Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 011

Thursday, May 12 2005

• Re: Rambam and miracles
• Torah before Sinai
• Re: Teaching Children Midrashim
• Query Re Chazorat Ha-Shatz
• Eliyahu Seder Night
• Re: pirkei avot
• Yom HaAtzmaut
• Re: Kitniyos and bitul
• Re: Brocha on Tevila
• Meluchah and Democracy, was: recent daf yomi
• Re: Teaching Children Midrashim
• R' Hutner on Yuhara
• Re: R' Hutner on Yuhara
• FW: MOAG Question
• psak and haskafa
• psak and haskafa
• Torah before Sinai
• Re Teaching Childen Midrashim
• re: Question on the Rambam

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 08:53:56PM -0700, Daniel Israel wrote:
: I once suggested to someone, based on the modern usage of "tachlis"
: as "purpose," that this meant HaShem has no purpose...
:                                                  HaShem, OTOH, has no
: purpose to fulfill, he simply is....

I agree with this idea. G-d acts for His own reasons, there is no purpose
imposed on His existance. Atah hu haRishon, ve'Arah Hu haAcharon -- Just
as Hashem is First and Ultimate Cause, He is also Final and Ultimate
Purpose.

: My friend rejected this on the grounds that there is no mekor to justify
: this use of "tachlis" in classical Hebrew. Any comments?

I think it's implied from /klh/ meaning to complete or finish. Takhlis
is therefore more than just "sof" or even "qeitz".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 17th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              state of harmony?

I came across a fascinating footnote regarding the status of pre-Sinai
Torah in the recently published sefer of RYBS shiurim and writings
on Pesach, Sefirah and Shavuous. The quote is from Rambam Perush
Hasmishnayos, Meseches Chulin, Perek 7, Mishna 6 (very loose translation
is mine):

"And give heed to the important principle included in this mishnah,
namely, that which was made forbidden at Sinai is because "ata horaisa
l'daas" [not sure if this is a reference to the pasuk in Dvarim or just
a biblically inspired turn of phrase] that everything that we either
refrain from doing or do is because of God's commandment through Moshe --
not because of what God said to prophets that preceded Moshe. For example,
the prohibition of not eating ever min hachai is not a result of God's
command to Noach but rather because Moshe commanded us at Sinai that
the prohibition should continue ["sheyiskayem"]. Similarly, we are not
commanded to perform the mitzvah of mila because Avraham performed mila
and similarly with gid hanasheh, we don't follow the prohibition of
Yaakov but rather the commandment of Moshe. And note that which they
[Chazal?] said that Taryag mitzvot were said to Moshe at Sinai and all
of them are in the category of Mitzvos."

I find the Rambam puzzling. Why is it that a commandment given by
God to the Avos or to Noach -- even if clearly phrased "lidoros" --
is not binding on us without the separate "michayev" of Sinai? A good
example is mila -- the mitzva in Vayera is clearly phased "lidoros"
(Gen. 17:10-14) and I had always understood it to be binding on Bnei
Yisrael before matan torah. Why not after?

In addition, where do we see in the torah that the all pre-Sinai mitzvos
were repeated at Sinai?

David Zilberberg

Gershon Seif wrote:
> crumbs). Meaning that every individual was worthy of having the sea
> split for him/her.

> But how do you teach this medrash to your kids? ... But should
> I tell him the Maharal that says it's likely not literal? What about a
> 5 year old? A 3 year old? What about a table that has all of those ages
> there? Just avoid the whole subject then?

Well, in this case I think the most important thing is to start by 
pointing out the lesson.  I think a child can probably relate to the 
idea that each Jew was worthy of having the sea split for him.  Perhaps 
go further and tie it to the child himself: see how much HaShem cares 
for each and every one of us.

After all, whether you read it literally or not this is the real point 
of the midrash.  And if children from a young age are taught to 
appreciate these lessons implicit in the midrashim, then it would seem 
to me that they are better prepared when, at an older age, they are 
introduced to the idea that some midrashim are not literal.  If a child 
always learned midrashim as wonder stories, then telling him they are 
not literal will prompt him to wonder, "why did you tell me all that 
nonsense."  OTOH, if he appreciates the lessons, they will remain even 
after he may develop a more nuanced understanding.

 -- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
   Engineering

A related issue has long puzzled me; let me explain:
Rabbi Meir Berglass was the Rabbi of Shaarei Tefillah in Toronto durng the
seventies and he was a talmid of the Rav. Rabbi Berglass would stand
with his feet together during chazarat ha-shatz and listen intently and
answer amen to the berachot. He said that he had learned this from RYBS.

However years later I learned that IIUC the Rambam paskens in Hilchot
Tefillah 8:9,10 (using the Machon Mamre online Rambam) that the Shatz
only fulfills the chiyuv of davenning Shemonah Esrai for someone who is
unable to himself daven (except for the exceptionally long tefillot of
RH Mussaf and Mussaf of YK during a Yovel).

IF the shatz is not fulfilling any chiyuv for those of us who can daven,
then why should we so stand; what exactly are we doing.

Could someone explain the Rav's shitah and provide references, I would
much appreciate an answer.

KT
Eliyahu
=========
Copied 1st part from areivim response

======================
I'll be pleased to but you probably should go to www.Yutorah.org and
click on Roshei Yeshiva then click on R'HS and go to the bottom where
you'll see a shiur:

 Chazores Hashas: In memory of The Rav's Twelfth Yahrzeit 5765

It's a gem! I actually adopted the same minhag a number of years ago and
gave part of my Yahrtzeit Drasha this year on it but had not heard
some of what R'HS discusses here. In addition I now understand why the
leader should say the benching out loud up to the "al yichasreinu".
============
also

See nefesh harav 123
See S"A  O"C 124:3,7 
See Rambam tfilla 8:1
Chaye adam 29:1

KT
Joel Rich

The reason given by the Magen Avraham at the end of OH 295 for our singing
about Eliyahu HaNavi on motsa"sh (motsaei Shabbat) is that he can't come
on Erev Shabbat [and Erev Chag (Eruvin 43b)] because it would interfere
with the preparations for Shabbat, and he can't come on Shabbat (and
the Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham to 295, says that the same is true for
Chag) because of the safek that there may be Techumin above 10 Tefahim
(Eruvin 43b). This is what prompted my question as to why we expect that
Eliyahu will eventually come Seder Night (See Hok Yaakov on OH 480).

Subsequent research led me to the Turei Even on RH 11a (on be-Nisan
nig'alu...), the Kreiti u-pleiti at the end of the Beit haSafek (after
YD 110), Shu"t Hatam Sofer Likutim on YD (Helek vav) 98 , and to Rav
Braun in Shearim Metzuyanim Behalakha on Eruvin 43b - who deal with the
coming of the Ben David (Mashiach). Their answer is directly applicable,
of course, to the coming of Eliyahu - who is expected to come a day
earlier (Eruvin 43b).

Based on Haza"l's interpretation of Yeshayhu's term "be-itah ahishena",
they argue that there are two possible redemptive scenarios: "Be-Itah" -
a redemption toward the end of history, if we are not particularly worthy.
This is the normative system where the rules of not coming on Erev
Shabbat/Hag or Shabbat/Hag generally apply. But there is also "Ahishena"
which is a speeded-up redemptive process, if we are worthy. The latter
says the Kreiti is a miraculous process through G-d's intervention. Under
Ahishena, there are no rules and it can happen any time. It's not
something we would/should expect or can count on - certainly if we
are not truly worthy. But ultimately it is G-d's decision and it is
something we pray should happen - even if we are not worthy - because of
our precarious situation and the pikuach nefesh of Jews. That's what we
mean by "ve-yatzmach purkanei, VI-YEKAREIV meshichei". This either means:
bring him soon because we really need him now, or cause us to repent en
masse so that the mashiah will come.

Hence, we open the door for Eliyahu in the prayer that he will come
under the be-ita system, according to the view that there are no Tehumin
above 10, or under the ahishena system, assuming that G-d will decide
to miraculously hasten the process.

 --------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:42:10PM +0200, saul mashbaum wrote:
: I read recently, I cannot recall where, the following mashal of the
: derech halimud of 4 major gdolim:

: Let's say you want to investigate a piece of cloth. You can put it under
: a microcope. You can unravel it and examine the threads that make it
: up. You can compare it to other similar pieces of cloth. You can feel it.

: The first procedure represents R. Chaim; the second, R. Shimon; the third,
: the Rogachover; the fourth, the Chazon Ish.

I don't get the subtle distrinctions in mashalim that map them to
the nimshalim. How is the "microscope" different than looking at the
individual threads? And what is implied by "feeling"?

-mi

RAMB: "Does anyone have any authoritative information as to whether or
not we say Tachanun at Mincha the day before Yom HaAtzmaut?"

I guess Rinat Yisrael is reasonably authoritative for this sort of
thing. It lists only Pesach Sheni, Erev Rosh Hashana, and Erev Yom Kippur
as no-Tachanun days on which Tachanun is said the previous mincha. So
it seems we don't say it erev Yom HaAtzmaut. (Of course, Rinat Yisrael
also prescribes a yuntifdik liturgy for Yom HaAtzmaut, including, among
other things, portions of L'cha Dodi and shofar blowing at Ma'ariv. So
I don't know if it's authoritative for those of us who daven a chol
davenning on Leil YHA and add only Hallel at Shacharit.)

 - Ilana

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 05:09:56PM -0500, afolger@aishdas.org wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> Does "mevateil issur lechat-chilah" apply to the mevateil's
:> definition of issur? I could see arguing that it should be, based on the
:> fact that bitul lechat-chilah by a nachri is bitul. However, I thought
:> that had to do with the nachri's lack of relevent da'as. By saying that
:> it depends on the mevateil, one makes it look like this is some kind of
:> onesh for trying to get away with bitul, rather than a kelal in birur.>>

: Bime'hilat kevod Torato, methinks that you are mixing up two concepts:
: keshenod'ah hata'arovet (relevant especially for 'hatikhah na'asit
: neveilah) and ein mevatlin issur lekhat'hilah, the latter being indeed
: a form of onesh....

The whole discussion is whether EMIL is in reality a form of onesh, or if
the person knowing the item went in destroys its ability to be batul. IOW,
if its sevarah is a more extreme but related one to that of KH. The nafqa
minah might be the case in the subject line, a Sepharadi who wouldn't
incur an onesh for intentially putting qitniyos in the chamin on Pesach.
Now he wants to serve this chamin to an Ashkenazi.

:               And yes, there is a problem of bittul issur lekhat'hilah
: with kitnios...

But our case, as you can see, is more subtle since the mivateil doesn't
have the minhag, only the eater does. (I'm guessing that the business
of the rabbinate during Pesach kept you from following the discussion
from the beginning.)

If you can bring a raayah that it's onesh rather than a more normal rule
of birur, my original question would be answered.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 17th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              state of harmony?

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 05:44:39PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> <I wonder whether an alternative explanation might be that even the
:> mechaber might allow a bracha on a minhag that is explicitly
:> mentioned in the gemora.>

: But somebody pointed out to me off list that indeed:
:>      Then what about Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, mentioned as a minhag in
:> Ta'anis 28b?

: Which is of course completely true. The reference is to Rav going
: to Bavel and seeing them reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, and being
: minded to stop them, until he realised they were skipping parts, and
: then realised it was just a minhag (minhag avosanu b'yadanu).

A nequdah that is implied by the story that might have been obvious
to everyone who followed this discussion except myself, but I found
startling:

Rav didn't know until they skipped part of Hallel that they were saying
it lesheim minhag, not din. So, it would seem that there was a berakhah,
as the lack of berakhah would have tipped Rav off before they started.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 17th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              state of harmony?

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 10:06:24AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: 2. Alei Shor states that based on this gemara that the ideal ruler for
: the gentiles is an absolute monarch and that democracy is not the ideal
: but occurs because of the lack of emunah of the present day nations
: (he stresses he is talking about ideals and not individual kings who
: may be reshaim). A truly believing nation would choose a system of
: governership that emulates G-d. Once belief in G-d is lost one can
: settle for a democracy (as an aside he mentions that the new concept of
: a government in exile is an emulkation of G-d being in exile).

: I have trouble accepting this - can someone please explain it better.

It would be easier to do if you narrowed down where I should look for it.

But this doesn't suprise me. An ideal ruler would do what's best for
the people, without the slow process of beaurocracy and elections. So,
if one is speaking of an ideal that can not currently be realized,
I would have no problem believing it.

After all, wouldn't we implement dinei melekh once we get a melekh
hamashiach? Or do you think the mashiach would have a parliment?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 17th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Tifferes: What is the ultimate
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              state of harmony?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:16:41PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: /This/ explanation? The p'sukim state that through the
: blowing of the wind, the waters stood up as walls (in what
: form? Liquid? Solid? Frozen? ...

"Kemo neid nozelim".

-mi

Re the discussion [on Areivim] about the Lithuanian yeshiva mode of
dress and Rav Hutner's outlook on beards:

In around 1976 -- shortly after the 50th yahrzeit of the Alter of
Slabokda -- I had the zechus of being part of a group that had a series
of three hour-long sessions with Rav Hutner, z'l, on matters of hashkafa
and mussar. The sessions were part of an ongoing effort in which several
of us took part that involved talking with various roshei yeshiva who
were talmidim of Slabodka to see how their understanding of its shittos
compared to what we received at Chofetz Chaim.

(The connection was made after a gathering at Chofetz Chaim marking the
yahrzeit, attended by Rav Hutner, Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, and a number
of other great talmidim of the Alter still alive in America at the time.)

One of the questions we asked Rav Hutner was why he departed from the
Slabodka approach in the manner of dress. My recollection of his answer
and general discourse on the subject includes several elements. Please
allow some tolerance for distortions of memory that may have crept in
with time.

One thing I was surprised to learn from Rav Hutner was that the
declaration that yeshiva bachurim should dress in modern fashion
originated with Rav Yisroel Salanter, z'l. He explained that it was
part of Rav Yisroel's general effort to raise the honor and dignity of
Torah and of bnei Torah. In his day, lomdei Torah, who still dressed
in the old way while others were adopting modern European styles of
dress, had gotten the reputation and image of being behind-the-times,
bedraggled ne'er-do-wells. A big part of the equation, I recall Rav
Hutner explaining, was that the young women, who were more in tune with
the times, were looking down at them and were not accepting them as
appropriate shidduchim!

I do not recall whether it was Rav Hutner, or someone else in a different
conversation, who told me that Rav Yisroel's policy eventually resulted
in yeshiva bachurim being among the most elegantly dressed young men
in Lithuania.

I had previously thought that Slobodka represented this shitta, but, as
others have posted here, all the Lithuanian yeshivos seemed to follow the
same path. In addition to the revelation from Rav Hutner that it came from
Rav Yisroel, on a different occasion a talmid chacham I know who learned
in Telz described to me an episode in which the yeshiva had required a
bachur with a beard to take it off -- similar to stories posted here by
others. I asked him why. His reaction, to me, was a shocker. "It was a
chillul Hashem!" he said as if it was obvious. I think he meant that a
beard conveyed an unkempt look. But it was quite a radical statement of
the Lithuanian position -- although I can't say this one man's take was
representative of the general approach.

I had gathered at Chofetz Chaim that the Slabodka shitta about dress
was intended, in part, to ensure that bachurim do not invest too much in
chitzonius, that they do not confuse outer manifestations of religiosity
with true religiousness, and that they not be fooled into thinking that
clothing makes the frumkeit (similar to comments by other posters that it
was about the issue of "yuhara"). It became clear to me from Rav Hutner,
however, that Rav Yisroel's aim was more connected with the idea of
raising k'vod haTorah and the prestige of Torah learning. Rav Hutner's
explanation fits in well, I believe, with the story told about the Alter
asking Rav Yisroel what should be the major thrust of the yeshiva he
was planning to open. Rav Yisroel answered with the pasuk in Yeshaya:
"Le-hachayos ruach shefalim u-le-hachayos lev nidkaim" -- in other words,
elevating the self-dignity of bnei Torah.

Rav Hutner gave us to understand that he believed that Rav Yisroel's
decree no longer applied. He told us that no one will get up and "give
a klop" to say "ad kahn gezeiras Rav Yisroel Salanter," but basically
it was over. As evidence that the approach does not apply in all places
and times, he cited a fairly well known story: When part of Slobodka
came to Eretz Yisroel and became Yeshivas Chevron, a problem arose
for the members of the old yishuv. The young women were forsaking the
Yerushalmi lomdim in favor of the "cool" new breed of yeshiva bachurim
from Litta. (There's that same shidduch factor again.) A busload of
rabbonim was sent as a delegation to the Alter in Chevron to tell him
that this was not the way in Eretz Yisroel, and that he should change.

(When we brought back Rav Hutner's proof to my Rosh Yeshiva -- lehavdil
bein chaim l'chaim, Rav Henach Leibowitz, shlita -- he said, more or less:
"I don't understand his raayah. The story proves just the opposite:
The Alter sent them away!")

In any case, Rav Hutner told us that in America, particularly after
the Sixties, when "Do your own thing" became part of the ethos, it was
appropriate to go back to what he called a "Jewish" look.

I will never forget the sight of Rav Hutner making his point. He pulled
out his peyos from behind his ears, stretched them to their full length,
straight out from his face in a horizontal plane, and dangled them up
and down dramatically. "You see these?" he almost yelled in his great,
deep voice. "I grew these after the Holocaust, so the world should not
forget the look of a Jewish face!"

This is my own impression, but I remember thinking that Rav Hutner's
position seemed more a matter of nationalistic pride than religious
devotion. I remember him mock-taunting us about our beardless "Uncle
Sam faces." He gave us a further illustraton: If you go to the U.N.,
he said, you will see Arab representatives wearing kaffiyahs. Could
you imagine what would happen if someone asked one of them to take his
kaffiyah off? It would be the biggest insult! So why should we be ashamed
of looking distinctively Jewish?

I will also never forget what happened next. Rav Hutner turned to one of
our group and asked: "Were you ever at the U.N.?" My friend sheepishly
replied that he had never been there. With great animation, Rav Hutner
slapped the back of one hand against the palm of another, and almost
thundered: "An avla! An intelligent mentsch living in New York City,
and you've never been to the U.N.?!"

(There's an epilogue to that last remark, which we asked him about,
but that's for another time.)

Kol tuv,
Yitzchok Brandriss

On the subject of Rav Hutner's beard:

I would be interested to know whether the fact that he didn't have a beard
was an expression of some sort of hashkafa or perhaps one of humility,
considering a beard to be an aspect of 'yuhara'. This concept, of course,
has certainly been forgotten today, but maybe that's what was going on
70 years ago.

Ephraim

R' Efraim Yawitz wrote
> Although I agree with RHM and others who are upset about rewriting of
> history, I would be interested to know whether the fact that he didn't
> have a beard was an expression of some sort of hashkafa or perhaps one
> of humility, considering a beard to be an aspect of 'yuhara'.  This
> concept, of course, has certainly been forgotten today, but maybe that's
> what was going on 70 years ago.

IIRC, R' Hutner was a believe in the concept of "ga'ava d'kedusha" -
that, since ga'ava is a feeling that most people have anyway, it should
be channelled into one's avodas Hashem. Thus, I doubt that R' Hutner
didn't have a beard because of humility (perhaps it was something as
simple as his wife not wanting him to have a beard? :-)).

I believe that the concept of "ga'ava d'kedusha" stems from the idea of
"gadlus ha'adam" of Slabodka (as opposed to the idea of "shiflus ha'adam"
of Navardok) in that the most effective way to bring out the best in a
person is to build him up ("you shouldn't be doing such a thing (i.e.,
aveira X) - you're a chashuva mentch!") as opposed to tearing him down
("you shouldn't be doing such a thing (i.e., aveira X) - you're a nothing
in the grand scheme of things - how dare you do that!")

It was R' Hutner's belief in the appropriateness of "ga'ava d'kedusha"
that explains why many YRCB alumni wear "long" on shabbos and have beards.
Even if a person isn't, for instance, a rebbi in yeshiva, he should
still be proud to be a yid and dress in a chashuva manner.

Of course, others (I'm not sure, but I think it was R' Pam) believe that
any ga'ava was dangerous and, thus, even "ga'ava d'kedusha" was not a
good thing. IIRC, R' Pam refrained from wearing "long" for as long as
he could, and even then, when he wasn't in the yeshiva, he would prefer
to wear a short jacket (calling his long kapote his "work clothes")

(recollections of a RY Reisman navi shiur that I heard years ago)

Nowadays, at least when it comes to dealing with children, promoting
"gadlus ha'adam" is much more effective than "shiflus ha'adam."

I am not sure that the idea of "ga'ava d'kedusha" contradicts (or, over
the past 70 years, replaced) the idea of "yuhara," but it certainly is
difficult to navigate between the two. (After writing this post, I am
now determined to get my hands on the RYR tape on this topic to refresh
my memory....)

KT,
Aryeh

Gershon Seif queried:
> 1) What is the name of the issur of saying chazal were fallible? I've
> heard the words makchish magideha. Where does that term come from? Anyone
> know if it's been used in the past in a similar way?

  It is from the Rambam, in Sefer Hamada, when defining a Kofer. Hilchos 
Teshuvah, 3:17.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/1503.htm
                          KT, 
                               MikeW

> 1) What is the name of the issur of saying chazal were fallible? I've
> eard the words makchish magideha. Where does that term come from? Anyone
> now if it's been used in the past in a similar way?

> ) Does anyone have any SOURCES (not personal opinions - we've had
> oo many of those!) that would show how psak is or isn't limited to
> on-hashkafic areas

Let me ask a more fundamental question. What is the source (if any) of
listening to any psak of a gadol. In my ancient article in Tradition
I claim that basically one only needs to listen to the psak of one's
personal rabbi, RY or LOR. Except if something is accepted by the entire
community no one can impose his opinions on others.

There is a well known story that RAL asked RSZA some question about
belonging to some organization. RSZA refused to answer. RAL then said he
heard that RSZA opposed this organization. RSZA answered that his psak
only affected his talmidim and not RAL and that RAL should make up his
own mind.

Since SA does not address most haskafic issues therefore Rav Elyashiv's
opinions only affect those who consider themselves his talmidim. It does
not affect others.

My article also deals indirectly with disagreeing on haskafic issues in
particular on "daas Torah".

-- 
Eli Turkel

I came across a fascinating footnote regarding the status of pre-Sinai
Torah in the recently published sefer of RYBS shiurim and writings
on Pesach, Sefirah and Shavuous. The quote is from Rambam Perush
Hasmishnayos, Meseches Chulin, Perek 7, Mishna 6 (very loose translation
is mine):

"And give heed to the important principle included in this mishnah,
namely, that which was made forbidden at Sinai is because "ata horaisa
l'daas" [not sure if this is a reference to the pasuk in Dvarim or just
a biblically inspired turn of phrase] that everything that we either
refrain from doing or do is because of God's commandment through Moshe
-- not because of what God said to prophets that preceded Moshe. For
example, the prohibition of not eating ever min hachai is not a result
of God's command to Noach but rather because Moshe commanded us at Sinai
that the prohibition should continue ["sheyiskayem"]. Similarly, we are
not commanded to perform the mitzvah of mila because Avraham performed
mila and similarly with gid hanasheh, we don't follow the prohibition
of Yaakov but rather the commandment of Moshe. And note that which they
[Chazal?] said that Taryag mitzvot were said to Moshe at Sinai and all
of them are in the category of Mitzvos."

I find the Rambam puzzling. Why is it that a commandment given by
God to the Avos or to Noach -- even if clearly phrased "lidoros" --
is not binding on us without the separate "michayev" of Sinai? A good
example is mila -- the mitzva in Vayera is clearly phased "lidoros"
(Gen. 17:10-14) and I had always understood it to be binding on Bnei
Yisrael before matan torah. Why not after?

In addition, where do we see in the torah that the all pre-Sinai mitzvos
were repeated at Sinai?

Ml: The answer is that for Rambam Legislative and revelational prophecy
are different. The former can only come form a prophet-lawgiver and it
requires a higher level of prophecy than revelational prophecy. The
latter can be changed or revoked by another prophet, is given in
riddles and visions, thorugh an angel, and requires interpretation by
the prophet. There iremian a possibility that the propeht misunderstood
the prophecy becasue of this required process of interpretation.

Moshe R. was the onmly legislative prophet. His prophecy is rock=-olid
and cannot be revoked because he did not use dimyon but only sekhel. He
received law as fact which can never be revoked.

Rambam is consistent and this point in Pirush Hamishnayos, a favourite
of the Rav, BTW, that he often quoted, is internally dependent on other
Rambam positions.

M. Levin

Posted by: micha@aishdas.org on: May 11, 2005:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:16:41PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote: 
>: /This/ explanation? The p'sukim state that through the 
>: blowing of the wind, the waters stood up as walls (in what 
>: form? Liquid? Solid? Frozen? ... 

> "Kemo neid nozelim". 

I assume you're being me'dayyik the word "nozelim" (Sh'mos 15:8) to mean
the waters were fluid. Nice observation! But look at the meforshim for
several possibilities as to what this means. For instance, according
to the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, the phrase means "the waters that had
heretofore been fluid, now for the B'nai Yisroel became like a 'neid,'
[note the singular form, vs. 'nozelim,' in the plural--ZL] a stiff
wall." According to Malbim, "nozelim" is referring to the state of the
waters after the Egyptians entered: the /frozen/ waters /then/ melted
and reverted to their fluid state.

So my original point stands (like a solid wall), that the Midrashim and
meforshim who hold that the Yam Suf's waters stood up in a frozen state
are supplying details to the posuk--which the posuk itself does not
give--that must be provided to understand it: Were the standing waters
fluid? Gelled? Frozen? Or what?

Zvi Lampel 

> Why does the Rambam in Hilhot Melahim cap 11, says the Rabbi Akiva
> 'imagined' (dima') that Bar Koziva is Mashiah? Is it possible to say
> that the Rambam used this verb because according to him Koah aMedame is
> not constructive and can lead to false immaginations?

Does "dima" mean "imagined" to the Rambam? See, e.g., Hilchos Sh'gagos
2:7: "Dima shezeh sheb'fiv rok hu, uv'la'o... vaharei hu cheilev..."
There, it obviously means "it seemed to him" or "he thought," not that
he imagined; and the same is the sense of the word in Hilchos M'lachim.

EMT

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


[ 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         ]