Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 226

Fri, 20 Jun 2008

• 1. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: An old Pshat and a Question About Milchig on Shavuos (Samuel Svarc)
• 3. Halivni (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: An old Pshat and a Question About Milchig on Shavuos (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: NishmaBlog : Evolutionary Patterns in Halachic Texts (Micha Berger)
• 7. Halakhah and compulsion (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: An old Pshat and a Question About Milchig on Shavuos (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Halivni (Richard Wolpoe)

R' ZS:
> It *may* therefore be reasonable to assume that every
> man is capable of making such a tnai, each and every time, even in the
> heat of passion, and mean it.

Am I missing something elementary here? Why do you keep on insisting that
there is a lack of Gemiras Daas when a T'nai was made K'vnei Gad U'k'vney
Reuvein, in front of Eidim with a Kabbalas Kinyan? Even if there _was_ a
lack of Gemiras Daas, it wouldn't matter because BD would enforce it. (I
have the same problem with the people who are worried about lack of Gemiras
Daas by Mechiras Chometz. Who cares? If BD (and here, the courts)
could/would enforce the Shtar, then the Chometz, by definition, doesn't
belong to him...) 
(BTW, because this is such a complicated Kiddushin and embarrassing subject,
the AhS relates (157:15) that in Prague, the Minhag was to make the
Kiddushin privately in front of two eidim with the T'nai, call in another
eight to make the Birchos Eirusin, and then under the Chuppah (presumably
back at the wedding hall) to only read the Kesubah and make the Sheva
Berachos, no Kiddushin.)

R' MB:
> > The AhS proposed this idea for avoiding her becoming a yevamah, and RMYG
> > asked why the same tenai couldn't be used to avoid agunos. I think what
> > RZS is now saying boils down to ein adam oseh be'ilaso be'ilas zenus,
> > and not even bitenai.
R' ZS: 
> No.  Ein adam oseh... is about people's yosher.  A person doesn't
> leave a chaticha dehetera to take an identical chaticha de'isura.
> That's why RMF says it doesn't apply to secular people today, since
> it's quite obvious that they think nothing of be'ilat zenut.
> But an honest and upright person may very well agree to do a be'ilat
> zenut in order to save his wife from a terrible fate.  Ein omrim
> la'adam chatei bishvil sheyizkeh chaver'cha, but he may well be willing
> to do so, especially when it's not just chaver'cha but ishto kegufo.
> The AhS's position isn't muchrach, but at the same time it isn't
> mushlal.

It's a moot point, even if correct, because the AhS holds that it isn't a
B'ilas Zenus.


R' ZS:
> And yet I think even those couples were in love; at first not with the
> actual person they were marrying, whom they didn't yet know, but with
> the *idea* they'd formed of that person.  They knew each other's names,
> even if not their faces, and I assume they did hear general descriptions
> of each other's appearances, on which they could hang their fantasies
> of what married life would be like, so by the time they actually met
> it's quite shayach that they felt enough love that they didn't go into
> it like a cold business transaction, with the possibility of divorce
> looming high in their minds.   Especially if they didn't see a lot of
> divorces around them, so that possibility was mostly theoretical in
> their minds.

I think you're presuming overmuch. FWIW, the Torah doesn't tell us that
Yitzchok loved Rivka until after they were married, or that Yaakov loved
Rochel until after they met. (It doesn't say that Avrohom loved Sorah at
all, but that's a different story.)

KT,
MYG

A short recap.
R' Joel Rich asked, "Do malachim have free will to protest hkb"h's actions?"
to which I replied, "Why would you think otherwise?... AFAIK, only that the
malachs knowledge is on a much clearer level, but this doesn't preclude them
from choosing to disobey." Implicit in my words is the understanding that
under regular circumstances a malach wouldn't choose to disobey, his clearer
knowledge would stop him. (The closest parallel is Adam HaRishon, who
clearly had no internal Yetzor Hara, whose understanding of Hashem was at
least at the level of malochim, & who still chose to disobey through the
exercise of his bechirah.)

R' Micha responded, "The Or Samei'ach says it does... This is discussed at
length in the Or Samayach's essay /detour in Hil Teshuvah title "HaKol
Tzafui vehaReshus Nesunah". (As is the question of bechirah and Hashem's
omniscience. A gold mine.) I think he also discusses it in the Meshekh
Chokhmah on Yisro."

I understood this to mean that a malach is b'teva unable to disobey. IOW,
his creation is such that it is without bechirah, comparable to a rock that
has no bechirah.

R' Micha then kindly sent me the OS. After learning it, it is clear to me
that my formulation for a malach's bechira is from the OS (and my Rebbeim
were basing themselfes on him or similar shittas).

The OS words are," ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? (???????) ??? ???????
???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????, ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????, ??????? ????? ??
????? ?????, ????? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????, ??? ????
????"?, ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??????,". "Vheina, im anu
neimar ki haishim haruchnim (hamalochim) hamo muchrochim, eino myediyas
haborei hakodeimos hamuchrachos, rak mah sheim ruchnayim blo chomar,
v'masigim haborie at tachlis hasugosom, v'zeim v'cholim m'ponov, v'zah gufo
sibo al bechirosom b;heichreich b'dov..."AISI, the OS is explicitly saying
like me. A malach intrinsically *does* have bechirah and it's the higher
level of his knowledge that keeps him from disobeying. As well, a careful
reading of the Rambam Hilchos Yesodie Hatorah Perek 2 Halacha 9 (8) is
certainly mashma that a malach is only different in terms of knowledge.

KT, 
MSS

P.S. I hope over Shabbos to be able to look at the gemoro that was
referenced.

<<Getting away from the issue of textual problems and moving over to the
more accepted notion that later authorities often reinterpret earlier
sources: R. Zadok held that reinterpretation is darkah shel torah, and
that Hashem stands behind that process in order to make eternal
halakhic principles relevant to the changing circumstances of time and
place.>>

1. Where is this R. Zadok?

2. There is a principle that Amoraim don't disagree with Tanaim.
However, many feel that they felt free to reinterpret Taanaitic sources
in ways that were not the original intention in order to justify some
amoraic opinion or some accepted practice. Is this on purpose
or darkha shel Torah?

CI seems to have a similar opinion that any sources that were lost
was a decision of hashem and we cannot use these rediscovered sources.
Personally I find that over a period of time what was once a new source
is now accepted because it has been around for a while. Even the
periush of Rabbenu Chananel was not accessible for many years.
I think today most poskim accept Tosaphot HaRosh and Meiri which were
once considered "new" seforim.

BTW did CI learn R. Zadok?

-- 
Eli Turkel

A short recap.
R' Joel Rich asked, "Do malachim have free will to protest hkb"h's
actions?"
to which I replied, "Why would you think otherwise?... AFAIK, only that
the malachs knowledge is on a much clearer level, but this doesn't
preclude them from choosing to disobey." 
===========================================

So lshitatcha (or OS) when a malach comes down , the recipient of
whatever message was received has to consider the possibility that it
was not what HKB"H wanted?  By navi we seem to have had a test, was
there one for malachim as well?

Separate issue-why did HKB"H (to either shita) create 2 pathways for
communicating with us (malachim and neviim)?

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.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:35:05 -0400, "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> BTW, the Rambam holds that a pilegesh is only mutar to a melekh. (Other
>> pilaghos don't get a din zoneh, but despite the difference in chalos,
>> the relations are still assur.)
 
> But if I'm not mistaken he was widely argued upon, no?

Yes. I made this a "BTW" because it was tangential. The Rambam is a da'as
yachid on this.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Richard Wolpoe
<RabbiRichWolpoe@gmail.com> pointed us to his Nisha Blog entry at
<http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolutionary-pattern
s-in-halachic-texts.html>
"Evolutionary Patterns in Halachic Texts":
>    Below I have outlined a very simplistic model. The common theme is
>    expansion and contraction or condensation - much like a Chiastic
>    structure.

I think your suggestion as you then spell it out is more straightforward
than this introductory summary:

What defines an era is a sudden reduction ("mishnaic form") followed by a
slow expansion first through noting significant excluded options, then
through more gemera-like development.

Is R' Yosef Caro unique in being both Maran Bet Yosef of the "gemara"
ending the rishonim and the Mechaber of the "mishnah" beginning the
acharonim?


...
>    Since the Advent of the Shulchan Aruch, the VAST majority of Halachic
>    works are indexed by ITS indexing as opposed to the Talmud or Rambam.
>    Even Teshuvot are usually divided and indexed by the 4 Turim . There
>    are an estimated 350 published commentaries written on the Shulchan
>    Aruch. Plus at least a dozen review books on issur v'heter follow this
>    model se'if by se'if.

I think the Tur's organization scheme is derived from the Bavli's.

Rebbe had 6 sedarim. But the Bavli only has 4 plus to mesechtos.
OCh = Mes. Berakhos + Mo'eid
EhE = Nashim + Mes. Niddah
CM = Nezikim
YD = Qodshim

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

I wrote a number of times on the subject of compelling to comply to
halakhah at a time when most aren't, the role of BD in such a situation,
etc... I even suggested the reason the Sanhedrin exiled itself was so
as to avoid being required to corporally punish a popularion that didn't
accept its givens. Beyond just trying to avoid being a blood court. This
required an argument (that REMT disagreed with) based on examples of where
"dinei nefashos" was used to include makkos (lashes). Which admittedly
isn't necessarily the sense intended when discussing the Sanhedrin moving
from the Temple grounds to the storefronts right outside them.

Here is RUAmital had to say on the subject of compulsion and whether we
ought to try for a halachic state today.

-micha

----- Forwarded message from Yeshivat Har Etzion <office@etzion.org.il> -----
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:11:03 +0300
From: Yeshivat Har Etzion <office@etzion.org.il>
Subject: SICHOT68 -36: Parashat Shelach
To: yhe-sichot@etzion.org.il
Reply-To: Yeshivat Har Etzion <office@etzion.org.il>

                         YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
             ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
       
          STUDENT SUMMARIES OF SICHOT OF THE ROSHEI YESHIVA

                          Parashat SHELACH
                SICHA OF HARAV YEHUDA AMITAL SHLIT"A

                         An Unready Generation
                       Summarized by Shaul Barth
                       Translated by Kaeren Fish

As we know, there is a significant discrepancy between the story of the
spies as recorded in our parasha and the narrative as recounted in Sefer
Devarim. Our parasha tells us that "God said to Moshe: 'Send for yourself
men...' and Moshe sent them" (Bamidbar 13:2-3). A simple reading suggests
that Moshe does this willingly. Sefer Devarim, on the other hand, presents
the initiative as arising from the nation, with Moshe acquiescing to
their desire: "You all came to me and you said, 'Let us send men before
us...' And the matter was good in my eyes" (Devarim 1:22-23).

Beyond the contradiction in the verses themselves, there is a further
problem. Commenting on our parasha, the Sages (Sota 34b) teach that Moshe
changes the name of his aide Hoshe'a to "Yehoshua" (13:16), to express
his hope: "May God save you (yoshiakha) from the counsel of the spies!"
If Moshe is fearful that the spies will exert a negative influence,
why does he agree to send them in the first place?

One further question: on Yom Kippur, prior to the Ne'ila prayer, we
repeat three times God's words, "God said: 'I have forgiven as you
have spoken'" (Bamidbar 14:20). However, if we examine the verses in
our parasha, we find that after God says this, He goes on (ibid., vv.
21-23) to decree that the entire generation will die in the wilderness!
What is the meaning of "I have forgiven," if it is followed by a death
sentence for the entire generation?

It seems that Moshe does indeed agree to send the spies, and to some
degree he may even initiate the idea; nevertheless, he is aware of the
dangers involved. Many commentators suggest that the request on the
part of the nation to send spies arises from their desire to move from a
situation of overt Divine guidance -- the manna, the well, the protective
clouds -- to a natural way of life, suited to life in the Land of Israel.
Moshe agrees with them: after all, in Eretz Yisra'el they will start to
live an earthly existence, with God's guidance hidden in more natural
garb. Nevertheless, he harbors doubts as to whether the nation has yet
achieved a level that will make them worthy of such a reality. Therefore,
he agrees to send the spies -- but he is still wary of the report that
the spies may produce. Ultimately, his concerns prove to be justified.

 From this we learn that what we need to do is not always what ideally
should be done; it is not always the ideal situation. Rather, we need
to ask ourselves whether we are on a sufficient level to merit doing
what we propose. Rav Yo'el Bin-Nun was once discussing the rebuilding
of the Temple with a certain rabbi, and he said that he hoped that we
would be worthy of it. The rabbi replied, "Worthy? But it's a mitzva!"
What that rabbi failed to understand is that one has to be on a certain
level in order to merit performing a mitzva. If one has not yet achieved
that level, then performance of the mitzva is not worthwhile, and may
even be detrimental.

In 19^th -century Poland, there was a debate among religious Zionist
leaders. Rav Shemu'el Mohliver wanted to re-establish the Temple, but
Rav Yisra'el Yehoshua of Kutno told him that just building it would
not help: the public, Am Yisra'el (the Jewish nation), in its present
state, would not come to offer sacrifices. Rav Mohliver answered that
this would not matter: individuals could offer sacrifices on behalf of
the entire nation, thereby restoring the practice to its former glory.
The Keli Chemda (Rav Me'ir Dan Plotzky of Ostrava) cites this discussion
and concludes that Rav Mohliver did not understand Rav Yehoshua's reply.
What Rav Yehoshua was trying to say was that if Am Yisra'el is not on
the level of wanting to bring communal sacrifices, then having a Temple
will not help. The technical act of offering a sacrifice is of no benefit
if the nation itself is not on the level to offer sacrifices.

Rav Kook, in Part I of his Letters (20), explains that sometimes, when
God sees that Am Yisrael is not worthy of a certain matter, He creates
a situation where, technically, it is beyond the realm of possibility.
To the extent that the nation's power or level is deficient, so its
capability is lacking, and this lack of ability testifies to God's
Will in this regard. Rav Kook goes on to explain that one of the ways
in which God does this is through the nation's incapacity to accept the
matter; citing the law of tokhacha (rebuke) that "it is a mitzva not to
say words that will not be listened to" (Yevamot 65b), he teaches that
sometimes the nation is not ready for a certain thing, and therefore
this matter "will not be listened to" by the nation. This phenomenon in
itself shows that God does not yet want this thing to come about because
the generation is not yet worthy of it. Such obstacles are evidence of
God's supreme Will at such times.

For this same reason, God tells Moshe that although He has forgiven
Am Yisra'el, this entire generation must still die in the desert.
Although they will not be punished for their sin, they have shown that
they are not on a sufficiently high spiritual level to enter the land
and to live under "natural" conditions. Thus, there is no choice but to
let them die off in the desert and to look to the next generation. This
is not a punishment, but rather the reflection of the fact that they are
not worthy (in themselves, as shown by their sin) of entering the land.

There are many people today who talk about a "halakhic state" -- a state
that would operate in accordance with Torah law. However, the fact that
today such an idea is unacceptable to the public means, de facto, that
we cannot merit this form of rule, and God does not want us to behave
in this way at this time. Rather, we must first work on repairing things
that come first -- in our private lives, as well as in our national life.

(This sicha was delivered at Se'uda Shelishit on Shabbat Parashat Shelach
5765 [2005].)

Copyright (c) 2008 Yeshivat Har Etzion All Rights Reserved.

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 04:47:25PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : David Riceman wrote:
> : >See Rashi Shemoth 4:10 s.v. "gam mitmol", Rambam H. Yesodei HaTorah 7:1.
> 
> : Huh?  What, in either source, indicates that one can refuse to be a navi?
> 
> It is implied that if one doesn't do the prep, one would never get
> nevu'ah. That makes nevu'ah a choice.

Did the 72 candidates Moshe chose all do a lengthy course of prep for
nevu'ah, between being chosen and going out?  The Rambam seems to say
that this is what every person needs to do to complete himself, and
one who has done so may or may not experience nevu'ah.  A person could
deliberately not do the prep work, but I can't imagine that his/her
spouse could order him/her not to.  And once the person is a suitable
keli for nevu'ah, it doesn't seem to be up to him whether Hashem will
choose to speak to him.  Are we to believe that when Hashem wants to
speak to someone they can just not take the call?  Have their secretary
tell Him that they're out?  Yonah tried to run away from nevu'ah; it
didn't work.

As for the Rashi, it's not even talking about nevu'ah.  By this time
it was too late for Moshe - he was already deep in conversation with
Hashem, whether he wanted to be a navi or not.  The job he was trying
(unsuccessfully) to decline had nothing to do with nevu'ah; Moshiach
doesn't have to be a navi at all!

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 02:40:51AM -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: R' Micha then kindly sent me the OS. After learning it, it is clear to me
: that my formulation for a malach's bechira is from the OS...

I agree to that. I believe, though, that the Rambam's definition of
mal'ach, that it is the koach by which Ratzon haBorei becomes bepo'al,
eliminates even the possibility of bechirah.

Refa'el isn't a mal'akh who has the job of healing. Refael is the
intellect, the channel, by which Rason haBorei becmes physical action.

To recap a bit of Aristo's physics (quoting myself from v12n82):
> Perhaps I should step back and give an "Aristotilian Physics
> in a Nutshell". Terms in parenthasis is the word rishonim usually
> use. Aristotle had no concept of conservation of momentum or energy. And
> in the real world you never actually see such things conserved, because
> of friction.

> Every causal chain starts with an intellect.

> The intellect (seichel) imparts impetus to an object, and this causes
> the object to move/change until that impetus runs out.

> Impetus turns potential (koach) into actual (po'al).

> It is this notion that impetus can run out that forced the Rambam to
> conclude that the celestial spheres must have intellects. Since they
> keep on spinning, something is imparting new impetus to them. It was
> this reasoning, plus the definition of the word, that lead the Rambam
> to identify the spheres with the ofanim.

> It also means that in the Rambam's worldview, as I said before, some
> intellect has to impart the impetus by which grass grows. Which is how
> Chazal tells us there is a mal'ach standing over each blade.

> In the Rambam's formulation of mal'achim, every mal'ach has one tafqid
> is a consequence of the definition of mal'ach.

As the Rambam himself says (Moreh II:6):
> We have already stated above that the angels are incorporeal. This
> agrees with the opinion of Aristotle: there is only this difference in
> the names employed--he uses the term "Intelligences," and we say instead
> "angels." His theory is that the Intelligences are intermediate beings
> between the Prime Cause and existing things, and that they effect the
> motion of the spheres, on which motion the existence of all things
> depends. This is also the view we meet with in all parts of Scripture:
> every act of God is described as being performed by angels. But "angel"
> means "messenger"; hence every one that is intrusted with a certain
> mission is an angel. Even the movements of the brute creation are
> sometimes due to the action of an angel, when such movements serve the
> purpose of the Creator, who endowed it with the power of performing that
> movement; e.g., "God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths
> that they have not hurt me" (Dan. vi. 22). Another instance may be seen
> in the movements of Balaam's ass, described as caused by an angel. The
> elements are also called angels. Comp. "Who maketh winds His angels,
> flaming fire His ministers" (Ps. civ. 4). There is no doubt that the word
> "angel" is used of a messenger sent by man; e.g., "And Jacob sent angels"
> (Gen. xxxii. 4); of a prophet, e.g., "And an angel of the Lord came up
> from Gilgal to Bochim" (Judges ii. 1); "And He sent an angel, and hath
> brought us forth out of Egypt" (Num. xx. 16). It is also used of ideals,
> perceived by prophets in prophetic visions, and of man's animal powers,
> as will be explained in another place.

> When we assert that Scripture teaches that God rules this world through
> angels, we mean such angels as are identical with the Intelligences. ...
> In other passages our Sages expressed it more decidedly: "God does
> nothing without consulting the host above" (the word familia, used in
> the original, is a Greek noun, and signifies "host"). ... How could
> the Creator be assisted by those whom He created! They only show that
> all parts of the Universe, even the limbs of animals in their actual
> form, are produced through angels: for natural forces and angels are
> identical. How bad and injurious is the blindness of ignorance! Say to
> a person who is believed to belong to the wise men of Israel that the
> Almighty sends His angel to enter the womb of a woman and to form there
> the f.tus, he will be satisfied with the account; he will believe it,
> and even find in it a description of the greatness of God's might and
> wisdom; although he believes that the angel consists of burning fire, and
> is as big as a third part of the Universe, yet he considers it possible
> as a divine miracle. But tell him that God gave the seed a formative
> power which produces and shapes the limbs, and that this power is called
> "angel," or that all forms are the result of the influence of the Active
> Intellect, and that the latter is the angel, the Prince of the world,
> frequently mentioned by our Sages, and he will turn away; because he
> cannot comprehend the true greatness and power of creating forces that
> act in a body without being perceived by our senses. Our Sages have
> already stated--for him who has understanding--that all forces that
> reside in a body are angels, much more the forces that are active in
> the Universe. The theory that each force acts only in one particular
> way, is expressed in Bereshit Rabba (chap. 1.) as follows: "One angel
> does not perform two things, and two angels do not perform one thing";
> this is exactly the property of all forces. We may find a confirmation
> of the opinion that the natural and psychical forces of an individual
> are called angels in a statement of our Sages which is frequently quoted,
> and occurs originally in Bereshit Rabba (chap. lxxviii.): "Every day God
> creates a legion of angels; they sing before Him, and disappear." When,
> in opposition to this statement, other statements were quoted to the
> effect that angels are eternal--and, in fact, it has repeatedly been
> shown that they live permanently--the reply has been given that some
> angels live permanently, others perish; and this is really the case;
> for individual forces are transient, whilst the genera are permanent
> and imperishable. ...

This is also why the Rambam asserted that anything capable of
initializing motion, the mal'akhim, the galgalim, us, chayos and
tzomechos, had seichel.

:                                                        As well, a careful
: reading of the Rambam Hilchos Yesodie Hatorah Perek 2 Halacha 9 (8) is
: certainly mashma that a malach is only different in terms of knowledge.

That is saying that a mal'ach knows, according to its station. And is in
fact its station and the actual means of existence. For that matter, this
isn't just mal'akhim -- even "yitoch qatan sheyihyeh betabur ha'aretz. I
see no mention of how that would impact free wiil. And in fact, since
people are in that chain, it can not imply a lack of bechirah.

Aside from what I thinkis consistent with the Rambam, much rides on the
Moreh II:6-7, and how they are translated. E.g. Friedlander has "The
spheres and the Intelligences are conscious of their actions, and select
by their own free will the objects of their influence, although not in
the same manner as we exercise free will and rule over other things,
which only concern temporary beings."

Free will that is different in kind than our free will. Is that what we
think of as bechirah chafshi or not?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2. There is a principle that Amoraim don't disagree with Tanaim.
> However, many feel that they felt free to reinterpret Taanaitic sources
> in ways that were not the original intention in order to justify some
> amoraic opinion or some accepted practice. Is this on purpose
> or darkha shel Torah?
>
>
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
> _____________


2. There is a principle that Amoraim don't disagree with Tanaim.

Better stated [imho] ther is a principle that Amoraim cannot OVERRULE
tannaim
But they can LIMIT the scope of any statement.

Wolpoe's Gneral Klal about re-interpeting TEXT from its peshat

What drives a re-interpretation from the plain meaning of a  text?

   1. Logic/Svra  -
   EG it's not mistaber to say one is bodeik hametz l'or haneir  on the 14h
   of nissan when it is a Friday night
   2. Masorah:
   EG it is not logical nor traditonal to see RISHON as in ach bayyom
   harishon to allow Hametz  until the 15th so Rishon MSUT be the 14th [mipi
   hashmuah]
   3. Other  Texts
   Rashi probably claims that brothers sold Yosef to Egypt in Vayesehv
   because in Mikketz that is exactly what he accuses them of doing. Tosafos
   uses this technique the most to later th simle read, but Rashi does it more
   subtly.
   4. Textual nuance
   Q: Where does Rashi [and the underlying  Midrash} KNOW that Kayyin's gift
   was inferior?  the Text only claism that Kayyin gave some fruit of the land
   while Hevel gave fatted sheep?
   A: textual sensitivity. When the Torah points out that Hevel's was from
   the best it implies [or we infer] tha Kayyin gave from inferior stuff.
   {Meforshim on Rashi say this]

So when an Amora twists a Tanna's statemett it falls under 1 of the 4.

I am about to teach hullin ch. 8  Rabbi Yochana's meimra [v'lo klum between
meat and milk] is "twisted" by the Talmud to conform with Rav Hisda's meimra
of NOT eating dairy after meat.

I asked RDW Halivni:
Q: Since when does R. Yochanan HAVE To agre with Rav Hisda [who came later]
A: Aderabba, the Gamara is chagning Rabbi Yochanan because they did not want
a kashah on Rav Hisda!

Wolpoe's spin: In EY Rabbi Yochana probably said what he said, BUT in Bavel
Rav Hisda's meimra was probably normative and the Talmud could not tolerate
that. So  it reinterpreted Rabbi Yochanan either by virtue of 1 of 2
sources:

   1. Meimra of  Rav Hisda itself
   or
   2. Local MINHAG [probably due to the acceptance Rav Hisda as above]

When learning Gmara, se how often a simple Mishna is qualified by a Meimra.
Often these are NOT controversial but at times they  really twist the simple
peshat

The Bavli assumes that the case of giving Ma'aser before Truma is in reality
a somewhat convoluted read to the Mishna. I don't know which reason this
is.  But it is a fact that Amor'aim can reconfigure a Mishna in away that
the original intent is unlikley being honored.

Tosafos does the same to the Talmud itself. Usually they have another
source, albeit it even a Pesikta or a Behag

At no time do I believe in my heart that the Bavli is giving the exclusive
peshat when it changes things, But I do accept its authority in a legal
sense.  After all we do not pasken like a plain  Mishnah when the Talmud has
modified it - no matter how egregiously to the original intent - but I do
find it hard to "check my mind at the door!"  And frankly, since SVARA is so
crucial to Talmud therefore one cannot suspend the analytical sense.

The Gmara in Makkos seems to suggest this re: 39 vs. 40 makkos.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080620/ccc1f54e/attachment.htm>

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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 226
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

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..."