Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 054

Wednesday, July 20 2005

• Re: mishna mentioning gemara
• Re: Admin: Blogs
• Re: Admin: Blogs
• Re: Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur
• amoraim disagreeing with tanaim
• [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Feminism and the Daughters of Zelophehad
• Mishna mentioning gemara
• mishna mentioning gemara
• mishna mentioning gemara
• Re: mishna mentioning gemara
• Der Alter: Alei Shur (1:5)
• sinat "chinam"
• RE: Der Alter: Alei Shur (1:5)
• [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Studying From Old Tests
• Re: Der Alter: Alei Shur (1:5)
• Beards and peyos in Lithuanian Yeshivos
• Reality of the Universe
• Re: amoraim disagreeing with tanaim
• Pirke Avos 4:3
• Drasha in honor of the Bris Milah my new grandson Noam Akiva Greenland

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:12:17AM +0200, Avi Burstein wrote:
: I just realized something that didn't make any sense to me. The famous
: mishna in pirkei avos (5:25) that says 18 is the time for marriage (and
: other age related milestones) also says that 15 is the age for gemara.
: Now, how could a mishna mention the term "gemara"? ...

"Shelish bemiqra, shelish bemishna ushelish begemara" is also from a
tanna -- which means that both predate the mishnah, not just Shas.

And the Rambam defines shelish begemara "lehavin davar mitoch davar".
In tana-speak, "mishnah" is memorized maskanos in halakhah; "gemara"
is understanding where those halakhos come from.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In  Avodah V15 #53 dated 7/18/2005  RAM writes:
> If the purpose is to bring the blogs to the attention of  the chevra,
> then I support continuation (though I'd suggest that it might be
> better for Avodah to have shorter excerpts).

> But if the purpose is to raise an issue for discussion, then I don't
> understand why it should appear in both places. The author should choose
> one venue or another for the discussion, and leave it at that. If it is
> discussed in both places, some points will inevitably be shortchanged.

It seems to me that both purposes are served by bringing certain blogs
to the attention of the Avodah membership, and by encouraging or at
least allowing discussion here. It is not at all uncommon for threads
of wide interest to "bleed" back and forth between blogs and discussion
groups and backstage private emails as well.

In cyberspace it will never be possible for any one subject to be
exhaustively covered in just one place or by just one set of people.
The readers of Avodah may discuss a certain topic with a degree of depth
and scholarship that the comments on a blog may not reach, while the
comments on a blog allow for a back and forth within minutes between
two or three people who are all awake at 3 AM and enjoy arguing, but
maybe aren't so scholarly or just want to post a few witty zingers.

Posting certain things in more than one place may allow for
cross-fertilization and wider readership, reaching different audiences.

I am nogea badavar a little bit because I sometimes write on
Cross-Currents.com and have considered posting certain essays both here
and there, knowing that there will be some overlap in readership but also
different sets of readers who /don't/ read both. So far I haven't posted
anything in two places at once but I reserve the right to do so, and I
also don't mind if people read something I've written on C-C but prefer
to comment on it here, among a friendlier or more knowledgeable chevra.

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

The idea was mine.

I thought that the comment section of a blog is not a balanced forum.
Comments on Aspaqlaria are just that -- on my post on Aspaqlaria. They
will not generate a more fundamental discussion of whatever topic it is
I was exploring. It's critique, not conversation.

However, with the failure of the Hebrew experiment (for now), a number
of blog postings will no longer be sharable on Avodah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 02:40:41PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: 1. This principle is limited to High Court only when they sit in their
: proper chambers in the Temple (Rambam according to Margenita Tova,
: Ramban for laws derived from 13 principle of interpretation, Yereim)
...
: 3Until the days of Ravina and R. Ashi who closed the Talmud (Rambam as
: Ramban and Chinuch understand him, Rashbatz, Mabit, Lechem Mishna)

I would have just put the Ramban entirely in this category. He makes
derashah into a second concept.

But to my mind, the real advantage of #1 is that it explains the
explosion of machloqesin that came during Batei Hillel and Shabbai,
and why they needed a bas qol to say the halakhah is like Beis Hillel,
which was just confirming rov. This is the first time rov would have to
be applied outside the lishkas hagazis.

-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.

>: The Gra held that those terms ("Hachi k'amar" and "chasorei mechsora")
>: weren't saying that the Tanna actually said something else or that there
>: is an intrinsic lacking in the text but rather that the Amora was in
>: fact disagreeing with the Tanna and rewriting the Tanna's statement to
>: conform with the current understanding of the new opinion.

> Maqor? Extraordinary claims need greater proof.

The issue and sources are discussed in Y. Elman's Progressive Derash
and retrogressive Pshat, in Modern Scholarship in the study of Torah,
ed. S. Carmy (Orthodox Forum Series). The GRA is quoted in n. 41 but
I lose the actual citation in all the secondary sources. As he says,
"a fairly large body of literature has grown up around this issue" and
he cites many articles on this issue. A similar statement is found in
Tos. Yom Tov Nazir 5,5.

M. Levin

Were there daughters of Zelophehad, who argued with Moses and demanded
to be counted equally in inheriting from their father (Num. 27:1-7),
early models of feminists? Granted, they only asked to be allowed to
inherit if the father has no sons. However, they demanded at least some
rights that bordered on equality.

R. Elhanan Samet (<http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.60/41pinhas.htm>, and
in Hebrew <http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/archive/5-parsha/41pinchas.rtf>
[RTF]) argues that they were not asking for their own rights, but for
their father's rights:

    Should we see the struggle of the five daughters of Tzelofchad to
    inherit their father as an example of an ancient feminine struggle?
    Now that we have uncovered their motivation, as expressed by the
    question "Why should the name of our father be eliminated?" - it is
    clear that the answer is negative. They were not motivated by their
    own rights, and their own welfare, nor ! was equality of inheritance
    rights for women what lay at the root of their demands, but something
    else entirely - the concern for the name, the memory, the continuity
    of their father, which will continue to exist through his daughters
    and grandchildren who will live on the land which he received from
    God. These five women are not trying to bring about a revolution,
    not even a small one. Their arguments arise deeply from within the
    conceptual world of the Tanakh concerning the establishment of a
    man's name over his land, and they are arguing for the extension
    of this biblical principle and its precedence over the general laws
    of inheritance.

--
Posted by Gil Student to Hirhurim - Musings at 7/18/2005 10:30:00 PM

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:12:17 +0200 R' Avi Burstein <avi@tenagurot.com>:
>I just realized something that didn't make any sense to me. The famous
>mishna in pirkei avos (5:25) [5:21 that says 18 is the time for marriage (and
>other age related milestones) also says that 15 is the age for gemara.
>Now, how could a mishna mention the term "gemara"?   ...

Another girsah is "...le-Talmud".

See the Rambam's definition of talmud or gemorah in MT, Madah, Talmud
Torah 1:14 - "lehavin davar me-davar" i.e. analysis and conceptualization.

In fact there is actually talmudic-style discussion in a few mishnayot.
The TY and TB of course contain compilations of analytic discussions by
the Amoraim (with later editing and some commentary by the Saboraim). The
Tannaim also engaged in analysis but we have far fewer records of such
talmud in the mishnah which usually brings only the various opinions or
the conclusions reached.

However, for an example of talmud (gemorah) by Tannaim see Moses
Mielziner, Introduction to the Talmud, 5th ed. pub. by Bloch ( New York:
1968) p. 193 "pelugtah" i.e. the mishnah sometimes cites the shaklah
ve-taryah of arguments between Tannaim e.g. Pesachim 6:2.

 From that shaklah ve-taryah we see the logical analysis (talmud, gemorah)
by Tannaim to reach Halachic conclusions.

KT
Eliyahu

From: Avi Burstein <avi@tenagurot.com>
> I just realized something that didn't make any sense to me. The famous
> mishna in pirkei avos (5:25) that says 18 is the time for marriage (and
> other age related milestones) also says that 15 is the age for gemara.
> Now, how could a mishna mention the term "gemara"? Wasn't the mishna
> compiled before there was any concept of gemara? I suspect that either
> pirkei avos is not really part of the mishna like the "normal" mishnayos
> are, or that the phrasing of gemara means something else other than what
> we use it to mean today. But if it doesn't mean gemara like we understand
> the term, then what does it mean?

Gemara doesn't mean the text that we today call "the Gemara", it means
"learning" in general, particularly "how one thing derives from another"
(to use Rambam's definition).  As a word, it has shifted around a good
deal.  Rambam uses it to mean that, while it's pretty clear that the
Gemara contrasts "gemara" with "sevara", to mean fixed psak vs. methods
of logic and exegesis.  Jastrow renders it "tradition, fixed laws".
As in, various people are characterized as "g'meir v'saveir" - knowing
the law and how to reason.
 
> (I'm aware that the sixth chapter of Avos is accepted as not real mishna,
> but AFAIK everything before is.)

Well, Neusner holds that Avos was written a little while after the close
of the rest of the Mishna, as an introduction to, and justification of the
authority of, the Mishna as a document of true Oral Torah. His evidence:
some post-Rebbi people are quoted, although I don't remember who.
I guess Rabban Gamliel bno shel Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi would be one.

   - jon baker jjbaker@panix.com <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Tue, 19 Jul 2005 Avi Burstein <avi@tenagurot.com> posted:
> The famous mishna in pirkei avos (5:25) ... says that 15 is the age for
> gemara. Now, how could a mishna mention the term "gemara"? ... I suspect
> that ... the phrasing of gemara means something else other than what we
> use it to mean today. But ... then what does it mean?

"Gemara," or "Talmud," means analysis of the received teachings. Tannaim
analyzed mishnayos (tannaitic teachings) stated by previous Tannaim.

"He came before Rabbi Akiva l'misbar s'vara--To understand the principles
of the Mishnah: Why is this tamay and this tahor, this assur and this
muttar, and what does each thing dpeend upon, and which pasuk. And this
was the Talmud that was in the days of the Tannaim. And to understand
one thing from another, when a new issue rose in the Bes Medrash--from
where can one learn [the halachah] and to which mishnah can it be equated
(Rashi on Sota 20a s.v. V'hadar assa l'kammei d'R"A l'misbar s'vara). (See
also ahi on Niddah 7b, s.v. ha km"l.)

Zvi Lampel

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:38:05AM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: "Gemara," or "Talmud," means analysis of the received teachings. Tannaim
: analyzed mishnayos (tannaitic teachings) stated by previous Tannaim.

That was my reply too, since Rambam Hi' TT is pretty explicit in defining
it. But the following question came to mind in shul this morning.

"Abayei hava mesadeir... mishmei degamara..." Gemara is used here to
mean the opposite -- the received teaching itself, without personal
analysis!

-mi

Thursday, July 14, 2005

"At bottom, your free will lies in (choosing) how to apply your character
traits."

"It's impossible to uproot character traits. Someone who's cold-hearted
(for example) can't become warmhearted anymore than someone who's violent
can uproot that trait (though we can all apply bad traits to good ends)."

"We determine our own destinies by either living in such a way that
we apply our character traits to the side of merit, or to the side of
blame. But while our free will is limited (in one sense) because we can't
change or uproot our inborn characters, it's abundant (in another) because
there are many ways for us to apply our character traits for good ends."

posted by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman at 9:55 AM

Sunday, July 17, 2005

"We've said that everyone has been granted the potential for free choice,
but it's very important to actually act out on it. So, how do we choose
to do good?.... At bottom, it comes to (embracing reverence, and by)
either choosing to be reverent or choosing reverently. We're certainly not
speaking about (achieving) exalted levels of reverence here, but rather of
(acquiring and living with a basic sense of) G-d's existence. For that's
what will give you the (basic) wherewithal to choose to do good."

"(But know that) you won't be protected from the yetzer harah's
compulsions by choice alone. For even basic reverence which impels your
inherent nature toward goodness isn't enough to save you from the yetzer
harah or to free you from detrimental thoughts. The best remedy for
that lies in (achieving) the (sort of) reverence (you come to through)
Torah study."

posted by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman at 10:24 AM

Monday, July 18, 2005

"(Know, too, that) you aren't so free that you could simply decide today
to go from being an out-and-out sinner to being absolutely righteous
(and manage to).... You can (indeed) determine to do that today, but
the actual process of going from being a sinner to a righteous person
could go on for years."

"The highest stage of Divine service as far as free choice is
concerned... comes to (choosing to be either) 'full' (i.e., suffused with
Torah and Divine service) or 'empty'. (In fact,) the greatest degree of
personal fulfillment for the true Torah scholar comes in always being a
'full vessel'. He considers any sort of 'emptiness' a veritable death, and
the act of working at being 'full' once again a veritable resurrection."

posted by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman at 11:36 AM

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

"Of all the heresies and idolatries that have come about throughout the
ages, our own era has reached the lowest rung. For the heresy of our
age has to do with free choice itself.... (People have come to believe
that man has no free choice and that he's compelled to sin for various
reasons. Why, even the observant community has come to believe that,
for) who among us believes that man isn't (somehow) compelled to sin?"

"We need to know that the very most fundamental principle in (our
understanding of) mankind and of (what) Torah (demands of man) lies in
the existence of free choice... We have to especially bolster sure faith
(in the fact that) we can indeed overcome our yetzer harahs, and that we
ourselves are responsible for our deeds and will have to give an account
for them in judgment."

"The time (of life) when free choice is most manifest is when we're young
and (start to) lay out our path in life. For that's when one sees his
future (lying) before him and thinks about how he's going to live his
life and the choices he's going to make."

posted by Rabbi Yaakov Feldman at 9:26 AM

[From Areivim:]
> [Kehillah X] does contain a significant amount of real l'chatchila
> frum sin'as chinam just as the Netziv described it,

i am curious about this remark, and maybe something i never understood
about the concept. what makes sinah 'chinam'? what constitutes the
halachic right to be soneh another jew? what are the parameters for
different doxy/praxy that allows sinah? e g what derech or hashkafa
is considered enough off-the-derech that it is rather a mitzva to hate
this fellow and his fellow travelers? i will delete possible examples
i would postulate because i would like question to be allowed on list...

From: R' Yaakov Feldman [mailto:YFel912928@aol.com] [summarizing Alei Shur -mi]
"At bottom, your free will lies in (choosing) how to apply your character
traits."

"It's impossible to uproot character traits. Someone who's cold-hearted
(for example) can't become warmhearted anymore than someone who's violent
can uproot that trait (though we can all apply bad traits to good ends)."

R' Chaim Soloveitchik disagrees. As quoted by R'YBS he was by nature a
cold person and turned himself into a warmhearted Rav Chesed.

KT
Joel Rich

A year or two ago, on a private e-mail list, I stated that I did
not think there is anything wrong with collecting old tests that
a teacher has given and studying from them, even if the teacher is
known to regive old tests. Others, however, considered it unethical.
R. Yisroel Belsky discusses this in a column for Torah.org
<http://torah.org/learning/honesty/question86.html>:

    It is hard for me to say that it's ossur (prohibited) or that it's
    immoral. It's a higher level of morality not to do it, and study.
    But it's definitely not something that you could even taint by saying
    it's ossur or by saying it's immoral, because it does lead to a good
    knowledge of the material. It provides a pretty decent review.

    If there are only one or two tests, then the teacher is a fool. The
    students will just copy the test and not learn anything. But if there
    are five, six or more tests, a teacher worked very hard for several
    years making the tests, and if you go through all the teacher's tests,
    you'll probably learn a lot.

--
Posted by Gil Student to Hirhurim - Musings at 7/19/2005 03:25:00 PM

Rich, Joel wrote:
>From: R' Yaakov Feldman <YFel912928@aol.com> [summarizing Alei Shur -mi]
...
>"It's impossible to uproot character traits. Someone who's cold-hearted
>(for example) can't become warmhearted anymore than someone who's violent
>can uproot that trait (though we can all apply bad traits to good ends)."

>R' Chaim Soloveitchik disagrees. As quoted by R'YBS he was by nature a
>cold person and turned himself into a warmhearted Rav Chesed.

Reb Yisroel said it is harder to change a middah than to learn the entire
Shas - vaist ois that it is hard, but for someone like Reb Chaim, who
me'stama learned gantz Shas :-) , it is possible.

YGB

[From Areivim, rejected by the moderators because it belongs here. -mi]

From: Harry Maryles hmaryles@yahoo.com
> There was a time in Lithuanian European Yeshivos where Bachurim were
> discouraged from this type of uniformity. Beards and Peyos were actually
> forbidden by the RYs then. As the pre-war Ponevitch video I have shows,
> the dress code of that era's students were about the same as the MO
> of today and all were clean shaven with no Peyos. But today's Yeshiva
> students wouldn't be caught dead in anything other than a black hat,
> white shirt and dark suit most with peyos and some with beards. Any
> variation from this norm is considered outside the pale. Someone
> wearing a pinstripped shirt in Lakewood is looked at as an oddball at
> the very least.

Sometimes one must wonder if we are all wasting our time here... And I
mean both posters and readers. [Myself included]

Reading the above I thought, now didn't someone recently write somthing
about Litvish yeshiva styles?

So I searched my computer and found this VERY interesting piece posted
by Reb Yitzchok Brandriss - just 2 months ago...

Here it is again.. (Repeating it may help a few more of us to remember,
when this topic reappears in Oct/Nov...)
)))))

Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 23:23:08 -0400
From: ibrandriss@aol.com
Subject: MOAG Question
Re the discussion about the Lithuanian yeshiva mode of dress and Rav
Yitzchok 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 shitta compared to what we
received at Chofetz Chaim............................

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.....

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!

[Which is exactly what I heard from knowledgable rabbonim as well as
from Rav Yankel Galinski shlita as the reason that Litvish yeshiva
bochurim married so late. -- SBA]

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.

SNIP
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 kavod 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....

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?
SNIP

Yitzchok Brandriss
>>>>]

SBA

Back in May of this year, we were discussing the Rambam's teachings
about the "existence" of everything else besides Hashem. R' Micha Berger
disagreed with my understanding of the Rambam. The Rambam says that Hashem
is the only "emmes," and that everything He created is dependent upon
and persists only through His Will, but is not as permanent as He. I
took it to mean that only Hashem (truly) exists. R. Micha disagreed,
saying the Rambam only means that

> only Hashem's existance isn't contingent, it does not depend on something
> lse causing it, which if withdrawn would cause it to end.... He isn't
> aying man is less existing, but that he is less nimtza because his
> xistence is contigent upon something other than his own essence.

Researching how other mefarshim (such as the Shla and Maharal)
understand the Rambam, I have found that they all explain the Rambam as
RMB does. Therefore, despite the Rambam's wording that only Hashem is
"emmess," and despite other phrases we are accustomed to seeing ("ain
od m'l'vaddo;" "emmess malkaynu, effess zullaso") I concede that the
Rambam is only contrasting our existence to Hashem's in the aspect of
contingency. I guess "effess zullaso" is referring to His status as
the only true King, and "ain od m'l'vado" is also only meant in the
contingency aspect.

In addition, I have now discovered a passage in Sefer Ikarrim (IV:3)
(whose author is also following the Rambam) that directly addresses this
issue and confirms that RMB's understanding is correct:
> Undoubtedy, although G-d's existence is absolutely different from
> the existence of all else, nevertheless the term does not denote the
> existence of one and the non-existence of the other. As far as the
> negative significance is concerned--the negation of non-existence--their
> meanings are the same. Just as the term "existence" regarding Him,
> yisborach, signifies the negation of non-existence, so too the term
> "existence" regarding us signifies the negation of non-existence.

Bullseye! He says it clearly!

It take a mentsch to admit he was wrong. I am a mentsch.

And I exist!

Zvi Lampel

-------------
*In the aspect of contingency, as above and, as explained in II:30,"The
term 'existence' applied to G-d and to us is said entirely b'shituf
hashem [a term shared only in a relative way-ZL], [shared] between
two types of metsiud, and [meant] to indicate that [the essense of]
His existence, yisborach, is absolutely hidden, just as His essence is
absolutely hidden. And that the [term] 'existence' said of every nimtsah
besides Him indicates the he'eder [non-existence] in comparison to the
existence said of Him."

>: The Gra held that those terms ("Hachi k'amar" and "chasorei mechsora")
>: weren't saying that the Tanna actually said something else or that there
>: is an intrinsic lacking in the text but rather that the Amora was in
>: fact disagreeing with the Tanna and rewriting the Tanna's statement to
>: conform with the current understanding of the new opinion.

[Micha:]
> Maqor? Extraordinary claims need greater proof.

The source is "Encyclopedia l'Toldos Gedolei Yisrael" by Dr. Mordechai
Margolios. Whether a "Dr." is an acceptable source will have to be
everyone's personal decision.

In it he says that the Gra held that just like there is a "pshuto shel
mikra" so too there is a "pshuto shel Mishna"... If anyone would like
I could write out the entire piece or email an copy of the page.

brent kaufman

"He would also say: Do not scorn any man..."

So, nu? How far does that go? I hear plenty of scorn thrown about on
Avodah and Areivim. How do we reconcile? (I'm particularly interested
in those who often berate me when I criticize them for being too harsh --
you know who you are).

-- 
Sholom Simon

[Mazal Tov! -mi]

In this weeks Parsha of Pinchas... Perek Chaf Heh -- Pasuk Yud Beis,
The Ribono shel Olam tells Moshe Rabbenu: Hininee Nosein Lo Es Brisi
Shalom. (Behold, I give him (Pinchas) my covenant of peace). The next
Pasuk explains that the Bris we are talking about is the promise
of eternal Kehuna.. the priesthood for Pinchas and all his future
generations. The Bal HaTurim points out that the word Shalom is written
with a cutoff letter Vav which looks like the letter Yud... making the
word Shlim meaning Shaleim which means whole or complete. We learn for
this... that the promise of eternal Kehuna will only be applicable if
the Kohen is complete and not a Bal Mum.

The question arises why does the Pasuk tell us about the requirement of
Shleimus in a Kohen from a letter that is lacking completion? It seems
like a round about way of doing it?

The answer may be that there are times when completion... or
perfection... can only come about through a diminution. The best example
of that is a Bris Milah. Before a male child undergoes the removal of the
foreskin he is considered like a Bal Mum. An Arel ... an uncircumcised
Kohen... is forbidden to serve in the Beis HaMikdash. It is the Milah,
that completes him... and makes him a Shalem. As the Mishna in Nedarim
Daf Lamed Alef: Amud Beis says: Gedolah Milah SheKol HaMitzvos SheAsah
Avraham Avinu Lo Nikra Shalem
Ad SheMal... 
SheNe-emar HisHalech Lofanai V'Hayah Tamim. Go before me and be complete.

Targum Yonosan comments on the words "Hininee Nosein Lo Es Brisi
Shalom" according to those who say that Pinchas is really Eliyahu HaNavi.
Pirkei D'Rab Elazar tells us that Eliyahu HaNavi is the Malach HaBris. It
is therefore appropriate that we learn out the Din of Shleimus from a
Vav Ketiya... a cutoff Vav. Because in this way Eliyahu testifies that
the Shleimus of Klal Yisroel comes Davka through Milah...the cutting of
the Orlah.

Even though my new grandson, Noam Akiva, is not a Kohen, I hope that
this bris Milah represent for him the Shleimus of Pinchas Ben Ealzar
Ben Aharon HaCohen. May he be an exmple of Shleomus and Temminus to
all of Klal Yisroel.

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


[ 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         ]