Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 2

Tue, 20 Mar 2012

• 1. Bamos (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Bamos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Characterizing our era (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Characterizing our era (Harry Maryles)
• 5. Re: Dead-Letter Halakhoth (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Re: Parshas Ki Sisa: Rav Shimon Schwab - Mordechai's Brings, Real Freedom For His Nation (David Riceman)
• 7. Darshening the Megillah (Micha Berger)
• 8. supporting candidates (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Purim on the 13th (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Darshening the Megillah (Simon Montagu)
• 11. Re: Darshening the Megillah (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: Darshening the Megillah (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Darshening the Megillah (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Darshening the Megillah (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Darshening the Megillah (Lisa Liel)
• 16. Re: Darshening the Megillah (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Weird Exceptions (Micha Berger)

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:10pm EDT, I wrote:
: (Bamos were mutar before bayis rishon, during galus Bavel, and if one
: would say -- as they did in Alexandria and R' Yitzchaq holds on Taanis
: 20a -- "qedushah sheniyah lo qidshah le'asid lavo" bamos would have been
: mutar today. Alexandria had Beis Chonyo, the Temple of Onias, a full
: operating clone of bayis sheini. From Chonyo, son of Shim'on haTzadiq,
: until churban bayis, it was more problematic.)

REMT politely kept his correction off list. But I was wrong. Or at least,
I at best quoted a shitah R' Yitzchaq himself later rejects.

The stam mishnah in Zevachim (14:8, 112b in the gemara) explicitly says,
"Ba'u liY-m, neesru habamos VELO HAYAH LAHEN OD HETER..."

He also quoted Megillah 1:11 (9b), "qedushas Shiloh yeish achareha heter,
qedushas Y-m EIN ACHAREHA HETER." The gemara ad loc (10a) days that R'
Yitzchoq changed his mind since the quote I gave. Tosafos says that R'
Yitzchoq held was that even if lo qidshah le'asid lavo, it would only
prohibit qorbanos in Y-m, not permit them elsewhere.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

Another factoid that wouldn't have worked has permission to build bamos
been restored after Shelomo's bayis...

The Rambam famously says:
    [T]he custom which was in those days general among all men, and the
    general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up,
    consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained
    certain images, to bow down to those images, and to bum incense before
    them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons
    that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars,
    as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom
    and plan of G-d, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not
    command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service;
    for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the
    nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used..."
                            - Moreh 3:32

The Ramban (Vayiqra 1:9) and everyone else has a problem with his making
qorbanos bedi'eved. And since so much of the Yad is about qorbanos,
it would seem that the Rambam (like everyone else) expects their
restoration. What for, once we were weened away from that sort of
AZ already?

The Ramban cites Noach, whose qorban predates the Chaldeans and Egyptians.
And so he brings his own motivation.

The Narbonni on the Moreh understands the Rambam in a manner that avoids
the Ramban's objection. The element of human nature that Hashem did not
ask us to uproot suddenly is not caused by being acclimated to idolatry.
It is an innate human need that therefore consistently found expression
in idolatry.

The Abarbanel's haqdamah to Vayiqra rejects the Narbonni's shitah,
citing numerous pesuqim from navi that prove that yes, qorbanos are a
bedi'eved. (1-1/2 columns of this, in my edition.)

However, the Narvoni's interpretation of the Rambam could also be
understood as not necessarily implying that korbanos are part of the
ideal. If we humans were less frail and physical beings, we would be
able to address the need to give through Torah study, tefillah, investing
our time doing His Will. It is as a concession to a limitation of human
nature that Hashem needed to give us the ability to give a tangible gift,
one that seems more "real" to us.

The Or Samayach has a middle-ground position. He holds that the Rambam's
notion of weaning us off AZ explains bamos, whereas the Ramban's concept
of teshuvah needs a physical expression (to go with the thought of
teshuvah and the dibur of vidui) is the reiach nikhoach of Noach's
offering and the qorbanos in Y-m.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:26:14PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: >the shoa is the dividing line
: 
: Is it, though?  It's A dividing line, sure, but do eras really have 
: dividing lines?  I think we discussed this some years ago, and it seems
: there are transition periods between the major periods, and that major
: codes often characterize the transitions: the Mishna, the Gemara, the
: Rambam, the SA....

We're using era in two different ways. I'm thinking more like the line
between ge'onim and rishonim. It had no characterizing text, but did
happen at a cultural rupture.

And what looks to us like a broad transition era looks like a line
with a few centuries hindsight. Rav tanna hu upalig. The mishnah was
a kind of line, but there was blurriness around it.

Last, yes, RARR expressed it as a guess, that he expects that 200
years from now this will be deemed a new era. Not that we could
really know that already.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

--- On Fri, 3/16/12, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:


On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:26:14PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: >the shoa is the dividing line
: 
: Is it, though?? It's A dividing line, sure, but do eras really have 
: dividing lines?? 
--------------------------
?
Just my opinion, mind you. But I do believe the Holocaust is a dividing
line. Not in the same sense as the dividing line between Rishinim and
Achronim necessarily. But certianly in terms of?the progression?or better
put - the regression of Gadlus (...IOW the concept of Niskatnu HaDoros).
?
The difference? between the European Gedolim trained pre Holocaust and
those who were trained post Holocaust is not one merely of a minor step
down along the downward direction of Gadlus. It is in my view a major step
down from??the last generation - all born and bred prior to the Holocuast
to anyone you may care to name that is alive today. (I exclude someone like
RYSE who really belongs the the previous era even though he is still
alive.)
?
The level of knowledge is not the same. The level of wisdom is not the same. 
?
In other words - the transition?from the era of the R' Yitzchak Elchanan,
RCO, the CC, R' Chaim, and R' Meyer Simcha -?to the Birsker?Rav,?R' Issar
Zalman Meltzer and the CI -?and then later to RYBS, RAS, RMF, RAK and?RYK
was a relatively smooth one. But the transistion from those to the currrent
rabbinic leaders is a big jump down which in my view draws a hard line.
?
We are in the period of Achronim, true. But I still think there is a hard line to be drawn between the last generation of Gedolim and the current one.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120316/56cfa973/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
<(Bamos were mutar before bayis rishon, during galus Bavel, and if one
would say -- as they did in Alexandria and R' Yitzchaq holds on Taanis 20a
-- "qedushah <sheniyah lo qidshah le'asid lavo" bamos would have been mutar
today.

See Tosafos Megilla 10a Umay Taama where Tosafos states in the name of R'
Chaim very clearly that after the Beis Hamikdash was built everyone agrees
that there is no heter bamos (see the Mishna above there, which states that
kedushas Yerushalayim ayn achareha heter). This position is adopted by the
Ritva and Ramban in Megilla as well and is also the position of the Rambam
(for a different reason, namely that the original kedusha of the Beis
Hamikdash was never batel).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120318/539eea18/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL:
>>> The only true freedom is breaking free from the pressures around us to
>>> serve Hashem with purity.
RMB:
>>>
>>> It is always true. A person is "enslaved" to his desires, which often push
>>> him to preconsciously pick without any conscious or rational thought. And
>>> with non-spiritual desires, mi sheyeish lo maneh, rotzeh masayim.
>>>
>>> The only freedom a person really has is when a person commits to doing
>>> what they were made to do.
>>>
Frankly, this is a polemical trick which subverts the meaning of 
"freedom" and substitutes a straw man for serious argument.  For a 
definition of freedom see H. Teshuvah 5:1-2, cf. Niddah 17b (cited by 
several of the Nosei Keilim).  For a more appropriate examination of 
RYL's argument see Isaiah Berlin's essay "Two Concepts of Liberty", 
reprinted in "Liberty".

You need to argue against the alternative, not pretend it doesn't exist.

David Riceman

Learning Y-mi, one finds a lot of dinim are backed up with pesuqim from
Nakh. One starts to wonder whether the Y-mi disagrees with the Bavli's
rule that no new halakhos come from Nakh, thus altering the whole "lo
bashamayim hi", or whether the Y-mi just really likes finding asmachtos.

I want to raise a different topic, but feels related. Can we use the 13
or 19 middos of derashah on the Megillah? These are to retreive intent
of Anshei Keneses haGedolah, not deOraisos, so it's not exactly the
same thing.

On Megillah 1:1 (vilna 1b -- yes, the Y-mi has a daf alef), R' Chelbo
and R' Chunah vesheim Rav say "... zos omeres sheMegillas Esther nitenah
lehidareish".

(I want to start a separate thread on what that "zos" is, but I didn't
finish the broader sugyah yet.)

R' Yada besheim R' Laizer gets it from "divrei shalom va'emes" (Esther 9),
in comparison to "emes" in Mishlei 23. The bavli uses this comparison to
show that the megillah needs sirtut, just like a seifer Torah. But the
Y-mi learns two things: sirtut, and nitenah lehidareish.

Perhaps this is part of why the soferim were called soferim -- they had
that ability to make every word and letter matter. Just as they counted
the letters of the Torah. It's an entire way of thinking being described.

R' Yirmiyah besheim R' Shmuel b"R Yitzchaq says that the megillah Shemuel
gave David, which we don't have, is also nitenah lehidareish. I guess
whomever is charged with designing bayis shelishi (assuming it doesn't
come down from shamayim pre-made) can ask for a copy and darshen from
it how to build a BHMQ. And HQBH will "look down", "laugh" and say
"Nitzchuni banai, nitzchuni!"

This may mean only these three texts: the Torah, Megillas Esther, and
Shemuel's megillah.

Or it might mean that even Esther, the last sefer of kesuvim can be
darshened -- implying all of Tanakh, and then R' Yirmiyah extends this
even further by giving the example of a non-canonized prophetic text!


I really feel RYZ's absence. He probably knows a maqor, and would have
just fired up a one-liner that would have resolved my question...

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

while politic s is not the usual provence here , a NY special election 
raises the following  concern.   is there a general halachic or hashkafic 
principle to determine who should get ones' vote ?

should the overriding concern be what is good for    a] the jews    b] 
haredi jews   c]  the  area the representative will represent?

when does  the candidate's  personal beliefs override the actual benefit 
the frum community would have derived?

is this even a halachic question ; or  only for those who believe in 'daas 
tora'  [ in the late 20th -early 21st century sense of the meaning] ?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120319/88535d6e/attachment.htm>

On Y-mi Megillah 1a, there is a machloqes amoraim whether reading on the
11th and 12th was from AKHG, or if AKHG only left reshus that a later
generation utilized to allow it. The 13th was added later either way,
on the grounds that it was sandwiched in. (Which doesn't sit well with
me, but that's my problem.)

Could we suggest that in AKHG's cheshbon (as in ours), Purim never fell
out on Wed or on Shabbos, and therefor they didn't have a need to permit
reading on the 13th?

Given the level of observance among the olim miBavel, it would make
sense that AKHG would try to implement lo Adu rosh or another rule
that minimized chillul Shabbos. As RRW noted in the past, YT sheini
shel galiyos doesn't fit lo BeD"U Pesach except a safeiq of Shabbos
vs. Sunday -- there are no other pairs of adjacent days possible for
Pesach. So even if this hypothetical rule was in place during early Bayis
Sheini, it was apparently not in force between then and some time after
Abayei. Including when our mishnah was written.

Then, with the loss of the Sanhedrin, we were at a point of needing
to avoid tempting people into chillul Shabbos again, and the lo AD"U
and lo BeD"U rules were revived.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Megillah 1:1 (vilna 1b -- yes, the Y-mi has a daf alef), R' Chelbo
> and R' Chunah vesheim Rav say "... zos omeres sheMegillas Esther nitenah
> lehidareish".
...
> This may mean only these three texts: the Torah, Megillas Esther, and
> Shemuel's megillah.

> Or it might mean that even Esther, the last sefer of kesuvim can be
> darshened -- implying all of Tanakh, and then R' Yirmiyah extends this
> even further by giving the example of a non-canonized prophetic text!

See the section "Megillat Esther vehaDerush Hahilchati" in RSZ's HaMo`adim
VeHalacha on Purim. I'm away from home right now and it's many years
since I read it, so I don't remember how relevant it is to your topic,
but it's at least related ;-)

On 3/19/2012 1:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Or it might mean that even Esther, the last sefer of kesuvim can be
> darshened -- implying all of Tanakh, and then R' Yirmiyah extends this
> even further by giving the example of a non-canonized prophetic text!
>    
When did Esther become the last sefer of Ketuvim?  I count three more 
after it.

Lisa

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 04:40:52PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> When did Esther become the last sefer of Ketuvim?  I count three more  
> after it.

You are speaking of canonical order, I'm am speaking of historical order
of canonization. Thanks for pushing me to be more clear.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 3/19/2012 4:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 04:40:52PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> When did Esther become the last sefer of Ketuvim?  I count three more
>> after it.
>>      
> You are speaking of canonical order, I'm am speaking of historical order
> of canonization. Thanks for pushing me to be more clear.
>    
Are you sure that it was canonized later than Shir HaShirim, for example?

Lisa

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:16:22PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> You are speaking of canonical order, I'm am speaking of historical order
>> of canonization. Thanks for pushing me to be more clear.

> Are you sure that it was canonized later than Shir HaShirim, for example?

I think so, because Esther is the only book of Tanakh not found among
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which would imply to me that it was the only book
of the canon not accepted by all Jews when their sect split off.

The gemara about metamei es hayadayim, or not (Megillah 7a), is taken by
some rishonim (eg Ritva) to be a dispute abou whether Esther, Qoheles
or Shir haShirim were canonnized at all. R SZ Leiman advocates for the
majority of rishonim who say they agreed over cannonization, but still
disagreed over tum'ah. But the Ritva would say that those three were in
dispute the latest, into the later tannaim, and thus one of them was last.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas HaOlam

On 3/19/2012 8:50 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:16:22PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>>> You are speaking of canonical order, I'm am speaking of historical order
>>> of canonization. Thanks for pushing me to be more clear.
>>>        
>    
>> Are you sure that it was canonized later than Shir HaShirim, for example?
>>      
> I think so, because Esther is the only book of Tanakh not found among
> the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which would imply to me that it was the only book
> of the canon not accepted by all Jews when their sect split off.
I think it's more likely that the sectarians at Qumran rejected it 
because it doesn't contain Hashem's name in it.  Assuming that they 
maintained the norms of Klal Yisrael is a bit far-fetched, IMO.

Lisa

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 09:39:04PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> I think so, because Esther is the only book of Tanakh not found among
>> the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which would imply to me that it was the only book
>> of the canon not accepted by all Jews when their sect split off.

> I think it's more likely that the sectarians at Qumran rejected it  
> because it doesn't contain Hashem's name in it.  Assuming that they  
> maintained the norms of Klal Yisrael is a bit far-fetched, IMO.

The two pieces of my post were not separate. I was suggesting that since
Chazal's words could be taken as placing Esther among the last 3, it
seems to me that the Qumranim excluding it is because they split off
before Esther in particular was logical. More than logical, I took it
as self-evident and didn't realize I was presuming a conclusion.

I do think that it's hard to tell your people to drop something from
accepted canon. Especially when others were canonizing Esther with
apocryphal editions that did had Hashem's name.

(BTW, while looking up whether the Apocrypha did add Hashem's name,
I found out that the LXX has "boulaion", from which we get the English
"bully", for "Aggagi".)

But now I think this whole tangent is probably irrelevant anyway.

I was saying that one could take the Y-mi to mean either that Esther
in particular was given to be darshened, or that even Esther -- and
therefore certainly the earlier books -- were given.

However, as I already mentioned, R' Yuda besheim R' Laizer learns this
out from the same derashah from which we learn the requirement for the
megillah to have sirtut. Sirtut is specifically for the megillah. So
it would seem that despite my earlier attempt to see things two ways,
Rebbe and R' Elazer at least mean specifically Esther. It would require
understanding Rebbe as being choleiq with R' Chunah, rather than bringing
a prooftext to what was already said -- in order to support a second,
less obvious, read of the Y-mi.

And then whole question of whether Esther was last and therefore the
logical "even" doesn't really make a difference to my original topic.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RAM (9 Mar 2012, 20:28:46 GMT) wrote:
> Shushan Purim, is another example worth remembering. In
> my mind, the most logical rule would have been to observe Purim on the 15th
> in any city which had a wall in Esther's day....
> But that's NOT the rule Chazal chose to make. The actual rule is to observe
> Purim on the 15th in any city which had a wall in Yehoshua's day, which
> includes Yerushalayim, but *excludes* Shushan. So they made a logical
> exception to that rule, and set the 15th as Purim for Shushan as well, even
> though Shushan did not have a wall in Yehoshua's day.
...
> It seems to me that the answer is found in Gemara Megilla 3b, which brings
> a pasuk (regarding redeeming one's land, Vayikra 25:29) to show that
> certain halachos d'Oraisa apply in a walled city, but not elsewhere, and
> therefore we must carefully define exactly what counts as a "walled city".

I just had the parallel sugya in the Y-mi. Y-mi Megillah 1:1, 1b-2a,
has three shitos:

1- R' Simon besheim R' Yehoshua ben Levi: Chalqu kavod lEY, and that is why
   the mishnah says miymos Yehoshua bin Nun. Then it asks, so why not all
   cities? And then it says darash yeshivah yeshivah. R' Yudah bar Pazi
   has a different derrashah -- perazos perazi (Esther 9 to Devarim 3). This
   derashah is more directly about the question. Why wouldn't it be more
   kavod to make shushan Purim in every Israeli city, not just the ones with
   walls? And this derashah explains which cities are excluded -- those
   without walls when Yehoshua got there.

2- R' Yehoshua ben Qorcha disagrees with the mishnah, and says miymos
   Achashveirosh.

3- R' Yosi bei R' Yehudah says only cities exactly like Shushan in the
   days of Achashveirosh. Understanding this is a machloqes acharonim.
   He could mean only Shushan, only other capitals, or something else.

I think it's notable that the machloqes tanaim dates to R' Aqiva's son,
R' Yehoshua ben Qorcha. Shortly after Hadrian had R' Aqiva killed, he
plowed Y-m under and built Aelia Capitolina atop the ruins. RYBQ was thus
of the first generation one couldn't ask Y-mim what they did every year.

Either way, going back to R' Yehoshua ben Levi, note that in the Y-mi's
discussion, the emphasis is on kavod EY, not Y-m alone. It's no more
about adding Y-m than adding Yericho et al. And the pasuq is given as
the source of the derashah alongside a taam hamitzvah; so one doesn't
have to deduce taam from the other side of the gezeira shavah.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 2
*************************************

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..."