Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 069

Friday, December 4 1998

• Re: Chilul HaShem
• Re: Chilul HaShem
• Re: Thankgiving
• Re: Thankgiving
• Re: Thankgiving
• medicine, amoraim and secular studies, Midrash
• Chillul Hashem
• Re: Divrei Sofrim
• Rambam's mistakes
• Re: medicine, amoraim and secular studies, Midrash
• Re: Rambam's mistakes
• Re: Rambam's mistakes

<<
Chillul hashem arises only if he is required to honor his father but still
leaves for Canaan because of G-d's command.
>>

I find it hard to define following an explicit command of HaShem as chilul
HaShem, no matter what anyone thinks about it.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Please note B"R 46:3, where Avrohom argues with Hashem, that he should
nott fulfill the mitzva of mila because it would deter potential gerim (I
know, this is l'shitasi that we learn from the Avos :-)).

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> I find it hard to define following an explicit command of HaShem as
> chilul HaShem, no matter what anyone thinks about it. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Steve. Katz wrote:
> 
> Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:
> >
> > Could you possibly point me to some of this newer historical evidence.
> > > newer historical evidence that the local American Indians celebrated
> > > such a holiday of thanksiving for more that 200 years before the
> > > puritans came and destroyed their civilization. 

My statement was based on a National Public Radio story reported on a
recent Morning Report. They reported on a memorial being erected(?) to
a king of a New England tribe in Rhode Island. In the course of this
story they spoke of how the puritans stale the tribe's land, raped the
women and gave them deseases etc. In addition the reporter spoke of the
indians celebrating a thanksgiving feast for more than 200 years prior
to the arrival of the white man.
steve

Don't you think this is quite a bit off topic?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5995 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 3-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 98-12-03 10:50:40 EST, you write:

<< 
 Don't you think this is quite a bit off topic?
 
 -mi
  >>
I don't think so since according to some shitot in chukat haakum the source of
the custom(no matter how it is now considered) may inform on which side of the
divide it falls on.

Kol tuv
Joel RIch

>>>Though not a direct answer Rav Moshe has a responsa whether one is required
to become a doctor because it is a mitzva.<<<

What is the mitzva of becoming a doctor?  Rapoh yerapeh is a reshut, and to
reduce the entire practice of medicine to a kiyum of hashavas aveida of a
person's life is a bit of a stretch, no?  

>>>He ignores any issues that one should be knowledgable in medicine in order
to be a kiddush hashem.<<<

I believe that RamCHaL is the source for a similar approach to D. Eidensohn.
Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 5:11 cites the obligation of a T"Ch to be more
meticulous in conduct  - if a T"Ch's ignorance lowers his esteem in the eyes
of the masses it would be a chilul Hashem.  However, not having the
specialized knowledge that a doctor has is not a fair comparison to losing
face because of an appearance of ignorance.

>>>Certainly most amoraim were not knowledgable in most secular studies.<<<

I wonder what led you to this assertion?  Shmuel knew medicine, Rav lived on a
farm to study Bechoros, certainly Hil. Kiddush HaChodesh implicitley shows a
knowledge of math & astronomy, as does treifos show a knowledge of anatomy.
Maharasha in Gittin beginning of MiSheAchazo writes that Chazal included
refuot in Shas to demonstrate that they were not ignorant of science and
medicine. 

I am perplexed by the number of midrashim cited as evidence to various gedarim
of chilul Hashem.  Doesn't the principle of not learning halachos from
aggadita apply here?

-Chaim B.

Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> wrote:
>R YGB writes
>>> Do we not see here that the mitzva of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel may be
>>> overriden by cheshbonos of Chillul Hashem?
>
>As I previously wrote Rav David Cohen a major posek in America states
>that Israel may not return lands because it would cause a chillul
>hashem!!

I assume you are basing this on his letter in the Journal of Halacha
and Contemporary Society XIX p. 127.  If you have another source, I'd
like to know.

>(personally I find this harder to understand than YGB's position)

While noting that his tone is speculative and he particularly denies
drawing any halachic conclusion, his argument is fairly straightforward.
He says "The plain reading of the verses in Yechezkel 36: 17-21 is
that relinquishing or leaving Eretz Yisrael as a result of weakness
is considered a Chilul Hashem."  But see the rest of his letter.

>That leads to the question - are there any objective standards for
>determining what is a chillul hashem?

In this case, the objective standard would seem to be Tanakh :)

Yitzchak
sthoenna@efn.org

I'd like to propose an idea along the lines of what David Glasner wrote
in #67.  If it sounds like I'm repeating his words,  or if there's a
mareh makom I'm neglecting to mention, please forgive me for "wasting"
anyone's time.  I was humbled the last time I posted, and I want  to
issue a disclaimer:  I may not be as "high-level" as others on the list,
but I do want to share my ideas with the others here, and am willing to
accept an error in my thinking, but please no elitist backhanded remarks.


It seems that the Rambam views any decision that comes out of Beis Din as
Torah she'baal peh, i.e. divrei sofrim, regardless of whether it's a
"doraissa" or a "d'rabbanan", to use our terminology which I believe is
the product of the Ramban's teaching.  According to the Ramban, what is
called d'oraissa is any halacha which is straight from the Torah
sh'bichtav or any interpretation of the sofrim using the methods of
drash.  (According to him, the halacha derived by the drasha was there
all along, and chazal merely interpreted it.)  Using modern terms, the
sofrim are acting as a judiciary (meaning, they're interpreting law, not
making it.)  when extrapolating a halacha.  This shitta is I think the
way most students in Yeshivas today think of drashos and d'oraissas.

The second category of the Ramban is the d'rabbanan, which is a law
passed by the sofrim.  The sofrim act as a legislative body when enacting
a "d'rabbanan".  It's unclear to me (because of lack of knowledge)
whether the Ramban would call a d'rabbanan Torah she'baal peh. I assume
he would say that learning masechta Eruvin constitutes learning Torah,
but I'm unclear on this point and would appreciate input on this point
from the members of the list. 

The Rambam, on the other hand calls the beis din hagadol the "ikar" of
Torah she'baal peh.  (Mamrim 1:1)  I take this to mean that ANYTHING that
comes from them is Torah she-baal peh, or divrei sofrim, regardless
whether the Ramban or any of us would call it d'oraissa or d'rabbanan. 
(This would make it clear that the Rambam views Hilchos Eruvin as torah
she'baal peh.)  I think that according to the Rambam, the sofrim play a
much more prominent role in drashos than in the Ramban's view.  While I
described the Ramban's view of the sofrim as interpretation, I would call
the Rambam's view of drashos "interpretive legislation".  That is to say
that the Torah, when the pesukim and the mesora did not explicitly
provide for  a contingency, gave the sofrim the power to legislate what
the law in any given case would be, USING THE 13 MIDDOS.  (cf. his intro
to Mishnayos)  So even though the end product is "d'oraissa", it falls in
the realm of divrei sofrim, since it is Rabbinic legislation, in a way
similar to Hanukkah and Megila.   I think this view of the Rambam is
explicit in Hil. Mamrim.  Chapter 1 is devoted to the concept of Divrei
Sofrim.  Only in Chapter 2 does he deal with the different types of
divrei sofrim, "d'oraissa" versus "d'rabbanan".  The main implication is
that acc. to the Rambam, the main difference in the strength of a halacha
is not  d'oraissa vs. d'rabbanan, but rather d'oraissa vs. divrei sofrim
(end of Mamrim ch.1).

I welcome comments.

Raffy

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

I once heard a lecture by Prof. Feldblum who pointed out that in some
Rambams it appears that the Rambam paskined ("decided"?, "codified"?) a rule
based on the first part of a sugya apparently believing that the second part
was some sort of later additioin and that therefore he followed only amoraim
(as the latest authoritative decisors). Prof. Feldblum then demonstrated
that the text was Saboraic, which if known to the Rambam would have changed
Rambam's mind as to the P'sak. I believe that there is similar suggestions
in Netziv on Sifrei. Bais Yosef then follows this deonstrably or at least
arguably incorrrect p'sak, (i.e. incorrect in that Rambam, had he known,
would have agreed the p'sak requires adjustment). May we change p'sak based
on our scholarship and unearthing of manuscripts and later shittos rishonim
concerning such a case?
Noach Witty

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> I am perplexed by the number of midrashim cited as evidence to various
> gedarim of chilul Hashem.  Doesn't the principle of not learning
> halachos from aggadita apply here? 

There are several ways in which to respond to this query. I would like to
not do so, however right now, just provide our learned Olam with some
mareh mekomos. The source of this aphorism is Yer. Pe'ah 2:4. See the Noda
b'Yehuda Tinyana 161, Chasam Sofer OC 32 sof d.h. ve'al ha'shelishis, 46
sof d.h. sha'alta and YD 337 d.h. amnam.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Noah Witty wrote:

> I once heard a lecture by Prof. Feldblum who pointed out that in some
> Rambams it appears that the Rambam paskined ("decided"?, "codified"?) a rule
> based on the first part of a sugya apparently believing that the second part
> was some sort of later additioin and that therefore he followed only amoraim
> (as the latest authoritative decisors). Prof. Feldblum then demonstrated
> that the text was Saboraic, which if known to the Rambam would have changed
> Rambam's mind as to the P'sak.
This is an interesting point which I'd like to know more about, how do we
know that the Rambam based it on the first part of the sugya and assumed
the later part was added, is that the psat of us or the kesef mishna or
lechem mishna, furthermore, how do we know our info is really better, I'd
love to know which rambam is being referred to, Although I find the theory
interesting, I'm always nervous about playing with Halacha because we
think we
know something they didn't, because we don't know for sure what their
chesbon and (not to be repetitive) but they knew infinitely more then us
and had a closer better understanding of what the emes is.Nevertheless
it's in interesting point---please try to fill in the missing details,
thanks
Elie Ginsparg

In a message dated 98-12-04 00:50:24 EST, you write:

<< 
 On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Noah Witty wrote:
 
 > I once heard a lecture by Prof. Feldblum who pointed out that in some
 > Rambams it appears that the Rambam paskined ("decided"?, "codified"?) a
rule
 > based on the first part of a sugya apparently believing that the second
part
 > was some sort of later additioin and that therefore he followed only
amoraim
 > (as the latest authoritative decisors). Prof. Feldblum then demonstrated
 > that the text was Saboraic, which if known to the Rambam would have changed
 > Rambam's mind as to the P'sak.
 This is an interesting point which I'd like to know more about, how do we
 know that the Rambam based it on the first part of the sugya and assumed
 the later part was added, is that the psat of us or the kesef mishna or
 lechem mishna, furthermore, how do we know our info is really better, I'd
 love to know which rambam is being referred to, Although I find the theory
 interesting, I'm always nervous about playing with Halacha because we
 think we
 know something they didn't, because we don't know for sure what their
 chesbon and (not to be repetitive) but they knew infinitely more then us
 and had a closer better understanding of what the emes is.Nevertheless
 it's in interesting point---please try to fill in the missing details,
 thanks
 Elie Ginsparg
  >>
Don't we have a similar issue with our understanding of the Rambam. The
Frenkel version contains many changes based on exhaustive textual (ktvei yad
etc.)review which may have changed later authorities opinions based on the
Rambam. I've heard different opinions on this issue(disregard later "fixes" to
repasken based on them).

Kol Tuv and Shabbat shalom
Joel Rich

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]