
different levels of stringency in our mishnah: In the Land of Israel one
may not purchase fruit from an orchard containing orlah and non-orlah
trees at all; in Suria one may only purchase fruit from that orchard
that has already been picked, but one may not ask the non-Jew to enter
the orchard and pick fruit expressly for this purchase. Outside the
Land of Israel it is even permissible to ask the non-Jew to enter the
orchard and pick fruit expressly for this purchase, as long as one does
not actually witness the non-Jew picking the fruit from the orlah trees
(cf. Hagahos HaBach to Kiddushin ad loc. and Bach, Yoreh Deah 294;
see also Chazon Ish, Kiddushin #148).

Ri ben Malki Tzedek and Rambam (Comm. and Hil. Maachalos Asuros 10:11)
explain the case as involving an orchard that consists entirely of trees
that are definitely orlah. Consequently, in Suria, the transaction
must take place outside the orlah orchard, so that there may clearly
be a doubt whether the fruit is from this orchard. According to Ri ben
Malki Tzedek, in other areas outside the Land of Israel the transaction
may even take place inside the orchard -- as long as the Jew does not
see the non-Jew picking fruit off the trees (all of which are orlah) in
the orchard. As we explained above, this is evidently permitted because
there is a remote chance that the fruit was brought here from another
orchard (see Mishnah Rishonah). Rambam, however, maintains that even in
other areas outside the Land of Israel the transaction must take place
outside the orchard. According to Rambam, the difference between Suria
and other areas outside the Land of Israel is that in Suria the Jew may
not see the fruit being removed from the orchard, while in other areas
he may see the fruit being removed from the orchard, as long as he does
not see the fruit being picked off the trees in the orlah orchard.

All interpretations of the precise circumstances of the leniency outside
the Land of Israel, however, seem difficult: Can these truly be regarded
as cases of "doubtful" orlah? Is it not almost certain that the fruit
being purchased from the non-Jew is orlah fruit? Rambam (Teshuvos #38;
a similar approach is in Tif. Yis. #34) explains that the source that
the mishnah cites later which both prohibits definite orlah outside the
Land of Israel and permits doubtful orlah outside the Land of Israel also
instructs that the leniency outside the Land of Israel applies to any
case in which there is even the most remote possibility that the fruit
in question is not orlah, as long as it is not definitely orlah -- i.e.,
as long as the Jew does not actually see the non-Jew picking fruit off
the orlah trees (cf. Kesef Mishneh, Hil. Maachalos Asuros 10:11 and Beis
Yosef, Yoreh Deah 294, p. 239a; concerning both the nature of the case
and the nature of the doubt see Beur HaGra, Yoreh Deah 294:33 at length;
see also General Introduction).

YGB 

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe@internationaltax.us>
>I came across this:
><http://www.torahlight.com/pdf/Nusah18EY.pdf>

This is from the Geniza - represents the ancient Eretz Yisrael Nusach
during the Geonic period - maybe earlier too.

There was a whole book written about this and parallel nuschaot -
published by Bar Ilan Univ, the author did his doctorate on the subject
and I was told did a good academic job with nuschaot and apparatus. The
rest of the book I believe was of uneven quality. The name of the author
escapes me and I cannot find reference to it on line.

From: Moshe Feldman <moshe@internationaltax.us>
> I came across this: <http://www.torahlight.com/pdf/Nusah18EY.pdf>

> Can anyone comment on this? Are there variant nuscha'ot? Which period
> does this nusach represent? Any online articles about this?

It appears in Ismar Elbogen's "History of Jewish Liturgy".

Raffy

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 08:08:24PM -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
: "rabbi" (or ribbi according to rashbetz and levitas) is not a simple 
: construct state of "rav". It's rather the Palestinian title for one with a
: palestinian s'mikhoh, whereas "rav" is its exact Babylonian equivalent for
: one with a Babylonian s'mikhoh...  one only need cite the gaonic adage 
: (known from r. shrirah's iggeres): "godol me'rav -- rabbi, godol me'rabbi 
: -- rabbon, godol me'rabbon -- sh'mo".

R. Micha:
> But wouldn't this quote prove that the two are not equivalent?
> Also, given that rabbon is a conjugation of either rav or rabbi/ribbi
> (or both), we already have an example of two conjugations of the same
> root being ranked as higher and lower.

nah. in reverse order -- rabbon is a conjugation of neither rabbi/ribbi
nor of rav. rather it's a form of "rabbeinu".

as for not being equivalent because the quote indicates one is "greater",
this is a possible but not a necessary inference. two alternative
interpretations suggest themselves. 1. rabbi and rav are indeed the same
word but in bovel the rabbi/rav was not allowed lo'dun q'nosos and the
"greater" refers solely to this technical chisoron that the moqom was
go'reim. and 2. (I think I may have seen this some years ago but can't
remember by whom/where). it is a fact that all tanno'im were Palestinian
and thus "rabbi"s (or "rabbon"s if you were the nosih), and it's a fact
that all "rav"s were (bavli) amoro'im (with the half exceptions of a few
oddities like "Rav"(abba arikhtoh)). So the statement that godol me'rav --
rabbi means only that tanno'im were greater than amoro'im.

[RMF:]
: Indeed, if it were really true that rabbi were merely a construct form
: of "rav", then the effect of the construct would be to limit its scope --
: i.e. rabbi = "my" rav would then be a smaller thing than "rav" who is
: not limited to myself...

[Mi:]
> I would disagree. "My rav" would mean both "a rav" and "one I chose to
> follow" -- more than simply "rav".

nah. I can't quite follow the suggested pilpul but to my perhaps naive
take on the possessive form "my" rav is that it really means -- "my
rav". it simply doesn't mean "a" rav, let alone that business of the
one whom I might follow stuff. "my" is a restriction -- he may be "my"
rav but I have no reason to assume he's yours. That's what claiming
rabbi is a possessive form of rav must give you. but hey, it's a free
country out there.

[Mi:]
> I'm quibbling with your "proof", not your thesis.

well then, be encouraged you're already halfway there. best keep working
on it. (:-)

MF

RMF Wrote:
> I came across this:
> <http://www.torahlight.com/pdf/Nusah18EY.pdf>

This appears to be [one of] the version[s] of the Amidah found in the
Cairo Genizah, which is understoood to represent the EY Amidah, as opposed
to the Babylonian, which is universally used today. In the time of the
Genizah, there were communities which still followed the practice of EY.

Worth notice is the fact that this Amidah actually has 18 blessings,
and that the difference between this Amidah and ours is not the addition
of Birkat haMinim, but rather the splitting of "elokei david boneh
yerushalayim" (14th berakhah) into two berakhot.

That's the limits of my knowledge of the subject. An online
article in Hebrew (which I have not yet read) may be found here:
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/shmaatin/shlosberg.htm>

This article also seems relevant (and it shows a
picture of one of the Geniza fragments of the Amidah):
<http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/Taylor-Schechter/GF/35/#Art04>

It looks like a rather definitive book has been
published (recomended by Joseph Tabory on mail-jewish in
<http://www.emax.ca/mj_ht_arch/v34/mj_v34i55.html#CSV>): Yechezkel Luger,
The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah, Orchot Press, 2001.

The "My People's Prayer Book" series (I think it's excellent, but you
should be aware that not everything you'll read in the series is the
normative Orthodox approach.) volume on the Amidah has an article about
the history of the Amidah, relating it to the Genizah version.

I wouldn't be surprised if Elbogen's book on Jewish Liturgy (either the
Israeli 1972 update or the English translation) had something relevant.

Kol Tuv,
David Roth

[Long discussions of the mtetzi'us behind a question tends to get us off
on tangents. As this information isn't available as someone's web page,
I'm letting this particular email through. But I thought I should forewarn
people who may want to reply even further in this direction that their
post will be subject to my whims and judgement about topicality. -mi]

Copy of an email sent to me from an expert about Copepods

You wrote {JC}
> I would also say that most copepods are visible with the naked eye.  To
> see structural details a microscope is needed, but the basic animal
> itself can usually be identified without one.

>I wrote {AL}
> Would that include NYC water? I read the article in the times yesterday
> but I never saw one in my water.

If copepods are present, you should be able to make them out by naked eye
(upon close inspection). My understanding is that the copepods in NYC
water are a species which is typically ~.7 to 1 mm in length, which
should be visible without a microscope. However, I have not seen these
particular organisms, and also do not know how abundant they are in the
water system, and how widespread in NYC. I understand that the copepods
that have been observed are all dead, therefore they would be at the
bottom of the container and would not swimming.

I hope this helps.

[Eamil #2. -mi]

Questions are mine {Aryeh} J. Cohen is the expert quoted in the NY Times.
> 1. Were Copepods found in fresh water over the last few thousand
> years or did they start to inhabit fresh water recently due to
> chemical changes or changes in the environment?

The presence of copepods in freshwater goes back quite some time.
Copepods do not fossilize very well given their small size and relatively
fragile body composition. However, fossil copepods have been reported
in lake sediments of North and South America dating to the Miocene (5.3
- 23.8 million years ago) and Pleistocene geologic periods (11,000 -
1.8 million years ago).

> 2. Are Copepods found in all unfiltered freshwater throughout
> the world?

Copepods are found globally in freshwater.  The dominant species often 
varies with location, but some species have global distributions.

> 3. Did Copepods always exist as very tiny organisms of
> a millimeter long or do or did they start to become much smaller
> and minute due to chemicals in the water or other factors.

Copepods as we know them have always been small organisms. Aspects
of zooplankton (including copepod) size and shape can be affected by
chemicals in the water (both natural compounds such as predator odor,
and human-associated compounds such as pesticides). But overall their
small size is a characteristic of these organisms.

A useful reference with some general information on copepods and other
freshwater zooplankton, as well as very detailed taxonomic information
to identify particular organisms is:

Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, by Robert W. Pennak
(John Wiley & Sons publisher)

I hope this answers your questions.

Best Regards,
Jonathan Cohen

In  Avodah V13 #31 dated 6/2/04 "Avi Burstein" <avi@tenagurot.com> writes:
>> I have proven what I set out to prove, that the Torah assumes it
>> is embarrassing, shameful or whatever word you care to use, for
>> a woman's hair to be uncovered.

> Again, if a woman is supposed to be embarrassed about having her hair
> uncovered then unmarried women are supposed to be embarrassed too.

I should have specified that the Torah seems to assume it is embarrassing
or shameful for a *married* woman's hair to be uncovered. The isha sota
by definition is a married woman.

Once you have begun to cover more than you did before--for example, you
have started wearing sleeves to cover your elbows, and formerly you wore
short sleeves--you find yourself easily embarrassed to be seen with skin
[or hair] exposed that you are now accustomed to covering. That alone
would be sufficient to account for the shame experienced by the isha
sota when her hair is exposed--a shame that a single girl would not feel.

 -Toby Katz
=============

On 2 Jun 2004 at 15:15, Harry Maryles wrote:
> My intuition tells me to agree with you. But how do you explain the
> lack of any embarrassment by small children who will walk around
> entirely naked in front of everyone? Don't they "learn" shame?

While halachic tznius is learned, a more basic tznius common to all
humans seems to be innate. I can recall seeing somewhere (maybe even in
the MB, but I'm not sure) that you don't need to worry about seeing your
opposite-sex children's erva until they are old enough to understand by
themselves that it should be covered - at which point you should ensure
their privacy. This does not happen at a precise age. It varies from
child to child, but in most cases will occur around age 8-9.

> My 9 year old
> granddaughter is very cognizant of Tznius, yet often forgets herself
> and walks around in less than Tznius fashion. My strong suspicion is
> that it is learned behavior. 

Occasionally, I have had to tell my younger daughters that (for 
example) the manner in which they are sitting on the couch is not 
tzniusdik. They know innately that it is wrong not to be tzniusdik, 
and will immediately adjust their behavior accordingly. But I think 
that's a halachic (learned) behavior and not an innate one. 

> Those Kibbutz children you mention must
> have somehow learned a sense of modesty from sources outside the home
> or perhaps the parents themselves somehow transmitted those "archaic
> feelings" to their children. Societal values penetrate the home
> environment no matter how much parents try to prevent it. It doesn't
> work in homes that shelter their children by not allowing TVs etc.
> into the home, nor does it work in a Godless Kibbutz that tries to
> shelter their children from the minimally Tznius societal value of
> covering one's naked body in mixed company.

Sure it works. But the influence comes from a much smaller circle,
i.e. those in your immediate circle and not the outside influences that
a TV would bring into your home.

> I'm sure you are right. But it is very possible that such
> embarrassment was generated by a societal value and not necessarily a
> innate sense of embarrassment. If I am not mistaken it is historically
> a relatively recent phenomenon that woman do not cover their. Women in
> virtually all civilized cultures used to covered their hair. That this
> custom fell into disuse does not necessarily mean that our generations
> have lost any innate sense of modesty.

I don't think it's so much that we have lost an innate sense of modesty
as it is that we have been exposed to other cultures and influences
(because of the media) and therefore our norms have been influenced.

 - Carl

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 16:45:36 -0500, [Micha] wrote:
> "Din"? Would you argue one is oveir a lav or an asei? And what's
> the shi'ur --
> how is getting up in the morning a problem, but taking a shower
> not? I'd have  put this on the list of hanhagos tovos in the SA.

More than that the gemara tells of the rabbis walking publically naked 
down to the river and purposely upright as kavod to the brit milah
(pre indoor plumbing)

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 6/3/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> Rav Meir Brandsdorfer shlita, of the EH has a tshuva in his sefer Kney
> Bosem explaining the TA [and some others] minhag of braids.

cf. Sridei Eish III:30.

David Riceman

On Mon, 31 May 2004 18:12:23 -0500, Avodah wrote:
> I was wondering what new findings have been made on this issue if
> any. Why was it once permissible to turn lights on, on YomTov and now  
> everyone seems to say this is asur?
> Is it really asur or is it just a Humra?
> What about turning them off?
...

On Shabbat when nothing is heated or lit CI says electricity is boneh and
this should apply equally on yomtov. RSZA disagreed and as far as I could
see the only issur was because of minag or uvda de-chol and this would
certainly apply to yomtov. If the problem is nolad then yomtov is more
kal. The major difference between shabbat and yomtov would only be cases
where "mavir" is the problem or cooking. In that case turning off the
lights is melachah she-enah tzricha which would reduce it to a derabban.

There are other cases like using an umbrella on shabbat and riding a
bicycle that seems to be of a modern gezerah rather than a real issur.
CI explicitly does not allow the use of electricity from a Jewish company
that has chillul shabbat because of a "modern gezerah"

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 6/3/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On 2 Jun 2004 at 16:40, Micha Berger wrote:
> So, what do we do with RCS's:
>> See Ramban Bava Basra 131a s"v Amar Lei Abayei (starting from
>> "u'l'inyan piska") and Rabbeinu Yona Bava Basra 131a s"v Ela Tnai
>> Beis Din Sha'anee, both of whom indicate that there are instances
>> when amoraim feel free to disagree with tanaim. There's also a
>> Kovetz Shiurim on this...

I'm not sure why this (apparently) has not yet made it to the list, 
but R. Daniel Eidensohn sent me an email indicating that the Kovetz 
Shiurim is in Bava Basra 170a, Number 633. 

-- Carl

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. 

From: "Dov Bloom" <dovb@netvision.net.il>
> There was a whole book written about this and parallel nuschaot -
> published by Bar Ilan Univ, the author did his doctorate on the subject
> and I was told did a good academic job with nuschaot and apparatus. The
> rest of the book I believe was of uneven quality. The name of the author
> escapes me and I cannot find reference to it on line.

Yechezkel Luger: Tefillat haAmida l'hol al pi hageniza hakahirit

David Riceman

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


[ 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         ]