Avodah Mailing List

Volume 21: Number 9

Mon, 20 Nov 2006

• 1. Re: Distinguishing Peshat from Derash (Zev Sero)
• 2. Teachers learn from students (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. YGB - ??"?: Tolodo d'Bor (BK 3a-b) (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 4. Copyright and e-daf (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 5. Yishmael Text (Yisrael Medad)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] Is Israel a Jewsih State? (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 7. Re: Prophets are infallible? (Zvi Lampel)
• 8. Re: establishing mamzerut (Jacob Farkas)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Greater sanctity of Jerusalem than other cities in Israel (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Copyright and e-daf (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: taking off chalah from cake dough (reuven koss)
• 12. machloqes or lack thereof (was "Re: Dek Tichel (and knaidlech)") (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)
• 13. Lo tasur (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Ma'aseh eretz Mitzrayim (Micha Berger)

Rabbi Y. H. Henkin wrote:

> Derash, aggadic and homiletic exposition, constitutes the main
> non-legal exegetical activity of the rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash.

"Non-legal"?  AIUI, derash is the primary mode of halacha, and overrides
peshat.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

I need some help in understanding Bava Metzia 33a;

"MISHNAH. IF [A MAN'S] OWN LOST ARTICLE AND HIS FATHER'S LOST ARTICLE 
[NEED ATTENTION], HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE. HIS OWN AND HIS TEACHER'S ? 
HIS OWN TAKES PRECEDENCE; HIS FATHER? S AND HIS TEACHER'S ? HIS 
TEACHER'S TAKES PRECEDENCE, BECAUSE HIS FATHER BROUGHT HIM INTO THIS 
WORLD, WHEREAS HIS TEACHER. ?WHO INSTRUCTED HIM IN WISDOM, BRINGS HIM TO 
THE FUTURE WORLD....

Gemora ....R. Hisda asked R. Huna: ?What of a disciple whom his teacher 
needs??26 ?Hisda, Hisda,? he exclaimed; ?I do not need you, but you need 
me.? Forty years27 they bore resentment against and did not visit each 
other. R. Hisda kept forty fasts because R. Huna had felt himself 
humiliated, whilst R. Huna kept forty fasts for having [unjustly] 
suspected R. Hisda."

The mishna states that even though there is an obligation to honor one's 
father and return his lost objects - the teacher who brings him to Olam 
HaBah takes precedence. The gemora acknowledges that only certain 
teachers have this superior status. In the course of clarifying this 
issue the gemora describes an encounter between Rav Huna and his student 
Rav Chisda. This is where I get stuck.  Rav Chisda asked Rav Huna if a 
rebbe - who would normally take precedence over a father - loses that 
status because he learns from the student. Rav Huna was insulted because 
he mistakenly thought that his student Rav Chisda was implying that he  
was dependent on Rav Chisda. He strongly denied that he needed his 
student Rav Chisda and said the opposite was true - that Rav Chisda the 
student was in fact dependent on him. In fact Rav Chisda was not only a 
student of Rav Huna but had been a student of Rav - the teacher of Rav 
Huna. Thus  Rav Chisda was a talmid chaver of Rav Huna. The gemora 
clearly indicates that eventually Rav Huna fasted forty fasts to atone 
for having incorrectly suspecting his student while Rav Chisda fasted 
for having upsettiing his teacher.

I simply don't understand what happened and what we are supposed to 
learn from this. Why did it take 40 years to reconcile? We know that 
teachers learn most from their students - is it a crime for a student to 
mention or even allude to that fact? I did find that the Beis Yosef 
learns from this than an implied insult is considered an insult.


Daniel Eidensohn

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer has sent you a link to a weblog: 

Blog: YGB - ??"?
Post: Tolodo d'Bor (BK 3a-b)
Link: http://rygb.blogspot.com/2006/11/tolodo-dbor-bk-3a-b.html

--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/

> <<"Taking" implies that they are losing something. They are not.>>
> 
> <Exactly.  More to the point, gezel requires that something tangible
> leave the reshut of the owner and enter the reshut of the thief, so
> that the owner no longer has its use and enjoyment while the thief
> does have it.  That's the *definition* of theft.  If the owner still
> has just as much after the act as he had before it, then nothing has
> been stolen from him.>
> 
> <<They are losing the ability to profit -- m'nias harevach.>>
> 
> <And here is where your friend is cheating.  He has suddenly switched
> definitions of "loss".  When you copy pages from a web site, the
> owners have not lost anything, in the sense you meant in the previous
> sentence.  They still have everything they had before.  The ability
> to make a profit isn't something they possess, it's not their
> property, and it can't be stolen.  That's why there exists a concept
> of "hasagat gevul", which is derived not from the issur on stealing
> or of cheating, but from the mitzvah of ahavat yisrael, and "ve'asita
> hayashar vehatov".>
R' EMT:
>      And thus I can copy a disc, tape etc., or photocopy an Artscroll
> sefer, despite the prohibition printed therein, other than dina
> d'malchusa considerations?

He's saying that as far as Gezel is concerned, yes. As far as Hasagas Gevul,
maybe or maybe not.

KT,
MYG

Toby suggets that
"the Torah almost never puts in one extra  word...You find  examples of this
all over Chumash...An example that comes to mind is with Dena and Shechem.
 Not until  we read that her brothers took her from Shechem's home (after
killing all the  men of the city) do we realize that she has been held
captive during all the preceding conversations and negotiations"

Well, I am not sure of that and I;m not referring to Parshat Nasso, for
example).  Verse 1 of Chapt. 34 states plainly "and he took her",
physically, i.e., absconded away with her, removed here from her previous
location - this "taking" cannot be the sexual act for that is described such
"and lay with her".  No, we surely can realize she was being held against
her will all this time.

As for the Hagar analysis, I'd go along with that.

-- 
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/20061116/d1971c5c/attachment.htm

Moshe Yehuda Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> wrote:
Well - I've got news for you! Eretz Yisroel is not a Jewish state! It's got
lots and lots of Jews in it, true. But...

R' HM:
?It is Jewish because God said so, not becuase of who runs it. 

MYG:
IIRC, we Pasken "Kidshe l'sha'atah v'lo kidshe l'asid lavo". Anyone? (That,
BTW, would make it that God said it ISN'T a Jewish state, even L'shitas
R'HM.) I could be wrong.

R' HM:
IIRC, we?Paskin??the Kivush by?Ezra of Eretz Yisroel was a Kivush Rabbim.
KIvush Rabbim Shmei Kivush. This is unlike the days of David HaMelech who
was a Yachid. And we?Paskin Kivush Yachid Lav Shmei Kivush. That means that
Eretz Yisroel has a status of belonging to Jews,? no matter who rules at any
given time. Also, look at the first Rashi in B'Reshis. I can stae with a
clear conceinece to the world, "This land is mine, God gave this land to
me." This makes it? Jewish State.



Not so Poshut. See Rambam Bais HaBechira 6:14-16 and the Ra'avad there. It
is at least a Machlokes Rishonim, and I'd like to see a source for a clear
P'sak B'zman Hazeh.

KT,
MYG

R? M Cohen <mcohen@touchlogic.com> Wed, 8 Nov 2006 wrote:

> [Re: RDE's question:] Does anyone else state that prophets are fallible?

> see derech HaShem chelek gimel, perek dalad, section 8-11 where he speaks
> extensively about this subject

> how a true prophet can think he rcvd prophecy and he didn't,
> how a true prophet can misunderstand his prophecy,
> how a true prophet can be misled by kochas hatumah to false prophecy
>etc<

WADR, Ramchal here clearly describes those who are victims to these failings as 
false, not true, prophets, such as those the wicked Achav consulted, and those 
who had /not/ yet reached the level of a true prophet--not the true nevi?im 
under discussion, whose prophecies were wrtitten l?doros, such as Yeshaya and 
Yirmiyahu.

(Section 7 may present a stronger reason to attribute imperfection to a true 
navi?s understanding of his prophecy. There the Ramchal points out that a true 
prophet (such as Jonah regarding his understanding of ?Ninveh shall be 
overturned?) might only grasp some but not all of the prophecy?s sevreral true 
meanings. (However, the Malbim?s yesod that a prophet is required to understand 
his prophecy in its simplest sense would provide a different view on the 
prophet?s abilities.)

----------------------------------------
: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 (Re: [Avodah] Prophets are infallible?) R. Micha Berger wrote:

On Sun, November 5, 2006 5:52 pm, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: The Sefer Ikarrim says--as does the Torah--that the prophets other than Moses
: perceived and related Hashem's thoughts through imagery and riddles....

[RMB:]
?Nisht azoi pashut. For example, in Yeshaiah's first nevu'ah, he not only
recieved imagery and riddles, but a Voice taught him how to interpret the
nevu'ah.
?I don't know how to resolve this with the Ikkarim.?

ZL:
To evade the problems you raised with the Ikarrim, I carefully avoided saying 
he holds that ?the prophets other than Moses perceived and related Hashem's 
thoughts /only/ through imagery and riddles....? I don?t see the Sefer 
HaIkarrim negating the possibility of a navi hearing voices in his prophecy. 
The point is that included in the prophecy are elements that require 
deciphering. This doesn?t contradict the possibility that the deciphering may 
sometimes be provided by Hashem Himself.

[RMB:]
?Shemu'el misidentified his first nevu'ah for Eili calling his name;
it would seem it too was composed of straight words the way people talk to
each other.?

ZL:
The Ramchal in the third perek of the Sefer Derech Hashem RMC pointed out to us 
also provides a solution to this quandary. In par. 3 he writes that  a prophecy 
sometimes comes in stages, and uses Shmuel?s ?hearing Eli?s voice? as an 
example of the of prophecy ?booting up? to ots full stage (my terminology, not 
his). At the time of Shmuel ?hearing? Eli?s voice, It was not yet a full-
fledged prophetic state. The Sefer HaIkarrim does not mention this, but it 
seems complementary to his presentation.

But I have an additional problem in this very chapter of the Ikarrim: an 
apparent internal contradiction, from one sentence to the next:

?All the prophesies of Yirmiah, who lived [in the earlier and therefore 
prophetically-superior period] before the [Temple?s] Destruction, were clear 
and well-explained (m?vu?aros b?er haytiv). And Hashem Yisborach already 
expressed quite sufficiently the difference between Moshe?s prophetic power and 
that of others...that all other prophets besides Moshe speak in riddles lacking 
clarity and visions not accurate (medabrim b?chidos bilti m?vuaros u?mar?os 
bilti amati?im).?

First he says that Yirmiah clearly explained all his prophecies, then he says 
all the prophets besides Moshe (which of course would include Yirmiah) spoke in 
unclear riddles.

One may suggest that he only meant that Yirmiahu's prophecies were /relatively/ 
clear, compared to that of later prophets. Any better suggestions?

I have no answer yet to the questions about the Ikarrim?s shita about the 
nature of prophecy vis-a-vis RMB?s thesis on the position of the Rambam and RSG 
vs. that of the Ramban.

Zvi Lampel

Rabbi Folger wrote:
> Once you assume that DNA is quasy faultless, it equals certainty. You no
> longer can claim that there is a reasonable interpretation of the 
> presence of the bo'el's DNA in the child.
> 
> Actually, I believe there is a reasonable interpretation which would 
> suffice, and I am surprised that it wasn't suggested at the conference: 
> the child might be the bo'el's and still not be a mamzer, since it could 
> have been conveived by IUF, IVF etc.
> 

Considering that Rov suggests it doesn't occur via IUF/IVF, wouldn't we 
assume that Rov, especially since it is Ifshar leVareir if IUF/IVF occurred?

While DNA can establish a positive relationship between the child and 
the child's "biological father," it does not address the method of 
conception in any way, so all it does is place the Bo'el in the picture, 
it identifies that he is the party. Any discussion of method of 
conception is immaterial to the testimony of DNA, and is open to 
standard methods of Birur, e.g. Rov, Hazaqah, Eidus.

So assuming that Rov conceptions are conventional, and DNA places the 
Bo'el as the father, that could lead to identification of Mamzeirus. The 
fact that a mi'ut could suggest an alternative is not a Rei'usa in the 
Birur of DNA, it is its own question. We assume Mamzeirut if a woman 
remarries without first obtaining a Get, and has a child. Maybe the 
child was born of IUF/IVF?

--Jacob Farkas

On Thu, November 16, 2006 2:06am, R Moshe Feldman wrote to Areivim (current
events references scrubbed):
:> The following statement was released by Tzohar:
:> JERUSALEM'S SANCTITY IS GREATER THAN ANY OTHER PLACE
...
:> According to Jewish tradition, there are 10 levels of sanctity, and
:> the sanctity of Jerusalem is greater than the sanctity of other
:> places. ....

: Of course, this applies just to the Old City, as the Sanhedrin has not
: (yet) enlarged the borders of Jerusalem to include the parts outside
: the old city walls (circa the time of the churban--the walls then
: followed a somewhat different route)....

WRT Shushan Purim, being a suburb from which Y-m can be seen counts for
something. Are you sure it doesn't here too? Not on the level of Y-m itself,
but still, not the same as the rest of EY?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote:

> R' EMT:
>>      And thus I can copy a disc, tape etc., or photocopy an Artscroll
>> sefer, despite the prohibition printed therein, other than dina
>> d'malchusa considerations?
> 
> He's saying that as far as Gezel is concerned, yes. As far as Hasagas Gevul,
> maybe or maybe not.

I don't see how there could possibly be "hasagat gevul" involved either.
You're not making the copy in order to be mean to the author, and hurt
him when you could just as easily not do so.  You're making it because
it's cheaper than buying an original.  That's a perfectly rational
reason to do something.  There is no chiyuv to lose money in order to
be nice to people.

Copyright is not property, it's a monopoly granted to authors by the
will of Congress.  Congress could easily decide one day not to grant
it, and then it wouldn't exist; and they can change it as they like.
And the only reason to obey Congress in this matter is dina demalchuta,
to the extent that that concept applies.  Therefore when Congress has
*not* granted someone a monopoly, and indeed is powerless to grant one
(as in our case), there is no reason to pretend that he has one. 

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

  Maybe by a duncan hines cake one would not make a b'racha, but why would 
one
  not make a bracha on a thicker dough- b'lila avah- yeast cakes and the 
sort?
  reuven

>> Bim'hilat kevod Toratkha, you seem to have misunderstood. 8.66 cups of 
>> flour
>> is always the minimal shiur (1.2 kg). A berakhah is only recited on 
>> regular
>> bread, and then only on a larger shiur.
>> Arie Folger
 

In Areivim Digest V4#54, RDS wrote:
> (*) I'm beginning to wonder if there are any undisputed Halochos. <
At least on a "drash" level, I would like to think that the lack of
machloqes (and the implicit mashal/mussar) is one reason why the pereq of
"Aizehu m'qoman" is part of our pre-P'suqei d'Zimra prayers (BTW, said
prayers being such a fixture as to be said even on pre-Bayis Shlishi Tish'a
b'Av).

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061117/2ec5d04b/attachment.html

The Sefer Hachinuch (495) extends the mitzvah from Sanhedrin to "to
listen and act in all times to the command of the judge; that is the
greatest wise man....."

It appears the use of the singular is consistent with those that hold
the purpose of the mitzvah is to ensure a "1 torah" system.

Question: Was there ever a post-sanhedrin period where this position
would have a nafka-mina (i.e. 1 universally recognized authority)? Or am
I being too literal in my understanding?

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061119/13a7710a/attachment.htm

How is this defined? Rashi speaks of people marrying each other, but
how does one define marriage without invoking the concepts of eirusin
and niru'in? Are we talking about common law, just living together
monogamously?

What's the ma'aseh aveirah of KMEM aside from that of actual MZ or
nashim hamesolelot?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 4, Issue 9
************************************

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..."