Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 077

Tuesday, June 27 2006

• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Meseches makos question
• Etymology of "teva" & Rashi's "I Don't Know"
• Re: Meseches Makos question
• Antoninus
• Deveikut and Shleimut
• Re: Deveikut and Shleimut
• RE: tattoo
• historical contingency and brachos
• bishul akum
• prayer for a captive
• Re: prayer for a captive
• Re: prayer for a captive
• RE: historical contingency and brachos
• Re: Meseches makos question
• re:Not washing for meal on Shabbos
• Re: Etymology of "teva" & Rashi's "I Don't Know"
• Re: rishonim vs. Chazal
• Barukh Dayan Emes - R' Moshe Sober
• Malachim and Torah
• Mechirat Chametz (from Areivim)

I have not been following this thread, but I did notice this, where R'
Chaim Manaster quoted RSC:
> As RDR so eloquently describes, the Torah instantiates itself both
> in the world of angels and in our world. Thus, my kasha on this
> Medrash is, what is Moshe's response to the malachim? True the
> malachim don't have the laws of theft but we down here don't relate
> to the laws of theft as they instantiate themselves l'ma'ala. The
> Malachim could have very simply responded, Yes, we do have the laws
> of theft however not the way you understand them. Who says that we
> (the Malachim) should let you (Moshe representing mankind) take the
> Torah down there? Who says your instantiation is any more
> qualitative then our own? I guess my kasha is, why didn't the
> angels put up a bigger fight?

Here's my interpretation of that Midrash: The malachim did not want
humans to have the human version of Torah. Or, perhaps they didn't even
want us to have *any* version of Torah. Moshe's response was to point
out that either objection is wrong, because the malachim can't relate
to the human version, and therefore have no right to withhold it from
us. The human version exists, and it is wrong to withhold it from the
humans to whom it applies.

In contrast to the malachim's selfish attitude, Moshe had no problem
allowing the malach version of Torah to remain with the malachim for
whom it applies, provided that we get ours. The malachim really had no
response to such a fair distribution. End of story.

Akiva Miller

>Quick and easy question: Other than what's on the page or at the back
>of the sefer, what are the main rishonim and achronim used when learning
>meseches makos? (I never learned makos during my years in yeshiva.)

Ritva and Aruch LaNer are an absolute must. The green book (Otzar
Mefarshei HaTalmud) will give you a taste of everything else.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

This weekend, two questions came up for which I know of nowhere else to
turn but this list:

1. What is the etymology of "teva," the Hebrew word for "nature"?
Is it a relatively modern word, or is it also used in classical sources?

2. An piece appeared recently by R Shafran which includes a joke and
discussion based on Rashi saying "I don't know" in his commentaries:

<http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/idontknow.html>

Can anyone provide references for where Rashi says that?

Thanks very much!

Amirom Singer
msinger@alumni.uchicago.edu 

> Quick and easy question: Other than what's on the page or at the back
> of the sefer, what are the main rishonim and achronim used when learning
> meseches makos? (I never learned makos during my years in yeshiva.)

Ritva and Aruch LaNer.

Just posted to my blog:

Antoninus was a close friend of R. Yehudah Ha-Nassi who is mentioned a
number of times in rabbinic literature. He was an emperor or some other
high Roman government figure. Who was he?

The Doros Ha-Rishonim (vol. 4 p. 816) states that he was Marcus Aurelius
Antoninus, and this seems to be accepted by other Jewish historians,
such as R. Shlomo "Shir" Rapoport in his Erekh Millin and Yitzchak
HaLevy Weiss in his Dor Ve-Dorshav (both cited by R. Aharon Hyman,
Toledos Tanna'im Ve-Amora'im [vol. 2 p. 580]). Zechariah Frankel
and Heinrich Graetz both accepted this association, although claimed
that Antoninus was really close with R. Yehudah Ha-Nassi's grandson,
R. Yehudah Nessi'ah, rather than the grandfather. R. Aharon Hyman,
(ibid, pp. 580-582) ably refutes this theory.

However, the question remains whether Marcus Aurelius was ever in the
land of Israel. Joshua Gutmann, writing in Encyclopedia Judaica (entry
for Antoninus Pius: In Talmud and Aggadah), states that "[T]he attempts of
scholars to fit these accounts into the historic framework of the period
of the Antonines have proved unsuccessful." This was echoed more recently
by Dr. Louis Feldman, Jew & Gentile in the Ancient World, p. 572 n. 40:
"Attempts to identify 'Antoninus' with any of the Antonine or Severan
emperors at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third
century have proved unsuccessful."

My unlearned suspicion is that Antoninus was most likely a local Roman
official rather than the emperor of all Rome. This would dovetail nicely
with the view mentioned here that Antoninus lived in Romi, a place in
Israel, rather than Rome in Italy.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

During various discussions over the years, the terms of Deveikut and
Shleimut have come up repeatedly.

I was hoping R' Micha, or someone could give a very short summary of
the 2 + sources for the idea behind the existence of two such paths,
and a short bibliography.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 11:31:16AM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: I was hoping R' Micha, or someone could give a very short summary of
: the 2 + sources for the idea behind the existence of two such paths,
: and a short bibliography.

See RYGB's JO (?) article at <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/forks.htm>. Or,
for a lighter (ie less learned) version usable for Shabbos table
discussion, I had a similar idea in something I wrote for a parashah
sheet at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/lechLicha2.shtml>. But you asked for
meqoros, which RYGB provides.

I also wrote a couple of related essays on my blog, such as the fork and
two definitions of the word "aspaqlaria" (and therefore two models of
nevu'ah and chokhmah), identifying other tines on the fork that lack
contemporary following, etc... If you're curious see the links listed at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/bysubject.shtml#fork>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

> I can't see any problem using indelible ink
> (without making the tiny holes and perforations).

Right. Makos 21a, Rambam Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 12:11 (or 12:15,
depending on the edition), Yoreh Deah 180:1 -- you need to violate the
integrity of the skin AND apply color.

Barak

I told my son recently that if the Torah had been given on Mount Rushmore
instead of Mount Sinai we would make hamotzi on tacos. That's actually
a slight exaggeration, since I'd guess brachos were established by Hazal
during and after the period of Anshei Knesses HaGedolah ("HaTov Shelo
Hisrihu v'hameitiv shenitnu l'kvurah").

 From a historical perspective this makes perfect sense. From a more
philosophical perspective, though, why should that period of time
be priviliged over other periods? Why have a special bracha on bread
because of ancient dietary customs? Why not make hamotzi on tacos zeicher
l'galus America?

David Riceman 

I recently read a biography of Yaakov Herzog where it's mentioned that
he would eat fish in non-kosher North American restaurants. How did he
avoid the problem of bishul akum?

Incidentally he was a talmid hacham - not only was he R. Herzog's son
and student, he had semicha from R. Isser Zalman Meltzer.

David Riceman 

My shul this morning said a prayer on behalf of the safety of the captive
by using his mother's name gilad ben aviva where I davened Mincha used
his father's name - gilad ben david which is preferable?

 - 
Eli Turkel

On 6/26/06, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> My shul this morning said a prayer on behalf of the safety of the captive
> by using his mother's name gilad ben aviva where I davened Mincha used
> his father's name - gilad ben david which is preferable?

The standard tefilla for the MIA's uses the mother's name. I was
forwarded this message from Rav Amar this morning. It uses his mother's
name (Aviva).

May Gilad Ben Aviva be returned safely to his family soon.

Saul

[I forgot to give the URL for the attachment. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/giladShavit.pdf> -mi]

On 6/26/06, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> My shul this morning said a prayer on behalf of the safety of the captive
> by using his mother's name gilad ben aviva where I davened Mincha used
> his father's name - gilad ben david which is preferable?

The standard tefilla for the MIA's uses the mother's name. I was
forwarded this message from Rav Amar this morning. It uses his mother's
name (Aviva).

May Gilad Ben Aviva be returned safely to his family soon.

Saul

[R David Riceman:]
> I told my son recently that if the Torah had been given on Mount Rushmore
> instead of Mount Sinai we would make hamotzi on tacos. That's actually a
> slight exaggeration, since I'd guess brachos were established by Hazal
> during and after the period of Anshei Knesses HaGedolah...
> From a historical perspective this makes perfect sense. From a more
>philosophical perspective, though, why should that period of time be
>priviliged over other periods? ...

I suppose the stock answer is that the status at certain time periods
was kovea ldorot (e.g. treifot). Why this is is a why question I 'm
not privileged to know the answer to nor am I sure it is knowable.

On a somewhat related topic, if each shevet had its own nusach hatfila,
why did AKG feel the need to standardize,did they standardize one and
who did they follow?

KT
Joel Rich

From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <rygb@aishdas.org>
> Gershon Seif wrote:
>> Quick and easy question: Other than what's on the page or at the back
>> of the sefer, what are the main rishonim and achronim used when learning
>> meseches makos? (I never learned makos during my years in yeshiva.)

> Ritva and Meiri.

there is also aroch laner, gevuras ari for classic acharonim, for the
roshei yeshiva there is kovetz biurim, r' shmuel rozovsky, and i think
there is also r' dovid povarski.

reuven

From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> I just had a guest for Shabbos who is from Turkish -Mexican ancestry. He
> says they have a minhag that only the head of the household washes for
> the meal on Shabbos - but they all eat bread. He says it is not just
> his family but they knows others from Mexican background who also have
> this minhag.
> Has anyonee heard of such a practice and what the basis is?

there is a minhag that everybody but the baal habyis washes before
kiddush, and the baal habayis washes after kiddush. maybe they left out
the first part. reuven

In a message dated 6/25/2006 7:48:39pm EDT,  mike_a_singer@yahoo.com writes:
> 1. What  is the etymology of "teva," the Hebrew word for "nature"?
> Is it a  relatively modern word, or is it also used in classical  sources?

AFAIK it is not found in TN"C, according to the Oruch it comes from the
Shoresh of "Matbeia Shetovu" something that has a specific set of rules.

> 2. An piece appeared recently by R Shafran which includes a  joke and
> discussion based on Rashi saying "I don't know" in his  commentaries:...
> Can anyone provide references for where Rashi says that?

See Gilyon HaShas on Brochos 25b for a comprehensive list, however the
Yad Eliyahu on that Gemara adds more to the list.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

I wrote:
>> I am looking for sources and references on how the rishonim and acharonim
>> are allowed to argue on Chazal's interpretations of pesukim (when not for
>> halacha). If you know of any such sources, or if you have any thoughts
>> on the matter, please respond.

Micha Berger wrote:
> <Insert all old discussions about their being no halachic process for
> aggadita unless there is a lema'aseh to it here.>
> See RGS's draft essay <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/crossroads.htm>....

That's not exactly what I was referring to. I apologize for the ambiguity
in the question, but my real interest was to find out whether, when the
Rishonim argue on Chazal's interpretation of a story in the pesukim,
do they mean that what they say as peshat is what actually happened
and Chazal got it wrong, or are they saying something else? Normally we
could say that they take the Chazal to be non-literal. But what about
where they disagree about historical dates or other things which are
obviously meant by Chazal to be taken literally? Are we forced to say
that any mefaresh who argues on Chazal in these areas is saying that
Chazal could make mistakes? If so, that would add a significant number of
rishonim and acharonim to the "Chazal making mistakes" debate (including,
for instance, the Ramban).

For just one example, take the Ramban on the 210 years of Mitzrayim. He
says there (if I understood it correctly) that although Chazal give the
figure for the years in Mitzrayim as 210, al pi peshat it was probably
something like 240 or 220. He adds that if the drasha of "redu shama"
(resh-daled-vav b'gematria 210) is a mesora, then he won't argue on
it but will instead argue on the gemara's interpretation of it. He'll
say that it starts from the death of Yaakov, which is 17 years after
Chazal say it started with the arrival of Yaakov and his family. So klall
yisroel according to this were actually in Mitzrayim for 227 years. But
this throws off the entire count from creation by 17 years! And it's
very hard to say here that Chazal didn't mean the figure of 210 years
literally. So is he saying Chazal made a mistake here?

After talking this over with several people, I have come up with several
options:
+ Yes, these mefarshim are saying that Chazal could make mistakes.
+ These mefarshim hold that Chazal could mean what they say non-literally
even when saying dates. This uses the basic thesis of the Maharal on
aggadata, that the drush is meant on a spiritual plane instead of the
physical, and extends it to mean that even when Chazal give a date for
something, that date isn't one of historical reality but is rather only
true in some spiritual way. I find this difficult to accept, but one
of my rebbeim, who is very well versed in hashkafa, thinks this makes
sense so who am I to argue?
+ They're not really saying their peshat is what actually happened, but
rather what Chazal say is what actually happened and the poshut peshat
is for learning something else out of.

This last way is the mehalach of the Sifsei Chaim by R' Chaim Friedlander
(Emunah U'Bechira, Pardes HaTorah maamar 1). He holds that usually when
the rishonim argue on Chazal it goes into the klall of "70 faces to
Torah" (or, as the Ramchal has it, 600,000). But when the rishonim argue
on Chazal in a such a way that the peshat and the drush are mutually
exclusive, then we assume that the drush is what actually happened,
but the rishonim (he uses the examples of Rashi and the Ramban) tell
us peshat because there is always something to learn from the peshat,
even if we don't know exactly what. He brings this concept from the sefer
"Emunas Chachamim" in which the author asked the Ramaz (R' Moshe Zacuto)
how it could be that we learn halachos from Esther having relations with
Achashverosh, if according to the Zohar it was a sheid who just looked
like her? The Ramaz answered that the possuk wouldn't have said it in the
way it does if the poshut peshat would be mashma that she did something
assur. R' Friedlander also brings the Gra (Aderes Eliyahu Shemos 21:6) who
points out that the possuk there is mashma one thing but the halacha is
the other way. The Gra says that this is the gadlus of Torah Shebaal Peh,
that the mesora uproots the peshat. But, he says, it is still important to
learn the peshat, because knowing the peshat will allow you to appreciate
the drasha better (I think this is what he means, but I am not at all
sure). The Sifsei Chaim extends this a bit to mean his own mehalach.

But there are a couple of points to note on the above. First of all,
I think almost everybody else (including, for example, the Maharal)
would have taken the Zohar to be not exactly what actually happened
and the literal to be what the possuk is mashma happened. Secondly, the
Gra is only referring to halacha and extending that to aggadah is a big
step. Finally, I don't think it's possible to learn the Ramban like this,
even though R' Chaim Friedlander does so. Look at the Ramban I quoted
before. If the Ramban wasn't intending to say that his version is what
actually happened, then why did he imply that he wouldn't argue if it was
a mesorah, and why did he bother to reinterpret the "redu shama" drasha?

Can anybody provide an answer for R' Chaim Friedlander? Can anyone bring
some other proof/disproof to one of the mehalchim I mentioned?

ALE

It is my sad duty to inform the chevrah that Rav Moshe Sober z"l passed
away late this morning. As I literally just found out, I do not know
yet where the levayah will be nor where Rn Ilana Sober will be sitting
shiv'ah.

I will be"H send more information to Areivim and whomever asks off-list
as soon as it's available.

HaMaqom yencheim osam besoch she'ar aveilei Tziyon viYrushalayim,
-mi

According to the Dor Revi'i, no question arises here, because the giving
of the Torah did not consist in the individual obligations to perform
the commandments, which in many cases predated ma'amad har sinai, and
especially according to Midrashim that the avot observed the mitzvot.
That is also the way to understand "ilu keirvanu l'phnei har sinai v'lo
natan lanu et ha-torah dayeinu." The distinction is simply giving
over the mitzvot versus giving over authority to interpret the Torah
and determine halakhah l'ma'asseh. The giving of the Torah consisted
in the transfer of authority to the Sages of each generation to derive
halakhot based on the midot she'hatorah nidreshet bahein and to have a
power of deciding the halakhah that would override the heavenly court,
and kal v'homer an earlier court, even gadol mimenu b'hokhma u-v-minyan
(hilkhot mamrim 2:1). In other words the angels did not agree to
lo ba-shamayim hi. However the idea of giving the torah entailed
complete authority over the Torah (va-yitein el moshe k'khalato
l'dabeir ito). See the introduction to Dor Revi'I, especially s.v.
"u-vi-d'varim she-l'ma'alah." Since it makes no sense to assume that
the angels wanted to keep the mitzvot for themselves and not give them
to human beings, you must assume that the Midrash meant something else.
Moshe's answer was that since the torah relates to human beings the power
to interpret and administer its provisions must be left in the hands of
human beings who understand the human condition. Otherwise the Torah
would not be hayei olam b'tokheinu.

David Glasner 

On Areivim, R Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> wrote:
> I don't think it's so simple - the sales contract here (in Jerusalem)
> at least gives the original owner the right to use the produce during
> pesach if needed, in return for additional payment for the use of the
> non-Jew's produce after Pesach.

And, on being asked:
>> Forget the word produce.  Are you saying that every mechiras chametz
>> has a condition that the seller can take the chametz back during Pesach?

RAA replied:
> I don't know about "every" -- since there are so many different ones
> -- but a few years ago we were told at the pre-pesach shiur that, if
> needed, we could go into the cupboard of sold produce to take out
> non-chametz stuff that had been sold.

But the non-chametz stuff *hasn't* been sold. At least, I've never
heard of any sale that includes non-chametz stuff that happens to be in
the same cupboard or room as the chametz. The non-chametz is still your
property, but it's in the cupboard that has been rented to the goy.

Now I would maintain that you don't need explicit permission to enter
in order to retrieve your property; I'd say that anan sahadi that the
tenant is not makpid, or even that when he agreed to rent the room,
knowing that it contained some of your property, it was implied that you
had permission to enter and retrieve it. However, it certainly can't
hurt to include such permission explicitly in the contract.

The chametz, however, is not yours, and even if you take it that just
makes you a thief, not an owner of chametz on pesach.

In a further post, RAA clarified:
>> I think that there is a big difference between using the
>> chametz and non-chametz.  The non-chametz was never sold, and
>> just happens to be located in the cupboard.

> We're talking non-chametz gamur that WAS sold.
> (i.e. things that MIGHT have chametz in them, kitniyot, etc)

Why would kitniyot be sold?

As for safek chametz, I suppose it's safek sold :-), i.e. if the
contract simply says "all chametz" then this item is only included
in the sale if it's indeed chametz, and if a dispute were to develop
over who owned it, the question would have to be resolved in bet din.
Since no dispute is ever anticipated, there's no need to define it.
But if it's safek chametz, how can you take it during Pesach, even with
the owner's permission? Forget gezela, it's safek chametz!

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

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


[ 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         ]