Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 056

Thursday, July 29 2004

• Storks and Tzedakah
• Contradiction in Poskim re Berachos 13b
• Praying for this year's tish'ah be'av on EDT afternoon
• re: mention of Shem Hashem in tefilla
• Nacheim
• Re: Storks and Tzedakah
• Wearing tefillin on chol hamoed if you have moved to Israel
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Iyov
• nine days question
• ksav ashuris
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Tefilah for the healthy
• The Flood
• Shiv'im pa'nim la'torah
• Re: Iyov
• Re: Who was Iyov (if he existed)? and Gilgul
• Mirrors
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Pronounciation of word in parshas Balak
• Re: Disputing Previous Generation and Halachah L'Moshe MiSinai

 From Rabbi Slifkin:
> There's a famous idea that the stork is called Chasidah because it acts
> with chesed to its companions, sharing food with them.  the question
> goes, if the stork is such a tzaddik, why is it treif? The answer, reportedly
> given by the Radzhiner Rebbe, is that the stork is only kind to its own kind,
> not to other species.  my question is this: Do we really believe and act any
> differently? As far as I know, the mitzvah of tzedakah for non-Jews is only
> due to darkei shalom. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The stork only shares food with its friends and not with other storks. The
general lesson is that one is not considered a baal chesed if one only
does chesed with one's friends. That's how I understand it. How to
understand only doing tzedakah mipnei darkei shalom is a separate topic.

Pinchas M. Berlowitz
pmberlowitz@verizon.net

The gemara in Berachos 13b compares and contrasts sleeping "prakdan" and
saying Shema "prakdan." The definition of prakdan is a machlokes
Rishonim. Some say on the back, some say on the face, and some say both.
How can the Rambam Issurei Biah 21:19, and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in
Even Hoezer 23:3 say that prakdan is lying on the back - while in Rambam
Hilchos Kriyas Shema 2:2, and Tur and Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 63:1
they say that prakdan is lying either on the back or on the face. The
source for both Halachos are the same gemara! 

On my website (www.esefer.blogspot.com) I have a mehalech in the Rambam
and Tur. The problem is that no one else (to the best of my knowledge)
answers like this. (In fact just about no one asks this!) Also, the
Shulchan Aruch is not answered by my mehalech. Any suggestions? 

Thanks,
Moshe Yehuda Gluck

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:14:54AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: If it's already Tisha Baav in aretz, can one in the US still pray for
: the geula shlaima to come so that this Tisha Baav be a true Moed?

R"L it wasn't lema'aseh.

I would think that the following from Rav Chisda on Ta'anis 12a would
apply:
Kol ta'anis shelo shaq'ah alava chamah einah at'anis.

-mi

R. Gershon Dubin asked, "Is there a pattern to when we mention the shem
Hashem in the berachos of tefila (other than when it's a quote from
a pasuk)?"

I'm happy to see I'm not the only one bothered by this question. It has
been affecting my kavanah in Shmoneh Esrei intermittently for a few years.

The only hava amina I have been able to come up with is that since
Elokim means ba'al hakochos kulam, it indicates Hashem's involvement
in the physically tangible, and it is only in conjunction with such
tangibles that we say the combination "Hashem Elokeinu." In Avos, it
is said as part of the shem umalchus nusach of b'rochos in general, so
it doesn't count; in Modim, we are not saying it as a form of address,
but rather are making the statement, "You _are_ Hashem Elokeinu," so it
doesn't count; what we're talking about is where we use it as a subject,
not as a statement of divinity.

Thus, the first mention is in Bareich Aleinu, where we ask for the very
tangible crop; in Al Hatzadikim, where the sachar tov is in Olam Hazeh
(do we have to be mispallel for the tzadikim to get their just rewards
in Olam Haba?); in Shma Koleinu and in R'tzei, where we ask for the
fulfillment of our t'filos, which includes the tangible; and in Sim
Shalom, where we make mention of tz'dakah uvrachah, which include
tangibles. Note that in Shalom Rav, where all we mention is peace and
nothing tangible, the combination does not appear.

Regarding the Shem Havayah alone, in R'faeinu it is the paraphrase in
plural of a posuk, as RGD noted; and in Hashiva Shofteinu, it is used
as part of Malchus (umloch aleinu Atah Hashem), and is akin to its use
in Modim, as above. As for the use of Keil, I don't even have an inkling
of a hava amina.

      EMT

ISTR hearing that R' Goren composed a new version of Nacheim that
fits current post-1967 reality better than the traditional version.
Does anyone say it? Where can I find it?

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

In a message dated 7/28/2004 1:53:01 PM EDT, R' Pinchas M. Berlowitz
pmberlowitz@verizon.net writes:
> The stork only shares food with its friends and not with other storks. The
> general lesson is that one is not considered a baal chesed if one only
> does chesed with one's friends. That's how I understand it. How to
> understand only doing tzedakah mipnei darkei shalom is a separate topic.

Interesting-R'YBS felt the lesson of Iyov was -he only worried about
his family, thus his redemption came when he prayed for others.

KT
Joel Rich

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Can you clearly identify the difference between a din and a minhag?
> Isn't second day Yom Tov a din? According to that person's argument,
> should an oleh continue to keep two days of Yom Tov?

Interesting example. The Gemara clearly calls it minhag avoseinu, but
clearly bizeman hazeh it has become a din.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 03:17:37AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:> While they may agree (in REED's opinion) on who gets HP, I don't see
:> how it's possible for them to agree on what HP is without agreeing on
:> what the alternative is.

: I agree with your question and have no answer for it...

Actually, in the paragraph quoted I tried to answer it.

As I pointed out a number of iterations of this topic ago, REED's
famous formula:
	appropriate hishtadlus = job - bitachon
implies a correlation between siyata diShmaya and bitachon. The question
is whether the same is true between HP and bitachon. Included in that
question is whether all HP is siyata diShmaya or whether there are other
kinds of HP.

According to the way REED understands the story of R' Chanina ben Dosa,
the burning of oil is no less divine intervention than the burning of
vinegar. HP is therefore not all divine intervention.

According to the Rambam, teva causes oil to burn. HQBH is involved only
indirectly, as the Cause of teva. Vinegar burning would be HP, as all
divine intervention is HP.

They end up agreeing, though that Rav Chanina ben Dosa gets more HP than
I. REED quotes the Rambam to show who gets more HP who less, not what
HP and the alternative to it are.

Even on the question of quantity, it's non-obevious to me how REED
assumes that their positions are identical. Both speak about different
people getting more or less, but it's unclear to me what criterion
each of them uses for who gets more.

The Rambam speaks in terms of da'as. Which until recently I thought of
in terms of knowledge about G-d, but then I realized that the Rambam
uses the phrase "Hilchos Dei'os" to refer to attudinal issues, not
cerebralized knowledge. Now I'm just confused.

REED speaks in terms of bitachon. OTOH, in his essay on Olam ha'Asiyah
and Olam haYetzirah, he speaks in terms of going above teva through
idealism, through living a life where concepts like "justice" are
more central to how you see the world than those like "gravity.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:04:06PM +1200, jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:
: Firstly, not even HKBH deigns to explain yisurin shel ahava, doesn't
: this call into question that whole doctrine?...

Another question I thought I addressed. My apologies. Judging from
recent discussion (middos shehaTorah nidreshes, HP, here, etc...),
I've been posting unclearly.

The author explains to us the reason for Iyov's suffering. Simply remember
that the Satan's job is lesatein -- no derashah, a literal translation --
and the opening chapters explains why Iyov had to suffer. To experience
suffering's challenges.

The people in the story never get an explanation. All Iyov gets is a
statement from HQBH that he won't and can't get one.

Someone reeling from tragedy is in a state of aveilus, of "aval", "but".
He is not ready nor capable of accepting an explanation. As we've
discussed before in relation to RYBS's position in Qol Dodi Dofeiq,
tragedy exists to be experienced, to respond to the challenge, not to
be explained.

But that's the the participants, not the reader.

Frankly, I thought the book makes that point quite well. The reader gets
the explanation up front, whereas Iyov's story ends when he responds,
when he shares in the pain of his friends and davens for them.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

 From: Joelirich@aol.com
> If the khal is accepting shabbbat at that point, what happens to Tosefet
> Shabbat?

In shuls that tend to davven later (after tzais) as many shuls do,
Tosfos Shabbos is accepted earlier by everyone on their own, not as part
of davvening.

Chaim G Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

Torah Shleimah (from R' Kasher) v 29 is a lengthy discussion on this
subject.

Chaim G Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

Micha Berger wrote:
>:> While they may agree (in REED's opinion) on who gets HP, I don't see
>:> how it's possible for them to agree on what HP is without agreeing on
>:> what the alternative is.
>: I agree with your question and have no answer for it...

>The Rambam speaks in terms of da'as. Which until recently I thought of
>in terms of knowledge about G-d, but then I realized that the Rambam
>uses the phrase "Hilchos Dei'os" to refer to attudinal issues, not
>cerebralized knowledge. Now I'm just confused.

Just to confuse the issue a bit more. I just came across a fascinating
article by Prof Dov Schwartz "The debate over the Maimonidean Theory of
Providence in 13th century Jewish Philosophy", Jewish Studies Quarterly
vol 2 1995 pp 185-196.

"Maimonides' views of Providence, as expressed in Guide of the Perplexed,
may be summarized In two central statements: 1. Individual Providence
watches over the human species only; the other existents are subject
only to Universal Providence, which is concerned exclusively with the
preservation of the species. 2. The level of providential concern for
a depends on that person's intellectual achievement and philosophical
perfection (Guide 3: 17).

The interpretations of Maimonides' principle of Individual Providence,
as offered by his disciples and other adherents of his philosophy at
the end of the twelfth century and in the first half of the thirteenth,
may be grouped into two major orientations. The different orientations
are supported by discrepancies and nuances of emphasis to be found in
different chapters of the Guide, generally Chapters 17, 18 and 51 of
Part III, as well as certain implications of Maimonides' discussion of
Job (3:22-23). One orientation is represented by avowedly Maimonidean
rationalists, who believe that providential concern for individual human
beings has no external expression. A person watched over by Providence
cannot escape the accidentality of the world of generation and corruption;
he/she may experience misfortune no less than an unwatched being. The
essence of Providence, then, is the perfect human's ability to ignore
the material so that misfortunes simply become meaningless for that
person. As the focus of existence shifts to philosophical, intellectual
matters, the intellectual becomes completely indifferent to affliction
and loss. A typical intellectual representative of this interpretation
is Samuel Ibn Tibbon of Provence,translator of the Guide....

The other orientation is represented by more moderate rationalists, who
posited a definite realistic stratum in Individual Providence. The more
a person intellects and acquires knowledge, the more he/she is liberated
from the accidents of the material world. Providential concern for a
perfect being is reflected in concrete, material assistance rendered. by
God in the avoidance of danger. A representative of this approach is the
scholar named Kalonymus who wrote the book Mesharet Moshe (hereafter:
M M), 6 in whose view Individual Providence grants concrete advantages
in the world of generation and corruption....

It would seem, therefore, that in the thirteenth century, with its
stormy controversies, Kalonymus was easily able to defend the Maimonidean
position as he understood it. Ibn Tibbon's view, however, was perhaps more
consistent with the general principles underlying Maimonides' teachings,
such as the denial of divine intervention in the physical world after
Creation. Such intervention, albeit for the benefit of the perfect would
contradict the principle that God created a perfect world. However;
the rational interpretation raises grave theological difficulties for
the traditionalist viewpoint, which explains Providence in terms of
personal, dynamic intervention in concrete events. Kalonymus devoted
a special work to defending Maimonides' theory of Providence in his
personal interpretation....

During the thirteenth century a fierce debate raged over the esoteric
rational interpretation of the Maimonidean theory of Providence. lt. was
initiated by the kabbalist Jacob b. Sheshet, who launched an attack on
the rationalist Samuel Ibn Tibbon. A scrutiny of the debate indicates
that Jacob b. Sheshet criticized Samuel Ibn Tibbon not only as an
independent thinker but also as a supposedly authoritative interpreter of
the Guide. [BTW there are scholars who claim that the Emuna and Bitachon
attributed to the Ramban was really written by R' Jacob b. Sheshet]...

After his account of the view of the Torah, Maimonides sets out his
own, personal opinion, which supposedly differs from the previous five,
including that of the Torah: "As for my own belief with regard to this
fundamental principle, I mean divine Providence, it is as I shall set it
forth to you. ... this opinion, which I believe is less disgraceful than
the previous opinions and nearer than they to intellectual reasoning.
For I for one believe that in this lowly world - I mean that which
is beneath the sphere of the moon - divine Providence watches only
individuals belonging to the human species ... [p.471]. " On the basis
of this passage, Maimonides was accused of arrogantly ignoring Rabbinic
teaching on Providence and suggested an opposing view. [17 The distinction
between the fifth opinion ('the opinion of our Law') and Maimonides'
personal opinion was already pointed out by classical commentators,
such as R. Nissim of Marseilles and R. Shem Tov b. Joseph Ibn Shem Tov...]

According to Maimonides, Providence applies to human beings in accordance
with their intellectual achievements. The level of achievement determines
the degree to which they are watched over by Providence. In this
connection, Maimonides' critics and traditionalist commentators aimed
their barbs at one of the most sensitive issues treated in the Guide the
fate of a righteous, observant person, possessing virtues in the highest
measure but not scholarship. According to the criterion for immortality
(as set forth, e. g., in Maimonides' Introduction to Perek Helek),
for example, such a person will be lost, for he/she has not acquired
knowledge. .... "

   Daniel Eidensohn

A l-o-n-g time ago here, I asked the question why we do not have a tefilah
[in SE] asking [for those of us who are fit and healthy] to remain so -
rather than only having 'Refo'einu' - asking to be cured from illnesses.

IIRC we didn't get too far with this.

Yesterday, I was looking into my new copy of 'Avrohom Yogel Yitzchok
Yeranen' by Rav Dovid Kohn and he seems to asks a similar question. He
strengthens the question by also quoting Chazal - brought in Tur YD -
'leolom yispallel odom shelo yechloh' and asks where do we have such
a tefilah?

I haven't learned his entire piece 'properly' yet - but he tries to
suggst that maybe Asher Yotzar qualifies.

Someone I talked to today mentioned the nusach Sfard version of the
morning Yehi Ratzon..shetazileinu hayom..."mecholo'im ro'im'.

However, this is not said in nusach Ashkenaz.

Both suggestions don't explain why such an important tefilah is missing
from the SE.

Someone else showed me in the new edition of the RY Emden siddur, an
additional piece from him - on Refo'einu - where he writes that EVERBODY
is unwell in some way or other - even if they don't realise it - thus
Refo'einu is indeed for all of us.

But this still doesn't explain why Chazal - who told us to be mispallel
'shelo yechlo' - didn't create such a tefilah.

Over to you chaps...again...

SBA

NEW EMAIL sba@sba2.com

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:17:16 -0500 (EST) [note the age! I therefore left
in the overwhelming majority of the text. -mi]
> R' Nosson Slifkin wrote:
>> An interesting essay from Aish HaTorah
>> suggesting that the Mabul was very localized:
>> <http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Will_The_Real_Homo_Sapiens_Please_Stand_Up$_.asp>
>> The many comments that follow it are also very interesting.

> In it, R' Noson Weisz argues that not all homosapiens descend from
> Adam, thereby creating two genetically identical but spiritually
> distinct species.

> One he calls "stone age man", who has a static culture. The other is
> Adam, which the Maharal defines as a progressive being. As opposed to
> beheimah -- "bah mah", it is what it is.
...
> So, this salvages Zev's zeidi's suggestion. Adam only inhabitted the
> fertile crescent.

> None of which helps address the physical evidence of continuity of
> "Adamic" cultures even in Mesopotamia through the period in question.
> I also think he abuses the Ramban, who speaks of humans pre-Enosh (who
> have the Tzurah) vs those post-Enosh rather than suggesting non-Adamic
> men.

> But I'm happier with this epistomological approach. We're looking for
> answers from within mesorah. Looking at the Maharal and (in other
> parts of the article) the Rambam and Ramban for an approach that fits
> the external data. There is a resolution to the conflict of data that
> will not require chucking any of it.

I think we can say that the descendents of Adam were people in the sense
we now as religious people mean and that after the flood all who were not
from among them aboard the ark perished. Some say that Eretz Yisrael was
not flooded but instead the heat from the flood killed them, so G-d can
spare and destroy from a World Wide Flood however he wishes. The real
challenge is from the continuity of civilizations but I think that when
G-d forced mankind to spread over the earth they displaced the original
peoples first by marrying amongst them and thereby established new tribes
that ruled. Just like today's Egyptians and today's Ethiopians are not
the same peoples as in the past although they may have mixed at first
perhaps with them. In this case though since G-d caused people to stop
still speaking one language and being one people they could not have
imposed a new culture as much. It seems to me my theory concerning how
to reconcile the flood and evidence of continuity is correct because who
did the various fathers of the nations and their children have after the
flood to marry if we never heard that Canaan married a daughter of Shem
for instance and if we also don't hear of the children of the fathers
of the nations and there children committing incest either and if we
also have evidence of continuity

Yisrael Asper
yisraelasper@comcast.net

elisha figdor <efigdor@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "all roads lead to rome"
> "shiv'im pa'nim la'torah"

> why?
> you'd think that in a MONOthiestic religion we'd have one guiding
> path.

Shivim Panim does not necessarily mean that there are seventy truths.
One could say that there 70 WAYS of finding Truth that are equally
valid.  If one looks at God as the ultimate truth then of course
there is only one truth. But there is also Hester Panim which means
he does not directly reveal Himself to us except through His Torah.
It is that very Torah and the Truth it represents that God left for
us to interpret through, for example, the 13 Midos SheHartorah
Nidreshes Ba. Torah then becomes subject to human interpretation and
open to dispute. That is what happened to Torah SheBal Peh. It in
effect is a repository not only for our way of life, Halacha, but it
is a record of many dispute surounding what the Halacha and how it
should be practiced. In the area of Hashkafa the understnding becomes
even more murky hence we can have various hashkafos each claiming to
be the Emes. And they very well could be if they all lead to "Rome".

HM

> Firstly, not even HKBH deigns to explain yisurin shel ahava, doesn't
> this call into question that whole doctrine? In fact doesn't Iyov call
> into question any attempt to explain tzadik v'ra lo? Why then do we
> even find this tackled by later sources in a seemingly superficial way?
> And how does Olam HaBa fit into this? Furthermore the friends comments
> are rejected as imputing evil to HKBH, how does this reflect on the
> later attempts to resolve the question

The problem with the olam habo answer is that the payment is in a
different coin than the debt. IOW, justice would require that reward
and punishment be paid in this world rather than in totally different
currency in olam habo. So the Rabbinic answer is a supplementary rather
than a different answer. The question is therefore not applicable except
that it is. It is only applicable because deniers of the TOrah made it
one of their proofs for historical development of religion. Put simply,
the book of Yov does not need to encompass every answer; it focuses on
clarifying and analysing the main answer.

M. Levin 

In a message dated 7/21/2004 5:49:04 AM EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> B"B 14b ff has a long discussion citing numerous possibilities. I
> once heard R' N Helfgot discuss "the universal rule of conservation of
> personalities"(or something like that) as to why the gemora says things
> like Eliyahu hu Pinchas. 

As I interpret this

Eliyahu had the NESHAMA of Pinchas  - possibly/probably in a different gilgul 
- but that's another thread! <smile>
Any ideas on why the Gemora here seems to take
the flip side and identify so many different possible ID's especially
since the Gemora seems to focus on Moshe as the author.

Eisan Ha'Ezrachi mentions David Hamelech. Problem: Eisan is depicted
as Avraham Avinu.
Solution? Eisan Ha'Ezrachi is the Neshamah of Avraham Avinu in a
later gilgul.

This could also explain the connection between R. Shimon bar Yochai and
the Zohar. Perhaps R. De Leone was a gilgul of RSBY. Or he received the
Zohar from a Gilgul of RSBY etc.

So Moshe could have written Iyov later on, as another Gilgul.

The Gmara is a tad ablique on this but it is not a big stretch to see
that Eliyahu was inspired with the same Kana'us as Pinchas, and hence
the Gmara saw the connection.

I have also hear that R. Elazar ben Azaryah was a gilgul of Shmuel Hanavi
and hence at 18 was k'ven shiv'im because 52 of Shmuel plus 18 = 70.

Think about it

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

I was asked a question that I can't properly respond to. Can anyone
there help?

> One more question - Does Judasim have any thing - mystical or otherwise,
> about mirrors or reflections? I know Rambam said men should not look into
> them because it is a woman's thing to do. I am looking for other things -
> not covering mirrors during shiva.

M. Levin

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>

> According to the Rambam, teva causes oil to burn. HQBH is involved only
> indirectly, as the Cause of teva. Vinegar burning would be HP, as all
> divine intervention is HP.

This is not correct.  For the Rambam HP is a form of prophecy; it does not
overturn nature.  See Hakdamah to Perek Helek, ed. Kafih, p. 137, PHM Avoth
5:5, and, in more detail, R. Abraham Maimonides, Maamar al HaAgadoth, ed.
Margalioth, pp. 94-96.

The Rambam just wouldn't take that story literally.

For the lazy among us one quotation: "the people who understand the
greatness of the sages ... and the impossibility of impossible things ..."

David Riceman

In a message dated 7/16/2004 1:14:37 PM EDT, Rebelkrim@aol.com writes:
> A few weeks ago we had an interesting debate in shul. When the bal koreh
> got to Bamidbar 23:18, the baal Koreh read the sixth word of the pasuk
> "ushama". One gabbai (using a Hertz chumash) corrected him...
> I believe ushama is past and ushma is tzivuy (or future). One Hebrew
> linguist pointed out that ushma makes more sense because two words before
> we find 'kum' which is also tzivuy.

These can be simply explained as variations in the Masorah WRT sh'va
na vs. Chataf Patach.

{EG: See u'sadeh migrash}

Heidenhim/Roedelheim goes heavy on the Chataf Patach
Mordechai Breuer / Choreb goes light. 

I don't know their sources off-hand

It is arguable that even according to the Chataf Patach school the
pronounciation could very well be a virtually sh'va na if you do more
chataf than patach

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

In a message dated 7/18/2004 3:33:34 PM EDT, hlampel@thejnet.com writes:
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>: 12:17:11 -0400 (EDT) 

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote: 
> "Significant" is a relative term. Even the smallest difference in halachah 
> or theory is significant.... 

RMB (Mon, 12 Jul 2004): "What I'm calling "significant" is a difference
in machshavah, not halachah."

ZL: That was understood. That's why I added "or theory."

RMB: "[A] machloqes over the middos doesn't change the derashos
themselves.... Here's how I see it. The RSO gave us the Torah with
myriads of de "[A] machloqes over the middos doesn't change the derashos
themselves... "[A] machloqes over the middos doesn't change the derashos
themselves... ashos."

There is an underlying premise here in dispute - i.e. Halachah kadmah
lemidrah or vice versa midrash kadmah le'halahcah

AFAIK, there is no universal resolution of this...

EG If/When the Halachah is fixed THEN the pool of Midsrashic tools
can vary to arrive at the same point. IOW given that ayin tachas ayin
implies mammon, we can havea wide range of arguements as to HOW this
was derived...

ZL: Sorry, I'm still not sure what you mean. The derashos are the use
of middos by which to connect Scripture to unwritten laws. (So-and-so
darshons a kal v'chomer to arrive at halachah X, while so-and-so
darsons a k'ra y'sayra.") So what do you mean by "[A] machloqes over
the middos doesn't change the derashos themselves"? By "derashos,"
do you mean "halachos derivable through derashos"? and that no rules,
such as kal v'chomer, binyan av, etc., were explicitly revealed?; that
Hashem revealed that halachah X is indicated, somehow, by this or that
word or phrase, and the later authorities deduced what specific rule
connects that phrase or word to the din? This does not conform with
the principle that the methods of using kal v'chomer, gezeyra shavva,
etc., were transmitted by Hashem. If you're taking this principle as
"lav davka," you'd be saying it merely means that Hashem said there are
rules by which to connect the oral laws to Scripture, but did not reveal
any of them. I can't accept that.

Or, do you mean that the pool of rules already existed, and the Tannaim
just assigned them as they deemed valid? I could accept that. But this
does not fit what you write "The RSO gave us the Torah with myriads of
derashos," to which "the tannaim sought overarching rules to explain
many derashos in one fell swoop. Hillel found 7 rules, R' Aqiva found 19,
R' Yishma'el 13." What form were these "myriads of derashos" in? If you
can give me a concrete example of a halachic dispute involving derashos
and identifying (even hypothetically) the "drereshah" of the "myriad of
derashos" and the midda cfreated by the Tanna, perhaps that would help
me to understand your point.

AIUI, rules existed but the rules were NOT codified until R. Yishmael
et. al. formulated the rules.

EG Rebbe redacted the Mishnah from an already existing pool of Tannaitic
statements. R. Yishmael formulated the middos by category into 13.

Another EG, you can say that Albo summarized/condensed Rambam's 13
ikkarim into 3.

The way I understand it is that all the rules were given explicitly,
but details of their mechanics came under dispute, and this included the
proprietey of using one rule (e.g., hekesh from this posuk vs. hekesh
from that posuk), and whether certain forms or words (such as "ess")
should be included in the method of ribui.

I DO NOT think rules were explicit. They were somewhat amorphous until
later formally organized.

Regarding what you wrote, "R' Aqiva taught that the Torah was medayeiq
in lashon well beyond that of benei adam. Therefore, when looking for the
"lomdus" behind the derashos, he found them in textual details.

"R' Yishma'el, OTOH, saw the Torah primarily in terms of what information
is being communicated. Communication was to benei adam, so it's belashon
BA. Therefore, when he formulated his overarching rules in terms of the
ideas communicated.

"The purpose of the TSBP being primarily in its syntax or in its semantics
was my "significant difference".

ZL: I thought I proved, in the post to which you are responding, that
this is wrong. The issues of Ribbui U'Miut vs. Klall U'Prat, and Dibrah
Torah B'L'shone B'nei Adam were not overaching approaches to Torah
intepretation. Ribui U'Miut vs. Klall U'prat is a single machlokess over
the mechanics of Klall U'prat in the particular situation where another
Klall follows the Klall U'Prat. And Dibrah Torah B'L'shone B'nei Adam
is a specific machlokess over some instances where a word is repeated
(e.g., ish ish, etc.), and that Rabbi Akiva, as well as Rebbi Yishmael,
used the 13 middos, and that Rebbi Yishmael, as well as Rebbi Akiva
darshonned words like "ess" as a ribui.

RMB: "The following other halachic impact is masteiber to me, for which
I'm seeking frum sources:

"I think the talmidim ended up with two "toros", thus producing our
two schools of medrashei halakhah. And when that became unmaintainably
diverse, we put and end to it by stopped making new derashos. This would
play out at the same time as the mishnah, the 2nd generation after R'
Aqiva, and had some role in why we needed the mishnah.

ZL: But many drashos are post-Mishnaic. Even some that generate details
as opposed to merely supporting known details).

AISI only pre-churban Drashos could create Halachah. IOW you need a bona
fide Sanhedrin to make Halacha out of drashos. OTOH to make drashos
to back up existing halachos is a process that extends way beyond the
Churban. Well what about halachos appraently initiated by R. Akiva and
R. Yishmael who lived AFTER the Churban? one of 2 possiblities exist:

1) They were transmitting/preserving pre-churban drashos 
2) They somehow got grandfathered in even after the Churban - for a while.

As long as Yhosua was alive, Moshe Rabbeinu's personal influence lived on
after his death. And AIUI, Moshe Rabeinu's influence extended during the
Zkeinim who were eye-witness to Moshe Rabbeinu who surrived Yehoshua bin
Nun. IOW Yehoshua was about 96 when Moshe Rabbeinu was niftar but all
the while that Moshe's contemporaries lived on, they were the Zkeinim
who saw some of the miracles...
 Similarly, it's possible that the Churban did not completely end the
process so long as survivors from pre-Churban were alive...

OTOH rishonim made Halacha out of drashos - E.G. Maharil darshens smuchin
of gedillim and yikach ish isha in order to say that single men do not
wear tallis! Now if you say he was backing up a pre-existing minhag it is
one thing, but it appears that he made halacha based upon his own drash.
FWIW this is one Maharil ignored by Yekkes yet championed by Eastern
Europen Ashkenaz. Go figure!

Zvi Lampel

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.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         ]