Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 56

Wed, 03 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Kitniyot (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Kever yisrael (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Kever yisrael (Joshua Meisner)
• 4. Kitniyot - errors (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: kitniyot (Meir Shinnar)
• 6. Re: Kitniyot (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: Kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Kitniyot - errors (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 11. Lo BaShaMaYim Hi actually means we MUST follow Our Own Understanding (Meir Rabi)
• 12. Re: Lo BaShaMaYim Hi actually means we MUST follow Our Own Understanding (Micha Berger)
• 13. Which Day is YK? Defying BD. Who Brings the Chatos? (Meir Rabi)

On 3/30/2013 9:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> ...
> : Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.
>
> ??? Who said we should listen to prophecy? Irrelevent quote.
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 02:02:28AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
> : R Arie deems my example as a proof that dismantles my argument, namely,
> : that even if BD erred or even intentionally declared rosh chodesh on the
> : wrong day, their date is binding.
>
> : But I must disagree. On the contrary, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they were
> : entitled to Pasken as they please re Rosh Chodesh, and consequently which
> : day is YKippur, nevertheless, he did not insist that they eat and make a
> : LeChaim to compel compliance; how much more so in a case where this special
> : power is not given to BD i.e. to Pasken and make a determination even when
> : they know it is wrong.
>
> R' Gamliel made him violate hotza'ah (aside the derabbanan of muqtzah)
> on YK. Is that different than had it been an invitation to a se'udah?
> And it's clear from R' Aqiva's response that the point was to force him
> to accept BD's qidush hachodesh. Not just make a reconciliatory display.
>    

The cases are entirely different.  The same evidence was available to 
both Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua.  If Rabban Gamliel had been 
locked in a closet during the time the eidim were testifying and made 
his decision anyway, and Rabbi Yehoshua had heard and questioned the 
eidim, that would be a case more similar to what we're talking about.

You're sorely mistaken if you think I'm rejecting the determination of 
poskim.  Or as you said earlier in your response: "Lisa is arguing that 
I should not be bound by the authority of accepted legislation or 
interpretation, but by the Truth."  That is a wholly untrue evaluation 
of my position.  I would thank you to refrain from reformulating my 
words when I'm right here to clarify my intent.

You seem to be taking an extreme position that reality/facts are 
irrelevant in the face of psak.  If that's not the case, correct me.  
Whereas I am saying that psak can be reconsidered in the face of new 
evidence.  I know rabbanim who have reconsidered their piskei halakha 
when new evidence comes to light.  And in case you think that this is 
not the same as questioning the psak of earlier rabbanim, I would simply 
point to deaf people as my proof.  I haven't seen the recent article in 
Ami Magazine called "Being Deaf and Jewish", but I do know that the 
understanding of cheresh was reevaluated in the face of new evidence, 
even though it effectively changed the psak of Tannaim and Amoraim!

> If you can explain why you do not believe Shemittah 1:4-6 isn't a
> pre-10th cent example of accepting halachic process produced results
> over a computation of truth, I would appreciate it.
>    
I'm willing to bet that if they'd had concrete evidence showing how the 
Yovel was counted back during Bayit Rishon, that would have trumped the 
process.  It's easy enough to say that process wins in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary.  I don't think anyone disputes that.

Lisa

I recall a story a while back about a tshuva where someone was asked to
give up his share of a large inheritance so his father could be buried in a
kever yisrael. Anyone have a citation?
Ckvs
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.

R' J. David Bleich, in Tradition 40:3 (Fall 2007), discusses the case, and
references R' Yitzchak Zilberstein's article in Kol ha-Torah no. 61 (Nisan
5766).

Chag kasher v'samei'ach,

Josh


On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:

> I recall a story a while back about a tshuva where someone was asked to
> give up his share of a large inheritance so his father could be buried in a
> kever yisrael. Anyone have a citation?
> Ckvs
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130331/fc1135c6/attachment-0001.htm>

I was reading the introduction to the moriah SA over pesach
They claim that they fixed many misprints from previous editions that
affected halacha

Does that mean one should keep the mistakes because that is the mesorah

BTW they mention the city in their discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130331/5ad65884/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mar 31, 2013, at 7:32 AM, avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org wrote:

>  what gives a ruling authority, not what makes the most sense from
> :> a historical or scientific perspective.
> 
> : Wadr, while the Sanhedrin, & probably tannaim & amoraim, are viewed as
> : having real legislative powers, the legislative authority of I rishonim
> : & achronim is in general viewed as quite limited to communal takkanot -
> : & is normally NOT applied to the general halachic process.
> 
> Legislation and interpetation. In general I was careful to write both.
> You picked up one of the few times I didn't remember / bother. As above,
> I'm following RYBS in the assertion that the pesaqim in the SA have
> [non-absolute but real] authority because the Rambam's statement about
> a community accepting a halakhah applies to both new legislation and
> to interpretations of existing law.
> 
> : The question of trying to understand what the Gemara & poskim meant -
> : especially in terms of realia - has a long history - & I doubt you will
> : find anyone prior to, say, 1800, who will so readily disassociate Halacha
> : from objective truth or discounted attempts at discovering past practices
> : - whether search for artifacts or manuscripts...
> 
> I though I forestalled this argument by (1) showing how many rishonim
> were Constitutivists, ie believe that the law is defined by pesaq,
> not pre-existing to be discovered by posqim; and (2) even the sole
> known (to me) non-Constitutivist rishon, the Rambam does himself follow
> the authority of the qabbalah of the ge'onim over the computed year
> for shemittah.
> 
> If you can explain why you do not believe Shemittah 1:4-6 isn't a
> pre-10th cent example of accepting halachic process produced results
> over a computation of truth, I would appreciate it.
> 
1) Bayit sheni is irrelevant, because anshe knesset hagedola HAD legislative power and ultimate power of interpretation.
2) You are, IMHO, completely misunderstanding the rambam - which is actually a ra'aya listor.  
 The rambam does not, in general, give the post amoraic geonim automatic
 credence, and frequently paskens against them.  However, their authority
 derived from two different (albeit related) sources - 1) Personal stature
 2) As transmitters of traditions from amoraic times - and amoraic
 traditions are binding.....
In shmitta The rambam has a textual understanding and chronology which leads him to one understanding.  However - there is a massoret hageonim. 

It is precisely in the latter sense that the rambam is defering to them
here - as they have a tradition (ish mipi ish) about WHAT actually happened
and the halacha, and he also says that the talmud in avoda zara is like
them (note - it seems that  is not satisfied merely with the fact that it
is kabbala and ma;ase, but at least one talmudic source seems to agree with
them...)  His textual understandings are not enough to undermine the 
kabbala and to suggest that it is wrong - .  As he says hakkabbala
vehama'ase amudim gdolim behora'a . - but this kabbala and ma'ase are of a
very different order than the kabbala and ma'ase of, say, shiur of large 
kezayit - whose origin is clearly traceable, and which contradicts previous
kabbala and ma'ase....

Remember he also argues for the utter freedom of a bet din to reject the understandings of previous bate din after the talmud....

finally, framing the debate in terms of constitutive versus nonconstitutive
misconstrues the issue.  yes, there is interpretative freedom (eyn lebet
midrash bli hiddush), and there is debate about the extent of how  much the
interpretative efforts of predecessors actually bind us.  However, even the
constitutive proponents are not post modernists - there is some objective
truth traceable to Sinai, and it is not merely the invention of creative
halachists and our deferral to communal norms (catholic Israel anyone??)-
and the freedom to interpreted is limited by the principle that one may
err.  Ashkenaz, faced with differences between communal minhag and talmud
bavli, were perhaps the closest to RMB's position - but even there, there
were limits of interpretative freedom - which is why the emphasis on
textual accuracy and traditions - and times when they declared minhag
wrong.....

The issue with a kezayit is that we know the textual basis (the noda
biyehdua) - and most of us accept that one basic assumption he made - that
people could not have gotten bigger, so therefore our olives are smaller. 
I would also argue that accepting his shitta as normative actually
undermines the validity and continuity of tradition...

Again, how often one is actually willing to argue that someone was wrong is
a different issue (the ramban's hakdama to milhamot hashem, arguing that in
general we can't achieve mathematical certainty in halachic reasoning, is
relevant - as it suggests that it is rare that one can show that someone
was actually wrong, and therefore puts into play other halachic issues such
as  continuity and humility - but the notion that there is no notion of
error is quite problematic and difficult to find before 1800.

Meir Shinnar



> I also mentioned the mizbeiach in bayis sheini that was based on a pesaq
> about nisuch which would invalidate the mizbeiach in bayis rishon. And,
> for that matter, the tubes in the mizbeiach in bayis sheini also would
> be excluded by pesaq in use during bayis rishon. Were AKhG not yotzei,
> because they didn't know the old-style mizbeiach? And if so, why didn't
> chazal switch back once they realized the switch happened?
> 
> ...
> : The closest to rmb's position comes from the chazon ish's position
> : that the fate of certain manuscripts, texts,& practices reflect
> : divine  hashgacha - which is thematically related to
> : the idea of continuous revelation..
> 
> Or the source I gave -- the Rambam's haqdamah, as explained by RYBS.
> Which has nothing to do with siyata diShmaya. Not that I am denying the
> notion -- just saying that I didn't go there. My whole point was that
> halakhah is created by communal endorsement of a textual halachic-process
> based pesaq, not by Divine Approval, not by historical study of prior
> states of halakhah, etc...
> 
> : The idea of the community being able to determine its own norms to
> : achieve meaning & redemption is appealing, but has a history. I doubt
> : RMB is truly willing to endorse it..
> 
> I think you are inviting me to conflate textualism and mimeticism more
> than the Rambam would.
> 
> :-)||ii!

I suggested:
> To be the sort of life form that may not be killed on
> Shabbos, what you really need are *parents*.

R' Zev Sero asked:
> Would it have been chilul Shabbos to kill Adam or Chavah, or
> any of the animals created on the 5th and 6th days (such as
> the "shor par makrin mafris")?

Great question as far as Adam and the animals. But Chava certainly had a
biological parent (Adam), at least as much as a transplanted branch does,
or a regenerated starfish arm.

I do realize that these ideas of mine are a hijack of the thread, which is
really about mitzvos in general and whether they are reality-based or
experience-based. But this idea of the lice got stuck in my brain, and I
can't shake it. Whenever the point of the lice eggs comes up, our reflex is
to contrast the reality as Chazal understood it, with the reality as we
understand it. My point is to go deeper into Chazal's reality, and wonder
what it is about spontaneously-generated life that makes it inferior even
to plants, and unworthy of the protection that Hilchos Shabbos given to
biologically-generated life forms. Did this question never come up? Did
they merely take it as a given that such life *is* inferior? I hope to look
into it over Yom Tov.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
OVERSTOCK ipads: $30.93
Get 32GB Apple iPad for as low as $30.93. Limit 1.Day. Grab yours Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5158662941b7466291a68st04vuc

On 31/03/2013 12:22 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> You seem to be taking an extreme position that reality/facts are
> irrelevant in the face of psak.  If that's not the case, correct me.
> Whereas I am saying that psak can be reconsidered in the face of new
> evidence.	I know rabbanim who have reconsidered their piskei halakha
> when new evidence comes to light.	And in case you think that this is
> not the same as questioning the psak of earlier rabbanim, I would
> simply point to deaf people as my proof.  I haven't seen the recent
> article in Ami Magazine called "Being Deaf and Jewish", but I do know
> that the understanding of cheresh was reevaluated in the face of new
> evidence, even though it effectively changed the psak of Tannaim and
> Amoraim!

I doubt they did such a thing.  Rather, the metzius is that most deaf people
are not also mute.  Their speech may not be easily intelligible, but it is
recognisable as speech.  And of course today there are cochlear implants that
effectively cure a cheresh.

I've also seen poskim suggest that Chazal's psak only applies to a person
who can't communicate, but any cheresh who learns sign language and lip
reading is no longer a cheresh.   I find that hard to understand, because
the halacha is clear that a cheresh who communicates clearly in writing is
still a cheresh.  He could write volumes of shaalos and teshuvos, but he's
still patur from mitzvos.  So how can sign language or lip reading be
different?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

There are two questions we are talking around:

1.  Why does a person need to have any minhagim?

2.  What makes a particular group of minhagim binding?

Of course "minhag" has multiple meanings, so one may have different 
answers to these questions in different contexts.

David Riceman

On 3/31/2013 9:15 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> I was reading the introduction to the moriah SA over pesach
> They claim that they fixed many misprints from previous editions that 
> affected halacha
>
> Does that mean one should keep the mistakes because that is the mesorah
>
> BTW they mention the city in their discussion
>

Rabbis Shlomo Riskin and David Bar Hayim once had a debate at the Israel 
Center in Jerusalem.  During the course of this, R' Riskin claimed that 
"lo tirtzach" applied to non-Jews.  R' Bar Hayim said that it didn't, 
but that "shofech dam adam b'adam damo yeshafech" did.  R' Riskin pulled 
out a copy of the Rambam and read: "Kol horeg nefesh adam oveir b'lo 
taaseh, she-ne'emar, lo tirtzach."  R' Bar Hayim pulled out a copy of an 
edition of the Rambam based on actual manuscripts (as opposed to the one 
R' Riskin had used, which was published under the kindly auspices of the 
Polish Catholic Church), and read: "Kol horeg nefesh adam *miYisrael 
*oveir b' lo taaseh, she-ne'emar, lo tirtzach."  R' Riskin's response 
was not to argue in favor of his nusach being more correct, but rather 
to say, "This is the version we have today."

Would RMB agree with R' Riskin?  Certainly, if we find the Aron under 
Har HaBayit and see that the copy of the Sefer Torah that Moshe wrote 
has differences from the one we have, we'd be obligated to make ours 
conform to his.  Or is that also something RMB would dispute?

If we were to find a copy of a Sefer Torah in a cave, preserved like the 
Dead Sea Scrolls, and that was different from ours, we would *not* 
change ours, because who knows if that one wasn't ganuz for a reason.  
Maybe it belonged to sectarians who changed it.  But if we were to find 
one in the actual Aron, that would present us with a fact, and we'd have 
to accept it.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130331/2901b752/attachment-0001.htm>

On 31/03/2013 11:36 AM, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> The issue with a kezayit is that we know the textual basis (the noda biyehdua)
> - and most of us accept that one basic assumption he made - that people could
> not have gotten bigger, so therefore our olives are smaller.  I would also
> argue that accepting his shitta as normative actually undermines the validity
> and continuity of tradition...

But the topic here is *not* the Noda Biyhuda's shiurim, which we all
know are a change from the mesorah based on a mistaken assumption about
the metzius. The topic here is the exact opposite - a challenge to
the *traditional* shiur of kezayis, based on the fact that olives, both
today and in Chazal's time, were much smaller than that, and the claim
that the rishonim from whom we received that tradition didn't know this.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Reb Micha does not follow why I mentioned  - Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.

I mean to say that shutting down ones mind to accept the Pesak or opinion
of a great rabbi or BD is a desecration of Lo BaShaMaYim Hi and the seminal
guideline established in the Gemara - LaMa Li KeRa Sevara Hu!! Our Sevara
is SUPERIOR to Torah form Sinai!!!

because Reb Micha believes that we MUST NOT stand by our understanding of
Halacha but must accept the rulings of those we consider greater than us.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130403/b2d97572/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 05:27:05PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Reb Micha does not follow why I mentioned  - Otherwise Lo BaShaMaYim Hi.
: 
: I mean to say that shutting down ones mind to accept the Pesak or opinion
: of a great rabbi or BD is a desecration of Lo BaShaMaYim Hi...

In the tanur shel akhnai story, both sides were thinking their way to
an answer: both R' Yehoshua and the rabbaim who were meiqil, and R'
Eliezer in being machmir.

Lo bashamayim hi was invoked to tell R' Eliezer that despite all his
proofs from heaven, he had to follow R' Yehoshua and the majority.

It's about submitting to halachic process despite proofs from heaven.
Not about seikhel over submission. In fact, from R' Eliezer's point of
view, it told him it was okay to let the world treat such an oven as
tahor DESPITE his seikhel.


And in terms of my discussion with Lisa: If we take the story as it is
usually understood, it would show how halakhah is defined by the legal
process, and not by means of determining truth.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 8th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Gevurah: When is holding back a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           Chesed for another?

I have tried to include the many and varied responses to my previous
postings in this analysis.

A dispute is recorded in the Mishna and Gemara [RHaShono 24] between
Rabon Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua.

The dispute concerned deciding the day of Rosh Chodesh. This led to the
practical question of; which day would be Yom Kippur?

Rabon Gamliel decreed that Rebbi Yehoshua must come to him on the day
that he, Rebbi Yehoshua, had determined to be Yom Kippur, carrying his
walking stick and bearing his money.

I observed that these two actions were not actually an inescapable
desecration of Yom Kippur. One can place an object one is carrying on a
Makom Pettur and thereby avoid transgressing the prohibition of carrying
from one domain to another. Similarly, any Muktzeh item can be designated
prior to Shabbos or Yom Tov and made into a non-Muktzeh item.

The only sure way to verify that Rebbi Yehoshua would not be keeping his
day of Yom Kippur, would be to make him eat, or wash, or wear leather
shoes. So I ask, why did Rabon Gamliel not demand that Rebbi Yehoshua
drink a LeChaim with him? Or wear leather shoes or go to the bath-house?

I deduce that in fact, Rabon Gamliel

had no need,

had no power, and

did not want Rebbi Yehoshua to desecrate the day that he, Rebbi Yehoshua
determined to be YKippur.

Rabon Gamliel was simply concerned that the split between himself
and Rebbi Yehoshua which was already well known, [which also explains
why Rabon Gamliel was concerned only with Rebbi Yehoshua and not the
other sages who also disagreed with him] might well be magnified and he
feared that this argument about which day was Yom Kippur would become
a flashpoint triggering major civil unrest and strife.

He therefore decided to create the impression that there was full
agreement between them about which day was YKippur, even though he knew
that Rebbi Yehoshua would be keeping his own day as YKippur. This would be
accomplished by having Rebbi Yehoshua carry his stick and his money, which
would be interpreted by the masses as compliance with Rabbon Gamliel,
even though in actual fact Rebbi Yehoshua would be keeping his own day and
could easily sidestep any desecration of carrying his stick and his money.

To support this interpretation I wish to make the following observations:

*Rabon Gamliel did not demand that Rebbi Y eat or wash or wear leather
shoes

*Rabon Gamliel had no concerns that on the day that he, Rabon Gamliel,
had determined to be YKippur, Rebbi Yehoshua would openly and defiantly
publicise that it was NOT YKippur, by eating, wearing shoes or going
to the bath-house. This observation is made by the Teferes Yisrael on
the Mishnah.

I want to follow this up with a secondary observation -- it should have
been equally certain that Rebbi Yehoshua wold not be making a public
display on the day that he, Rebbi Yehoshua, deemed to be YKippur. So what
was Rabon Gamliel concerned about? The only reasonable interpretation
is that it was a necessary step to prevent civil unrest and a community
split between following Rabon Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua.

*By what power could Rabon Gamliel make this decree upon Rebbi Yehoshua?

If, as my interlocutors suggest, BD rulings may not be defied, then why
was any special decree required? It is clear that in normal circumstances
the ruling of BD is a guide not a compelling ruling. This complies with my
often repeated simple observation that it is the individuals who follow
BDs erroneous ruling who must bring their own Chatos. So Rebbi Yehoshua
was under no compulsion to follow the ruling of the BD, and Rabon Gamliel
knew this. So Rabon Gamliel made a special decree. But, does Rabon Gamliel
possess power to promulgate such a decree? I think not. Which leaves us
with the understanding that Rabon Gamliel was doing no more than making a
request, although he made it with the weight and authority of his position
as Nasi. He wanted more than Rebbi Yehoshua staying out of sight and not
overtly desecrating one day and sanctifying the other day. Rabon Gamliel
wanted a public display that would quell all rumour of there being a split
in the BD.

 Rebbi Yehoshua was distressed until Rebbi Akiva reminded him of a teaching
that he, Rebbi Yehoshua had taught -- but had forgotten -- that a ruling
regarding deciding which day is Rosh Chodesh is legitimate even if BD makes
it knowing it to be a wrong calculation. We must equally accept that Rabon
Gamliel did not know this ruling. Had Rabon Gamliel known this there would
not have been any conflict in the first place.

Rebbi Yehoshua was not distressed for himself, as Rabon Gamliels decree
allowed him to keep his day as YKippur. Rather his distress was for all the
Yidden who would be following an erroneous ruling of the BD and would in
essence be desecrating YKippur. As we have explained that simply following
BD is not an exemption, those who follow BD must bring their own Chatos.
They are responsible for their sin. As we have stated this lies at the core
of our discussion. So here too, until Rebbi Yehoshua is reminded of his
ruling that BD ruling is legitimate even when they knowingly set the wrong
day as Rosh Chodesh, he believes that the entire nation will be desecrating
the holiest of holy days.

 One must also wonder about Rabon Gamliel kissing Rebbi Yehoshua and
praising him for accepting his authority. Rebbi Yehoshua was not accepting
Rabon Gamliels authority but his own ruling which Rebbi Akiva reminded him
of, that BD ruling is legitimate even if they deliberately distort the date
of Rosh Chodesh.

I suppose that within the guidelines of Geneivas DaAs, this was permitted
as it was not Rebbi Yehoshua who misled Rabon Gamliel but Rabon Gamliel who
misled himself. So there was no need for Rebbi Yehoshua to correct him.


[Email #2. -micha]

Reb Micha does not accept that the sugya is relevant altogether, because
Qidush haChodesh isn't pesaq. It creates Rosh Chodesh for reasons of
its own. hazeh LAKHEM"

Reb Micha is of course correct - in the final analysis.

But I am probing the HaVa AmiNa, the situation as it was BEFORE Rebbi Akiva
reminded Rebbi Yehoshua of this fact. Rabon Gamliel needed to make a
special decree [really a request - see my other posting] because he KNEW
that he had no power, no right and no authority over ANY sage who argued
with the BD. So he merely requested that for the sake of quelling any
suggestions of personality dividing the BD, he create the pretence of
accepting Rabon Gamliels authority.

Thus the Sugya is highly relevant and a most emphatic proof that the BD
does not posses power to coerce all to follow its rulings. Besides such a
premise is ridiculous if following this coercion to accept BDs Pesak, we
then coerce those we coerced to follow  the Pesak, to bring a Chatos for
having followed the Pesak. [sounds almost rumsfledish]

[Email #3.]

Reb Micha asks rhetorically, R' Gamliel made him violate hotza'ah (aside
the derabbanan of muqtzah) on YK. Is that different than had it been an
invitation to a se'udah?

And my answer is that it is MANIFESTLY DIFFERENT. HoTzaAh and Muktzeh can
be very easily sidestepped. Eating CANNOT be sidestepped.

Reb Mich also adds that it's clear from R' Aqiva's response that the point
was to force him to accept BD's qidush hachodesh. Not just make a
reconciliatory display. [I really dont understand how R Micha sees this,
but I will respond ....]

My response is simple - Rebbi Yehoshua was not distressed for himself but
for the nation who would all [most] be following BD erroneous ruling and
would be ultimately responsible  i.e. they would be the ones to bring the
Chatos i.e. bear the guilt and suffer the shortcomings subsequent to their
not having sanctified YK.

Rebbi Akiva simply reminded him of his own ruling that BDs Pesak in matters
of the Chodesh are legal even when they knowingly and deliberately set the
wrong day for Rosh Chodesh. That being the case Rebbi Y could be easy, the
nation was certain to sanctify YK

[Email #4]

R Zev suggests that had I been around and voiced my concerns, when the
dispute between Rabon Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua occurred, then Rabon
Gamliel would have made R Yehoshua eat.

I thought you R Zev are a believer in the Torah being Nitzchi and embracing
all time and all possibilities and all contingencies.

I certainly believe that is the case. That is why I am sure that Rabon
Gamliel did not request that he eat or wear shoes or bathe. He did not want
and neither did he have the power or authority to compel any such thing.

See my longer post for more info. [Above. -micha]

[Email #5]

To which RMR replied:
> The point was to diffuse a potentially extremely divisive showdown
> in which I think it is safe to assume, the general community was
> in favor of the renegade. So it was a show, and it succeeded in
> averting a uprising or a revolt and still permitted him to maintain
> the Halacha as he understood it

To which I replied:
1) But if so, why did RY not want to go?
2) That was the argument of Benei Beteira. R'Yehoshua' was unhappy with
that.

And I now respond to Reb Arie's first point - he was distressed that the
nation would not be sanctifying YK and they, not the BD, would suffer - as
I have been explaining for some time now, BD will NOT bring the Chatos but
the people bring their own Chatos.

I dont follow the Benei Beteira argument, please explain

Best,
Meir G. Rabi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 56
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)