Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 66

Sun, 03 Jun 2018

• 1. Consistency in8 Workarounds? (Rich, Joel)
• 2. sell the Beit Knesset? (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Consistency in8 Workarounds? (Zev Sero)
• 4. The Ramban on the Ibn Ezra (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: The Ramban on the Ibn Ezra (Zev Sero)
• 6. insight from a MO mechaneich (Michael Poppers)
• 7. The uniqueness of Moshe's nevua (Marty Bluke)
• 8. How could Aharon and Miriam have been in the mishkan or chatzer when tamei? (Marty Bluke)

In the discussion of the beer brouhaha (distributor is Jewish and owns beer
over pesach), one source quoted is S'A C"M 99:7, which deals with a case
where Reuvain signs over his assets to a third party, borrows money, but
continues his business as if nothing happened. The Beit Din is to look
through the sign over if the lender comes to collect and Reuvain claims
insolvency.
Do you think it's a slam dunk that one could parallel this to selling an ongoing business for Pesach?

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/20180531/46300b11/attachment-0001.html>

The Rambam (matnot aniyim 8:11), based on Bava Batra 3b, states that a Beit
Knesset(Synagogue) is not sold for pidyon shvuyim(redeeming captives) but
rather new funds must be collected for that purpose. (The gemara in b"b is
worth looking at-what exactly is the halachic force of "people don't sell
their homes"). Two items:
1. This seems to imply a complex interaction between tzedakah priorities
and other halachot (perhaps respect for Beit Knesset or people's intent in
donations) or it might be that tzedaka priorities are multivariate?
2. What if the other fundraising fails-would the community sell the Beit Knesset?

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/20180531/61f6ffbb/attachment-0001.html>

On 31/05/18 09:25, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> In the discussion of the beer brouhaha (distributor is Jewish and owns 
> beer over pesach), one source quoted is S?A C?M 99:7, which deals with a 
> case where Reuvain signs over his assets to a third party, borrows 
> money, but continues his business as if nothing happened. The Beit Din 
> is to look through the sign over if the lender comes to collect and 
> Reuvain claims insolvency.
> Do you think it?s a slam dunk that one could parallel this to selling an 
> ongoing business for Pesach?

Not at all, for two separate reasons.

First, there is no parallel at all between giving away all of ones 
property, in which case why would one still be using it, and selling a 
going concern, where obviously one does and is expected to stay and 
continue working for the business, and the business does and is expected 
to continue as usual, with no difference perceptible to the customers. 
So in this case where the Jew sold not the chametz but the entire 
business, there's nothing to indicate that the sale was anything but 
serious and effective.

Second, that entire siman is about bet din not allowing people to get 
away with fraud, by rolling back transactions that were transparently 
made in order to defraud someone.  In this se'if, the entire purpose of 
the "gift" was to defraud subsequent lenders, who were not to know that 
the "donor" no longer had any assets, and lent on the assumption that he 
still owned what he was publicly known to own.  So in the name of equity 
the BD treats the transaction as never having happened.    See the 
Mechaber's opinion at the end of se'if 2, where it's very clear that 
he's concerned about what's fair, not what's technically correct.   So 
none of this has any relevance to Hilchos Pesach, where "equity" is not 
an issue; Hashem is not being "cheated".  He commanded us not to own 
chametz, and He gave us a choshen mishpat to determine who owns what, 
and He certainly knows about all our transactions, so if we follow that 
CM and dispose of our chametz there's no "fraud" and no need for a BD to 
"pierce" it in the name of equity.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

With discussed "Higher" Bible Criticism before, we've discussed the IE on
the topic before, RGS went the next step -- the Ramban on the IE on Bible
Criticism. I am includng the comment, and I would have written something
similar.

<https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/05/ramban-on-ibn-ezras-heresy>

:-)BBii!
-Micha

    Ramban on Ibn Ezra's Heresy Posted by: Gil Student

    R. Avraham Ibn Ezra has long been a controversial figure. R. Shlomo
    Luria (Yam Shel Shlomo, intro to Bava Kamma) respectfully but strongly
    rejects his entire approach to Torah commentary. What does the Ramban,
    one of the classical commentaries whose work serves as a foundation
    for modern Jewish thought, think of his predecessor, Ibn Ezra? He
    certainly disagrees often with Ibn Ezra, sometimes sharply. But
    there may be a more fundamental reason for opposition.

    At the end of Ramban's commentary on Shir Ha-Shirim, he writes
    that anyone who says that Ezra the scribe added to the Torah --
    such as Gen. 13:6 or Deut. 3:11 -- is a heretic (Kisvei Ha-Ramban,
    vol. 2 p. 548). Ibn Ezra famously suggests that four verses imply
    post-Mosaic interpolations -- Gen. 12:6, 22:14, Deut. 3:11,
    31:22. Ramban, who shows clear expertise in Ibn Ezra's Torah
    commentaryn quotes two of these four verses in describing the
    heretic! Coincidence? R. Betzalel Naor, in his annotated edition
    of Rashba's Ma'amar Al Yishma'el (Orot: Spring Valley, NY, 2008,
    pp. 25-27) finds this correspondence convincing. The author of the
    commentary on Shir Ha-Shirim must have been condemning Ibn Ezra as
    a heretic. Even though some supercommentaries and scholars dispute
    the claim that Ibn Ezra ever intended anything other than that
    Moshe wrote those verses prophetically, many believe he made the
    more radical claim.[1] If so, this passage from the Shir Ha-Shirim
    commentary condemns him as a heretic.

    However, R. Naor points out that Ramban did not write that
    commentary. R. Chaim Dov Chavel argues cogently in his introduction
    to that work that it was written by the earlier, kabbalist R. Ezra
    of Gerona (Kisvei Ha-Ramban, vol. 2 pp. 473-475). If so, we can ask
    whether Ramban agreed with R. Ezra's evaluation. R. Naor (ibid.,
    pp. 136-143) makes the following points and suggestions:

    1- Even in his introduction to his Torah commentary, Ramban
       expresses his mixed attitude toward Ibn Ezra, which he calls
       "a public rebuke and private affection." This might be used to
       describe a commentary that is both brilliant but occasionally
       sacrilegious. However, Ramban calls him "Rabbi" Ezra, a term
       of respect.

    2- It could be that Ramban interpreted Ibn Ezra conservatively,
       as some supercommentators and scholars have. If so, he could
       agree with R. Ezra of Gerona generally but disagree with him
       about Ibn Ezra.

    3- Ramban unquestionably rejected any post-Mosaic interpolations
       into the Torah, as seen in his general introduction to his
       commentary. While hiss attitude toward the level of prophecy of
       the Torah varies (commentary to Num. 16:5), that is nowhere near
       the claim that any verse postdates Moshe.

    4- Rabbeinu Tam wrote a poem in praise of Ibn Ezra. Perhaps this
       influenced Ramban to judge him favorably as an inadvertent heretic,
       which was a status that, according to the Ra'avad (Hilkhos Teshuvah
       3:7), even great scholars fell into.

    5- The Chida (Shem Ha-Gedolim, part 1, alef 89) quotes R. Binyamin
       Spinoza, a late eighteenth century rabbi, who deduces from
       Ramban's failure to argue against Ibn Ezra's radical suggestions
       that those comments must be late forgeries (interpolations?). Had
       Ramban seen them, he would surely have objected.

    In the end, once we determine that the commentary to Shir Ha-Shirim is
    misattributed, we can only speculate about Ramban's attitude toward
    Ibn Ezra. Maybe he agreed with R. Ezra of Gerona's condemnation
    or maybe he felt the belief was wrong but not heretical. Or maybe,
    as R. Naor suggested, he rejected the belief as heretical but not
    the person.

    (Republished from May '13)

    [1] On this disagreement, see R. Yonatan Kolatch, Masters of the Word,
    vol. 2 pp. 310-318.

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


    J. C. Salomon
    May 31, 18 at 6:49 pm

    Ibn Ezra to Gen. 36:31 strongly rejects and condemns the notion that
    the verse "And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
    before there reigned any king over the children of Israel" is a late
    addition to the text.

    I might add a sixth possibility to the list: that Ibn Ezra held that
    certain verses were added by Yehoshua; and that while Ramban might
    have disagreed with this view, he'd have seen it as a legitimate
    extension of the similar Talmudic view regarding the last eight
    verses in the Torah and therefore not heretical.

I find the entire idea that RABE's "secret of twelve" was a secret 
heresy to be without foundation, and think it more likely that this is 
wishful thinking by heretics who would like to find "a great tree" on 
which to hang their heresy.  We don't know what the secret was, because 
it was a secret, but his comment on Vayishlach makes it unlikely to be 
what the "bible critics" claim it is.

On Bereshis 12:6, he simply says:   "If it is not so, then there is a 
secret here, and the intelligent person should be silent".  On Bereshis 
22:14, and Devarim 3:11 and 31:22 he makes no comment at all, and indeed 
there's nothing unusual to hint at, no reason to even suppose these 
pesukim might not have been written at the same time as what surrounds 
them.

The "secret of the twelve" is in Devarim 1:1, on the words "Eleven days 
out of Chorev", which makes me think whatever this secret is relates to 
that, and perhaps to a mystical "twelfth day".  It's there that he 
cryptically mentions these four pesukim, with no context or explanation; 
the theory that he was hinting at a deep secret heresy in his heart is 
therefore pure speculation and should be rejected.

The Ramban's (or whoever wrote it) comment in Shir Hashirim only means 
that there existed such heretics in his day; there is not even the hint 
of a hint that RABE might have been among them.  These are the same 
heretics who claimed him; there's no reason to suppose the Ramban agreed 
with that claim.

-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

From R'Micha (Avodah V36n64):
>  When the majority of men who
learn daf don't chazer the gemara they learned until it comes around
again another 7 yrs 5 mo later, who can find patience for saying the
same words numerous times a week?
>  We need to know how to teach davening, whether in school or adult
education. Take a page from qumzitz and experiential religion, rather
than modes that look at sitting with a siddur in contrast to other
books. <
If from nothing else, one should learn the importance of constancy from two
recent Torah readings: the *chanukas-hamizbeiach* offerings of the N'si'im;
and "vaya'as kein Aharon."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180602/0993ea5e/attachment-0001.html>

In last weeks parsha we have the Torah stating that Moshe's nevua was
unique that Hashem spoke to him directly (see Rambam Yesodei Torah for the
list of differences).

However, I was bothered by the following question. A number of times the
Torah writes Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe v'Aharon leimor where certain
halachos are given over to both Moshe and Aharon.

The question is how did that work. Did Aharon hear the nevua clearly like
Moshe? If not, then what was the point and what does it mean that Hashem
spoke to both? In Behaalosecha it is clear that Aharon and Miriam dd not
know that Moshe's nevua was different then theirs, yet, if Aharon heard
these like a regular nevua as a vision not clearly then how did he not
realize that Moshe got a clearer nevua then he did? The first thing Moshe
did after getting halachos from Hashem was go over them with Aharon and his
sons. Also, the pasuk says that Hashem called out to all 3, Moshe Aharon
and Miriam to go out, and Rashi comments that it was one dibur something
that a person cannot do. If it was 1 dibur that they all heard it would
seem that they all heard the same thing in the same way which would imply
they all heard it as clearly as Moshe.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180603/47c0a155/attachment-0001.html>

At the beginning of Bamidbar the Meshech Chochma asks the following
question. A Baal keri is prohibited from being in the machane leviya, if so
how could the Leviim ever live with their wives (in the machane leviya) and
become a baal keri? Ayen sham his answer.

Based on this I was bothered by a similar question in last weeks parsha.At
the end of Behaloscha we have the famous story of Miriam and Aharon talking
against Moshe and then Hashem calls the 3 of them to go outside. Rashi
comments that Aharon and Miriam were both temeim b'derech eretz (e.g. tumas
keri) and tehrefore were screaming for water. If so we can ask the same
question, how could they be in the chatzer of the mishkan while tamei? A
Baal keri is prohibited from going there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180603/a16475f9/attachment-0001.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)