Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 23

Sat, 28 Oct 2006

• 1. Ben Drusai (SBA)
• 2. Re: tree of knowledge of good and evil (Minden)
• 3. On Parashas Noach - from this week's MTA Parasha Publication (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 4. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: halachah lemoshe misinai (Zvi Lampel)
• 6. Re: establishing mamzerut (Arie Folger)
• 7. Fwd: Temple Height (Yisrael Medad)
• 8. What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (SBA)
• 9. Re: establishing mamzerut (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? (Micha Berger)

From: "Gershon Dubin" <>
Other than his predilection for partially cooked repasts, does anyone
have any sources on this person, or if in he fact was a real person or not?
>>

It seems to be a generic description of a certain type of thief.
Ayin : http://www.kipa.co.il/hibbur/show.asp?n=5901

SBA

RYHH wrote
> According to Hebrew grammar (semichut), the verse should properly read :
> "etz da'at tov vera" without a "heh" (and not : "etz hadaat..."). A parallel can be found in Bamidbar (34:2) "baim el haaretz -- (eretz) Canaan," and elsewhere. The author of Torah Temimah discusses this in his Tosefet Berachah.
>
> Another possibility is to vocalize it differently: "etz hoda'at tov vera." In fact, even without changing the vowels, "lada'at", to know, often is transitive and means "lehodi'a," to make known or promulgate; see Shemot (31:13) and Bamidbar (10:31) and frequently in Tanach. This is the meaning of the Serpent's statement "You shall be like elohim (judges) yode'ei tov vera."

I understood it similarly, even without a need to change hadda-as to houda-as, namely by understanding "touv vera" as an object rather than the second part of a smiches construction. This isn't common, but possible, I think, especially if you consider that da-as is (or is similar to) a verbal form. Compare the English equivalents - "tree of knowledge good and bad" doesn't work, but for a verbal form that doubles as a noun it works: "tree of the knowing of good and bad" = "tree of knowing good and bad".

(The other case "el ho-oretz kena-an" is different, I'd say, rather an apposition instead of the more common smiches construction.)


Lipman Phillip Minden
http://lipmans.blogspot.com

http://yuhsb.org/currentyr/gen_info/pubs/skoleinu/noach.pdf


Noach?s Spiritual Illumination
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer

?????? ??"? ??? ?????? ??? ? ???? ??
??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????
???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??????. ?? ??????
??????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????
??? ??? ?????. ??? ???? ???? ?? ????
???? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???
?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???
???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???
?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???????
??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????. ????
????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???
????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????
???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????
???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????
??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????
??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???
??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???
????? ????? ??? ???? ?????.
The Sforno in Parashas Noach (8:22) suggests that prior to the Mabul 
there were no seasons. Rather, the Sun, relative to the Earth, 
constantly orbited at the Equator. The Earth was thus in a constant 
state of Springtime, the optimum condition for both vegetation and 
animal life to flourish, and for human beings to enjoy longevity. In 
this pasuk Hashem promises that the current cycle will continue so long 
as the Earth continues in its post-Mabul state ? until the eventual, 
ultimate redemption, when the position of the Sun relative to the Earth 
will return to its antideluvian state.
The Sforno's position is evidently contradicted by an explicit Gemara in 
Avodah Zarah (8a):
????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ? ???? ?
??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?' ???? ???
????? ??????? ?' ???? ???? ????? ??????
???? ???? ????? ???' ??? ???? ??? ???? ???
?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???
????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????
????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????
??? ???? ?' ???? ?????? [??????] ???? ????
????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???
????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????
????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????
????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???
????? ??????.
The Gemara tells us that the origin of idolatrous holiday of December 
25th was a genuine holiday celebrated by Adam. According to opinion that 
the world was created in Tishrei, Adam sinned at that time ? around the 
time of the Fall Equinox. He subsequently perceived that the days were 
becoming shorter and shorter. He was concerned that this was taking 
place on account of his sin, and that as a result of his sin the world 
was becoming darker and darker, ending in a renewed tohu va'vohu ? and 
that this was the death decreed upon him. However, on
December 25th, shortly after the Winter Solstice, he noticed that the 
days had begun to become longer again, concluded that the pattern of 
shorter and longer days was cyclical, and fixed an eight-day 
celebration, culminating on January 1st.
Clearly, days do not become shorter or longer unless there is a seasonal 
cycle in place. It is thus evident that the seasons existed already 
prior to the Mabul.
[There is a Chazal that relates a similar response by Adam to the very 
first sunset:
???? ???? ??? ??? ????? (??"? ?? ??????
?????? ????? ??? ?"? ??? ???)
???? ??? ???"? ??? ??? ??? ???
?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???
??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???"? ?????
??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????.
?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????
??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????
??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????
????? (????? ?"?) ????? ??' ???? ?? ????
?????.
It may be that both phenomena were causes of concern for him in turn.]
The simple implication of Chazal is that Hashem did not reveal to Adam 
the basic science of the phenomena he was to experience, leaving him to 
discover the phenomena and analyze them on his own. The Maharal, 
however, understands differently:
??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? -
???? ????? ???
??? ???? ???'... ? ???? ???' ?????
???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????
??????? ?????? ????? ??????, ???? ?? ????
???. ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????,
???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ????
????? ????? ????? ????, ????? ????
????? ????? ????? ?????. ??? ???? ?????
??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??
?????? ????, ??? ?"? ???? ???? ????. ???
?? ?????? ????? ??? ????, ?"? ???? ?????
????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????:
????? ?????? ????? ??????, ???? ???
?? ???? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????
?????? ????, ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????
??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ?????
?????? ????? ?????? ??? ????, ????? ????
?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???. ??? ???? ???
???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ??
??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? [????] ????
?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??
????? ?"? ?"?:
His concern was that just as the days became foreshortened in their 
natural cycle, they might also become foreshortened as a result of his 
sin ? with far more devastating results! His consolation and subsequent 
rejoicing came when he saw days being lengthened and realized that just 
as sin can generate spiritual ? and actual ? darkness, so too it must be 
that positive deeds can generate spiritual ? and actual ? illumination.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061027/ce79fb7f/attachment-0001.html

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:38:08 +1000, "SBA" <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> It's not so rare., the Torah Temima's  theory about the origin of saying
> "migdol" in bentching on shabbos.. was to contrast the text of
> bentching with that in Shemu'el beis, and therefore read "besh"b
> 'migdol'".
> Somone then expanded the rashei teivos to "beShabbos" and so the minhag
> was allegedly born... the theory doesn't work because the Avudraham mentions
> the practice, and he didn't know about a future splitting of Shemu'el ..

> I am unsure how a mistaken REASON (or theory) for a minhag is the
> same as claiming that the minhag itself is based on an error.

It's not. But look again at the TT's claim. He writes that the nusach of saying "migdol" on Shabbos was a ta'os, based on someone misreading "bsh"b". Now, if the TT can say that a minhag Yisrael came from a ta'os, why couldn't minhagim accepted by only a few qehillos?

The fact that the TT made a history mistake is a tangent. I just couldn't cite his explanation without mentioning to people my problem with accepting it.

>>See the mavo to haAqov leMishor by R' Dovid Cohen for more examples. If
>>RDC does it, why can't Yaari?

> I can't find my copy of that sefer right now.
> Can you give us some of his examples?

I don't even own a copy not to find. However, I recall seeing a long list of ta'uyos soferim, and around 10% or so lead to differences lema'aseh. Perhaps someone who owns a copy can fill in the gaps in my memory.

But to repeat my thesis, minhagim, as opposed to taqanos, were practices that arose grass roots, and only afterward gained approval from the rabbinate. So why couldn't some of them have arose from errors -- as long as the rabbanim found a similar post-facto justification?

Gut Voch!
-mi

PS: The quote in this signature file is relatively new. I think, though, that it is a good reminder for email fora.

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 from: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: 
To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org

In a message dated 10/24/2006 7:23:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
eliturkel@gmail.com writes:

In a class we discussed the Rambam that there are no disagreements in
halacha lemoshe misinai and the questions of the Chavot Yair.

Can anyone point me to answers for the questions of the Chavot Yai?

RYZ:
> Maharatz Chayos in Mammar Torah Sheb'al Peh (page 115) brought only 
> partially in Encyclopedia Taalmudis Vol. 9 page 370. 


In Dynamics of Dispute (Judaica Press, 1992) I develop the answer given by Maharatz Chayos.
Very briefly, besides the gemoras cited by the Chavos Yair, the Rambam himself in Hilchos Shofar states that over the years the correct way of fulfilling the biblical commandment of blowing the shofar was forgotten. And in his mishna commentary on Aidios, he explicitly speaks about a machlokess regardong a halacha l'Moshe MiSinai. (The Rambam's position is not only regarding HLMS--remez-less halachos told us us by Moshe Rabbaynu--but any payrushim mekuballim miSinai.)

When the Rambam says that there is no machlokess on any payrush we received from Moshe Rabbeynu, he means no one contests that which is verified to be a reliable transmission. (In our parlance, we would say there is no one /choleik/ on a payrush mekubal miSinai.)
In Dynamics of Dispute I suggest that the Rambam is addressing the confusion introduced by the Karaites, who claimed that the existence of machlokos shows that the rabbis lost any payrushim that might have been given by G-d, and that it was because of this that they felt free to contest any kaballa anyone claimed to have.
Zvi Lampel.
P.S. I will be happy to email a list of corrections to Dynamics to whomever requests it (and did not recieve it yet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061027/7240c2bf/attachment-0001.htm

RET wrote:
> The woman wanted ti use a DNA test. What is the halakhic value
> of this as extra to her testimony?

This is a matter of some dispute, with Rav Elyashiv being quoted as being 
skeptical of DNA tests. However, AFAIK, that portrayal isn't accurate. RYSE 
strongly discourages the use of DNA, is against them, wants to ignore them, 
but does agree that they do prove paternity.

I believe that if the test is carried out properly, it will be acceoted and 
the child's mamzerut will become an established halakhic fact. That is why, 
ordinarily, DNA-testing is, AFAIK, prohibited in Israel. That is why the 
woman wants to sue for it. The Israeli law (if there is such a law and I am 
not misinformed on this matter) clearly wants to prevent what this woman is 
setting out to do.

RMYG wrote:
> Last night, I spoke with someone who was involved with the Agunah
> situations after Sept. 11. He told me that R' Wosner takes the position
> that DNA is only good as a Siman, and can't be used to be Motzi Mamon (e.g.
> for Yerushah) or for Yichus. He said that he heard from RYSE's Talmidim,
> that RYSE takes a stronger position regarding DNA, and considers it worth
> more than R' Wosner does, but that RYSE doesn't say publicly what his
> position is. He referred me to Yeshurun (IIRC, vol. 11) that has a few
> pieces regarding DNA in the context of 9/11.

This issue was extensively discussed one day at the 24th Conference of 
European Rabbis, two years ago in Paris, and I recall hearing exactly the 
opposite from someone who was involved in this halakhah lema'asseh. Rav 
Wosner is rather inclined to accept DNA evidence against igun.

Good week,

Arie Folger

 Danny Schoemann writes according to my Maggid Shiur, this is one of the
proofs that the main
part of the City of Jerusalem was located to the East, i.e. on Har Hazetim.

Er, this statement is in absolute contradiction to all historical,
archeological and otherwise physical proof
we have.  The amount of buildings and other structures in the East on Har
Hazaitim is totally
incomparable to what we have to the west, unless you include graves.
-- 
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061028/650d88fd/attachment-0001.html

From: "Micha Berger" <>
In the second post RSBA writes:
: To have even a hava amina that the "basis" of a minhag practised by
: tzadikim and kedoshim and thousands of their followers over centuries
: is "due to a mistake in transcription" is ludicrous and mischievous.

It's not so rare., the Torah Temima's  theory about the origin of saying
"migdol" in bentching on shabbos.. was to contrast the text of
bentching with that in Shemu'el beis, and therefore read "besh"b 'migdol'".
Somone then expanded the rashei teivos to "beShabbos" and so the minhag was
allegedly born... the theory doesn't work because the Avudraham mentions the
practice, and he didn't know about a future splitting of Shemu'el ..
>>>

I am unsure how a mistaken REASON (or theory) for a minhag is the
same as claiming that the minhag itself is based on an error.

>See the mavo to haAqov leMishor by R' Dovid Cohen for more examples. If RDC
>does it, why can't Yaari?

I can't find my copy of that sefer right now.
Can you give us some of his examples?

SBA 

 

This is a matter of some dispute, with Rav Elyashiv being quoted as
being skeptical of DNA tests. However, AFAIK, that portrayal isn't
accurate. RYSE strongly discourages the use of DNA, is against them,
wants to ignore them, but does agree that they do prove paternity.

Good week,

Arie Folger
=========================================================
So why should we rely on rov beilot if there is a quick and easy way to
be mvarer (and thus require in any case - e.g. inheritance,marriage)
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:38:08 +1000, "SBA" <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
> It's not so rare., the Torah Temima's  theory about the origin of saying
> "migdol" in bentching on shabbos.. was to contrast the text of
> bentching with that in Shemu'el beis, and therefore read "besh"b
> 'migdol'".
> Somone then expanded the rashei teivos to "beShabbos" and so the minhag
> was allegedly born... the theory doesn't work because the Avudraham mentions
> the practice, and he didn't know about a future splitting of Shemu'el ..

> I am unsure how a mistaken REASON (or theory) for a minhag is the
> same as claiming that the minhag itself is based on an error.

It's not. The fact that the TT made a history mistake is a tangent. I
just couldn't cite his explanation without mentioning to people my
problem with accepting it.

But look again at the TT's claim. He writes that the nusach of saying
"migdol" on Shabbos was a ta'os, based on someone misreading "bsh"b". Now,
if the TT can say that a minhag Yisrael came from a ta'os, why couldn't
minhagim accepted by only a few qehillos?

>>See the mavo to haAqov leMishor by R' Dovid Cohen for more examples. If
>>RDC does it, why can't Yaari?

> I can't find my copy of that sefer right now.
> Can you give us some of his examples?

I don't even own a copy not to find. However, I recall seeing a long
list of ta'uyos soferim, and around 10% or so lead to differences
lema'aseh. Perhaps someone who owns a copy can fill in the gaps in
my memory.

But to repeat my thesis, minhagim, as opposed to taqanos, were practices
that arose grass roots, and only afterward gained approval from the
rabbinate. So why couldn't some of them have arose from errors -- as
long as the rabbanim found a similar post-facto justification?

Gut Voch!
-mi

PS: The quote in this signature file is relatively new. I think, though,
that it is a good reminder for email fora.

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 23
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."