Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 112

Wed, 13 Sep 2017

• 1. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (H Lampel)
• 3. Re: Questions about mechiyas amalek (Ben Waxman)
• 4. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Re: (no subject) (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Amalek & Yoav and Aggadic Stories (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Ever wonder how your kosher supermarkets check their herbs for Insects? (Professor L. Levine)
• 13. Re: Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?--When were Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel? (H Lampel)
• 14. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done? (Professor L. Levine)

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 01:11:04PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
:                                                     While there may have
: been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so,
: why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam
: says?

Well, I know (and have mentioned here in the past) that at least one
variety of opinion existed from archeological evidence. Yigal Yadin,
when first uncovering the Hasmonean Caves, found tefillin there. So, we
know that among those who fought with the Chashmonaim, there were both
"Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" tefillin.

(Similarly, why didn't the Ephramites learn to say the letter shin as
per the majority pesaq? How were they yotz'im saying "Shema" without
such practice? Seems they had their own variant position.)


So, what happened?

My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different
conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed
resolution by higher courts.

IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes.

To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of
valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 13:11:04 +0300 From: Marty Bluke 
>> By "in existence," the Rambam means when it functioned properly. R'
>> Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy in his work, Doros HaRishonim develops the sources
>> that there were periods of persecution during which the Beis Din Gadol
>> could not operate normally, including the time when Beis Shammai and
>> Beis Hillel were unable to unite.

> The second Beis Hamikdash lasted 420 years. Was there no time during
> those years that the Sanhedrin functioned normally? While there may have
> been disruptions there were certainly times when it did function and if so,
> why didn't they decide all of the machlokes that had arisen like the Rambam
> says?

They did so on most issues. The first long-term unresolved machlokess
was the one between Yosay ben Yoezer and Yosay ben Yochonon. This was
when Eretz Yisroel was under Greek rule and influence (c. 3450-3700),
when the disturbance leading up to the Chanuka battles began. In 3704,
while Sh'maya was the Nassi, the Romans banned the Sanhedrin, his
disciples Hillel and Shammai were forced to keep their schools separate,
and they found themselves in dispute over three new issues without the
ability to meet, discuss, and vote. More disputes developed afterwards.
There were sporadic times that allowed for gathering to have all sides
meet and take a vote, such as at the home of Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben
Garon (see Rambam's commentary on Shabbos 13b), where Beis Shammai were
the majority. After the Temple's destruction, there was a major effort
in Yavneh to unify practice, where it was decided that halacha follows
Beis Hillel.

Paradoxically, by the way, the very concern for uniformity can be a cause
of machlokess. Sometimes all could agree that a halacha actually could
have been equally fulfilled in any of a number of ways.Yet for the sake
of unity, to eliminate the /appearance/ of discordance, the sages saw
fit to choose just one form of practice as the standard, universal one
for all Jews. Machlokess could arise over which practice should become
the standard one.

All the same, it seems form the sources I cite in /The Dynamics of
Dispute, The Makings of Machlokess in Talmudic Times/, that whereas
machlokess is a great thing as a vehicle to reach the emmess, that
the goal is to reach the emmess and eliminate divergent practices, and
probably divergent /hashkofos /as well (as in the 2-1.2-year machlokess
between Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel [/Eruvin /13b] over whether noach
lo l'adam shenivra yoseir mi-shelo nivrah [which I never understood...]).

Zvi Lampel

In today's world, we rehash details constantly. Halacha sheets that 
discuss the bracha of some type of food that we've eaten all our lives 
will always go over the principles of the bracha. On a radio call in 
show to a certain rav that I listen to, I am constantly amazed at how 
questions that have been around for 2000 years are still asked. The 
introduction to my Mishna Brura says that if one doesn't regularly 
review Hilchot Shabbat, you're going to break them. At this time of 
year, people start reviewing their Hilchot Sukka. But Yoav felt no need 
to recheck his Hilchot Amalek? The cohenim felt no need to review these 
issues when instructing the soldiers?

Ben

On 9/8/2017 11:02 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>
> I don't see why this detail would ever have come up.

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the
> one on smicha

What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai?
Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis
Sheini.


[Email #2]

On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> My theory is that not every case of different posqim reaching different
> conclusions rose to the level of being called a machloqes that needed
> resolution by higher courts.
>
> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes.
>
> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of
> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq?

The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white
approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim
"Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything
in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying
that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol

On 11/09/17 04:15, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:

>> "Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the
>> one on smicha"

> What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai? 
> Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis Sheini.

No, they weren't.  BH and BS were after the churban, or perhaps they 
started in the very last years before it, when things were far from 
normal functioning.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.? Rabbi Akiva lived at the 
time of the Bar Kochva revolt.? R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.? The 
vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the 
destruction of Bayit Sheni.

Lisa

On 9/11/2017 11:20 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> Through most of those years there were no machlokos, or none except the
>> one on smicha
> What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai?
> Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis
> Sheini.
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai?
: Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis
: Sheini.

But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis.

I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to
accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a
"veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei
rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion
of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed
a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule.

The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a
fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer.

Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah
records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq,
for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al
devarav, for even these greats weren't.

So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote
and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the
best answer to your question.

And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why
draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to
the late amoraim?

Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why
(leshitas haRambam) the question was still around?


: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes.

:> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of
:> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq?

: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white
: approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim
: "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything
: in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying
: that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol

Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily
a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in
spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted
orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini.

(Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd
stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's
just projecting.)


There is a difference between

1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah
in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah
saying it means the last two are in reversed order;

and

2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this
idea would be kosher.

The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin.
And yet, multiple norms would co-exist.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Someone wrote me off-list, and gave me permission to post my reply
on line. This takes the current discussion of Amaleiq, David and Yoav
in a different direction.

I made minor changes to deal with the Hebrew problem. (Blame me for the
"q" in "Amaleiq".)

: I am a little flabbergasted at the present discussion on Yoav's purported
: wrong teaching gegarding how to vocalize /zkr/ in "timkheh es zekher
: Amaleiq", since this sugya clearly belongs to the kinds of aggados where
: we cannot be sure whether it should be taken as actual history.

: Unlike some other aggados of the type, there is in the present case no hint
: in the pessukim that anything of the sort happened. There is no mysterious
: revenge for which we must speculate about the reason, there is no record of
: anger from David, there is no record of any second stage in the war where
: the women are killed. Rather, there is a one possuk report about a war, in
: order to explain how a survivor led a campaign against Shlomo, and Chazal
: add a story that isn't needed.

: Such kind of aggados are very good candidates for metaphorical or
: pedagogical interpretation without any historical implications. That some
: of more chassidic bent may read it historically isn't surprising,
: but that all participants take it for granted that it is to be read
: historically, I wonder.

I am not sure it it an obvious candidate for declaring an ahistorical
aggadita, unless you hold that category includes all aggados. (As I do.)
Who makes "no hint in the pesukim that anything of the sort happened"
the criteria for such categorization?

If the Rambam makes categories, he only talks about those aggados that
defy seikhel. OTOH, his reasoning applies to all aggados -- "diberu bahem
derekh chidah umashal, ki hu zeh derekh hachakhamim hagedolim". But if
you're going to say there is only a subset that one can say is derekh
chidah is mashal, his argument is about katim who accept absurd stories
that defy how the world works.

(And I think Zev has raised valid objections in the past about how
we would define unacceptable "richuq min haseikhel" among people who
accept miracles.)

In any case, as I said in other discussions about aggadic stories and
historicity, I don't think the question of historicity impacts the study
of medrash much. It may be rassuring to know R' Yochanan didn't actually
stare anyone to death. BUT, the chazal's stories had to work. They can't
defy the picture they're trying to draw for us of the historical figures.

Whether we're talking about the relationship between the historical Yoav
and David, and how did David's general make a basic mistake, or taliking
about the mythical versions, to my mind the question is equally valid.

IOW, would Chazal expect us to ignore it if the story has the melekh
and av deis din derelict in his duty?

The whole point of myth is that historicity is secondary. Yes, that means
that some given story may not be historical. But it also means that it
was treated as if it could / should have been. Just as the notion of
myth justifies the concept of ahistoric midrashic story, it also closes
the door on a story that can only work if we dismiss elements because
they're only ahistoric.


I would add that because I don't think the myth vs history matters so
much in asking these questions, I tend to play the game and write from
within the midrashic-story system.

So I will write, "Wouldn't David ...." without thinking too much about
the fact that I really mean "Wouldn't Chazal have David..."

While confessing about my sloppy thinking, I also talk about "sunrise"
far more often than I think about the fact that I'm referring to an
illusion caused by my being on a spinning sphere.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure where you got that idea, Marty.  Rabbi Akiva lived at the
> time of the Bar Kochva revolt.  R' Yehuda HaNasi lived even later.  The
> vast majority of the Mishna deals with Sages who lived after the
> destruction of Bayit Sheni.

While much of the Mishna was after the Churban, parts are before. As I
mentioned The Gemara in Shabbos (15) states

"The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel,
Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was
Nasi in Yavneh)"

These people all figure in the Mishna. Hillel and Shammai were certainly
well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their
students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai.

On 11/09/17 07:54, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> "The Nesi'im during the last 100 years before the Churban were Hillel,
> Shimon, Gamliel [ha'Zaken], and Shimon (the father of R. Gamliel who was
> Nasi in Yavneh)"

And how many of those feature in any machlokos?   Hillel & Shammai had 
only three, beside the long-running one on smicha.


> These people all figure in the Mishna.

Hillel & Shammai do.  Where, other than Pirkei Avos, do the other three 
appear, giving halachic opinions, let alone ones that are subject to 
dispute?


> Hillel and Shammai were certainly
> well before the churban and therefore so were at least some of their
> students, Beis Hille and Beis Shammai.

I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well after 
H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u va'asher lo 
ra'u".

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote:
: I don't believe the differences between BH & BS emerged until well
: after H & S were gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u
: va'asher lo ra'u".

Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of
machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If
the teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in
when the lack of proper attentiveness showed up.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Please see the video at

http://tinyurl.com/yc7cvzkb


produced by the

Harabonim of Queens<https://www.facebook.com/Qu
eensVaad/?hc_ref=ARQqhuIzLpomAiYwtHrncoUNdEyHh7qe4AmN3lRa6zjStPWrkhI7nwl_Cl
zgJ6QBYD0&;fref=nf>

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170912/c2dcf78a/attachment-0001.htm>

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:20pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote: : I don't believe 
> the differences between BH & BS emerged until well : after H & S were 
> gone, when a new generation arose "asher lo yad`u : va'asher lo ra'u". 
> Indeed, isn't that the implication of blaming the explosuion of 
> machloqesin on "shelo shimshu kol tarkan" (Sanhedrin 88b)? If the 
> teachers were still around, then they could have stepped in when the 
> lack of proper attentiveness showed up. Tir'u baTov! -Micha

This /mehalech/ that places the Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel who had
hundreds of disputes* after the Churban (and therefore after the deaths
of Shammai and Hillel themselves) is followed Rav Sherira Gaon near the
beginning of his Iggeress. Not a bad source to rely on!

As I mentioned, Rav Yitzchak Isaac HaLevy argues that this BS and BH were
contemporaneous with, and under the leadership of, Shammai and Hillel
themselves. In fact, he maintains that Shammai and Hillel did indeed step
in and lessened the number of disputes. He notes that Hillel used the same
terminology of "shelo shamshu" in criticizing the people in the Bnei
Besayra affair, and assigns the criticism of "shelo shamshu" to the
situation /before/ Shammai and Hillel leadership reduced the talmidim's
hundreds of disputes to just the the few disputes between Shammai and
Hillel themselves noted in meseches Aidyos. (And in two of them the
majority rejected both opinions and voted for their own third one).

Each volume of The Doros HaRishonim is available on Hebrewbooks.org. I
downloaded them and combined them into one searchable PDF.


* HaRav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch (Collected Writings, Volume V, Feldheim,
1988, p. 65) approximates a total of 280 disputes between Bes Shammai
and Bes Hillel: 90 concerning gezayros, 25 concerning takkonos, and 130
concerning Scrip?tural interpretation. Approximation is necessary, he
points out (p. 66), because the points of divergence between Bes Shammai
and Bes Hillel are sometimes themselves matters of debate in the Gemora.
(All this without a search engine! Maybe he had a Talmud Concordance
to help?

Zvi Lampel

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. If one was delayed and did not light candles before shkia (sunset), what should be done?


A. According to the Geonim, Bein Ha'shmashos (twilight) begins immediately
following sunset. Bein Ha'shmashos is a period of time that Halacha views
as a safek (uncertainty) whether it is day or night. According to the
Geonim, since Bein Ha'shmashos may be night (in which case Shabbos has
already begun), it is forbidden to light candles immediately after sunset.
Nonetheless, Shulchan Aruch (261:1) rules that during Bein Ha'shmashos, one
may ask a non-Jew to light the Shabbos candles on our behalf. The duration
of Bein Hashmashos is a matter of dispute. Igros Moshe (OC IV:74:40)
writes, for reasons beyond the scope of this piece, that one who is
stringent not to end Shabbos before 50 minutes after sunset in the New York
area (as per Rav Moshe zt"l's understanding of Rabbeinu Tam) may ask a
non-Jew to light candles until 30 minutes after sunset. One who does not
follow Rabbeinu Tam may only ask a non-Jew to light candles up until
thirteen and a half minutes after sunset.

The Beiur Halachah (261:s.v. Mi ) quotes the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch
Harav that after the non-Jew lights the candles, one may recite the
blessing on the candles. However the Mishnah Berurah writes that most
poskim hold that if a non-Jew lit the candles, a blessing may not be said.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170913/9a4b4446/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


***************************************

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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)