Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 015

Tuesday, May 17 2005

• Re: YGB: Bava Basra Halachah l'Ma'aseh
• Re: wearing tzitzis out
• Subject: Wearing Tzitzis out
• Re: wearing tzitzis out
• Re: tzitzis out
• RE: wearing tzitzis out
• Re: wearing tzitzis out
• Re: YGB: Bava Basra Halachah l'Ma'aseh
• kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• Psak and Hashkafa
• authority of poskim in the realm of hashkafa
• Agados Chazal in SA
• Re: Agados Chazal in SA
• The Rambam and Korbonos (was psak and Hashkafa)

At 05:00 PM 5/16/2005, Chana Luntz wrote:
>In message <6.2.0.14.0.20050514232846.02c333e0@localhost>, Yosef Gavriel & 
>Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <ygb@aishdas.org> writes
>>Rabbeinu Yonah there argues on the Rashbam and says the case cannot be 
>>talking about a din between two Jews. I cannot cite the Hebrew on Avodah, 
>>but I have copied it out of the Shittah (thanks to DBS!) at the blog site.

>>http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/05/bava-basra-halachah-lmaaseh.html

>Thanks for the cite.

>However, as I said in my first post, to the extent that there is a 
>machlokus rishonim directly on point, why can't the neighbour who asked 
>the question argue kim li - since he is the one being asked to take action?

I assume he can say kim li. If indeed there is an American law (of
which I am not aware, not being a lawyer - or a solicitor) that usage
supercedes title, he would be able to claim the land as his own. However,
what little I learned from <http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/> says:

>What is recording title all about?

>When you purchase real property, you will receive a written document 
>(called "the deed") which transfers the ownership (title) of the property 
>to you as the purchaser. The deed gives you formal title in exchange 
>usually for a specified amount of money. The conveyance of real property 
>is not complete until the deed is delivered to you or your authorized agent.

>When you get the deed, you should record it with the county recorder in 
>the county where the property is located. The purpose of recording the 
>deed is to give "notice to the world" that you now have an ownership 
>interest in that particular piece of real property.

>Recording also tracks the chronological chain of title. Anyone who wants 
>to know who owns a piece of real property can check the records of the 
>county recorder for the county where the property is located. Before you 
>purchase real property, you can follow the chain of sales and transfers of 
>the property - from the original grant of the land all the way to the 
>current owner. When title insurance is purchased, the title insurer checks 
>the change of title to determine whether any defects occurred in prior 
>conveyances and transfers - defects may then be pointed out and excluded 
>from coverage. As a purchaser of property, you want to check that every 
>time in the past, when the property was transferred, the grantor had clear 
>title to the property and the previous purchasers obtained clear title. If 
>someone in the past got less than "the whole bundle of sticks" you will 
>not get clear title.

and:

>Easements and encroachments also affect your ownership of land. People may 
>have been traveling across your land for years to gain access to adjacent 
>property. Your neighbor may have placed a fence across fifteen feet of 
>your property line. Benefits and burdens run with the land - what you 
>obtained when you acquired the property from the previous owner passes to 
>you. The easements and encroachments, whether they be benefits or burdens 
>upon your land, which existed at the time that you acquired the land 
>continue, while you own the land.

>An easement is the right of a no owner to use your land for a designated 
>purpose (e.g., accessing the beach in your case). A right of way is a form 
>of easement granted by the property owner which gives the right to travel 
>over your land and to have the reasonable use and enjoyment of your 
>property to others, as long as it is not inconsistent with your use and 
>enjoyment of the land. These principles had their origin in traditional 
>common law which governed, for example, the free flow of water or allowed 
>neighboring landowners to travel over another's property (an informal 
>"road system"). Although ownership rights of property are lessened by an 
>easement, society at large benefits due to the additional freedom of movement.

>An encroachment is an unauthorized entry upon land of another; whether or 
>not an obstruction is placed upon the land. Traditional common law created 
>the action of trespass for injury to your property (trampling your flower 
>bed in your case) when another interfered with your property rights by an 
>unauthorized and direct breach of the boundaries of your land, enabling 
>you to bring a lawsuit to recover damages for the intrusion. The converse 
>is also true, when you trespass or encroach upon the land of another, you 
>can be held responsible for damages

I did not see anything about time limits. So it would appear that from
the Dina d'Malchusa perspective this is a simple case of encroachment
that will be voided when the deed is produced.

The rest of your argument seems to be based on an intricacy of English
law not applicable to the US.

YGB 

R' Dov Kay:
>The impression one gets when learning this MA is that the Talis Katan
>should be all the way under the clothes, that is under the shirt and
>jacket, therefore you may wonder why the chasidim wear their TK over
>their shirt.

>But if you'll look it up at the source, in Shaar Hakavanos Drushei
>Tzitzis Drush 6, which is apparently the"Kesavim" the MA is refering to,
>you'll find precisely the minhag of (most) chasidim (excuding AFAIK
>minhag Chabad).

>Ve'zeh Leshono: HaTalis Katan huyo lovsho "lematah misha'ar malbushuv
>al gabei chaluko" (which I would translate as under the rest of his
>clothes, on his shirt)....

I think many people (I'm pretty sure among them my father zt'l) understand
chaluko here as meaning an undershirt. That is, the talis katan should
be worn over an undershirt but under the visible shirt.

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

Avigdor Feldstein <myb@ksimail.com> wrote:
> But if you'll look it up at the source, in Shaar Hakavanos Drushei
> Tzitzis Drush 6, which is apparently the"Kesavim" the MA is referring
> to, you'll find precisely the minhag of (most) Chasidim (excluding AFAIK
> minhag Chabad).

> Ve'zeh Leshono: HaTalis Katan huyo lovsho "lematah misha'ar malbushuv al
> gabei chaluko" (which I would translate as "under the rest of his clothes,
> on his shirt") shelo ke'osum hamisyaharim lelovsho al gabei begodov.

"Chaluk" is not a shirt; it's defined elsewhere (I can't remember where)
as a garment which is directly on the skin and absorbs the sweat, i.e. a
singlet (AKA an undershirt).

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 08:16:06PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I think many people (I'm pretty sure among them my father zt'l) understand  
: chaluko here as meaning an undershirt.  That is, the talis katan should be  
: worn over an undershirt but under the visible shirt.

Moshe Rabbeinu a"h performed the Avodah during the 7 yemei hamilu'im
in a simply which chaluq. I don't think chazal meant he did it in his
undershirt. In the days of chazal, at least, a chaluq was something like
an Egypt galabiyah. (The nearest western garment would be a nightshirt.)

There only was one layer. The whole shirt vs undershirt thing would be
anachronistic. It is therefore quite reasonable to ask what the nearest
equivalent is to us, now that we do usually wear two layers.

However, when wore tallis and chaluq, the tallis (which was a knee length
garment with a neck-hole, like a very long version of our tallis qatan
or a medieval squire's bib) was over the chaluq, an outermost garment.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

What is the basis for the idea posted that the haluk worn under all
other clothes "lematah mish'ar malbushov" refers to the shirt and not
to an undershirt?

yelam'denu rabbenu.

k"t,
David

RSM wrote:
>RSRH says that the chulyot, the knotted part, represent the elements of
> Judaism which are fixed and immutable...

Let's take a step back and examine whether or not this discussion
is relevant for those (I believe the majority) of Jews who do not
wear tekhelet on their tzitziot. It is my understanding that the words
"u'rieetem OTO," which serves as the basis for wearing one's tzitzit out,
are referring to the "p'til tekhelet" (see Netziv, Rashbam and others
who write this expressly). Moreover, virtually all Ashkenazim who do
not wear tekhelet also do not tie huliyot on their Tzitzit as is the
Yemenite tradition to this very. Therefore, since the purpose of gazing
at the tzitzit according to Hazal is precisely to look at the blue of
the tekhelet which is reminiscent of the color of the ocean, which in
turn recalls the heavens and which in turn recalls the Kise HaKavod -
would it be accurate to posit that if one does not wear tekhelet, there
is little rationale to wear one's [all] white strings out?

B'virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen
23rd day of Omer

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:45:43AM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: RSRH says that the chulyot, the knotted part, represent the elements of
: Judaism which are fixed and immutable; the gdil, the free-hanging part,
: represents the elements which may vary (different haskafot, different
: approaches). It is thus very significant that the gedil is twice the
: length of the chulyot.

Collected Writings vol III, pp124-125.

I understood him to be writing about the balance between the rigidity
of din (1/3) and free-flowing human creativity (2/3). Man is to be a
creative individual, but only once his forces are channeled and guided
by the heavenly blue of techeiles, by the lemaalah min hateva of 8.
Directing our talents.

This is the tzitzis, the spouts of human growth, at the corners of
the beged. In <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/tetzaveh.pdf> I wrote:
    The Gemara writes that in the ideal, a tzitzis should have the loose
    strings twice as long as the knotted portion. Rav Samson Raphael
    Hirsch explains that this aspect of the mitzvah contains an important
    statement of the Jewish ideal. The Torah exists to provide rules and
    channel our abilities, to direct our talents, not suppress them.
    While kesus and lechaseh speak of covering and hiding appearances,
    the word beged speaks of the newly created appearance. The prophet
    Yishayahu uses the same root in a negative sense when he exorts,
    "uvogeid velo vogdu bo -- you act within a guise, but they did
    not hide behind a guise from you" (Yishayahu 33:1). Begadim are not
    clothing in the role of coverings; they impart an image, significance
    to the wearer and importance to his deeds and abilities. The pasuk
    has us place gedilim, the channeling of our talents, on our kesusim,
    our coverings, our clothing worn for reasons of protection and
    modesty. On begadim, however, we place tzitzis, the extension of
    ourselves into the world.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

Quoting "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>:
>> Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <ygb@aishdas.org> writes
>>> Rabbeinu Yonah there argues on the Rashbam and says the case cannot 
>>> be talking about a din between two Jews. I cannot cite the Hebrew 
>>> on Avodah, but I have copied it out of the Shittah (thanks to DBS!) 
>>> at the blog site.
>>> http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/05/bava-basra-halachah-lmaaseh.html

>> Thanks for the cite.

>> However, as I said in my first post, to the extent that there is a 
>> machlokus rishonim directly on point, why can't the neighbour who 
>> asked the question argue kim li - since he is the one being asked to 
>> take action?

> I assume he can say kim li. If indeed there is an American law (of which I
> am not aware, not being a lawyer - or a solicitor) that usage supercedes
> title, he would be able to claim the land as his own. However, what little
> I learned from:

> http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/

But what you should see is from exactly the same website, a few items down:

> What is adverse possession?
> 
> Traditional common law provided a method for someone to obtain title to
> land through use. The common law rules for adverse possession have been
> codified under both federal and state statutes. A typical statute allows
> a person to get title to land from the actual owner simply by using
> the land, out in the open for all to see. For example, your neighbor
> built a fence on your land with the intention of taking the property,
> paid property taxes, and you knew about it but did nothing. If this
> continued for a period of time set by state law, your neighbor may be
> able to claim this property as his/her own. The theory is that, by not
> disputing your neighbor’s use of your property through a lawsuit, you,
> as the actual owner have abandoned your rights to the property. There
> are several elements needed for adverse possession to result in title:
> 
> The length of time required for adverse possession in title varies - it
> could be as short as a few years or could run for twenty years or more.
> Typically public entities must establish a longer period of possession
> than individuals. Some states have adopted a rule which requires the
> adverse possessor to pay taxes each year on the land.
> 
> The possession must be open for all to see.
> 
> The possession must be exclusive to him or her (e.g., the fence in the
> above example, a driveway, road, etc.)

> The possession must be hostile to the actual owner of the land.
> 
> To gain title to land through adverse possession requires strict
> compliance with the law, but can have dramatic impact upon land ownership
> rights.
> 
> An encroachment could result in title to your property being transferred
> to an adverse possessor. Under these circumstances, you might have to
> bring a lawsuit for trespass in order to prevent your neighbor from
> getting title to your land through adverse possession.
> 
> If you own land, it is important that you do not "sleep on your rights"
> since you could lose ownership of the land.

This is despite county recording (or, more accurately, no doubt the way
to get rectification of one's title is via the county recording and the
courts) - and if one takes via adverse possession, the title documents
(recorded at the county registry or not) are no longer valid and need
to be rectified.

You then discuss easements. Easements, however, are different, they
are, as the website says, rights of non owners to travel across land.
Once an easement has been established, it is then difficult to prevent
the non owners travelling across the land (eg you, or in this case your
neighbour, may not be legally permitted to put up a fence blocking access
if you had a traditional easement).

But the case that seemed to be described here is not about whether
not access can be blocked, but about whether or not six inches of land
belongs to that person or not, necessitating moving a gate six inches
closer to the other neighbour's property. I therefore understood the
case to be a case where the neighbour was claiming six inches of land
as their own (title), not disputing the right of the other neighbour
to access that property where title was not under dispute(easement).
Have I misunderstood the case?

>> An encroachment is an unauthorized entry upon land of another; 
>> whether or not an obstruction is placed upon the land. Traditional 
>> common law created the action of trespass for injury to your 
>> property (trampling your flower bed in your case) when another 
>> interfered with your property rights by an unauthorized and direct 
>> breach of the boundaries of your land, enabling you to bring a 
>> lawsuit to recover damages for the intrusion. The converse is also 
>> true, when you trespass or encroach upon the land of another, you 
>> can be held responsible for damages

> I did not see anything about time limits. So it would appear that from the
> Dina d'Malchusa perspective this is a simple case of encroachment that will
> be voided when the deed is produced.

This if all true - up to and prior to the time limit set for adverse
possession. ie, if one encroaches on another's land (ie attempts to
adversely possess it), the owner has a remedy - but if one does not
exercise one's remedies within the adverse possession time frame, nor
do anything else to protest such actions, and appear quite happy with
the fence (or whatever) being set at a certain point, then one give up
these rights by efluxion of time (varying depending on statute, as the
website says).

>> The rest of your argument seems to be based on an intricacy of English law
>> not applicable to the US.

I don't think there is a vast difference, although there seems to be
more emphasis on checking the chain of title at the registry, while here
there is more presumption that the latest entry is correct, and you can
start your investigations from there.

However, the website makes clear that what this registration does is
give "notice to the world" as to your title, and the method of checking
the chronological chain of title is by means of the registry (not the
old method by which you held on to each and every transfer deed in the
chain). That means, if you don't register your title, you will struggle
to prove it to the next person - and, for adverse possession to work
(as it clearly does by dint of Federal and State statutes) you would
presumably have to apply to have your title recognised at the registry
by virtue of adverse possession.

Some of this does turn on the websites "should" as in "When you get the
deed, you should record it with the county recorder in the county where
the property is located." Does that mean - it is a good idea, or does that
mean, it is legally mandated. I strongly suspect that it is the latter,
which makes it very close to the English system. But even if it is the
former, the traditional risk is, what if the seller then purports to sell
the property to a different buyer, and also gives them a deed of sale -
who gets the land? Traditionally it was the one to whom the property
was sold first, but since registration, most laws state it is the one
who registers first. That means that you don't really have protected
title until you register.

The other issues is taxes and this may vary from country to country. In
England there is a big tax called stamp duty levied on transfer of
property, but there appears to be no mention on the website of such a tax,
only of property taxes levied on the property once it is owned by the
buyer. However, I would query how such property taxes are determined.
My guess is that if such taxes are levied on the owner, and not the
person in residence, that would indeed by determined via the register,
which means that by not registering your purchase of the property, you
would be evading taxes (and the seller would be very keen to get off the
register so he/she is not liable for taxes that he/she no longer ought to
be paying) - creating another reason why registration is necessary, why
the State has an interest, and why the sale and purchase of a property
are not something that the State regards as a private matter between
citizens where they are free to only involve their local arbiters (beis
din) and not any instruments of the State (which appears to be Rabbanu
Yona's argument as to why dina d'malchusa dina was not applicable in a
similar Persian case).

Regards
Chana

On Mon, 16 May 2005 "David Riceman" wrote: 

> As far as I know every shul in my town encourages and abets saying
> tehillim for people who are seriously ill. The Rambam (AZ 11:12) rules
> that people who do that are kofrim.

The Rambam says "halochesh al hamaka". Perhaps in the case of seriously ill
people he would not have said this halachah.

> Admittedly the Tur and Shulhan Aruch are mattir in the case of someone
> who is in danger of dying, but I think they have to be understood as
> disagreeing with, rather than interpreting, the Rambam, since the Rambam
> holds that saying tehillim doesn't help, and the heter of pikuah nefesh
> applies only to doing helpful activities, not useless activities.

Where do you see this in the above quoted Rambam? The reason you cannot read
a verse from the Torah to heal someone is because the implication of the
pasuk "v'yihiyu chaim linafshecha" (Mishlei) implies that Torah is to be
used as a refuah for the soul, not the body. The efficacy of saying a pasuk
in connection to refua is not discussed. For all we know, it might help yet
despite this it is assur to do. In fact, the Rambam states that when using
tehilim to increase your z'chus in order to save you from tzaros and harm,
it is mutar to do, implying that saying tehilim for physical assistance does
help e.g. we are always saying tehilim for people who live in EY. This
approach would actually go well with the SA's heter for a choleh misukan.   

> So, according to the Rambam all the shuls in my town are staffed and
> populated by kofrim.

Well, not exactly. According to the Bach, the Rambam didn't mean the kind of
Kofer that looses his chelek l'olam haba. (I'm not sure how much of a
consolation that is for you...perhaps a chatzi nechama :-)

> What's a good Maimonidean to do?

If you choose not to say tehilim, you can always be mispallel. When the
shliach tzibur says the me shebeyrach after tehilim, go to the front, listen
to every word, and say amen. This way you are making a public show that you
are empathizing with the choleh and praying for his health and not chs'v
being poresh min hatzibur when they are doing a good thing. (Rambam hilchos
Tshuva) Also, you can have him in mind during rifaeinu. 

Simcha Coffer

On Mon, 16 May 2005 "Shinnar, Meir" 

> WRT to the discussionbetween RZL and RMB on the meaning of the existence
> of the universe, the issue (IMHO) is semantic about the meaning of real.
> The rambam's terms is that hashem is the only being whose existence
> is not contingent on something else - and therefore hs to exist.
> Everything else is contingent - it could or could not exist. That is
> the simple pshat of the text.

> Whether a contingent being "really" exists is a semantic issue - one that
> (IMHO) is not really addressed in the text - a contingent existence
> is subtantially different than a noncontingent difference - but once
> existing, it still "really" exists

For all its worth, I agree 100% with the above evaluation however I would
like to add one point. 

I didn't see the original discussion between RZL and RMB (I've been out of
the loop since several weeks before Pesach) but my instinct tells me that
another, deeper point of contention may possibly exist between the above
mentioned ba'alei plugta. Perhaps RMB holds (according to the Rambam) that
although the existence of the world is contingent on the metzius of Hashem,
now that it is in existence, this contingency doesn't play a role in its
ongoing existence and thus creation possesses  (conceptually) the same level
of existence as Hashem. RZL holds, like R' Chaim Volozhin, that this
contingency is a property that persists throughout the duration of creation
and thus creation never attains the same level of metzius as Hashem. If this
is the case, I have a ra'ayah that RZL is correct but I will wait for a
response from RMB and RZL to see if I have accurately assessed their
machlokes.

Simcha Coffer

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:10:39PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
:                           Perhaps RMB holds (according to the Rambam) that
: although the existence of the world is contingent on the metzius of Hashem,
: now that it is in existence, this contingency doesn't play a role in its
: ongoing existence and thus creation possesses  (conceptually) the same level
: of existence as Hashem. RZL holds, like R' Chaim Volozhin, that this
: contingency is a property that persists throughout the duration of creation
: and thus creation never attains the same level of metzius as Hashem. If this
: is the case, I have a ra'ayah that RZL is correct but I will wait for a
: response from RMB and RZL to see if I have accurately assessed their
: machlokes.

One major point missing from your analysis: We're arguing about peshat
in the Rambam. My personal position is closer to the one you ascribe to
RCV. However, I understand the Rambam the way you do.

-mi

On Mon, 16 May 2005 "L. E. Levine" wrote:

> I cannot help but read with irony some of the comments on Avodah regarding
> the issue raised about Psak and Hashkafa. Most of the posts refer to the
> RAMBAM. I recall seeing a statement made by the Vilna Gaon regarding the
> Rambam. The statement was, "That cursed (Aristotelian) philosophy led him
> astray."  I also recall reading in one of the Nineteen Letters a statement
> by RSRH strongly criticizing the Rambam for his reliance on Aristotle.

> The Rambam himself was criticized for his Hashkafa and now proofs are
> brought from him to bolster this or that view!

The point is that anything that the Rambam took from Greek philosophers or
the like does not necessarily have to be accepted by us. OTOH, if the Rambam
was stating his opinion in, and based on, Torah, he retains the level of any
of the gedoley Rishonim whose words we learn with the utmost respect. I'm
sure the Gra wouldn't disagree with this statement. His respect for the
Rambam is easily apparent from his footnotes. (Incidentally, the point of
contention between the Rambam and the Gra is the existence of Sheidim which
ostensibly somewhat mitigates my point but still....) BTY, the Rambam
himself criticized his own use of philosophy in a letter written to his son
R' Avraham b'sof yamav. He states, "I intended these disciplines (philosophy
etc.) to be a handmaiden to the Torah but alas they turned out to be a
tzarah (as in tzaras erva...I don't know how to say "tzara" in English).

> The Rambam's view on Korbonos at the time of Acharis Hayomim (he writes in
> Moreh Nevuchim that since Korbonos where merely a Jewish response to pagan
> sacrifice, there won't be any in the 3rd Bais HaMikdash)

He never writes such a thing. In fact, he states openly in Hilchos Milachim
(11, 1) that all the korbanos will be re-established in the times of the
third Beis HaMikdash. Please check the moreh again (3, 32)

> was rejected by
> the Ramban in Parshas Noach.

Actually, parshas Vayikra

> The Olam joins the Ramban in saying that that
> piece in Moreh Nevuchim is not the accepted view, and there's supposedly a
> Mesorah that at the end of his life the Rambam regretted writing what he
> did about Korbonos in the 3rd Bais HaMikdash.

As the Rambam never wrote such a thing, I doubt your mesorah is correct.

> So we don't hold like the
> Rambam on a major Hashkafa Inyan, but we use the Rambam to determine our
> criteria for Hashkafa guidelines? ... very confusing...

What's confusing? Just because there is a machlokes Rishonim regarding one
of the ta'amey haMitzvos doesn't mean that either one of them has been
marginalized in any way. BTY Rav Dessler feels that both ta'amim are
correct. The Rambam's on a superficial level and the Ramban's on a more
penimiusdic level. In addition, he holds that the Rambam didn't mean to
exclude the penimiusdic level. (this last approach is actually very
michudashdic).

> Most disappointing for me is the lack of real proofs to separate Hashkafa
> from Halacha. IMHO a poor job has been done in trying to show why the two
> are distinct - just lots of "you must be intellectually honest" Svaras,
but
> no sources to back things up.

I am equally disappointed. Consequently, I don't really believe there to be
a distinction.

Simcha Coffer

On Mon, 16 May 2005 Harry Maryles wrote: 
I wrote:
>> Not ridiculous at all. RAL is a talmid chacham of repute both in halachah
>> and hashkafa. He only approached RSZA in areas that he was misupak in. In
>> hashkafa, he was not misupak and thus did not require RSZA "psak".

Harry responded:
> Good. Then we agree. If we have a Hashkafa that is different from
> the Posek we ask our Shailos too, then we may do that, as did RAL
> who differed Hashkafically with RSZA, his Posek for many years until
> RSZA's P'Tirah. This is exactly the way I feel abour R. Elyashiv in
> theory. (In practice he is not my Posek at all.) His Hashkafa is not
> my Hashkafa. Putting it in your words... I am not misupak in Hashkafa
> (as I have my sources in RYBS and RAS amongst others) and thus do not
> require R. Elyashiv's "psak".

Aha! Then you *do* have sources for pesak in your hashkafah. Good. That
means we agree. Essentially there is no difference between Halacha and
Hashkafa. Both of them require a source.

Like RMB would say

Bbii!
Simcha 

[I only wish people a ":-)BBii", smiley + 2 challos + 2 neiros, ie a
happy Shabbos, on Fridays. -mi]

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
>Note that most gemarot that discuss segulot do not appear in SA though
>they frequently do appear in Shulchan Arukh HaRav. Hence, R, Caro
>obviously did not equate aggadah (inluding segulot) and halakhah

OTOH gemoros that discuss sakanos - which are arguably in the realm of
agados, do appear in several places in SA. See YD 116 and CM 427.

KT,
Avigdor Feldstein

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 12:50:34AM -0400, myb@yeshivanet.com wrote:
: OTOH gemoros that discuss sakanos - which are arguably in the realm of
: agados, do appear in several places in SA. See YD 116 and CM 427.

But by RGS's diyuq, that the line has to do with lemaaseh impact, not
halakhah vs aggadita, these have pragmatic impact and therefore are
proper territory for pesaq.

-mi

Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> The Rambam's view on Korbonos at the time of Acharis Hayomim (he writes in
> Moreh Nevuchim that since Korbonos where merely a Jewish response to pagan
> sacrifice, there won't be any in the 3rd Bais HaMikdash) was rejected by
> the Ramban in Parshas Noach. The Olam joins the Ramban in saying that that
> piece in Moreh Nevuchim is not the accepted view, and there's supposedly
> a Mesorah that at the end of his life the Rambam regretted writing what
> he did about Korbonos in the 3rd Bais HaMikdash. So we don't hold like
> the Rambam on a major Hashkafa Inyan, but we use the Rambam to determine
> our criteria for Hashkafa guidelines? ... very confusing...

The Rambam believed that there would not be Korbonos in the 3rd Beis
HaMikdash? Chas VeShalom!

Why do we need a "Mesorah at the end of his life" that he "recanted"? He
writes clearly in Hilchos Melachim 11:1 -
"In the future, Melech HaMoshiach will rise up and return the Davidic
monarchy to its original state. He will build the Mikdash and gather in
the exiles. All of the Mishpatim will return to the way they were before:
Korbanos will be brought, Shmittah and Yovel will be kept...."

Don't take my word for it; look it up.

The Rambam's well-known comment in the Moreh about korbanos being a
response to pagan worship does not include any statement about the future,
nor does it logically negate the possibility of animal sacrifice in the
3rd Beis HaMikdash.

Shalom
Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D.
The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education in the Diaspora
Bar Ilan University
http://www.lookstein.org

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


[ 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         ]