Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 167

Mon, 05 May 2008

• 1. Re: Lying to protect the simple of faith (Zev Sero)
• 2. : When does mixed swimming mean? (SBA)
• 3. Re: Shaos Eretz Yisroel (EY zeiger) (saul mashbaum)
• 4. Standing for Torah reading (Michael Feldstein)
• 5. Inconsistencies in following tannaim (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Standing for Torah reading (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: Inconsistencies in following tannaim (Rich, Joel)
• 8. 2 days yom tov (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Michael Makovi)

Micha Berger wrote:

> It is not so clear the IE believed in multiple authorship of the Torah.
> He refers a number of times to the "secret of the 12", each time at a
> point where the Torah refers to something from a perspective later than
> the settling of Israel. E.g. "and the Kenaani was then in the land". The
> Tzofnas Paneiach assumes this refers to later additions to the Torah.
> 
> It should be pointed out, though, that there are Chassidim who agree
> that the TzP is saying the IE believed in real multiple authorship --
> but they therefore don't learn IE. IOW, the belief that there were no
> inserted verses, even contextual ones within a naarative, with no nafqa
> mina elmaaseh, was (until this generation's LW) held stronger than the
> belief that the IE is on the list of "real rishonim".

They agree that this is what the TzP says IE believed, or they agree
with the TzP that IE indeed believed this?  It's easy to do the first
without the second.  IE is generally accepted as a kosher source, but
honestly, who on earth was the TzP (Tov-Elem)?  Since when is *he*
accepted as an authority?  Why does anyone have a problem with the
idea that Tov-Elem was a kofer, and therefore falsely ascribed his
kefira to IE?


>> 1) When Rambam says the Torah we have is the same as given by Moshe,
>> Rambam cannot possibly believe that this is literally true, for Rambam
>> was extensively involved in textual study of different texts, and even
>> advocated certain Masoretic texts (ben Asher I believe) over
>> others....

I don't understand this claim.  Of course there exist bad copies of the
Torah; any balkore can tell you that!  But where does the Rambam accept
that there's any doubt over the correct text?  On the contrary, he
doesn't even seem to consider the idea, that I can recall.


> IOW, denying "Higher Criticism" doesn't mean denying "Lower Criticism"
> or R' Meir's statement that we lost the true list of chaseiros and
> yeseiros.

Does the Rambam accept R Meir's statement lehalacha?  IIRC he seems to
hold that Ben Asher's text is 100% correct.   A simple way to reconcile
that with the gemara is to assume that Ben Asher and his predecessors
successfully reconstructed the original text, and eliminated all the
mistakes that existed in R Meir's time.




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

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Zev Sero wrote:
> : 1. At Marienbad did one take the waters in a communal pool, or in
> : individual baths?
> : 2. If a communal pool, was it mixed?  Surely not!
> 
Micha Berger wrote: 
> My understanding is that these health spas had a communal bath without 
> separate hours. 

There are/were private baths in Marienbad.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/world/europe/03czech.html

RZS:
I'm actually surprised that 19th and early 20th century European goyim would
have had mixed bathing.  
>>

You are probably correct. Se this write-up on the Melbourne City Baths:

==
The Melbourne City Baths was first opened in 1860 and has continued to
provide health and fitness services to the community for more than 140
years, an achievement that distinguishes the Baths from any other health and
fitness facility in Victoria....
One of the Melbourne City Councillors, Sizar Elliott, initiated moves to
build public baths and urinals in the city. A triangular piece of land on
the corner of Swanston and Franklin streets was chosen and the City Baths
was opened on 9 January 1860. People flocked to the baths and it was
reported that 79,096 men and 2,950 women enjoyed the facilities in the first
year.....Facilities consisted of two swimming pools, 16 slipper baths
and?six spray baths each for the men and women. 
There were also Turkish and vapour baths, a Jewish ceremonial bath - Mikvah
bath and a laundry.
Mixed bathing was introduced into the City Baths in 1947...
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=287&;pg=2578

RMB:
>>
I  noticed the following correspondences between the start of the year,
and the start of the day.

The Jewish chol year starts in the fall, just as it starts getting
darker, and our day starts at sunset.

The sacred year starts in Nissan, and for avodas hamiqdash, the day
starts at sunrise.

<snip>
There seems to be a constant thread about the year and the day
starting at corresponding points in the day-night cycle.

>>
See RSRH's commentary to Shmot 12:1-2, at the end (p.129 in the Levy translation):
" And actually thereby we do get a double cycle of time: a "world year"
beginning in Tishrei.. and a Jewish year which is henceforth to begin  in
Nissan, the month of redemption from Egypt...

"So we get two beginnings of the year, just as we know two beginnings of
the day. We have a year which begins in autumn, and although it knows
spring and summer, ends again in autumn. And we have a year which begins in
spring,and although it knows autumn and winter, always ends in spring
again. Similarly we have a day which begins at night, and although it rises
to morn and midday, ends again in night; and we have a day that begins in
the morn, and although it sinks to eve and night,  ends again with a fresh
morn.

"Outside the sanctuary the day begins and ends with night, inside the sanctuary the day begins and ends with morn.

"The year of the earth... is reckoned from autumn to autumn; Israel's years
... count from spring to spring. Here we have an exhortation to our double
nature, worked into the log-book of our lives. Everything pertaining to the
earth is born bare and without blossom..., and although it rises to the
brightness of midday and the riches of blossom and fruit, sinks bare and
blossom-less to the night of its grave. Everything holy and Jewish has its
origin in light and life, and even though it has to meet and contend, in
running its course, with night and death, out of darkness and death it
struggles back to light and life, and what which was born out of morn and
spring ends again at dawn, rejuvenated to a new spring."  
Ad kan lashon RSRH
I really like this passage, although, b'chilat kvod torato, I find the
Kohelet-like description at the end of the futility and barrenness of
worldly endeavors discouraging, even depressing.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080505/c0e9eaef/attachment-0001.htm>

I've heard that the reason for standing during the reading of the Aseres Hadibros relates to the fact that we are attempting to
recreate the scene at ma'amad Har Sinai.? Does anyone know a reason why we
stand for Az Yashir? And can anyone explain a new minhag that has emerged
in at least one?Long Island?shul of standing for the reading of Parshas
Zachor (it seems that it can't be because it's a mitzvah from the Torah to
hear this portion, as there are plenty of mitzvot from the Torah, such as
bentching, where we don't stand).




Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080505/43a2d714/attachment-0001.htm>

About a month ago, RZL was kind enough to send me some of the
additions he plans on making to a forthcoming edition of "The Dynamics
of Dispute". (Which is mis-titled, since the seifer is about more than
machloqes. I believe this may be corrected as well.)

He gave me permission to quote the following here:
> Did Disagree with Tannaim, next-to-last sentence, I neglected to
provide
> examples of where Amoraim held hybrids of tannaitic opinions
> (referred to again on p. 127, Last paragraph). The Yad Malachi, under
> the heading Amoraim, states this as a fact that appears many places in
> the Gemora, but he only cites one--perek Raahu Beis Din [Rosh
> HaShonna]--which I haven't been able to find, and for more examples
> refers to a sefer I cannot find. I have, however found the following
> examples: Rav Assi in Bava Metsia 24b; and Shmuel in Yevomos 113b,
> Gittin 67a, Horios 12b, Zevachim 74a, Niddah 70a.

These are cases where we hold like one side of a machloqes in one
case, and another side in another.

He added in a clarifying email (I thought he meant "hybrid" as in
angling the mezuzah to sort of do both):
> I should note, however, that Rav Assi was a talmid of R. Yochonon, the
> one who declared that one can no longer disagree with Mishnaic
teachings
> [of d'oraissos] since they may be Halachos L'Moshe MiSinai. One may
> argue that Rav Assi made his hybrid pesak before his rebbi stated the
> principle.

The problem I'm having is that this line of thought, taken from my
blog, seems to me to be so compelling (even stripped of the Maharal's
model) that I don't see where the error is. So, can someone read this
(particularly the ending) and help me out?

: The Maharal's position is that "divrei E-lokim Chaim -- the word of
: the 'Living' G-d" is simply too rich and too complex to exist in this
: world. Therefore they are mapped to oversimplified models, related
: to Hashem's words the way a shadow is a flattened representation of
: the original. And thus, different people looking at the problem from
: different directions will get different shadows -- even though they are
: all accurate representations of the same thing.

: To finish out the metaphor: The angle at which we look at Devar Hashem
: is our "derekh", our path in how we. This derekh, just like the lamp,
: is determined by two things: mei'ayin basa, ule'an ata holeikh -- from
: where do you come, and to where are you going? Where the lamp is, and
: the angle it points. Different people were put together differently,
: and can have different emphases in how they interpret the ultimate
goal.

: The complexity of Devar Hashem causes the illusion (to us) of
: paradox. It's no more real of a paradox than the 5 blind men who argue
: about the nature of the elephant. The one who felt the elephant's ear
: would argue an elephant is like a fan. The one who felt its leg would
: think it is like a tree. But it's only because we can't capture the
: full picture.

: We therefore see the Torah as demanding conflicting values and
: duties. (Unresolvable dialectics, in R YB Soloveitchik-speak.)
Depending
: upon which we choose to prioritize, followers of different derakhim
will
: obtain different results. But you won't make it to the top of the
mountain
: if you first try this route and that that. You need a consistent plan.

: Someone who changes the weights to find a desired result is no longer
: simplifying an Infinite Truth to fit it into this universe. Different
: shadows of the same object are each valid. But if you trace the shadow
: while changing the direction of the lighting mid-stream, you are left
: with a picture something that isn't a shadow of the original. The
: weighting can't simply be to justify the result; and in that sense
: even including human cost is different than ends-driven decision making
: (picking the pesaq to fit some non-Torah desire). The weighting system,
: the angle of the light, is the a priori -- and must itself be a product
: of the halakhos of making halakhah.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
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

 

        I've heard that the reason for standing during the reading of
the Aseres Hadibros relates to the fact that we are attempting to
        recreate the scene at ma'amad Har Sinai.? Does anyone know a
reason why we stand for Az Yashir? And can anyone explain a new minhag
that has emerged in at least one Long Island shul of standing for the
reading of Parshas Zachor (it seems that it can't be because it's a
mitzvah from the Torah to hear this portion, as there are plenty of
mitzvot from the Torah, such as bentching, where we don't stand).
        
        
        
        
        Michael Feldstein
        Stamford, CT 
        
________________________________

         
         
        See:  http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n134.shtml#17
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n134.shtml#17>    
         
         Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 12:13:15 +0200
        From: Saul Stokar <dp22414@elbit.co.il>
        Subject: Standing for mitzvot
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=S#STANDING FOR
MITZVOT> 
         
         As to standing for these leinings, perhaps because of being
choshesh for the Maharam Mrutenberg who would iirc always stand , so
let's stand for important ones (oops, the Rambam wouldn't like that
explanation)
        
        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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080505/c6e47ce8/attachment-0001.htm>

 


The problem I'm having is that this line of thought, taken from my blog,
seems to me to be so compelling (even stripped of the Maharal's
model) that I don't see where the error is. So, can someone read this
(particularly the ending) and help me out?


: Someone who changes the weights to find a desired result is no longer
: simplifying an Infinite Truth to fit it into this universe. Different
: shadows of the same object are each valid. But if you trace the shadow
: while changing the direction of the lighting mid-stream, you are left
: with a picture something that isn't a shadow of the original. The
: weighting can't simply be to justify the result; and in that sense
: even including human cost is different than ends-driven decision
making
: (picking the pesaq to fit some non-Torah desire). The weighting
system,
: the angle of the light, is the a priori -- and must itself be a
product
: of the halakhos of making halakhah.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
===============================================
Conceptually (or as my wife likes to say - "In Joelworld") I would agree
with you.  Practically the empirical data imho doesn't support the
hypothesis as well as one would like (i.e the simplest explanation of
many halachik phenomena is that the weighting system was affected by the
desired ends - which of course is then explained as "halakhos of making
halakhah" to those who wish to maintain the purity of the system.) In
this explanation, where does the "halachik heart" fit in (halakhos of
making halakhah?)

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.

The criterai of Shas is "minhag avoseinu beyadeinu"
If you use the borders of EY as a practical proxy for the original Talmudic
norm then I woudl simply suggest revising that to a pragmatic use of the
medina's borders.>>

There are several ways of learning the gemara.

1. 1/2 days of yomtov depends on where the shelichim came literally.
This seems to be the Rambam and the basis of the chumrot of the
Brisker Rav and CI

2. Depend on what people in bayit sheni did in that neighborhood.
This is basically the shitah of the Chacham Tzvi and so one keeps 1
day where they
kept 1 day in bayit sheni and keeps 2 days where they kept 2 days then

3. This is a new gezerah from chazal in the days of Abaye and Rava.
The gezera distinguished between EY and chutz la-aretz and does not depend
on what happened in that location in bayit sheni (ie not like #1 or #2) In fact
some rishonim learn that the point was to stress the importance and
difference of EY
even in galut days.
This seems to be the position of SA and many modern poskim.
According to this viewpoint one has to define what is EY and what is
not. There does
not seem to be any halachic reason to identify with the modern borders of Israel
any more than the borders of EY for terumot and maaserot or shemitta
do not coincide
with those of the modern state


-- 
Eli Turkel

>  I am struck by a different question, however, related to this issue.  We
>  are told that Avraham baked matzos on Pesach.  In the above inyan we see
>  that matzah is connected to leil seder.  So who set the calendar before
>  the mitzvah was given in Parshas Bo?
>  R' Daniel M. Israel

Midrash Tanchuma says that it is like a father who wound a clock
everyday, and then gave it to his son to wind. G-d kept the calendar,
and then gave it to us to wind.

Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer says that Adam was taught the calendar, who
gave it to Shet, who gave it to...all the way down to Avraham and Bnei
Yisrael. Sounds rather Kuzari-ish, IMO.

I agree with R' Israel that it's a good question - if we say that the
world was created on Rosh Hashana, and that various other events
happened on other pre-Exodus dates, it presumes a calendrical
continuity between pre-Exodus and post-Exodus. Therefore, these
midrashim suggest that either a core group of people kept the
calendar, or that G-d privately kept his calendar. R' Micha too
suggests the Jewish calendar was always kept, and I'd opine that
perhaps it was kept not by a small core group (as per Pirkei d'Rabbi
Eliezer), but rather maybe by society in general even:

> The calendar is mentioned in Chumash as early as Parshas Noach (Bereishis 7:11, 8:4,
> among other places).  Thus, the question (at least in my mind) is not
> where did the calendar > come from, but rather, what is the
> chiddush of HaChodesh Hazeh Lachem?
> R' Micha Berger

I believe Ramban says it could have been a solar calendar that was
being referred to. Even if we say that it was a lunar calendar,
perhaps G-d, in that tzivoy, fixed certain astronomical practices that
were common minhag but weren't set as actual law and were subject to
some leeway previously? (I am supposing that perhaps the Jewish
calendar is the same, or almost the same, as some other Eastern
calendar of antiquity, and that there is nothing so remarkable in our
calendar. If our calendar IS remarkable, then our question disappears,
for the significance of the tzivoy would largely be the uniqueness of
our calendar.) Or perhaps our calendar was *exactly* the same as the
ancient gentile one, except their first month wasn't Nissan. Or
perhaps it was a formality, with G-d formally (ceremoniously, so to
speak) handing down authority over the calendar to us, to fix our
holidays; without His command, we'd still be fixing the same calendar
with the same laws and procedures, but now, it was formally commanded,
and became a mitzvah and not a mere stam thing we do because we choose
to.

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 167
***************************************

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..."