Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 200

Mon, 09 Dec 2013

• 1. Re: eating out (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Eating Out (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: Eating Out (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: Eating Out (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Rashbam and peshat (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The Gym, the Carpool, and Tzniyus (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: P'sakim of HaRav Shmuel Kamenetsky Regarding Chanukah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: All That Glitters is not Gold (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: suicide by cop (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Eating Out (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Eating Out (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Eating Out (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Eating Out (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Eating Out (harchinam)
• 15. Re: Eating Out (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: The Gym, the Carpool, and Tzniyus (Kenneth Miller)
• 17. Re: Rashbam and peshat (Arie Folger)

See Chulin 7b about R Pinchas ben Yair, who, once he was independent, didn't
even eat at his father's house; and when he agreed to eat at Rebbi's house
his heart wasn't really in it, and so Hashem saved him from the necessity of
going through with it.

-- 
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

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

> But there is a mitzvah to be scrupulous in the observance of kashrus, is there not?

I honestly don't know the answer.  Could you please explain the difference between being scrupulous in the observance, as opposed to simply observing it.

I am not trying to single out this post. I've always had the same question
about advertisements which proclaim "strictly kosher" as if being "kosher"
isn't good enough. 

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Carb-Hormone Trick
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52a4a4ea3049724e97505st01vuc

There is nothing about eating out which contradicts being scrupulous. As 
it has been pointed out ein sof times, people have a chezqat ne'emanut. 
If someone says "this piece of meat meets standard A, B, C", you can 
believe him.

That you may feel uncomfortable asking someone isn't the issue.

Ben
On 12/8/2013 12:30 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
> But there is a mitzvah to be scrupulous in the observance of kashrus, 
> is there not? YL
>

On 8/12/2013 11:56 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R' Yitzchok Levine asked:
>> But there is a mitzvah to be scrupulous in the observance of kashrus,
>> is there not?

> I honestly don't know the answer. Could you please explain the
> difference between being scrupulous in the observance, as opposed to
> simply observing it.

> I am not trying to single out this post. I've always had the same
> question about advertisements which proclaim "strictly kosher" as if being
> "kosher" isn't good enough.

It means not relying on the heterim that are available to eat something
that you're not sure is really kosher, even if you're mostly sure,
and al pi din that's good enough. E.g. not eating anything on which
a shayla was raised, even if the psak was that it's OK.

[Email #2.]

On 8/12/2013 1:27 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> There is nothing about eating out which contradicts being scrupulous.
> As it has been pointed out ein sof times, people have a chezqat
> ne'emanut. If someone says "this piece of meat meets standard A, B,
> C", you can believe him.

You *can* believe him, but you don't *have* to, and the more scrupulous
will reserve judgment and not eat, just in case it's not true.  This isn't
required, but it is an admirable practise.

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

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:53:14AM +0100, R Arie Folger wrote:
: RMB wrote, regarding Reuven's sin:
: > Reuvein's cheit according to peshat in the pasuq (35:22), is MUCH more
: > severe than the cheit described by R' Shmuel bar Nachmani on Shabbos
: > 55b (as quoted by Rashi).
...
: Well, I am not so sure we should create such a dichotomy between peshat and
: derash here. The plain verses include here something very funny, strange.
: There is a break within a single passuk, and the report of Reuven sinning
: ends with the statement vayihyu benei yaaqov shemein assar (quoting from
: memory). That last statement confirms that no matter how grave the sin of
: Reuven, it wasn't enough to warrant him being excluded from the Shevatim...

I think your point brings us back to the original topic in our subject line.

Rashi's broad definition of peshat would apparently include TSBP that is
necessary to explain such funny and strange turns of phrase.

I think the Rashbam disagreed, having a narrower definition of what is
peshat.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:38:17AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: The problem that R' Melamed has though is that while it is very easy to
: point to the Torah requirement of keeping shabbas (in the aseres hadibros
: and elsewhere), pointing to where the obligation for tznius can be found
: in the Torah is much more difficult -- requiring one to focus on the more
: pre Sinatic aggadaic references -- such as to Sarah Imenu in her tent,
: and Rivka Imenu putting on her veil when she meets Yitzchak.

: Because of this, just saying "kacha" to these girls is far more likely
: than with keeping shabbas, to give the impression that actually there
: are no real sources.

It depends what it meant by just saying "kakha".

In the Bavli, "mai ta'ama" is answered with a sevara; in the Y-mi, it's
answered with a quote from Tanakh. To the Y-mi, the question is about
a proof that there is such a din, not ta'am in the sense of being able
to get a cognitive handle on it.

RALichtenstein wrote a few essays on this generations need to connect. We
get into a mitzvah when we have some aggadic way to connect to it
intellectually or emotionally. There isn't enough "ani avdekha ben
amasekha", obeying out of commitment.

I'm a firm believer in finding connection where possible, and relying
on commitment when necessary. But whether or not RAL would agree, all
insist there has to be some role for more blind obedience from commitment.

So, it depends what "kakha" means here. If it's limiting the question to
the Y-mi's "mai ta'ama", then I can see a point. Prove the din is X, Y or
Z despite the difficulty of pointing to it, but then expect commitment
whether or not they personally think the din is appropriate.

: The Meiri says: These are those who go out without their ketuba: one who
: violates das Moshe and das Yehudis, that is to say, not [just] at the
: end of the matter when she commits adultery does she lose her ketuba
: but even if she violates das Moshe and das Yehudis; and das Moshe is
: said on those mitzvos that are written in the Torah or are hinted at in
: it and das Yehudis are those that are said on those customs which the
: people are accustomed to from tznius so it should be that the daughters
: of Israel are greater in the midah of tznius than the rest of women ...

: Now I confess that I would read this Meiri as understanding the
: requirements of tznius as being a typical rabbinic fence on the Torah
: mitzvah of adultery...

That's not what he says, though. A gezeira is enacted to prevent
violation. He speaks here of a commonly accepted and binding practice
to further the ideal of tzeni'us.

Closer to implementing pirsumei nisa by instituting a derabbanan of
lighting on Chanukah or reading megillah. A rabbinic coinage to implement
a more vague Torah law.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 03:23:43AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: If this is so, then why is the common practice to say Haneros Halalu
: after the first light, while lighting the others? I would think that
: it is best to save Haneros Halalu until after they've all been lit,
: so that the brachos can go on all of them. (Note that the Mishne Brurah
: 676:8 mentions both procedures, without explaining either of them.)

Is that common practice? In my neck of the woods, those demographics appear
reversed. (My father says it after the last light, I reverted to our pre-RYBS
minhag of saying it after lighting the first one.)

I think it's part of a broader machloqes about mehadrin -- does it redefine
the maaseh mitzah, or add on to it? The Brisker Rav had a vort on it; you
can see R' Josh Flug's explanation at Chanukah to Go 2010:
http://www.yutorah.org/togo/chanuka/articles/Chanuka_To-Go_-_5
770_Rabbi_Flug.pdf
The BR uses this idea, first proposed WRT milah, to explain a machloqes
between the Rambam and the Rama, putting the Rama in the Tur's camp.
Ayin sham.

: I am also curious why Haneros Halalu is referred to as "unrelated to
: the lighting". It seems to me that it is VERY related to the lighting,
: as it explains what we're doing. Is it less related to the lighting,
: than how b'samim are related to havdala?

The rule of hefseiq between the birkhas hayayin and the kos are not nearly
as severe as between a birkhas hamitzvah and completing the mitzvah.

I therefore wonder why the Rambam would have us make the berakhah before
the first lamp rather than before the last. Over la'asiyasam the same way
we make the berakhah before drying rather than before washing.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 09:55:11PM -0500, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: is found in Midrash Rabbah :
: 
: "Since You have told me of their making a Golden Calf long
: before You did deliver them," argued Moshe, "why do You seek
: to slay them now that they have made it?" (It was for this reason
: that Moses mentioned the Exodus from Egypt in his plea for mercy).
: 
: What is amazing is that in essence, Moses is saying: "You already
: KNEW that they would be making a Golden Calf, so where was their
: free choice?"

: Obviously, Moses' plea made sense to G-d because He forgave them.

Or, HQBH elicited the plea He was going for, and the threat was withdrawn
because it already served its purpose. Much the way the aqeida's apparent
"change of Mind" is often explained.

But I think it's possible Moshe Rabbeinu a"h was arguing: Since this
misstep was insufficient reason to use some other nation in Your grand
plan for human redemption when You knew it was coming, you and I know
this punishment You are saying is Justice is not what will maximize
Divine Good. In effect: "You ain't fooling me none, L-rd."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:07:08AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> While recuperating...

Mi shebeirakh avoseinu, Hu yevareikh veyerapei osekha! May He grant
you a speedy and complete refu'ah in health, function and comfort!

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 08:10:26PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> <<But what is not in dispute is that this story about R' Amnon has been  
> told for generations>>

> As far as I know the story first appears in Or Zarua, whose author was a  
> prominent member of Hasidei Ashkenaz, a student of both R. Yehudah  
> HeHassid and the author of the Rokeah (which contains an extensive list  
> of penances, none so extreme as having one's tongue cut out).

We discussed this last Tishrei. The Or Zarua quotes R' Ephraim miBuna
bar Yaaqov (1132), so the story's telling dates back to within a lifetime
of it having purported to have happened.

But yes, R' Amnon miMagentza, R' Epharim miBuna and the OZ are all
Chassidei Ashkenaz, and therefore this story and its retelling doesn't
say much about Yahadus as seen by the majority for the reasons RDR
gives.

> Do you know whether it penetrated to fourtennth century Spain?

And this then gets into which Spain. The communities of Girona, of Castile
and of Cardoba had very hashafically diferrent tendencies.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

The halacha says I can believe him, but I choose not to. I know better.  
Sure.

That exactly what I mean when I said that while I assume that any 
particular person who doesn't eat out is doing so l'shem shamayim, it 
isn't something to be taught as a "level" or a goal.  This type of 
thinking leads to pure y'hura and second guessing of everything.

Ben

On 12/9/2013 12:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>
> You *can* believe him, but you don't *have* to, and the more scrupulous
> will reserve judgment and not eat, just in case it's not true. This isn't
> required, but it is an admirable practise.
>

On 8/12/2013 9:39 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
>
> Ben
>
> On 12/9/2013 12:26 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
>>
>> You *can* believe him, but you don't *have* to, and the more scrupulous
>> will reserve judgment and not eat, just in case it's not true. This isn't
>> required, but it is an admirable practise.

> The halacha says I can believe him, but I choose not to. I know
> better. Sure.

Being more careful than is strictly required is the *definition* of
"lifnim mishuras hadin".   And in kashrus we are specifically told that
this is praiseworthy.


> That exactly what I mean when I said that while I assume that any
> particular person who doesn't eat out is doing so l'shem shamayim, it
> isn't something to be taught as a "level" or a goal. This type of
> thinking leads to pure y'hura and second guessing of everything.

It's certainly a level, and something to admire in others, and perhaps
something to aspire to oneself.  If one feels ready to take it on, with
all seriousness, kol hakavod; but it's not an easy thing to do.  If one
can do it without too many people becoming aware of it, so much the better.

There's a story about the Chasam Sofer that nicely illustrates this:
A meshulach was eating at the CS's table one Shabbos, and after the fish
the CS asked him to say something.  He pointed out that when Avimelech
confronts Avraham and asks him why he lied, instead of just telling him
the reason Avraham goes into a discourse about his travels, concluding
that he had asked his wife to tell this story wherever they went.  Why
did he do this?  The meshulach answered that Avraham was telling Avimelech
"chas veshalom that I suspected you of anything!  You are well known as a
moral and decent person who would never dream of molesting anyone, married
or not!  But some of the places we travel to aren't as safe as Gerar, and
some of the people we come across could kill me if they knew we were married.
And yet some of these people might be insulted if I showed that I suspected
them.  So to play it safe and yet spare everyone's feelings we agreed to tell
the same story everywhere."    The CS immediately turned to his wife and
said "give the fellow another piece of fish..."

-- 
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

At 01:27 PM 12/8/2013, Ben Waxman wrote:
>There is nothing about eating out which contradicts being 
>scrupulous. As it has been pointed out ein sof times, people have a 
>chezqat ne'emanut. If someone says "this piece of meat meets 
>standard A, B, C", you can believe him.

My experience is that most congregational rabbis do not eat 
out.  Someone who is a rabbi in a shul in Bensonhurst told me 
recently that he does not eat in the homes of any of his 
congregants.  He said when he took the position of rov of the 
shul,  he made this clear.  When he announced this, it caused some 
"grumbling"  amongst his congregants,  but he felt that this is what 
he had to do.

Am I supposed to assume that there are two kashrus standards,  one 
for rabbis and the other for the rest of us?  Wouldn't being 
scrupulous in the observance of kashrus imply that one should follow 
the standards of these rabbis,  assuming that there is only one standard?


>That you may feel uncomfortable asking someone isn't the issue.

I have no discomfort at all about asking someone about their 
standards when it comes to a restaurant or a caterer.  Indeed,  one 
of my questions  when I check out such an establishment is to inquire 
if the owner and manager are observant.

When it comes to a private person,  there is never a need to ask 
anything.  If I am invited somewhere, I simply point out that I have 
my "unique standards" that I do not expect anyone else to adhere 
to.  If the people really want to dine with us,  then we could go out 
to eat in one of the fairly numerous restaurants that I eat in that 
are located in Brooklyn and in Manhattan.

IMO, to ask someone about what their kashrus standards is not 
appropriate and would border on the "disparagement"  that Micha 
referred to in one of his posts.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131209/457f3694/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 08:27:56PM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
> There is nothing about eating out which contradicts being scrupulous. As  
> it has been pointed out ein sof times, people have a chezqat ne'emanut.  
> If someone says "this piece of meat meets standard A, B, C", you can  
> believe him.

This is a bit of topic drift, and I wonder how much of the discussion is
a misunderstanding between people discussing this new tangent and those
discussing the original.

RSN's original question was:
> http://www.ou.org/life/files/Kashrut_Organization_Nov13.pdf
> the OU kashrut in israel guide states---  [pg 22]

>> The first point to bear in mind is that if a family has a particular
>> minhag vis-a-vis kashrut... even if your family doesn't have a specific
>> minhag, but are nevertheless accustomed to relying on a certain level
>> of kashrut supervision, you should ensure that you are maintaining the
>> same level of kashrut as you would at home. Both these points relate ...
>> also eating in someone else's home.

> is this gebnerally true, you cant eat at another's home who has
> different minhagim?

IOW, the question originally was whether one insists on their own
standards, even if they aren't formal minhagim. Nothin to do with trusting
whether they comply to A, B, and C, but whether or not they even need
to give you such assurances.

Then is the second discussion of whether one is permitted to distrust
such a claim made by someone with a chezqas kashrus, and if so -- is
it luadible?

As I said, these are two slightly different discussions, and we should
be clear which one each of us are addressing to avoid miscommunication.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

>
> My experience is that most congregational rabbis do not eat out.  Someone
> who is a rabbi in a shul in Bensonhurst told me recently that he does not
> eat in the homes of any of his congregants.  He said when he took the
> position of rov of the shul,  he made this clear.  When he announced this,
> it caused some "grumbling"  amongst his congregants,  but he felt that this
> is what he had to do.
>
> Am I supposed to assume that there are two kashrus standards,  one for
> rabbis and the other for the rest of us?
>


No, you are to understand that the rav of a shul wishes to avoid [like the
plague] a situation where he can eat in Ploni's home but not Almoni's,
especially in the US where there are many well-meaning ba'alei tshuva who
do not yet have quite enough knowledge to know when something is a kashrus
problem or not.He doesn't wish to hurt anyone's feelings.

*** Rena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131209/c74aaac9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 9/12/2013 8:59 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:

> My experience is that most congregational rabbis do not eat out.
> Someone who is a rabbi in a shul in Bensonhurst told me recently that
> he does not eat in the homes of any of his congregants.  He said when
> he took the position of rov of the shul,  he made this clear. When he
> announced this, it caused some "grumbling" amongst his congregants,
> but he felt that this is what he had to do.
>
> Am I supposed to assume that there are two kashrus standards, one for
> rabbis and the other for the rest of us?

Well, yes.   A rov has responsibilities that we don't have.  In particular,
a rov can't eat at the homes of some congregants and not others.  Other people
don't have that constraint.  


> Wouldn't being scrupulous in
> the observance of kashrus imply that one should follow the standards
> of these rabbis, assuming that there is only one standard?

Not at all.  There may be good reasons to adopt a policy of not eating
anywhere, but one can't learn such a policy from a shul rov.

-- 
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

R"n Chana Luntz wrote:

> ...  I think that a lot of the problem we have with the concept
> of tznius is that we have at least three (and possibly four)
> different halachos that are grouped under the general heading
> of tznius - and they are actually not the same thing at all. ...

As usual, RCL has graced us with another excellent analysis of various easily-confused concepts. The only point I'd comment on is:

> 2. The halacha of not exposing ervah, afilu b'chadrei chadarim.
> At least one of the sources for this obligation can be found
> from Shemos 28:42 and the obligation to give the kohanim
> trousers and the obligation to build a ramp, not steps, to the
> mizbeach Shemot 20:21.  It applies to both men and women, but
> less so to women than men, as women can make a bracha when
> naked (so long as sitting down) (Rema Orech Chaim 74:4) and a
> man cannot.

I would point out that in theory, this applies equally to both men and
women. The only difference is in the practical realm, because it is easier
and simpler for women to cover their ervah than it is for men, and for
purely mechanical reasons. But it is equally important for both.

Hmmm... It now occurs to me that this halacha also illustrates another
difference between the categories that RCL has identified, because what
counts as "ervah" for one category would not be "ervah" in another
category. As she pointed out, a naked woman can say a bracha when sitting
-- but a man in her presence cannot say a bracha until much more gets
covered. This is totally aside from "das yehudis" considerations, and is
even according to the most lenient interpretations.

Going back to RCL's line - "2. The halacha of not exposing ervah, afilu
b'chadrei chadarim." - This seems to suggest that the sort of ervah that
should remain covered afilu b'chadrei chadarim, is *only* the sort of ervah
which prevent one from saying a bracha when he/she is *alone* b'chadrei
chadarim. Is that right? Is this sort of tznius violated or not, when a man
or woman walks around topless (but not bottomless) b'chadrei chadarim?

Disclaimer: I'm NOT trying to challenge RCL's post, just looking for examples to clarify it.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52a5a933148be293210dast01vuc

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:00 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> I think your point brings us back to the original topic in our subject
> line.
>
> Rashi's broad definition of peshat would apparently include TSBP that is
> necessary to explain such funny and strange turns of phrase.
>
> I think the Rashbam disagreed, having a narrower definition of what is
> peshat.
>

Adeati lehakhi, the notion of "peshat" is much more complex and varied than
that. But first of all, I disagree with your exact conclusion, but let's
talk about what's peshat, first.

Peshat means different things to different people. To some, it is a literal
reading of the text. This excludes poetic use of language, idiom, metaphor
and juxtaposition as sources of peshat. That is fairly extreme, and I would
rather associate it with the Protestant sola scriptura than with any Jewish
school, though I may be wrong.

However, there is a school that understands peshat to be intimately linked
to the literal text, to the disregard of all other sources of information.
That matches Rashi, who, when he says he came to report peshuto shel miqra,
tries to fit in a fair amount of midrash that most of us would not consider
peshat. The reason Rashi can do this may be because while we find it
incredible that Rivka was three when she met the servant of Avraham, there
is nothing in the text to contradict that peshat. Those of us who feel
bewildered consider another principle to be important in discovering the
peshat, that source is common sense and experience. Rashi disregards those
and thus, as long as the midrash fits neatly with the wording of the Torah,
we arrive at peshat.

A third understanding of peshat will, as just mentioned, incorporate common
sense and common experience, possibly mingled with a dose of history and
outside knowledge. That is what we usually term peshat. I would include
here the incorporation of a measure of TSBP material as "and that is how it
has been understood until now, is it reasonable that our radical new peshat
wasn't noticed until now."

Then, others will take the similar but opposite view from what I ascribed
to Rashi above. Namely, they will maintain that peshat is whatever the
literal words of the text can bear, but otherwise, it is very broad. Hence,
rather than trying to find the intersect of peshat and midrash, thoey try
to underline how far the peshat can veer from Torah shebe'al Peh. Rashbam
does this.

Finally, there is a literary school of peshat, which will pay attention to
all kind of attitional textual clues as literary devices. The literarists
may also combine with any of the other notions of peshat above, and Daat
Miqra is indeed a commentary that is literary but also incorporates common
sense, common experience and historical sources, along with some TSBP, to
arrive a peshat. The funny thing is that once you view the text through a
literary lens, you end up finding that what was previously labelled derash
isn't that far off the peshat, after all.

It is the fifth and last view above that I leaned on when suggesting that
the Tamlud's understanding of Reuven's sin may actually be peshat. What I
did was consider the text's literary structure as being a throve of peshat
information, too. And thus, I may say I agree that there are different
views of what is peshat, but disagree with being pegged in Rashi's corner
(though that is a very, very inspiring and ennobling corner to be in), as I
was making my argument primarily not from TSBP, but from the literary
structure of a passuq be'emtza passuq -- the end of a parshiya in the
middle of said passuq.

Kol tuv,


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Berichte ?ber die CER-Konferenz in Berlin
* Media Reports from the Latest CER Conference
* Should we Circumcise the Children of Non-Members?
* Another Reason for More Widespread Use of Halakhic Prenups
* Kann man die Beschneidung nicht mit einem symbolischen Ritual ersetzen?
* I Made the Front Page?
* Sind innerreligi?se Ehen altmodisch und vorbei?
* Die ware Entstehungsgeschichte der Hatikw?-Hymne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20131209/56fb1669/attachment.htm>

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


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 200
***************************************

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