Volume 41: Number 30
Sun, 16 Apr 2023
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zvi Lampel
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 17:54:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Notes on the machlokos of Shammai and Hillel
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:17?AM Zvi Lampel <zvilam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ... just as the ''machlokes of Korach v-aidaso'' consisted of these two
> named against Moshe Rabeynu, the ''machlokes of Shamai and Hillel''
> consisted of the two named against the Chachamim. ...Apparently, this
> should be taken into account in arriving at an explanation of the adage
> (Avos 5:17) that only one of the two is considered a machlokes l'sheim
> Shamayim that is sofo le-hiskayeim.
>
The rishonim and acharonim struggle to explain the adage,
''kol machlokess she-hi le-sheim Shamayim, sofo le-hisyyeim,'' and
personally none of the explanations satisfied me. Today I finally thought
of a novel explanation, and soon found it had been proposed and
substantially developed with examples in the 1930's by Rabbi Moshe Amiel in
Derashot El Ami (Tel Aviv/Jerusalem 1936).
https://www.sefaria.org/search?q=%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%94%20%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D&;tab=text&tpathFilters=Jewish%20Thought%2FModern%2FRav%20Amiel%2FSermons%20Unto%20My%20People&tvar=1&tsort=relevance&svar=1&ssort=relevance
"Sofo le-hiskayyem" is not the result of machlokes le-sheim Shamayim. It is
a definition of it.
When one maintains a machlokess, a stand taken against another's stand, it
is le-sheim Shamayim if the person taking it is sincere, is consistent with
it and intends to maintain it to the end. He is arguing principle. Such
were the machlokos that Hillel and Shamai had with the Chachamim and with
each other.
This is opposed to when someone is really only arguing against the person
he is against, or for the conclusion he wishes to maintain. He will be
inconsistent, will change and reverse his argument, because he is not
really basing himself on the argument, and does not sincerely maintain the
argument is compelling. Such was the machlokes presented against Moshe
Rabeynu by Korach and his followers. The argument that all the nation is
holy and therefore should not be subject to a leader would soon change once
Aharon and Moshe would be demoted. Somehow, a contradicting argument would
then be found to support leadership by the complaining party.
Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230410/e9111c65/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Zvi Lampel
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 18:11:03 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] The Wise Son vs the Wicked Son and the word ''you''
The wicked son asks, ''What is this [korban Pesach] avodah to you (lachem)?
He is reprimanded for excluding himself from the tsibur who follow Hashem's
commands.
But the son praised as wise also (at least in the actual posuk, if not in
all versions of the dialogue) asks, ''What are the laws...Hashem commanded
you?''
Why is he not reprimanded for his choice of words?
Answers are given, but I thought of a very simple one. If, like the ben who
asks the four kushyos, these sons are preferably considered ketanim, then
the wise son is absolutely correct, and quite wise indeed, to note that it
is the parent who is commanded in the mitzva, not he.
Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230410/c0ce11fd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Simon Montagu
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 08:04:35 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Wise Son vs the Wicked Son and the word
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 3:22?AM Zvi Lampel via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> The wicked son asks, ''What is this [korban Pesach] avodah to you
> (lachem)? He is reprimanded for excluding himself from the tsibur who
> follow Hashem's commands.
>
> But the son praised as wise also (at least in the actual posuk, if not in
> all versions of the dialogue) asks, ''What are the laws...Hashem commanded
> you?''
>
> Why is he not reprimanded for his choice of words?
>
> Answers are given, but I thought of a very simple one. If, like the ben
> who asks the four kushyos, these sons are preferably considered ketanim,
> then the wise son is absolutely correct, and quite wise indeed, to note
> that it is the parent who is commanded in the mitzva, not he.
>
If that is the case for the wise son, what was the problem with the wicked
son?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230411/05f4a7c9/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 17:48:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Wise Son vs the Wicked Son and the word
In my opinion the *simple pshat in the pasuk*, before any drashos, is
that one son is asking "what is this avoda of *yours*"; the Baal Hagada
understands him to be saying that it is not my avoda at all, I am merely
curious about what *you* are doing. Therefore he labels him "wicked".
The other son does not speak like that; his language is consistent with
including himself in Am Yisrael and accepting the obligation of the
mitzvos. But he was not there at matan torah, so he must ask, "what are
the mitzvos that Hashem commanded *you*, before I was born, so that I
may do them too?". Thus the BHG labels him "wise".
--
Zev Sero ?Were we directed from Washington when to sow
z...@sero.name and when to reap, we should soon want bread.?
?Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:50:23 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] What is chelev?
.
Since beginning Sefer Vayikra a few weeks ago, I've gotten interested in
understanding more about chelev. Not its halachos so much, but its
identification from a biological and linguistic perspective.
For example, "chelev" is consistently translated in every Chumash I've seen
either as "forbidden fat" or simply as "fat" without any qualifier. This
has made me wonder whether a non-Jewish butcher or veterinarian would
distinguish between chelev and shuman; perhaps the only difference is
halachic. But this seems not to be the case. The English Wikipedia
(articles titled "Chelev" and "Suet") clearly identifies chelev as a
particular kind of fat, namely the kind that is called "suet" in English.
A detailed article on Sefaria titled "Chelev - Suet: What is it, and why
was it forbidden?" (https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/309732?lang=bi) also
identifies chelev as suet, and cites the Ramban Vayikra 3:9: <<< The term
cheilev (fat) in the Sacred Language indicates that part of the fat which
is separate from the meat and not joined to it. Shuman, on the other hand,
is that fat which is intertwined with the meat and cannot be separated from
it, ... But cheilev is the fat which is separate from the meat and covered
by a membrane, and is easily peeled off. The Hebrew language never
interchanges these terms [cheilev and shuman] in any place. Thus we say,
basar shamen (fat meat), but not basar cheilev [since cheilev, as
explained, is the fat which is separate and distinguished from the meat].
Similarly in languages of other nations these terms are separate. ... This
is confirmed by doctors who in their studies of nature have established the
fact that cheilev [fat which is separate from the meat], is never to be
found [in the animal] near the hide, nor in a limb which is always in
movement [such as the tail]. The doctors have further said that the nature
of shuman found in the ribs, sides and tail, which is not separate from the
meat, is warm and moist, whilst that fat which can be separated from the
meat, such as that which is upon the kidneys, is cold and moist, thick and
coarse; ... >>>
So my first question is this: If shuman and chelev are so different, and
English has words for each of them, why does everyone (Jewish or not)
translate chelev as fat? As a sample test case, I did a Google search for
translations of Shemos 23:18; I found dozens where chelev was translated as
"fat", and not even one case of "suet'.
I don't remember why, but I went to my concordance to look for the root
shin-mem-nun. Of course, there were many many cases of the noun "shemen -
oil". There were also several cases of the adjective "shamayn - fat/oily",
and the verb "shaman - to become fat/oily". But I did not find even one
example of the noun "shuman - fat".
Jastrow lists a few examples of "shuman", but they are all post-Tanach. Why
would this be? I have one guess: Nowadays, we perceive shuman and chelev to
be two varieties of the same thing, namely fat. Maybe that's not how they
were perceived back then. Ramban (see above) explained that shuman is
"intertwined with the mean and cannot be separated from it", whereas chelev
is always mentioned in the context of sacrificial organs. Apparently, they
considered chelev to be an organ, i.e. a distinct part of the body, just
like the kidneys, the blood, the skin, and other parts -- which is
something that cannot be said about the shuman. To a Tanach-era person,
shuman was a non-entity. (I had intended for this paragraph to be my second
question in this post, but I guess I figured it out. Even so, all comments
are welcome.)
Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230411/2633e4a3/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Joel Rich
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 18:09:29 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] Messaging and scoffing
I'd be interested in reaction (practical and halachic) to the questioner at
about 1 hour and one minute - as well as the rest if one has time
KT|
Joel Rich
https://torahcdn.net/tdn/1015019.mp3
Rabbi Ahron Lopiansky-5777 Responding to Cynics or Positive Messaging (Klal
Perspectives Panel with R' Moshe Hauer, R' Yitzchok Adlerstein & Moshe Bane
- AJOP 2017)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230413/c690f533/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Joel Rich
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 16:29:01 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] halachic derivation rules
A number of times when the Talmud is ping-ponging back-and-forth trying to
determine the underlying reason for a difference of opinion, it will state
that one of the parties learned a din from a particular textual source,
which the other party did not (lo mishma lei)
These seem to come in a number of different flavors such as a possible
extra letter (e.g. megillah 17b dvarim/hadvarim) or an extra word (eg bava
metzia 27b mimenu).
I was thinking that in other circumstances where such a letter or word
appeared, there is no debate, and the derivation is accepted by all.
I was wondering if anybody had seen anything which indicated that a
particular rabbi tended to (or not to) use such a source as a general rule
and/or is it possible that the decision as to whether to use or not you
such a rule was dependent on what that Rabbi already believed was the
pre-existing halacha that needed to be obtained?
KT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230414/17692a5d/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)