Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 090

Monday, January 14 2002

• Re: Moshiach
• purchasing book written by gerr / giyores - any kiyum of ' vaahavtem es hageir'?
• Bereshit 32:18 and the best Tanakh
• Re: Bereshit 32:18 and the best Tanakh
• Re: Bereshit 32:18 and the best Tanakh
• [HebrewMSS] Reward! (fwd)
• Re: Elu vaelu
• Re: J Post article re ALS case and heterim
• Re: shabbat clocks
• Re: Daas Torah
• Re: Daas Torah
• Question - 'Hullin 20a&b
• Re: halakhik methodology + gedolim, da'as Torah & etc. - a framework for study
• Re: shabbat clocks
• [none]

In a message dated 12/26/01 10:39:29am EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> I don't know what you mean by "most authorities hold he will be of the 
> living." This may the "normative view" in general perception, because "of 
> the dead" appears superficially so strange and involves the principle of 
> the resurrection of the great tzadikim before the coming of Moshiach (as 
> stated categorically by the rishonim and elaborated on by Radvaz etc.) 
> which vast majority of even our so-called gedolim were unaware of (or 
> simply pleaded "don't know too much about it" etc.) until the issue of 
> Rebbe as Moshiach reared its head. Remember, lo ro'inu eino ra'ayoh, so 
> statement of "most" meaningless and void. Veda"l.

I know I used to counter missionaries as follows: How is it even possible
that the Jewish people - great and small - were unaware of a "trinity"
concept? How could it have escaped the notice of so many? How could it
have failed to make it into Massorah?

Following this logic - lo ra'ainu eino Ra'ya - those counter argumetns
fall aside. Nu so they did not know from trinity, after all this does
not itself prove that it is a false idea... CvS.

OTOH maybe there are cases of lo ra'inu hevei rayo.

BTW: this BEH one of my next posts on Minhag) For some mar'eh mkommos
simply see Tur Yoreh Deiah 1 and SA YD 1:1 and the issue of Nashim as
ksheirim lishchot, and what the BY, Aggur, Rema and Shack say

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

I was wondering - is it possible that there is a kiyum of the mitzvoh of
'viahavtem es hageir' when one purchases a book written by one?

This question came to mind recently when I saw a book by someone who was
migayeir on sale at a local bookstore. There seem to be a growing number
of such books in recent years (usually with the author telling their life
story)(as with somewhat similar books by 'chozrim biTeshuvah'). Perhaps
the genre has been somewhat overworked. The book did not seem to be
selling so well. I was thinking about possibly buying a copy that was
on sale, somewhat out of sympathy for the author.

Comments?

Mordechai

[As I wrote the author, this question really belonged on Mesorah. However,
as he is not on Mesorah, I'm passing it here.
[This gives me an opporturnity to mention that mesorah has been moved from
being an email group alias to our web forum at <http://www.aishdas.org/gforum>.
-mi]

My question concerns the 6th word in Bereshit 32:18.

On the morning of Shabat Vayishlah a friend asked me how to read the word. I
responded as I saw it written in the Houmash he presented to me. I told him
Yifgoshkha. I then checked the word in the Mordechai Breuer Tanakh publish
by Mosad Harav Kook in 1989. I saw the same thing there and I felt very
confident in my decision.

My friend then saw an experienced Sefer Torah reader who told him to check
the Koren Tanakh, there it said Yifgashekha. (Incidentally, there it is
verse 17 not 18, anyone know why?) This experienced Torah reader said to me
and my friend. We follow Koren it is what we use and it is always the most
correct!!
I conceded only because of his experience and my lack of resources at the
time.

Since then the issue has troubled me.
I would like some help on this issue from those of you who are well versed
in Hebrew grammar as well as those of you who have real life experience in
publicly reading the Sefer Torah.

This is what I have found so far:

1)Tiqoun Leqoriim published by Ktav in 1946, what most of us grew up
studying with..................YifGoshkha. (gimal degoushah)

2)Tanakh printed by Horev in 1997 also edited by Mordechai Breuer has
YifGHoshkha. (gimal refouyah).

3)Keter Yeroushalayim , The bible of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
based upon the famous Keter Aram Sobah, the work of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer
and edited by Yosef Ofer. Published in 2000. Also has YifGHoshekha as above.

4)Tanakh published by the British and foreign bible society and edited by
Norman Henry Snaith in 1958 and based upon old Spanish manuscripts
especially that of the Shem-Tob-Bible of 1312, has YifGoshkha (gimal
degoushah).

5)Tanakh edited by Mosheh David Cassuto and published by The Magness Press,
Jerusalem in 1963 also has YifGHoshkha, with a gimal refouyah.

6)Tanakh edited by Meir Halevi Letters and published in Berlin 1926 has
YifGoshkha , gimal degoushah.

7)Houmash printed in Venice by Gad Shemouel Fouah in 1755 has YifGAshekha.
Gimal degoushah as well as a ma'amid next to the qamess.

8)Houmash printed in Livorno by Eliezer Menahem Otolinghi in 1838 has
YifGAshekha spelled out exactly like the above item.

9)Houmash printed by Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim who was known to be very
meticulous has YifGHAshekha. Wth a gimal refouyah and a ma'amid following
the qamess.

10)Houmash printed by Shocken in Tel Aviv in 1958 has YifGAshekha
like items 7 & 8. On the same page the mesorah is printed and there it
says HaGimal Rafe ObQamess Rahab which conflicts what they have on the
printed page!!!

11)Tikoun Ish Masliah by Rabbi Meir Mazouz of Yeshibat Kise Rahamim in
Bene Beraq says to follow the Mesorah and say YifGHAshekha with a gimal
rafeh and a Qamess Rahab.

I'm sure I can go on and on but what is going on here?
What is the most correct?
Why?
Do we have a tradition about these things?
Where can they be found?
Based upon all this should we follow the Koren Tanakh or one of Breuers
that are based upon the famed Aleppo Codex?

Any help, advice and direction on this matter would be most appreciated.

Thank you and Shabbat Shalom,
Joseph Mosseri

Joseph Mosseri asked whether the word in Bereshit 32:18 is Yifgashekha
or Yifoshkha.

My inclination is to follow R' Mordechai Breuer's Tanakh for two reasons.
First, he based it on a majority of reliable manuscripts (as the famous
baraisa tells us to do) and found that it corresponded to the Masorah.
Second, this Tanakh was later found to correspond almost exactly to the
Aleppo Codex (Keter Aram Zovah) which was written by Aharon Ben Asher.

See R' Breuer's introduction to "The Aleppo Codex and
the Accepted Text of the Bible" or the following summary
<http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/Special_Topics/masorah>.

The Koren Tanakh is based largely on the Leningrad manuscript which,
surprisingly, contradicts the Masorah many, mant times.

In the end, however, I'm not sure that the exact pronunciation makes
a big difference. There is a Tosafos in Avodah Zarah (I think on 20a
but I can't find it right now) that says that minor differences in
pronunciation do not make a difference in leining.

Gil Student

[About the leading commment: If you're sugesting something to conform
to Sefaradi sensibilities, it ought be "H" for "Haham", not "CH".
No? -mi]

CHJMosseri writes: (BTW -- since the group seems hung up over honorifics, it
occurs to me that a s'faradi might be repelled by the ashkenazi R -- as was
the abarbanel -- and it should only be synmmetrically appropriate to confer
(additional) Chokhmoh on this choveir instead, all on the assumption that
mosseri is a s'faradi ethnic name. if not, please immidiately swap in R for
CH)
<This experienced Torah reader said to me and my friend. We follow
Koren it is what we use and it is always the most correct!! I conceded
only because of his experience and my lack of resources at the....
gimal rafeh and a Qamess Rahab. I'm sure I can go on and on but what
is going on here? What is the most correct? Why? Do we have a tradition
about these things? Where can they be found? Based upon all this should
we follow the Koren Tanakh or one of Breuers that are based upon the
famed Aleppo Codex? Any help, advice and direction on this matter would
be most appreciated. Thank you and Shabbat Shalom, Joseph Mosseri >

the suggestion that "it is always the most correct" is risable if only
because your <experienced Torah reader> could not possibly have any way of
knowing that. here there are only prejudices based on available evidence
and what we know of the derech that produced each text. As for me, while i
think qoren did a very fine job, especially in not making "mistakes", i.e
in carefully ensuring that the final printed text conformed to what the
editor(s?) intended to put down, that doesn't mean -- by a long shot --
that the editor's choices are compelling. Qorein in particular gives the
sense that a systematic methodology was pursued and in such matters, this
is a bad thing according to my prejudices. This is particularly evident in
their approach to the chataf which has probably never been deployed with
such abandon since the days of r. pinchos rosh hay'y'shivoh. I say also
that it "gives you a sense" since they do not explain (at least i never
knew where to look for an explanation) their methodology for resolving
conflict or what MS were relied on. The result is a fine, and no doubt
scholarly work since a great deal of care went into it, but i at least
have inferred that it is one that uses input from different manuscripts
as well as algorithms -- all of which are left unexplained. The bottom
line is that they have produced a tanach which never existed anywhere.

I too tend to rely on breuer (except for his (in)famous b'reishis 9:29 --
at least till the sof'rim get with the program, gotta read what's there)
since -- though he too used a hodgepodge of MS (only those deemed the most
reliable to be sure. at the start of his work the surviving sections of
the aleppo codex were not available to be checked -- that came much later)
he explains his methodology for making decisions and -- in the end (as
they say at one point in long mathematical proofs) a miracle occurred
and the final document he produced from this eclectic mixture in fact
conformed to a single already extant textual tradition. i.e. breuer's
tanach's claimed identity with the yemenite torah. (BTW, his claim is not
in fact quite true, there are indeed differences between breuer and the
yemenite torah, but nevertheless it is close enough for government work
-- as we say in washington). Thus the reconstruction of a tanach which
actually exists, which conforms so far as is known to the aleppo codex
(BTW, those interested in the "closeness" of the various chumoshim to
the aleppo codex might want to read penkower's book "nusoch hat'toroh
b'keser aram tzovoh", bar ilan U press, on the subject. Breuer fares
pretty well, though not identically) and the care to avoid printing
errors which plague most editions of tanach is what leads me to give the
nod to breuer. But these are personal prejudices. I too cannot "prove"
that breuer is more "correct", i can only explain the drivers behind
my choices. BTW, i am not completely happy with breuer's either --
his decision to eliminate all chataf patachs from non gutterals, though
explained well and certainly conforming to the latitude described in say,
diqduqei hat'ta'mim", nevertheless ensures that his tanach too could
never exactly replicate the aleppo codex, or any other. (added to the
list of differences cited by penkower).

As for the list of different published editions of the tanach cited in the
original note, most have printing mistakes of one sort or other and the MS
base for them less convincing. BTW you should certainly add to the list
of notable chumoshim -- in fact more notable and authoritative than most
on your list -- the text of tanach of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgardensia,
at least the editions produced after Paul Kahle (the S'ridei Aish's
very christian rebbe) became the co-editor and baselined it to the
leningrad codex. I believe someone also mentioned Emmanuel Tov's book
"textual tradition of the hebrew bible" 2nd edition. i didn't know there
was a second edition, but i have read the first edition (though there
was indeed an earlier hebrew edition, is that what was meant?) and as
i recall he also lists the virtues or lack thereof associated with
the various published chumoshim in circulation. however, tov is not
recommended for list members who have not reached the age of fourty.

Mechy Frankel                       W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com         H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

I got this message on the Hebrew Manuscripts list, can anyone here help?

Forwarded message:
> To: hebrewmss@yahoogroups.com
> From: "yscult" <scult@barak.net.il>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 23:28:43 -0000
> Subject: [HebrewMSS] Reward!
 
> Dear Friends,
 
> While this may sound a little strange (let's call it original), it's 
> for real:
 
> -----------------------------------
> Machon HaGra, a New York based group of Scholars who have printed 
> tens of works of the Vilna Gaon, are offering 5000 dollars to anyone 
> who helps them solve the following problem:
 
> In the introduction the Gaon's commentary on Avos, his student Rabbi 
> Menachem Mendel of Shklov relates that the Gaon had said to him that 
> a certain Kadmon had fasted greatly in order that the explanation of 
> a Gemara in Succoh (48b There were two Tzadukim, one named Sasson 
> and one named Simcha etc.) be revealed to him, and indeed it was 
> partly done so etc.
 
> The Machon HaGra has gone to great lengths to reveal who this 
> certain Kadmon is, with no success. Anyone who gives any information 
> leading to the discovery of the source will be awarded 5000 dollars.
> --------------------------------------
 
> It sounds better than looking for Bin-Laden.
 
> Rabbi Yehoshua Scult
> Hebrew MSS List Operator, Jerusalem

Arie Folger wrote:
>I understand the statement of TB BK 60a keivan shenitnah reshut
>lamash'hit eino mav'hin bein tzaddik lerashah as saying when there is a 
>gezeirah against the klal, individual zekhuyot will help you
>relatively, but won't be sufficient to definitely escape the gezeirah;
>it is the klal that was indicted. The tzaddik must walk betzidei
>haderekh and possibly retreat 'ad ya'avor za'am in order to save
>himself from the mash'hit gone on a rampage. It is this way that I
>understand why good people suffer during national tragedies (although
>there are many other factors, such as special ta'anah against a
>tzaddik because he is expected to act differently during times of
>gezeirah, and said tzaddik fell short on his level).

I agree.  Except that a tzadik gamur is not subject to a gezeirah on the 
kelal.  I once collected a list of sources that says the above with my 
qualification but the only one I remember offhand is the Malbim on Avraham's 
argument with Hashem over Sedom.  The Malbim quotes a Gemara in Shabbos and 
the Maharatz Chajes on that Gemara also says similarly.

Gil Student

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

Reb Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> HREF="http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/01/09/News/News.41363.html"
>The Jerusalem Post Newspaper : Online News From Israel - News Article</A> 
> Which heterim is AG Rubinstein referring to in the case of a person with
> ALS ? Isn't this a misstatement of psak on cases utiized in brain death and 
> DNR type cases?

Here is a rapid coverage of the issues. The Ramo in YD 339 has a strange
statement that permits hasarat hamonea from a goses, but not the bringing
about of death. The source is Sefer 'Hassidim, and should already raise a
red flag (see below). There is no source for this in the Talmud, and his
choice of monea which one can lehasir (as a variant on the "classical"
yesivish usage of to be meisir) is strange: sound of wood being chopped,
salt on the tongue (which you can remove only if you will manage not to
touch or move the tongue) and similar things. I will defer to reb Josh
Backon and others more well versed in medecine for the following detail:
have there been any documented cases whatsoever where sound of chopping
wood has kept a patient alivea little longer? (ok, difficult to prove
or document, but you get the idea, these are strange cases).

Anyway, because of that Ramo, some have said that it is permitted
to passively bring about death, in line with some Christian
ethicists. However, in halakhah, shev veal taaseh is only permitted
when kum ve'aseh is not clearly permitted or otherwise unattainable
(which boils down to the same thing, see below). To withold healing
even for 'hayei sha'ah is a transgression of lo taamod al dam re-ekha,
and in the case of removing a respirator from a patient, even border on
outright retzi'hah.

What contemporary poskim, such as RMF and RSZA and
y.l.'h.t.v.a.h.a.v.e. RYSE been me'hadesh, is that pain itself is
considered a major ma'hlah, and a patient is not me'huyav to heal
himself for 'hayei sha'ah if that requires suffering tremendous pain,
one may withold some treatment from a patient.

The matter becomes more complex when the patient is on a respirator. You
see, in cases where there are limited numbers of beds in ICU
and respirators as well, triage is required (medically as well as
halakhikally). However, if a patient already has a respirator and is
not going to make it, and the respirator is needed, removing it may be
a case of retzi'hah for the sake of saving somebody else's life, and
then shev ve'al taaseh may be advised, RMF reinforces that by saying
that the patient with the respirator has a form of 'hazakah, although
that idea is by no means clear.

Coming back to pain, I am unaware of the details of this case, and know
even less of how much either ER or RYSE were told, so I will withhold
my judgment/ignorance ;-), and merely state that in most cases it is
possible to control pain very well, but with the nasty side result that
the person becomes a vegetable (reversible if he heals. he is basically
fully sedated until he either heals or dies, even though the former is
highly, highly, highly unlikely for a patient who has come so far.)

Source: YD 339 Ramo+nos'ei kelim, RMF, RSZA in their teshuvot and RYSE
in a journal article (sorry I didn't bother look up my archives. I will
provide more detailed sources if anybody needs them. just send me a
private email) as presented by rav JD Bleich.

This is entirely separate from the issue of brain death, which in turn
is a lot murkier.

Arie Folger

I don't have Mipninei Harav (yet).  Could you summarize why RYBS felt that
moving the time (in the way permitted by SSKH) is koach acher meurav bo?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 01/11/2002 12:43:19pm EST, dr@insight.att.com writes:
<< There is a story (I don't recall whether in R. Dov Katz's book or
Rabbi Dessler's book) that when R. Yisrael Salanter got married he and
his wife agreed that he would decide questions of milei d'shmaya and
she would decide all other questions. They soon discovered that all the
questions they discussed were milei d'shmaya. >>

Interesting, the version i heard is that his students asked him why he
argued with his wife and the answer was they argued over whether the
case at hand fell under milei dshmaya or milei dara.

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

Jordan Hirsch  wrote:
> I respect your personal interpretation, but I have always understood daas
> Torah in its Desslerian sense, (is that a word) to mean that Talmidei
> Chachomim will, by virtue of their immersion in the holiness and purity of
> Torah study, have a special sensitivity to the correct path for someone to
> follow, even in non-Halachic issues.

This is IMHO not Desslerian, but Hirshian, and thoroughly traditional.
Most events in life have Torah (halakhik.hashkafic/take-your-pick)
implications, and so TCs wil see clearly through the lens of Torah,
assuming that they understand what the heck is going on, hence the need
for TC who are experts in a variety of areas. However, the Desslerian
'hiddush is that DT TCs do not need any expertise other than Torah,
because every 'hokhmah is in it.

FYI, it is told that CI once gave advice to a brain surgeon who
was a loss. The surgeon followed CIs advice and the operation was
successful. (this much of the story seems even confirmed by bona fide
objective sources)

The yeshivishe twist, is that CI knew the 'hokhmat nitua'h from mass
'Hullin. Very strange. I learned parts of Elu Trefot, and I can tell
you that there is way way way way^2^2 too little anatomy in it to even
know where the turbatz haveshet (body part that plays an important role
in daf 43b 44a and in a forthcoming article of mine) exactly is. You
need picture books for that, or better, a visit to a sho'het with lots
of knowledge and patience.

Anyway, the point of the yeshivishe twist is to show how great CI was.

Instead, I offer before you a twist which is attributed rav Gedalye Nadel
(or is it Nader?), that CI read medical journals in German, and so was on
aware of latest research. This is very similar to medical poskim (such
as rav Bleich, rav M Tendler and others) who stay on top of research to
figure out what halakhik issues they raise.

Needless to say, if this story is to say anything about CI, I find CI
much much greater now that I heard the 2nd twist. It does take a lot of
punch to read medical journals without the benefit of biology for poets,
and withhout German 101 (as I said, the journals where in German).

The two twists are obviously supporting conflicting notions of the role
of expertise in DT.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

'Hullin 20a quotes a beraita of Rami bar Ye'hezkel, saying that ikkur does
not apply to birds. Daf 20b Rava/Ravin bar Kissi limits the beraita's
application to melikah, and disagrees in this with rabbi Yermiyah in
the name of Shmuel, who started this sugya on 20a.

Gemara on 20a, continuing on 20b, states that Rami bar Ye'hezkel holds
that birds are biblically requiring she'hitah.

Rashi considers rabbi Yermiyah in name of Shmul more authoritative,
as is evident in dh "Hahu" on 20b; Rashi explains there that Rami bar
Ye'hezkel is in opposition to the tosefta sha'hat et haveshet venishmetah
hagargeret. Their disagreement is ude to the disagreement whther birds
biblically require she'hitah. Rashi PASKENS that since weare in doubt,
beshel Torah halokh a'har hama'hmir.

PROBLEM: Rami bar Ye'hezkel holds (acc. to Bavli!, not even a rishon's
diyuk) she'hitah of birds is biblical, and permits ikkur. Tosefta holds
ikkur is assur, but since Rashi explains the disagreement in terms of
the disagreement whether she'hitah of birds is biblical, it follows that
tosefta holds she'hitah of birds is rabbinic, and hence so is the psul
of ikkur. SO, it really is a disagreement on a rabbinic prohibition,
and whay does Rashi say beshel Torah ...? It should be muttar because
bederabanan, halokh a'har hamekil?

NB: this is also interesting for the halakhik methodology thread. Can
Rashi disagree on Bavli and say that RbY holds she'hitah of birds is
really rabbinic and it is the tosefta that holds it is biblical?

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

In our ever reining effort to pin down when a posek can overrule
predecessors, I want to cite the following example from AhS YD 13:21

"Our teachers the men of the SA wrote in their books [BY & DM] that
acc. to the Rambam it [a deformed foetus laking legs but otherwise looking
like its parents, developed within a kosher mammal] is prohibited in such
a case, and they excted that from what he [Rambam] wrote in chapter one
of maakhalot assurot, law 6, and this is his text: ''a [kosher] mammal in
which was found a bird, even though it is a tahor bird, it is assur for
consumption. It was not permitted of what is found within the mammal,
_but_ _for_ _what_ _has_ _a_ _hoof_" ad kaan leshono. And from that e
exacted that whatever has no hoof, it is prohibited. And IMHO that the
intention of the Rambam is merely to disqualify [a foetus that looks like]
a tahor bird ..."

PUNCH LINE: sometimes poskim give their opinion, period. Other times
they say what they are doing, namely interpreting another source. In
the first case, it is dificult to just come and disagree. Just try to
convince poskim at large that brain death is death. That depended on
the DT of RMF, RSZA and others, who gave more their gut feeling than
anyrthing else. (they do quote sources, but the issue is very murky and
their value judgment is what carried most weight.) Same for abortion
(see Seridei Eish for a dissenting opinon, which FYI _has_ _been_
followed by some heimishe people, but secretly.) and for teaching Torah
lekhat'hillah in mixed settings.

OTOH, when a posek even of such stature as BY, says he is interpreting, he
is not claiming authority, and opens the door to be disproved, so in such
cases, a well placed argument can be sufficient to overrule predecesors.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

In a message dated 01/12/2002 10:29:26pm EST, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> I don't have Mipninei Harav (yet).  Could you summarize why RYBS felt that
> moving the time (in the way permitted by SSKH) is koach acher meurav bo?
 
AIUI R'YBS understood koach acher meurav bo is defined by whether both
sources were active at the same time. If the both forces were not
active at the same time, then it's grama. Thus if you move the time
clock on shabbat when the electricity powering the clock is active,
it's koach acher. I can fax you the page (78)

Shavua Tov,
Joel Rich

[If legal, you can fax it to me at (413) 403-9905 and I can post it in
the archives. -mi]

: Didn't Rav Moshe asser eiruvin in Brooklyn because of Ocean Parkway? 

At the time, I don't think it was just the "Litvishe psak" and AIUI
(admittedly being out of the New York area for over ten years now)
other than a very few Chasidim no one relies on any BP or Flatbush eiruv.

The problem I have had with the Boro Park eiruv since its recent
renaissance is for so many years nobody had the nerve to put up an
eiruv in the face of Rav Moshe's pesak, which was corroborated by other
rabbonim ugedolim (even noraim!) from all camps as R' Carl mentioned.
Why now-has some new metzius come about or some long forgotten shittah
been discovered?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]