Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 134

Wed, 29 Nov 2017

• 1. More on Yaakov, sheep and the rods (hankman)
• 2. Re: sefer torah's path (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' (Ben Rothke)
• 4. Re: How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? (Rich, Joel)
• 5. eilu v'eilu (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Gid ha'nasheh and 'therefore' (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: How can R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue about the tradition of a Gezera Shava? (Zev Sero)

Prof. L. Levine wrote?":
?It is difficult to
assume that, because of a general action such as setting up the rods in
the sight of the sheep, the sheep would bring forth young that were
this time speckled, the next time spotted, and the next time marked on
the feet. Ya'akov's success can be attributed only to a special intervention
of Divine providence - as attested to by Ya'akov himself. The expedient
of the rods was only an extremely weak substitute for the breeding
animals Lavan had wrongfully removed. Nevertheless, Ya'akov did not
refrain from seeking the aid of this expedient; since ain somchin al haness (see
Pesachim 64b), he was obligated to do his part...?

As everyone who had genetics 101 will realize, if you eliminate 100% of the
phenotype, and breed the remainder you will still get some of that
phenotype in the next generation with recessive genes. So it always
bothered me why was all the hokus pokus by Yaakov necessary. Even more so
the pasook itself seems to ascribe the results as caused by the sticks even
though a simple natural explanation for the reappearance of the phenotype
in the next generation is quite simple. The only explanation I could come
up with is that the percentages were much higher than one would expect as a
result of genetic calculations thus the nes (and Yaakov?s efforts
[hishtadlus] to produce it) is described at great length.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171126/e6d60acb/attachment-0001.html>

.
R' Joel Rich asked:

> From R? Aviner: Bringing the Torah to People to Kiss
> Q: Is it permissible to bring the Sefer Torah in the Shul
> towards people who want to kiss it?
> A: No. This is a disgrace to the Sefer Torah. They should
> approach the Sefer Torah. Piskei Teshuvot 134:6.
>
> I have been to more than a few shuls that particularly on
> Shabbat take the long road ? any ideas on who they are
> relying on? (not to mention those who lower the sefer torah
> so the kids can kiss it too)

Maybe the masses simply disagree with the logic of the Piskei
Teshuvot? Maybe people feel that bringing the Torah to Amcha is NOT a
disgrace?

Personally, I can easily understand that lowering it could be a
bizayon, but what's wrong with taking the long way around? If the
short route is taken, then (depending on the shul's layout) it is
possible (or even probable) that many (or most) will simply be unable
to get close enough to kiss it -- and if this is true on the men's
side of the mechitza, it is even more true on the women's side!

There are SO many things that we allow for no reason other than
allowing the people to show their love and kavod for the Torah!!!
Compared to the bells that ring on Shabbos, or the multitude of aliyos
on Simchas Torah, this seems exceeding minor, in my opinion.

Akiva Miller

In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and then
concludes:

? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ?????????



I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury and
klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh.



The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the
consequence.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171125/2b222c8d/attachment-0001.html>

 The answer can't be that Resh Lakish argued on this because gezera shava's are a kabbala from your rebbe, period.
> ______________________________________________
1. This begs the broader question as to why an Amira having a gs doesn't automatically trump one that doesn't 
2.this also assumes only a rebbi muvhak counts as rabo for purposes of mesora
Kt
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/889447/rabbi-assaf-bednarsh/pluralism-and-halacha-what-is-truth,-and-who-has-it/
Rabbi Assaf Bednarsh--Pluralism and Halacha: What is Truth, and Who Has It

Interesting shiur on an old Avodah favorite
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171126/6e7953f8/attachment-0001.html>

I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to mean 
"How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're told "al 
ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the cause.

Lisa

On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote:
>
> In the coming week?s parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling and 
> then concludes:
>
> ? ???-???? ???-???????? ?????-?????????? ???-????? ?????????
>
> I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling injury 
> and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh.
>
> The term '???-????' implies consequently, to which I don?t see the 
> consequence.
>
>


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

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh Lakish
: which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava and
: Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this
: gezera shava from his rebbeim.
: 
: This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a) describes
: how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan
: persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak...

So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any
of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in
once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.)

Or...

If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we
know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz
invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai.

For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros
shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that
like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in
any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the
face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros
shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered)
without a mesorah.

It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps
the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but 
the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find.

Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah
needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly
could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the
other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:37:13AM +0200, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: On 11/26/2017 4:20 AM, Ben Rothke via Avodah wrote:
: >In the coming week's parsha, it has the story of Yaakov wrestling
: >and then concludes:

"Al kein lo yokhlu BY es gid hanasheh."

: >I am trying to figure out the connection between the wrestling
: >injury and klal Yisroel not eating gid hanasheh.

: >The term '[al kein]' implies consequently, to which I don't see the
: >consequence.

: I don't think al ken denotes causation.? In most cases, it seems to
: mean "How correct it is that..."? For example, the two times we're
: told "al ken", the city is called Beersheva.? They can't both be the
: cause.

Why not?

It could be that each were necessary but insufficient causes, so
that the name "Be'er-Sheva" is the consequence of both being true.
Or it could be that each were sufficient cause, and the name
Be'er-Sheva was justified by either alone -- but equally so. And
thus the city's name represents both.

But to answer RBR's question, I don't think al kein implies sufficient
causality. Rather, because of the fight, HQBH had an opportunity to
turn eating thigh meat into a ritual that reminds one of the fight,
and thus of the Jew's ability to act on the level of (in the sense of:
interact with) angels. Without the fight, the mitzvah would lack that
historical symbolism; so it's a cause, but of a different sort than it
seems from your question that you are thinking of.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:27:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> : The Gemara in Makos(14b) has a dispute between R' Yochanan and Resh
> Lakish
> : which revolves around a gezera shava. R' Yochanan has the gezera shava
> and
> : Resh Lakish does not, Rashi explains that Resh Lakish did not get this
> : gezera shava from his rebbeim.
> :
> : This seems very difficult because the gemara in Bava Metzia (84a)
> describes
> : how Resh Lakish was the head of a group of bandits and R' Yochanan
> : persuaded hm to learn Torah and was clearly Rabo Muvhak...
>
> So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any
> of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in
> once... (Which is similar to RHR's #2.)
>
What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R'
Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The
Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R'
Yochanan had.

>
> Or...
>
> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we
> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz
> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai.
>

That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that
ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his
rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai.

For that matter, if the Rambam assumed that the rule about no new gezeiros
> shava really was in place from day one, then he would have to assert that
> like [other] halakhos leMoshe miSinai, there couldn't be machloqesin in
> any of them. I would therefore deduce from the Rambam's silence in the
> face of numerous such machloqesin, he must have thought that gezeiros
> shava could be invented (or as other riahonim would have it: discovered)
> without a mesorah.


> It would seem the idea that GS requires a mesorah has a loophole. Perhaps
> the notion is that the textual connection must have a mesorah, but
> the lesson taken from it could be left to the later generation to find.
>

Tosafos in Shabbos (97a) states that they had a mesora on the number of
gezera shavas and therefore they had to reconcile the various traditions
with the number of gezera shavas. This would seem to come to address the
question of why certain Tannaim/Amoraim had a gezera shava and others
didn't. However, it doesn't answer the question on Resh Lakish who must
have gotten the number from Rabo Muvhak R' Yochanan.

The Rishonim/Acharonim in Nida (22b) are bothered by the question that the
Gemara says that a gezera shava that is mufne mi tzad echad lmeidin
umeshivin and mufne mishnei tz'dadim lmeidim vayn m'shivim. If there was a
kabala on the gezera shava then why does it need to be mufne and if there
was no kabbala then why should it be accepted even if it is mufne?

The Ramban on the Sefer Hamitzvos (Shoresh 2) based on this question
rejects the simple understanding of ayn adam dan gezera shava meiatzmo that
all the details of the gezera shavas were received at Har Sinai by Moshe.
Rather, they had a kabbala that there was a gezera shava with a certain
word pair but not which set of those words and what halacha is learned from
it and therefore it is up to the chachamim to decide based on the
principles that they received to decide what exactly the gezera shava was
and therefore there is machlokes. This is what the Gemara in Nidda is
discussing, the principles relating to figuring out what exactly the gezera
shava is. Unfortunately, this does not really answer all of the Gemara's
and disputes about gezera shavas.

>
> Also, it is interesting that the contrast in Pesachim 66a to the mesorah
> needed for GS is the qal vachomer. A rule of logic that a person truly
> could make on their own in a way that doesn't apply to another of the
> other midos sheheTorah nidreshes bahen.
>
There is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos whether it is only a kal vachomer
that adam dan meatzmo or all the middos except for gezera shava.

>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
> mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
> http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171127/a208c78c/attachment-0001.html>

On 11/27/2017 12:58 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we
> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz
> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai.
>
How was that a gezeira shava?

Lisa

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

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: > So, he had a mesorah from a rebbe other than his rebbe muvhaq or any
: > of his own rabbeim -- maybe just a shiur from someone else he sat in
: > once... (Which is similar to RJR's #2.)

: What other mesora? It's not that Resh Lakish had a gezera shava that R'
: Yochanan didn't have that he could have learned from someone else. The
: Gemara says that he didn't have a kabbala on a gezera shava that R'
: Yochanan had.

This wasn't the ikar of my answer; I was just ammending RJR's answer to
reflect the fact that the gemara says "rabosav" not "rabo".

But it seems to me now you are saying the OP was asking how it's possible
that R' Yochanan knew something that he didn't pass on to Reish Laqish.
Or more accurately, where would RL learn something to have him question a
GS when R Yochanan told him of it the first time.

In which case, my intended answer works even better -- the presmise that
every GS is a tradition dating back to Sinai is false. A conclusion the
other RMB gives far more sources for than I did.

:> Or...

:> If "Moavi velo Mo'avis" was darsehened first by Boaz's court, then we
:> know of at least one gezeira shava -- from Amon to Moav -- that Boaz
:> invoked withtout a tradition of its existence dating back from Sinai.

: That was a gezera shava? In any case the Gemara in Nidda (19b) states that
: ayn adam dan gezera shava meatzmo, says Rashi he needs a kabbala from his
: rebbe halacha l'moshe misinai.

Not every "halakhah leMoshe MiSinai" is literally so.

R' Avohu on Kesuvos 7b says that Boaz collected 10 men in "lemidrash
'amoni velo amonis, moavi velo moavis." How does he know it wasn't for
7 berakhos (R' Nachman's shitah)? Because of the need to get "miziqnei
ha'ir". Why 10? [I presume -- and not a BD of 3:] lefirsumei milsa.

Similarly, Rus Rabba 7:9 states that Peloni didn't know *shenischadshah*
din zu.

As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis
is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we
came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve
or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty
arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead
of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On 27/11/17 16:21, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> As for "that was a GS?" (A question Lisa also asks...) Amoni velo Amonis
> is justified because the Amoni ddidn't bring food or water when we
> came to their land. And it is the men we would have expected to recieve
> or even buy such previsions from. Moav velo Moavis would be a pretty
> arbitrary time to insist a word be read as specifically male instead
> of gender-neutral if it weren't by GS to Amoni.

Could you please explain this?   Where do you get that there is any 
limmud from Ammon to Moav?  The Torah says *both* Amonim and Moavim are 
banned because they didn't welcome us with bread and water.  You seem to 
be claiming that Amonim are banned for this reason, and then Moavim by 
some sort of gezera shava from Amonim.  Where is this coming from?


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


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



_______________________________________________
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.)