Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 107

Friday, April 1 2005

• Re: Chazal and Rishonim - relative importance
• Re: Eiruvin
• RE: Bracha for t'vila (was:Re: Orthodox tackle premarital sex dilemma)
• Eiruvin
• Re: Orthodox tackle premarital sex dilemma
• RE:Startling historical facts
• RE: Races of Mankind
• Re: Do I say Kedusha, Borchu?
• Re: Amen Rechokah
• Re: Do I say Kedusha, Borchu?
• Re: Do I say Kedusha, Borchu?
• Re: Orthodox tackle premarital sex dilemma
• Re: Maharal and elu v'elu
• Chazal and Rishonim - relative importance
• Re: Maharal and elu v'elu
• chasimas hatalmud
• Re: chasimas hatalmud

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> What I am searching for are conflicts resulting from switching
> between understanding Chazal directly and viewing the Rishonim as the
> final arbiters of understanding of Yiddishkeit.

See Rabbi Weinberg's letter on p. 245 of Sridei Eish volume 1 (I have
the old edition; it's letter #11 b'inyan mafreketh).

And see Rabbi Zevin's comment about Rabbi Soloveitchik on pp. 63-64 of
Ishim V'Sheetoth.

David Riceman 

On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:26:53PM -0500, Noah Witty wrote:
: I was unaware. But my query is how do the Queens eiruvin differ from
: Brooklyn to make the former acceptable.

As RSB already wrote, one can't lump the Queens eiruvin together. Rav
Moshe didn't give his approval -- AFAIK wasn't asked -- to the Forest
Hills eiruv. Queens Boulevard bisects Forest Hills.

Main St, the largest road in Kew Gardens Hills, isn't a problem even
leshitas RMF. Which is why he wrote a teshuvah saying its eiruv is
kosher.

-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

IRIZ writes:
>Interesting. I've never heard of a bracha for a man for teviloh (except
>possibly for geirus). The question is, now that I think about it, why not?
>Admittedly, there is no function nowadays for which teviloh is required for
>a man, but wouldn't the act of teviloh itself be performing a mitzvah
>d'oraysoh?

I wonder if it is linked to the machlokus regarding tevila b'zmana?
Vis a vis women, there is a basic machlokus rishonim as to whether
tevila b'zmana mitzvah he or lav mitzvah he. Amongst numbers of others,
Rabbi Hannanel says it is a mitzvah and Rabanu Tam says it isn't.

The Shulchan Aruch poskens (siman 197, s'if 2) "If her husband is in
the city, it is a mitzvah to tovel on time, so as not to be away from
the mitzvah of pru urvu for even one night".

What this means, in terms of the basic machlokus, is that the Shulchan
Aruch holds like Rabbanu Tam, that going to the mikvah on time is not
a specific mitzvah (because if it were, whether her husband was in the
city or not would not make any difference, she would be obligated to
go on time) - and this is the position we generally follow (because,
for example, if you hold that going to the mikvah on time is a specific
mitzvah, then you would also tell women to go on time if the time to
go to mikvah fell on the night of Yom Kippur or Tisha B'Av, even though
she could not be with her husband at that time).

Now, given this position, a further question arises - even if we hold that
it is not a specific mitzvah to go to mikvah if one cannot be with one's
husband that night, and so we don't open the mikvah on Yom Kippur and
Tisha B'Av etc, if it is a normal night, maybe it is better for a woman
to go on time when her husband is not in town (after all the Shulchan
Aruch does not say she should not, only that it is not a mitzvah to go),
or maybe she should wait. In certain places a minhag has arisen that
women did not go when their husbands were not in town (and the Beit
Yosef himself refers to this custom) - but the Achronim are divided on
this issue. At the one extreme there are Achronim (eg the Shvut Ya'akov)
who say that it is a sakana [danger] for a woman between the time that
she goes to mikvah and the time that she has relations with her husband -
and therefore she should not go until her husband is definitely around
(this seems to be based on a Zohar). At the other extreme, the Tiferet
Tzvi is extremely against this minhag of women not going to the mikvah
arguing that it is against the plain meaning of the mishna, that it is
a minhag taut [mistaken minhag] etc etc.

However, most of the discussion on the desirability for a woman to go on
time is based on concerns that the husband may come unexpectedly home,
with what appears to be at most a nod towards the concept that while we
posken that basically tevila b'zmana lave mitzva he, why not fulfil the
minority opinion if one can.

Now extrapolating from this to your question - it would seem to me that
if you hold tevila b'zmana mitzvah with the consequence as discussed
by the various commentaries on opening the mikvah on Tisha B'Av etc,
then you would also require a brocha for a single woman, and presumably
for a man who went at the time required, but if you hold that tevila
b'zmana in general is not a mitvah, then it alters its nature to only
become a mitzvah if it then enables something - presumably in the times
of gemora, being osek b'taharos, or korbanos etc, and today, being
osek in priya v'rivya. And since tevila by a man does none of these,
then there would be no bracha (except, as you say, in the case of gerus,
where it enables the ger to indeed do many mitzvos that he was not able
to do prior to the tevila).

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

RS Brizelk wrote:
> RNW may be unaware that RMF is the posek who approved in writing the
> ruv in KGH. Forest Hills may present more of an issue vis a vis Queens
> oulevard.

I was unaware. But my query is how do the Queens eiruvin differ from
Brooklyn to make the former acceptable.

Re: RAK: Please state your source for his alleged concession of his
ignorance of Eiruvin. Based on his reputation alone,.what you wrote is
a little hard to believe

[Email #2. -mi]

RS Pultman wrote:
> I don't believe that RAK said anything regarding Queens since RMF
> stated that the reason that he had signed against the Manhattan eruv was
> because RAK and others had signed (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86 and Addendum
> to O.C. 4:89). Why then would RMF allow an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills,
> Queens (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:86) if RAK objected to one?"

You have misattributed what I said. I never said RAK said anything
about Queens. Re-read my post please.

I inquired as to why Q is more kal than Brklyn.

Based on your post, why is it that there can be no eruv in Brooklyn?

Noach Witty

RMB wrote:
>Third, RMFeldman couldn't see a motivation for going to the miqvah 
>other than eating heqdeish or to engage in assur activity. What about 
>simply wanting to end tum'ah? I admit it's not a likely motivation, but 
>Zohar based minhag places great value on ending tum'ah as rapidly as 
>possible.

I responded to this on areivim yesterday, but thinking about it further -
there is more to say. As mentioned in the post I just sent you, in fact
the Zohar is position that holds that there is a sakana for a woman to go
to mikvah if her husband is not in town, and those who are kabbalistically
inclined therefore posken that a woman whose husband is not in town should
not go - suggesting the exact opposite of what you have suggested above.

Secondly, I am not sure (as you can see from my previous post) whether in
fact one can bring oneself within the category of being osek b'taharos
just by going to mikvah, but a woman who does fall into the category of
being involved with taharos brings herself within several takanas chazal
- the one that springs most readily to mind is the obligation to do a
bedika morning and evening, every day (not just when she is counting shiva
nikeim as we do - if fact the rest of the month we do the opposite, avoid
bedikas and wear coloured garments etc so as to avoid spotting problems).
This is in addition to the point I made yesterday on areivim that the
times for going to mikvah for tumah reasons linked to classic tumahs and
the times that relate to the baal are different - if a woman is concerned
with ending tumah, she would presumably want to be going at the end of
her niddah period, be shomeres yom k'neged yom during her ziva period etc.

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

> I was actually hard pressed to find good counter-examples in Shapiro's
> 7th chapter by which I mean (a) a full quote *in context* from a reputable
> source and (b) a clear statement from the putative source as to why they
> disagreed with Chazal (see the sources in my post).

> The reason for (a) is obvious from my original post
> (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n125.shtml#03) where I gave
> examples of severe misrepresentations. For example,

The accusation of "severe misrepresentations" is a very harsh one
- especially against an academic - and I am moche. You may wish to
interprete the texts differently - but that is a different issue than
an accusation of misrepresentation. I don't have Shapiro hany (as part
of harbatzat torah, I have lent it out) - but there is one common theme
to RJSO's critiques:

There is a statement in the gmara, midrash, or rishonim, of which the
simple pshat would seem to be against the eighth ikkar. Later authorities
(sometimes rishonim, sometimes acharonim) interprete the text against
a backdrop of assuming that the author held of textual constancy.
RJSO takes the later interpretation as an authoritative understanding of
the text - and criticizes RM Shapiro for not following this understanding,
and "misrepresenting" the text because he follows its natural meaning.

The question is not whether every statement can be reinterpreted -
but what the statements actually say..

...
> According to Shapiro (using Nachmanides as support), R. Meir had a
> legitimate variant text! This is to be contrasted, Shapiro asserts, with
> the Rambam in the Guide 3:10 that this reflects R. Meir's interpretation
> of the verse rather than a variant text [footnote 35, p96].

> But, what Nachmanides actually says is: <<R. Meir was a scribe. Once when
> he wrote a Sefer Torah, he pondered deeply in his heart that "very good"
> refers even to death... His hand followed his thoughts and he erred
> and inadvertenly wrote in his Sefer Torah that... "death was good">>
> [Kisvei Ramban 1:p184]

As I don't have the texts in front of me, I am not completely sure of
what RM Shapiro is claiming. However, based purely on your citations,
I can hazard the following chain of reasoning (which illustrates the
above point)
1. The midrash states that rav meir had a sefer torah with tov mavet.
2. The simple pshat is that this is in the actual text of his sefer
torah.
3. Some meforshim (rambam, and meforshim on midrash) understand that
doesn't mean that his sefer torah was different - but that it referred
to his understanding of the pshat, perhaps memorialized in writing
4. The ramban disagrees, and says that this was in rav meir's own sefer
torah - as is the simple pshat of the midrash.

This is not misrepresentation. RJSO would also want considered the
fact that
5. The ramban,trying to understand this, proposes that this was an
error of Rav Meir, based on his thoughts - something not in the original
midrash....
However,
6. There is nothing in the midrash that suggests that this sefer torah
was considered passul..

What is also important is that the midrash does not have the instinctive
reaction of the later meforshim - that this couldn't be kipshuto.

(instances of textual variants were clearly known - eg, the well known
story of using majority rule to reconcile the different versions of the
sifre torah in the hechal..)

> (b) is important in light of the ongoing debate current on Avodah (see
> posts by RDE and RSC) about why we are obligated by the Talmud or chasimas
> hatalmud (a universally agreed upon principle in the poskim). Thus, a
> later opinion kenegged the Talmud would normally be a shita dechuya unless
> it could be shown to be consistent with Chazal. A few counter examples
> will not do the trick against the Talmud itself and the weight of the
> many Rishonim and Achronim who quote the sources in Chazal approvingly
> (theTzioni being one of them) -- the Rambam's formulation is referenced
> in the Shulchan Aruch lehalacha (see also the beginning of the Oruch
> Hashulchan) -- all this omitted by Shapiro yet central to the issue at
> stake. Many of the opinions quoted by Shapiro do not address the Talmudic
> sources and we may thus be making the same mistake with them as was made
> by Shapiro w.r.t. to the Tzioni/RYH.

(Sigh) The talmudic sources refer to someone who proposes that the torah
was not from sinai, or that moshe inserted verses on his own - a very
specific form and far narrower version of the eighth ikkar. No one is
denying torah min hashamayim - the question is the precise definition
of what the gmara meant...

>> Note 
>> that Rav Moshe Feinstein disagreed with this reinterpretation 
>> - which is why he wishes to ban the book.

> I am not sure why you say this as Rav Moshe Feinstein was apparently
> not aware of the following quote from the Tzioni:
> At the very least, it seems to me that Rav Moshe would heartily approve of
> the above Tzioni, and who knows what he would have said about R. Klein's
> peshat which I would say is solidy based on a prooftext from the Tzioni.
> Contra Shapiro, the Tzioni would not contradict himself.

Again, you are mixing issues.

The Tzioni argues that the entire torah was written down by moshe.
It doesn't address the issue, nor is it inconsistent, with the position of
rav yehuda hachasid - that portions of the torah that moshe wrote down,
such as hallel hagadol were deleted by later authorities - it doesn't
allow any one else a role in adding anything.

Again, you question why I say rav moshe disagreed with this
interpretation. Rav moshe viewed that the perush of rav yehuda hachasid
must have been a forgery - because no talmid chacham could possibly
suggest that -suggesting that he viewed the simple pshat (a la shapiro)
to be the right pshat, which is why he objected strenuously to its
publication. Of course, one can speculate about his possible response
to novel pshatim - but the bottom line is that he understood it exactly
as Shapiro did - which is why he objected.

(of course, any statement can be reinterpreted - but some
reinterpretations are sufficiently removed from pshat to raise issues
of misrepresentation...)

Meir Shinnar 

> .... It is true that Rashi says that Adam and Chava had [unmentioned]
> daughters, and that brothers married sisters in the beginning ("Olam
> chessed yibaneh.") However, the world seems to have become thickly
> populated very rapidly. Kayin has to wander lest he be killed--at a time
> when there seem to be only half a dozen people in the world, all close
> relatives?! Chanoch builds cities--populated by less than a hundred
> people?! There is art, music, culture, even intermarriage between
> different races of men. There are many hints in the early perakim of
> Bereishis that there are a whole lot of people there, and where did they
> all come from? Again, I am only speculating.

Why is it not possible that there were some sort of sub-humans who did
not have the same neshamas as Adam HaRishon that were created around the
same time as Adam HaRishon -- in other words, Adam HaRishon contained
the souls of all those that would follow as human beings and those other
creations died out.

There are a number of explanations for how we find fossils of creatures
that look semi-human [such as cro-magnon and such]; one that I have
heard is that Hashem turned some people into apes or ape-like creatures
as a punishment at/after the tower of Bavel incident. So why couldn't
Hashem have created other "creations" around the time of Adam HaRishon
that populated areas but were not meant to continue on as human beings
were? Another thought is that if Hashem created many worlds before this
one, why couldn't He have left some people around from a previous world
to start things out?

I apologize if any of this sounds silly to everyone else, but since
Hashem can do anything and there are zillions of ways that something
could have come about [probably many more than we can even think of],
then anything is possible. Why does it not tell us specifically in the
Torah if there were other people or human-like creations around? I would
suppose for the reason that Torah doesn't spell out many other things --
we don't need to learn something from it or it isn't important.

 --Rena

BH

As someone who tunes in to 770live often (I am in Sinagapore), I can
assure you that the time difference is much more then toich kday dibbur. I
was once talking to a friend who was in 770 while I was able to see him
online and there was at least a 30 second delay. Of course this could
change (speed connection, servers, the host), but realisticly speaking
its probably not (at leaset for now) the same as radio.

I had a similar question a few years ago about Birchas Hamozon. Can I
begin a meal in Penssylvania and continue it in New York? Since clearly
in Halacha, if i were to begin a meal in my house with the intent to
move the my neighbors that would not be a problem, ie changing places
is no problem. Then in effect the same should apply for much longer
distances. Just like over here if in the great shul they used flags, so
lemay nafka mina if its 1000 meters or a thousand miles? When we looked
it up it seemed by all accounts that there would be no Halchachic problem
with continuing the Seudah.

Hatzlacha, 
Yossi Witkes
Singapore  

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> SBA <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
>> My shaalo is, what do I do when I hear the Shatz saying brochos, borchu,
>> kaddish and kedusha? Do I answer - or not? Does anyone know of tshuvos
>> on this?

> My intution is that the answer is no, you do not. What you are hearing
> is not a human voice making a Bracha but an electronic reproduction akin
> to listening to a recording of a Bracha. Saying Amen to a recording of
> a Bracha is considered an Amen Yesomah. OTOH some Poskim hold that one
> may be Yotze Havdalah over the phone so perhaps one may be Talui on
> that(...saying Amen in the proper places).

I don't think it's really relevant lehalacha, but perhaps it pays to
bear in mind that the LR, in whose beit midrash these kadeishim, etc, are
being said, held that one cannot be yotzei over the phone, for precisely
the reason RHM gave, that what you're hearing is not a human voice.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> If it were (using some other technology) does hearing the berakhah
> over the telephone constitute hearing, or is it more like the gemara's
> description of the Great Synagogue of Alexandria where it was so big
> they would use flags to let people know when to answer the chazan?

I would say that the people in the Alexandrian shul had to answer because
they were in the same room as the chazan, and therefore part of the
tzibbur on whose behalf he was praying, so even though they could not
hear him they had to answer when they knew what he was saying. But it
seems to me that someone who is not part of that minyan, and also cannot
hear the chazan, e.g. someone who is outside the Alexandrian shul and
sees the flag waving through the window, has no shayachut to it, and
need not answer just because he happens to know that it is being said.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I wrote:
> If it were [tokh kedei dibbur] (using some other technology) does hearing
> the berakhah over the telephone constitute hearing, or is it more like
> the gemara's description of the Great Synagogue of Alexandria where it was
> so big they would use flags to let people know when to answer the chazan?

> Possible nafqa mina (but this too could be argued): Does shomeia'
> ke'oneh apply?

Another thought: If one is trying to accomplish shemi'ah, then one can get
into discussions of sound quality. (BTW, even on a telephone connection,
the voice is digitized, sent in packets of bytes through multiple hubs,
and reconstructed. Just like streaming audio, but more efficient because
the hardware is designed specifically for moving sound around.)

Howewever, if it's just flagging the time to answer amein, then any flag
would do.

Therefore, it's possible that even if you say it's shemi'ah, that is
only when was has a good quality connection. As opposed to many cell
phone calls. And then you need to define shiur.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

>From: "Yaakov Wise" <yaakovwise@msn.com>
>To: areivim@aishdas.org

>No one has raised the most important issue here - that sexual relations that
>are known to occur by witnesses could be considered, in some cases, a
>marriage requiring a get to dissolve and prohibiting the woman from
>contracting a future marriage with a kohein. To encourage them to use a
>mikvah would seem to be adding to this problem by announcing that the couple
>are indeed living together as husband and wife. There would also be a danger
>of creating future mamzerim if a rav later decided that a previous
>relationship was a marriage and no get had been obtained.

If you refer to the principle of ein adam oseh be'iloso be'ilas znus.
That definitely doesn't apply to a person who has no problem having such
relationship. See SA Even Ha'ezer 33 1.

If you refer to the din of Pilegesh, presuming a pilegesh isn't reserved
for kings (see SA Even Ha'ezer 26 2), that  still doesn't necessitate a
get (see Lechem Mishna Hilchos Melachim 2 3).

 OTHO there are serious ramifications regarding a Pilegesh. She is for
all practical reasons regarded as an eishes ish with the exception that
she doesn't need a get.

As long as they don't formally  terminate their relationship, if she has
intimate relations with someone else she is chayev misa, and he can't go
on living with her. She has to wait 3 months after they terminate the
relationship before starting a new relationship and the list goes on and
on.

Regarding future marriage to a cohen, that's in any case irrelevant for
she is considered a zona (see Beis Shmuel EH 6 s"k 119).

 - Avigdor Feldstein

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 Micha Berger wrote re: fallibility or non fallibility
of chazal:

I wrote
>> Beautiful translation. And once again, you have illustrated from the
>> Maharal that elu v'elu is *not* applied to all halachic disputes...

RMB responded 
> The sevara the Maharal gives in Be'er haGolah (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 19-20
> would apply regardless of whether it's Beis Hillel vs Beis Shammai or
> other machloqesin. His reasoning gives no room for a machloqes where one
> side captured divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, as such perfect
> capturing is impossible.

Why? On the contrary, the only time the "perfect capturing" of elu v'elu is
possible is regarding Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Later generations were
unable to achieve a matzav where both mahn d'amrim were equally aligned to
the truth and thus, one side was divrei elokim chaim (i.e. halacha) and the
other was not.

Best Wishes
Simcha Coffer 

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 Daniel Eidensohn wrote
Subject: Chazal and Rishonim - relative importance

> What is the relative importance of Chazal and the
> Rishonim -- i.e., to what degree do we understand Chazal directly and
> to what degree do we rely on the understanding of the Rishonim -- even
> if they seem to reject Chazal?

> I was taught in yeshiva that Chazal are to be seen and understood
> through the lens of the Rishonim. 

Ditto

> However, Rabbi Meiselman (Jewish
> Action devoted to Gra Fall 1997) asserted that this was the innovation
> of the Gra. 

The innovation of the Gra was in the field of "derech haLimud". At the
time of the Gra, the derech hapilpul developed by Rav Yaakov Polack
was the prevalent methodology of Talmud study. The Gra was adamantly
opposed to this derech. He eschewed the elaborate pilpulim and fanciful
constructs associated with this derech choosing rather to focus on the
simplest yet simultaneously deepest peshat in the Gemara based on the
perushim of the Rishonim "ofen ort" and anywhere else where the Gemara
discussed the topic being studied.

> This apparently means that prior to the Gra, Chazal could
> be understood independently of the Rishonim

Not necessarily but bear in mind that the farther back you go in the
acharonic period, the closer you get to the Rishonim (obviously). Perhaps
the early acharonim relied more on their understanding of the Gemara
than the later ones although in both eras they certainly relied heavily
on the perushim of the Rishonim. Even the later Rishonim relied heavily
on the perushim of the earlier ones (although they often disagreed).

> Similarly it was stated in the Jewish Observer that Rav Moshe Feinstein
>  poskened from the gemora. Something which had not been done since the
> Chasam Sofer. Is it valid to assume that prior to the Chasam Sofer it was
> much more common to posken from the gemora -- thus bypassing the Rishonim?

No. Paskening from the Gemara does not necessarily mean by-passing
the Rishonim. I am not aware of any times where there was a universal
agreement amongst the Rishonim about an inyan in Shas and the Chasam Sofer
(or R' Moshe) bypassed them and learned a different peshat in the Gemara
(or paskened differently than the Rishonim). Even if such a case existed,
it would undoubtedly be an exception to the rule. This is precisely why
we have the distinction between Rishonim and Acharonim.

> What I am searching for are conflicts resulting from switching
> between understanding Chazal directly and viewing the Rishonim as the
> final arbiters of understanding of Yiddishkeit. The consequence being
> whether a person today can bypass or reject the views of the Rishonim.

I don't believe so. For sure not in halachah.

> Alternatively can a person rely on the Rishonim even if they seem to
> contradict Chazal?

For instance? Many times Rishonim give alternate perushim to Chazal's
perushim (for various reasons) but where do we see that they contradict
Chazal? Even if one or two cases could ostensibly be illustrated, anyone
learning Rishonim knows that they viewed themselves as explaining Chazal,
not chs'v contradicting them.

Best wishes
Simcha Coffer

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 04:27:30AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> The sevara the Maharal gives in Be'er haGolah (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 19-20
:> would apply regardless of whether it's Beis Hillel vs Beis Shammai or
:> other machloqesin. His reasoning gives no room for a machloqes where one
:> side captured divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, as such perfect
:> capturing is impossible.

: Why? On the contrary, the only time the "perfect capturing" of elu v'elu is
: possible is regarding Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel. Later generations were
: unable to achieve a matzav where both mahn d'amrim were equally aligned to
: the truth and thus, one side was divrei elokim chaim (i.e. halacha) and the
: other was not.

The point of the Maharal is that no human can understand the full divrei
E-lokim Chaim, and therefore any pesaq is an approximation, a model,
the best we can implement in this world.

If he says that about batei Hillel veShammai, that both are
oversimplifications of a Divine Truth and therefore neither exclusively
correct, al achas kamah vekamah later machloqesin!

:-)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.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 Eli Turkel wrote
> It is well recognized 

by whom?

> that parts of the gemara where written after Ravina
> and Rav Ashi both by Rabbonam Savorai and even as late as the geonic era.

This is not true. The Rabbanan Savurai (RS) only contributed to the
*editing* of the text of the Talmud. No additions were made after the
chasimas hatalmud (500 C.E.). The primary function of the RS was to
encourage the continuity of the two great amoraic battei medrash in Sura
and Pumpedisa in Bavel (modern day Iraq). Their temporary interruption
and subsequent reopening in (589 C.E.) marked the beginning of the Geonic
era. Absolutely no additions were made by the Geonim as the Rambam makes
clear in his hakdama to the Yad.

> If one relies on some miraculuous siyata deshmaya (SD) then this miracle
> was not a one time occurrence but happened continuously over several
> hundred years.

Only the chasima required an extra measure of SD, not any of the
subsequent activity by the Geonim or RS

> Of course, any miracles also runs afoul of "lo bashamayim hi". 

Why? "Lo bashamayim he" simply means that if the chachamim come to a
maskana in Torah based on the thirteen midos, this *becomes* Torah and
even a miracle that would appear to contradict this maskana is meant
only as a test (as in the case of tanur shel achnai). It doesn't mean
that Hashem would not supply an extra measure of siyata dishmaya in order
to enable the chachmei hador to be chosem the Talmud, a feat that would
otherwise have been impossible.

> The Chatam
> Sofer points out that even the Sanhedrin in Lishkat haGazit was not
> infallible because of this reason.

What do you mean "because of this reason"? They were not infallible
because they were human, that's all. In fact, there is an entire parsha in
the Torah that discusses this and other "human fallibility" contingencies
(Vayikra 4:13)

Best Wishes
Simcha Coffer

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 07:11:25AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Why? "Lo bashamayim he" simply means that if the chachamim come to a
: maskana in Torah based on the thirteen midos, this *becomes* Torah and
: even a miracle that would appear to contradict this maskana is meant
: only as a test (as in the case of tanur shel achnai)....

First, there's a machloqes tanai'im about the nature of the bas qol in
that story. See "bas qol" in Encyc. Talmudit, or at least my summary at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol.shtml>

Second, note that this means that the masqanah WRT halakhah is infallible,
tautologically. That which defines Torah can't fail to be Torah.

Which is why I still wonder why this discussion and that of whether Chazal
or the Rambam misunderstood what the moon was are being lumped together.
Not all infallibility is alike.

BTW, full agreement would not have been proof of infallibility. Everyone
could agree on the wrong answer. And even with machloqes, we're talking
about the masqanah, not the individual being infallible (or not).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

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


[ 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         ]