Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 084

Friday, February 18 2005

• Re: It recently became kefira
• Re: It recently became kefira
• Re: RE: Gedolim
• Re: Pakod Pakadti
• Re: Bikurim ("First Fruit") issues
• Re: hamotzi
• Re: tumas mashkin
• Re: From Mishkan to Mikdash
• Re: From Mishkan to Mikdash
• Mezuzah
• Meor Einayim
• Meor Ainayim
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Emunah Peshutah and Machashavah Amukah
• HaRav M. Sternbuch shlita - Relationship of Science to Torah
• RE: New Insight on Seudat Purim
• Re: bikurim
• R' Elyashuv against prenups
• RE: R' Elyashuv against prenups
• Re: R' Elyashuv against prenups
• Re: Was kefira or Age of U. or something along those lines.
• Re: Was kefira or Age of U. or something along those lines.
• Re: HaRav M. Sternbuch shlita - Relationship of Science to Torah
• Tefillin Parshiyos and pesaq

R. Rich Walpoe wrote:
> Beis Shammai's shitos were specifcally rejected by the Gmara, while
> abeinu Tam's shita was not been rejected by the Gmara. So you have
> o answer the question: Why is one NOT yotzei following the shita of
> abbeinu Tam since after all Rabeinu Tam's shita is NOT in conflict with
> he Gmara!

But here we are talking of Rishonic opinions, and the claim is that they
are not normative, and therefore, one is not only not capable of relying
on them as a source for what one holds, but to do so is now kefirah
(even if it wasn't during the Rishonic time when first propounded).

How is that any different than e.g. the non-normative Rishonic opinion
of R. Tam re: tefilin? Why is the use of that type of tefillin not
considered kefirah?

David I. Cohen

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:27:42PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Beis Shammai's shitos were specifcally rejected by the Gmara, while
: Rabeinu Tam's shita was not been rejected by the Gmara. So you have to
: answer the question: Why is one NOT yotzei following the shita of Rabbeinu
: Tam since after all Rabeinu Tam's shita is NOT in conflict with the Gmara!

Other than the Darda'i Teimanim, who said pesaq ended with the gemara?

Most of us do not understand "Ravina veR' Ashi sof hora'ah" that way.

Do we want to revisit the various models for pesaq without a Sanhedrin,
and whether the mechanism that gives authority to the mishnah applies
to the gemara and if so, to the SA W/ nosei keilim?

We have discussed the models of the Maharetz Chayes, the CI, and the
Dor Revi'i. And R' Chaim Brisker and RSShkop on the chaqira between
acharei rabim and azlinan basar ruba.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n090.shtml#17> by RGS. Also,
because there were too many other posts to point to, my attempted recap
at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n118.shtml#13>.

Oddly, none of which seem to conform to RAMiller's description of
RAFeldman's position.

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 02:12:59AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: At one extreme, I don't know how an authoritative halacha can exist
: without nimnu. (I'm open to suggestions!) At the other extreme, if there
: is no authoritative halacha, then everyone can follow whoever they want.

Within the eilu va'eilu, questions that have not been resolved.

: To give a concrete example, there is a certain time in the morning,
: after which HaShem will consider my Krias Shema invalid...

Not if eilu va'eilu is literal. Then H' gave us different mahalakhim
that we (in a creative partnership with Him) choose from. This notion
that kelapei Shemaya galyah that one is right and the other not doesn't
fit them both being "divrei E-lokim Chaim".

And so, without authority, why wouldn't they both be right -- assuming
one was consistantly and correctly following a shitah?

...
: So we resort to Plan B: The halachic process as developed through the
: centuries and as summarized by Rav Feldman above (keeping in mind that
: "the majority view" and "the minority view" can be very different to
: different people).

... or as summarized by one of the opinions discussed above. But I don't
think it's "plan B" shemiras hamitzvos, just "plan B" halachic process.


On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 12:09:02PM -0500, bdcohen@optonline.net wrote:
: But here we are talking of Rishonic opinions, and the claim is that they
: are not normative, and therefore, one is not only not capable of relying
: on them as a source for what one holds, but to do so is now kefirah
: (even if it wasn't during the Rishonic time when first propounded).

: How is that any different than e.g. the non-normative Rishonic opinion
: of R. Tam re: tefilin? Why is the use of that type of tefillin not
: considered kefirah?

There is no difference. But as I posted before, I think your parallel
is flawed and therefore you're not looking for the matching outcome.

If someone today wore Rabbeinu Tam tefillin instead of Rashi he would not
be yotzei tefillin.

Just as if someone today believed like Hillel that there is no messianic king
to wait for instead of the position of the rabbanan, he would not be
yotzei dinei emunah.

The flaws in the parallel:
1- The RT wearer does not do so instead, but as a chumrah beyond the din.

2- If the question is tefillin, then one can ask about being yotzei
tefillin. It would only be a question of kefirah is one is following
a rejected version of a pesaq in kefirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

It is nice to know that R. Moshe Gluck and I do agree on much of the
issue.

So to the remaining points:

From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
> Absolutely not! We are not meant to be unthinking, nor is the form we
> learn irrelevant. We must have a Rebbe or Rav to whom we can approach
> with these (admittedly) difficult questions. We can learn the answers to
> these questions the same way as we learn about anything else in Torah.
> We can even learn about the opinions that our Rebbe or Rav does not
> pasken like, just like we learn about Beis Shammai, and R' Eliezer of
> tanur shel achnai. In fact, Avodah contributes greatly to this!

Of course you are correct. We do in fact try to understand the minority
opinions, and try to understand why or why not a specific opinion is
acceptable and the other is not. That is so basic to limud Torah.

And it, therefore, begs the question: Where is the explanation as to why
seem,ingly legitimate sources in our mesorah cannot be relied upon to
aid our understanding of e.g. seeming conflicts between science and Torah.

> R' DC:
> "I might concede that initially because of a
> perceived imminent danger, a short statement could
> be issued for immediate implementation,  but it must
> be followed up with a well reasoned teshuva
> supporting the original." 

> That is happening only now with the Indian hair issue (note the last
> three issues of Halacha Berurah; sorry, I couldn't find the URL -
> perhaps someone can make the pdf's available?).  I'm sure it will
> eventually happen in this situation as well.

I hope that you are correct. I do take issue, specifically where
issues of basic emunah are concerned with "eventually". The Gedolim
obviouslu viewed the issue as critical, as can be seen by their severe
response. Since they obviously grappled with the issue prior to issuing
the conclusory kol koreh (chas v'shalom anyone should be accused of a
"knee-jerk"reaction, rather than a well thought out response) is it not
incumbent that the baisis of the p'sak be disseminated. Lamdeynu Rabeynu.

> R' DC:
> "But  with a public bare bones pronouncement intended
> for all of klal yisroel,  more should be required."

> Not intended for all of Klal Yisroel, as I've posted. Only their
> talmidim. 

Where did you see such a limitation? And even, if so, shouldn't their
very own talmidim be accorded the intellectual respect that they deserve
as talmidim of these Gedolim?

Kol Tuv,
David I. Cohen

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 12:18:12PM -0800, a. adereth wrote:
:> I repeated a devar Torah that I honed in response to RGD, who had
:> recalled hearing something similar to the original. So, I looked up the
:> source. The Yalqut Shim'oni (64) who points out that Mosheh, being aral
:> sefasayim, couldn't pronounce "BU"MaF", the letters formed with the lips,
:> and therefore "paqod paqadeti" could only have been said bederekh neis.
...
: There is no such thing in the location specified (Yalkut 64). What the
: Yalkut there does say is that the mesorah was given to Serach bas Osher
: and she is the one who told the z'keynim of the siman of "pokod pakaditi."

I thought the Peh Kakash on 4:11 are quoting the medrash, not elaborating
on it. Interestingly, the only reference I to this seifer that was able
to find through Google is RMKornfeld quoting this very same devar Torah!
<http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/kornfeld/archives/shemos.htm>

My apologies for the wild goose chase.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

In a message dated 2/16/05 3:44:21pm EST,  schoemann@lucent.com writes:
> Three  Bikurim issues I'd like to share:
> 1. Wheat & Barley.
> 2.  Shvi'is
> 3. Nowadays

The answer to all of these can be found in the Encyclopedia Taalmudis
Volume 3 Erech Bikurim

To see copy please point to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/bikurim.pdf>

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In Avodah 14:82, Reuven Koss wrote <<< This morning I saw the Mishna
B'rura in 271:9:41 that says one should have the challos covered during
kiddush and then one should have them uncovered during hamotzi. >>>

In my opinion, this is a slight distortion of what the MB says there. He
brings various opinions on whether the challah needs to be covered for
hamotzi, or whether this is unneccesary. But none of those opinions
says they should davka be uncovered. No one says that one *should*
uncover them; the only question is if we're allowed to.

It is also my opinion that although he cites several differing views,
the MB personally sided with the "keep them covered" camp. I say this for
two reasons: He used the phrase "v'ken nohagim" only once there, and it
seems to be his own observation, and not a quote from the Tur. Also, of
the several views he mentions, the last one is that of the Chayei Adam,
who says that the challa does have to stay covered until hamotzi.

Akiva Miller

> Does anyone have any idea why Hazal made the gezeirah of tumas mashkin?

The g'mara says it was a g'zeira mishum mayanos hazav (Shabbos 14b).

> Does anyone have any idea of the proper historical sequence of the
> following events:
>      the gezeirah of tumas mashkin
>      the custom of eating hullin al tohoras trumah
>      the gezeirah of ahorayim shel kli>

Tumas mashkin was one of the yud-ches davar, in the time of Beis Shammai
and Beis Hillel. Eating chulin b'tohorah dates to the chasidim harishonim
(Rambam, end of Tumas Ochlin, from the Mishna in Chagiga 18b). Since
achorayim only applies to tumas mashkin (P'sachim 17b), it could not
have come earlier; since it is not listed among the yud-ches davar,
it apparently came later.

EMT

From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
>  For example, I understand from Zevachim 118b that the last stop for the
>  Mishkan, prior to the building of the Beis HaMikdash, was in Giv'on.
>  Are there any stories about that final dismantling of the Mishkan? Can

When the aron was taken by the Pelishtim (in I Samuel Chap. 4), the
mishkan was apparently destroyed. While it doesn't say so in Sefer
Shmuel, there is a reference to it in Tehillim - 78:59- 60, "...va'yim'as
me'od be'Yisrael. VaYitosh mishkan Shilo..."

All the best,
Miryam

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 02:22:46PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: There seem to be many places where we can learn about the military and
: political events of that era. But we are taught that Shmuel and David and
: Shlomo were not merely military and political leaders, they were also
: *religious* leaders. If so, I'd expect that there would be, somewhere,
: a coherent account of the *religious* events of those times. Can anyone
: suggest such a source?

Why? Aren't halachic decisions more aptly transmitted in TSBP than in
Na"kh? (I prefer RnMTB's answer.)

-mi

From: Daniel Israel <israel@email.arizona.edu>
> Actually, come to think of it, there is a basic issue I don't understand
> here. IIRC, after Sukkas an esrog is chol and we can, e.g., eat it. But,
> again IIRC, the boards of the Sukka shouldn't be stepped on. Is this
> correct, and why the distinction?

No distinction. Neither may be USED during the time of the mitzva (huktza
lemitzvasa) and may be used afterward, and neither may be treated bederech
bizayon before or after the mitzvah.

IOW eat your esrog or build with your boards, but treat them with the
respect due a mitzva.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Gil Student:
> FWIW, the Netziv also quotes the Me'or Einayim many times.

Can you please tell us where he quotes him?

Yaakov Goldstein

While I don't have a copy of the Meor Ainayim & haven't even seen one, I
will comment based on the Maharal's citations in Baer Hagola. Does anyone
know whether a Hebrew edition is available? The Maharal AFAIK mentions
only one alleged post Talmudic source that De Rossi quotes to support
his views that we don't have to accept every non-halachik statement of
Chazal. He mentions a statement of Rabeinu Sherira that some words of
Chazal are Umdinah. Maharal responds that if indeed they are the words
of Rabeinu Sherira they can be interpreted differently. It seems that the
Maharal was not aware of Rambam's statements in the Moreh (3:14) as well
as that of his son Rabeinu Avraham. The Teshuvas Hageonim 394 makes the
same type of comment about the medical statements of Chazal. There is
also Ramban's statements in his debate with the Jewish apostate where
he writes that we are not obligated to accept every Midrashic statement.
There are other statements in his commentary on Chumash that support that
as well such as his disagreement with Chazal regarding the 210 years in
Mitzraim, his comments in the beginning of Tazria, etc. There are many
statements of Ibn Ezra & other Rishonim as well that shows they held
this view. Maharal brings none of these which leads me to believe that
he was not aware of them. I would suggest that he been aware of them,
he might not have banned them. I don't know if De Rossi quotes any of
these sources. If anyone has read the Meor Einayim I would appreciate
some input on this issue.

All the best,
Yisroel Felder

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:37:13PM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:                                         The other tzad, at least as far
: as I've tried to express it as per RSSchwab's quite-unvague hava amina,
: isn't that they were unintentionally wrong but that they deliberately
: didn't publicize the entire story.

Actually, I wondered about the propriety of writing the article, assuming
it is accurate. After all, if Anshei Keneses haGedolah intentionally hid
168 years, how can we assume it is okay to reveal them?

OTOH, if someone were to reveal the secret and then post a disclaimer,
the people for whom the issue is major, and may interfere with the
perfection of their emunah, will grab onto this answer. However, others
will not believe in the hidden years. Thus the secret is kept WRT those
for whom one couldn't invoke "eis la'asos".

Somehow, I don't think that was R' Shwab's reasoning...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 09:48:57PM -0500, Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
: A few points about emunah.

: 1) I assume we're in agreement that "blind faith" - emunah peshutah -
: is one legitimate derech. I think it is quite likely the best one to
: start out with, at least assuming you're starting as a child. Whether
: one should ideally "progress" to a more intellectually sophisticated
: version or not is a matter of debate.

I do not believe that emunah peshutah is "blind faith", or that it's
a different derekh than machashavah amuqah. Emunah peshutah is
belief in G-d because He is a real part of your world. The emunah
of a Tevye the milkman, who can spend much of his life talking to
Hashem despite being far from a philosopher.

: 2) Even among those who don't have such emunah peshutah, there are
: different legitimate approaches. For example, there are those whose belief
: is firmly grounded in rational arguments for the existence of the G-d,
: provenance of the Torah, etc. Such people do mitzvot because they believe,
: and they believe because they are rationally convinced to do so....

Personally, I don't think too many of these people exist. People tend
to accept those philsophical arguments that back the conclusion that
they already hold. (See the signature quote, below.)

Someone may enrich their emunah peshutah with such proofs, but he won't
buy the proofs unless he already has emunah.

The Kuzari's position is somewhere between these. It's not a philosophical
proof, not first-hand experience of relating to G-d. Rather, it's reliance
on a reliable source, believing one's parents and ancestors.

I have a number of posts on this topic on my blog. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/11/emunah-peshutah-vs-machashavah.shtml>
and <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/archive/2004_12_01_index.shtml>, the
Kuzari Proof I and II, and the Argument from Design ver. 4.0.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita asked me to translate and disseminate his
letter concerning the relationship of Science to Torah. Please forward
it to all those who are interested in this issue.

 It has been posted to
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/sternbuchScienceToTorah.pdf>
 <f>

The options for the timing of Seudat Purim (SP) for bnai mukafin
(e.g. Yerushalmiim) this year is also an issue. Their SP is nidche from
the 15th (Shabbat) to the 16th, but the question is, since it is nidche,
can they eat it Motsai Shabbat or must they follow the usual rule that
one is yotzai SP only in the daytime? As the matter was of practical
interest, I made some inquiries and was told that R. Dov Lior cites an Ohr
Somayach which, based on a Yerushalmi, allows bnei mukafin to be yotsai
SP on Motsai Shabbat when their SP is nidche from Shabbat. To be yotsai
the deot of those who disagree with the Ohr Somayach, RDL recommends one
have in mind to be yotsai SP also with some "regular food" eaten during
the day of the 16th.

David Hoffman

> This morning somebody asked me if Bikurim applies during shmitta.

See Rashi on Sh'mos 23:19. Surprisingly, this seems to be the sole source
in the Rishonim, and there are some who contend that the girsa in our
Rashi is incorrect, and that they are exempt (see the Mizrachi).

EMT

From JPost: R' Elyashuv against prenups - http://tinyurl.com/6ymjd

Anyone know how R' Willig and others have dealt with the supposed
objections?

Avi Burstein

[RAB]
>>From JPost: R' Elyashuv against prenups - http://tinyurl.com/6ymjd

> Anyone know how R' Willig and others have dealt with the supposed
> objections?

See http://www.orthodoxcaucus.org/prenup/default.htm for more detail

On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 16:45 +0200, Avi Burstein wrote:
>Anyone know how R' Willig and others have dealt with the supposed
>objections?

what I don't get is this (99% sure a bad summary of R. Elyashiv's opinion)

"According to Elyashiv, the husband's agreement before the wedding
is invalid because he does not expect to divorce. Since the husband's
agreement to pay the fine cannot be enforced, doing so is considered
unlawful coercion, said Elyashiv."

Then how could one force a husband to ever pay the ketubah. He doesn't
expect to get divorced and hence any agreement to pay money if divorce
happens should be void.

So this leads to 2 related questions.

1) It would seem that any prenup is invalid, is that true? or just one
dealing with giving or not giving a get?

2) If all prenups are invalid, why isn't the ketubah in that category?

3) Even if the ketubah isn't in that category of prenup, why isn't it
considered an asmachta ("Asmachta kania or lo kania")

[2nd Email, in reply to the questions in the first. -mi]

so to answer some of my questions. the language of ketubah explicitly
states that it's "delo keasmachta".

the prenup language doesn't include that. If the ketubah can include it,
why not the prenup?

>Whether or not Adam treated Eve with contempt by inflating G-d's
>prohibition to include touching -- as if she couldn't be relied upon to
>observe the commandment as given -- his attitude to her is clear from
>what he did not tell her. Woman said "The tree which is in the midst
>of the garden". Why didn't she call it by name, the tree of knowledge
>of good and evil? Moreover, the serpent said, "the day you eat from it
>your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowers of good and
>evil". Since the tree's name was "tree of knowledge of good and evil"
>what did the serpent tell woman that she didn't already know? Woman
>didn't know the name of the tree. She didn't know, because man didn't
>tell her. He treated her like a child, telling her what to do without
>sharing with her information he himself received from G-d. The serpent
>gained her confidence by revealing that which her husband without from
>her, and mixed truth with the fateful untruth "You will not die...."

>Man and woman were created equal but from the first he related to her
>as inferior, by doing so he caused her to stumble and the result was
>that she caused him to stumble, measure for measure. We still suffer the
>consequences of this primidorial zilzul, in the form of the respective
>curses given man and woman."

>I hope these comments have been helpful on the issue of the ban and how
>we can learn from history to enlighten us on contempory events. I look
>forward to some readers comments

I am ignoring the earlier part of your post which is just a general
rehashing of standard MO vs RW chareidi approaches which have been
discussed in great detail here and in Areivim.

However, it appears to me that your reading of Adam and Chava is merely a
reflection of your own issues. If you have a classical source to support
this thesis of Adam's sexist behavior, please cite it, otherwise consider
the following simpler explanations.

1. Adam tells her not to touch the tree. Why is this treating her like
a child? he employs a standard approach in halacha that we have myriad
examples of today, building fence around the Torah. One could just as
easily argue that he told her this out of love, that he so desperately
wanted to make sure she came to no harm, that he told her not to touch
it so she wouldn't come to eat from it and lose his soulmate. As we are
not privy to many details of the communications between Adam and Chava
we must be careful about how much we read into the few written lines.

2. You seem to imply that Chava did not know the name of the tree because
she described it rather than name it to the serpent. I think it is just
as easy to say that she did not know if the serpent would know the tree
by the name Adam knew. Instead, she was more specific, and described it.

There is much, much more to say about this, and the commentaries are
extensive, and I'm sure others here will be able to do a much better
job than I in answering this off the top of their heads. I just find
the whole approach here one of looking to find sexism, when there are
such simple answers to the contrary.

mendel

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> These are rather misleading statements. R' Yosef Karo was prepared to
> sign the ban and had it by his deathbed - but died before signing. See
> the Sdei Chemed under the category of Seforim The Maharal describes
> his angry reaction to Meor Ainayim in the 6 section of Baer HaGolah. He
> strongly condemns the Meor Ainayim's assumption that the Torah needs to
> justify itself to the standard of secular knowledge.

Just to be clear, the banning of the book (and the Mechabeir's unfulfilled
intent to participate) was not over the addition of 50 years to the
history of the world. That was mentioned by RML as a point of interest
only, no?

:-)BBii!
-mi

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita asked me to translate and disseminate his
> letter concerning the relationship of Science to Torah. Please forward
> it to all those who are interested in this issue.
> It has been posted to
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/sternbuchScienceToTorah.pdf>

I'm having trouble understanding one sentence. In the next-to-last
paragraph RMS says "I do not know whether all of those who accept the
view of the scientists - that the world is very ancient - are heretics.
Howver I do know that only heretics have such views against our Sages -
who are fully accepted by us."

Clearly "against our Sages" modifies the second sentence, otherwise
this would be self contradictory: if only heretics have such views then
all who hold such views are heretics. I have no idea what the phrase
"against our Sages" means in this context.

David Riceman

R David E Cohen wrote:
> As you suggest, perhaps one could, theoretically, understand that the
> gemara (Menachos 34b, quoting a beraisa) simply requires that that
> "kadesh li" and "ve-hayah ki yeviakha" be in the right 2 batim, and
> "shema`" and "ve-hayah im shamoa`" be in the left 2 batim, and does not
> "take sides" on the details of the order beyond that.

We found both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin in a geniza from the days
of the Chashmonai revolt. Both shitos predate the beraisa.

According to the braisa in Menachos, Shemos 13:1-10 and ibid 11-16 are
on the right, the first ("Shema") and second ("Vehayah im shamo'a")
chapters of the Shema on the left.

Rashi describes the ordering to be the same as that in the Torah, with
Shemos 13:1-10 first, and "Vehaya im shamo'a" last.

Rabbeinu Tam has the quotes from Shemos going right to left, but switches
the two from Devarim so that they are in order from left to right --
"Shema" becomes the leftmost chapter.

A third pair found in Qumran, but not in the older geniza nor amongst
the rishonim is right-to-left: Shemos 13:1-10, Shema, Shemos 13:11-16,
Veyaha im shamoa. This has each chapter from Devarim to the left of one
from Shemos, as well as the rightmost being from Shemos and the left-most
from Devarim, which would fit a third possible reading of the braisa.

I would therefore argue that having Shemos to the right of Devarim was
the din in the days of the beraisa. The details of how one does that
was not resolved to a single pesaq until the days of the rishonim.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

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


[ 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         ]