Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 056

Wednesday, May 31 2000

• Sanhedrin
• marranos
• Zeved Ha'Bat
• Re: Asmachta (was Taz on Milah)
• Re: Chesed, Din, Emes
• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Re: Ameylim BaTorah
• Yasher Ko'ach
• Re: Chesed, Din, Emes
• Re: Yasher Ko'ach
• Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a
• Re: Ta'am and taste
• Re: Chesed, Din, Emes
• Definition of Self
• Re: Definition of Self
• Re: Avodah V5 #48 (Pinchus)
• Re: Ameylim BaTorah
• Re: Avodah V5 #48 (Halacha beyodua)
• Re: Avodah V5 #49 (Gmiri = tradition)
• occupy yourself with Torah
• Re: Definition of Self
• Re: Quick question in defining "Shomer Shabbos"
• Re: Taz on Milah

Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 13:17:17 +0300
From: "Kira Sirote" <kira@sirote.net>
Subject: Re:  Sanhedrin

<<What will it take for there to be agreement among the current Chachamim
that we should renew S'micha?  (The previous attempt, iInm, was at the
time of the Ariza"l, and the Mechaber was the recipient of the
S'micha).>>

	If we get that kind of agreement then Moshiach will have already come
<g>.  

	I believe that the Mahri Berav was the (first) intended recipient,  and
then he was to pass it along to the appropriate candidates, including the
Mechaber.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> 
> The immediate question that comes to mind is that of Mamzerus. Any family
> pedigree must include whether there were any divorces K'Hilchasa and
> remarriages by women, and records of subsequent progeny along with records of
> those who ultimately divorced Shelo K'hilchosa and records of their progeny.
> Whenever you break the chain, as is the case with Marranos/Conversos, you
> must be choshesh For Mamzerus.
> 
> No?
> 
I purposely avoided the question of how one determines the yichus.
Assuming the government keeps good birth records it because a halackhic
question whether one can rely on the records.

I thought of the problem of mamzerut. In theory making them Jewish
could be more harmful then making them convert. The big kula would
be that they obviously were not married Jewishly can so according
to R. Moshe would not be considered married and so eliminate the
mamzerut issue.

Eli Turkel

This is an ancient custom, going back to the 16th century for sure,
but IIRC I have seen sources going back to the 14th century as well.
I haven't made an intensive study of this, but it customary in many
Sephardi communities.

This a Se'udat Mitzva to thank Hashem on the birth of a girl.  When
possible, it is held 80 days after the birth of the girl (Ve'HaMeivin
Yavine).  During the Se'uda a Cohen is invited to hold the baby girl
and bless her with Birkat Cohanim and special songs (Yonati BeChagvei
HaSela) and others are sung in her honor.

B"H my husband and I were blessed to have this ceremony and Se'udat
Mitzva for our 4 daughters.  For the youngest we video-taped it so
that we have a collection of taped lectures by many rabbanim in Israel
on this subject if anyone wants to come over and listen.

Aharon Cohen published a book on customs and source connected with
Zeved HaBat and Bat Mitzvah, it was published by Kanna, Jerusalem in
1990.  Drawings in the booklet are by Raphael Abecassis.

Shoshana L. Boublil

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> I think you misunderstood me. I was explaining the *Ritva*, from my
> perspective, that it is not necessarily the case that Chazal combed through
> the Torah for the asmachta'os and then made the dinim, rather first they
> made the dinim and then istaya milsa and they found the remez in the Torah -
> not as a siman, but as a minor form of derosho.

OK, I understand what you are/were saying.  (Although, WADR, I don't think
the lashon of the Ritva is mashma that way.  IMHO, the Ritva is holding that
the asmachta came first, not the din.)
 
~ Aryeh

On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 07:39:06PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> One down, two to go: You don't explain why chezkas kashrus or lo sisgodidu
:> (let me recant on perishah min hatzibbur) wouldn't apply.

: Based on your next paragraph, the former certainly can be a factor, although
: the latter is obviously not - is a Nazir oveir on Lo Tisgodedu?

Perhaps. By nazir, which is a mitzvah, not a chumrah, one can discuss hutrah
or dechuyah. It depends on what his korban chatas is for.

:> Your examples are based on the assumption that I lump together risking an
:> issur with chumros. I therefore don't have too many non-subtle cases where
:> I am unsure whether to choose ne'emanus or the bain adam laMakom.

: Define which chumrah you are referring to!

I made a mistake. We returned to a similar but not identical question,
so I re-opened my old question. However, the similarity is throwing the
conversation for a loop, as you keep on addressing my statement as though
it were identical to the other.

Let's go back to the orignal paraphrase of the Chasam Sofer as given by Avraham
Allswang in v4n2 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n002.shtml#14>:
> The Chasam Sofer in YD 39 discusses the basis for the minhag of the
> shochtim to peel off ("liklof") the adhesions and test the lung (for holes)
> in warm water.

> In the end of the responsa, he says that the peeling of adhesions, if done
> by an expert and G-d fearing shochet, then Yochlu anavim vyisbau - (which
> seems to mean no problem). Then his next words are "however, Shomer nafsho
> yirchak" (one who cares about his soul will stay away) from anything like
> this.

My suggestion was that the Ch'S wasn't recommending this chumrah for all
people, just for those who were aspiring to be shomrei nafsham. People who
are aspiring for a more bein adam lachaveiro archetype would qualify for
"yochlu *anavim* viysba'u". That it's better to worry about the kavod and
parnassah of the shocheit than questioning him WRT glatt.

I limited this statement to our particular case, which is one of minhag, not
din. (Which should answer your question of what kind of chumrah I'm talking
about.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-May-00: Shelishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

When learning YD many years ago by Rav Hertzel Hefter at the Gruss Kollel in
Yerushalayim (tvbba),  he pointed out a few halakhos that illustrate that
ta'am is not neccesarily a physical reality but a halakhic (or experiential)
one (or at least the reality is "forced" to comply with halakhic guidlines):

1) Rov tashmisho: according to many rishonim (and I believe the mechaber
paskens this way as well) if a cli was used mostly for hot liquid, it
requires hag'ala, even if what used sometimes for roasting.  This halakha
can only be explained if we view ta'am not in a purely physical way.

2) Heteira bala: in certain instances when the belia occured while the
substance was heter (kodshim b4 nosar, maybe chametz) hagala suffices even
if the blia was via roasting.

3) Nat bar nat is most easily explained this way as well (primarily the
distinction between heter and issur).

Moshe

RM Berger wrote:

>>Well, I'm trying to say that even without a metzi'us of ta'am, one can still 
>>"experientially associate" (EA) the item with basar or chalav. One doesn't 
>>have an EA of ta'am; EA is my proposed definition of ta'am. Think ta'am in the
>>sense of "ta'am hamitzvah".
     
I'm still not sure how you can learn this out from dayanim and "acharei rabim 
lehatos".  You have to answer up Reb Shimon's questions in Sha'arei Yosher 
3:4.

>>A steak knife that went through the washer has no taste of meat on it, yet 
>>it's still a fleishig knife. I'm suggesting that what makes it fleishig in 
>>part is the EA of knowing it was used with steak. The knowledge, or the 
>>fact that you ought to have that knowledge (which is only lima'aseh once 
>>you found out after the fact), is the ta'am in question.

If it has been totally kashered and has no ta'am in it at all then IIRC it is 
only fleishig miderabbanan because if one switches keilim back and forth 
between milchig and fleishig one might make mistakes (based on the tosafos in 
Chullin 8b).

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com
     

On 31 May 2000, at 1:16, David Hojda wrote:
> Theoretical question regarding a theoretical 1920's-era maskil in a
> European Yeshiva who learns gemara 17 hours a day, including Shabbos,
> and smokes cigarettes 7 days a week, including on Shabbos: Is he to be
> counted amongst those who are ameylim baTorah, albeit one who is also
> a ba'al aveira?

Assuming those are all the facts, I would say he is a mumar 
le'chalel Shabbos le'teiavon, but that doesn't change that he is an 
ameil baTorah (although why you call him a maskil is not clear to 
me - that may make his ameilus baTorah shelo lishma).

-- Carl 

A wonderful article on chumrot.  Yishar Kochacha L'Oraita.

The following sentence is sung by many Sephardi communities when a
wonderful D'var Torah is heard:

"Ki Bi Yirbu Yamecha Ve'Yosifu Lecha Shnot Chayim" (Mishlei, 9:11)

Shoshana L. Boublil

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Perhaps. By nazir, which is a mitzvah, not a chumrah, one can discuss hutrah
> or dechuyah. It depends on what his korban chatas is for.

I'm still not getting this. If one is machmir and is not psychotic, surely
he is doing so for reasons that are "mitzvahdicke"?

> My suggestion was that the Ch'S wasn't recommending this chumrah for all
> people, just for those who were aspiring to be shomrei nafsham. People who
> are aspiring for a more bein adam lachaveiro archetype would qualify for
> "yochlu *anavim* viysba'u". That it's better to worry about the kavod and
> parnassah of the shocheit than questioning him WRT glatt.

Now that you mention it, I remember disagreeing with you then :-) . You have
defined BN yourself and proceeded to draw hashkafic conclusions that are
evidenced only by your own definition.

Circular?

> I limited this statement to our particular case, which is one of minhag, not
> din. (Which should answer your question of what kind of chumrah I'm talking
> about.)

It doesn't. "Minhag Yisroel Torah" - again, unless the guy is psychotic,
there must be some impelling reason. What reason does he have for his CBALM
that you dismiss for a preferred CBALC?

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@zahav.net.il>
> A wonderful article on chumrot.  Yishar Kochacha L'Oraita.

Thank you for your kind comments. I believe the full essay,, footnotes
included, is available at the www.aishdas.org website.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

RS Boublil wrote:
     
>>The halachic issue that is the basis for ALL Hashgachot, in Israel and abroad,
>>OU, OK, Rabbanut, EC is the same:
>>"Yotzei VeNichnas".  That is the proprietor, whether Shomer Shabbat or not has
>>no idea when the Mashgiach will walk in.  If you claim that the Mashgiach 
>>notifies the owner that he will come only between 14:00-16:00  (for instance) 
>>then what you say may have some merit.
     
This has bothered me for a while.  Tosafos in Chullin 3b (or 4b?) says that 
yotzei venichnas only works for a gentile and not for a mumar because the mumar 
doesn't think that he will be suspected.

I was thinking that perhaps tosafos were only talking about a mumar ledavar 
echad and not a totally frei yid.  However, I could not find anyone who 
discusses this.

When I was in EY and this question came up, I talked to a rav and he assured me 
that frei Sefardim are not mumarim and would never be machalif food and would 
tell me if it got treifed up.

Anyone have a source or should I write this up as a teshuvah :-) ?

Gil Student

On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 09:58:12AM -0400, Rayman, Mark wrote:
: When learning YD many years ago by Rav Hertzel Hefter at the Gruss Kollel in
: Yerushalayim (tvbba),  he pointed out a few halakhos that illustrate that
: ta'am is not neccesarily a physical reality but a halakhic (or experiential)
: one ...

In the past <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n043.shtml#06> I argued
a similar rationale for the difference between insects that are large enough to
see vs those that are not. The latter do not enter the realm of first-hand
experience.

According to the R' Akiva Eiger I cited recently (Shu"t 136) there are two
types of birur: ways that resolve what to do when the halachah is uncertain,
and ways of applying halachah to uncertain situations.

In the latter case, RYBS notes that "sefeikos don't use bivalent logic". IOW,
when we don't know reality we follow rov, even when it could lead to an
apparant tarta disasrei. For example, two peices of shuman and one of cheilev
whose identities got confused may be eaten. Even all three by the same person.

I wanted to argue that halachah is more concerned with how we relate to the
reality than what the reality actually is. Therefore, in cases where the
reality requires birur we have no excluded middle -- we can simultaneously
entertain the thought that it is cheilev and the one that it is shuman. (See
R' Tzadok (Resisei Laila 17) who uses this idea to explain the lack of
excluded middle WRT "eilu va'eilu".)

The birur of rov is saying that we think of the fat, or at least that we
ought to relate to the fat, by the fact that it's a 67% chance of being
cheilev. That is the "experiential reality" for which we need to pasken.
Since it's true for each peice of fat, each is kosher. The fact that it
can't be true on the physics level (although with Quantum Mechanics, even
that's not a given) is irrelevent.

I also refer you to <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n043.shtml#04>
where RBD Cohen cites R' Fine of Scranton as making a similar point about
Chazal's science being "phenomenonological science". Halachah isn't based
on the distinction between the sun going around the earth or visa versa. The
halachah is built on the *perception* that it is the sun that moves.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-May-00: Shelishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 09:11:01AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> Perhaps. By nazir, which is a mitzvah, not a chumrah, one can discuss hutrah
:> or dechuyah. It depends on what his korban chatas is for.

: I'm still not getting this. If one is machmir and is not psychotic, surely
: he is doing so for reasons that are "mitzvahdicke"?

Mitzvahdik isn't mitzvah.

:                                                                     You have
: defined BN yourself and proceeded to draw hashkafic conclusions that are
: evidenced only by your own definition.

(BN? Ben Noach? I wish you would AFATMRT -- abstain from assuming to many
rashei teivos.)

Not quite. I made a chiddush about what shomer nafsho means in distinction
to an anav. Your objection, though, wasn't to my conclusion by to another
assumption -- the very point under question.

I assumed that glatt is no superior a point on which to be machmir than the
ne'emanus of the shocheit. I have yet to be explained why you feel otherwise.
Also, given that you do feel otherwise, why does the Ch"S praise someone who
doesn't double check the lungs for himself and yet tells a shomeir nefesh
to do so?

We can leave the question as to whether the Chasam Sofer meant what I read
between the lines about who should choose which derech. I'm more interested
to know what moved you to such a vehement objection. You seem to hold that
not only is trusting the mashgiach less important than being machmir in a
minhag, but that it would be an insult to anivus to suggest that for an
anav the mashgiach's ne'emanus is primary.

: It doesn't. "Minhag Yisroel Torah" - again, unless the guy is psychotic,
: there must be some impelling reason. What reason does he have for his CBALM
: that you dismiss for a preferred CBALC?

What I said was that someone working on his ta'avos should be machmir in
kashrus, someone working on his ga'avah should be machmir in trusting a
mumcheh who is a yarei shamayim. Each are objectively of comparable value
in a case where the kashrus issue is one of merely "mitzvahdik". Different
people could therefore make different choices depending on what they
themselves need for their own growth.

I didn't dismiss either side. It's you who is dismissing the CBALC (chumrah
bein adam lachaveiro). And you had done so shockingly vehemently, as though
my mistake is far from subtle. And yet I still don't get it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-May-00: Shelishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Last night I heard a good speech about education by the head of Torah uMesorah 
whose name escapes me right now.  His initial question was that we say everyday 
"Elokai, neshamah shenasata bi..."  What is "bi"?  If I am not the neshamah, 
then what am I?  His answer is that we are our emotions and therefore education 
has to be geared towards emotional experiences.

I know there is a whole existential literature on this question but I wanted to 
hear the chevra's ideas as to who "I" am?  Am "I" a body, emotions, 
relationships, experiences,... and are there any mekoros in Chazal that imply 
anything relevant?

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

: I know there is a whole existential literature on this question but I wanted
: to hear the chevra's ideas as to who "I" am?  Am "I" a body, emotions, 
: relationships, experiences,... and are there any mekoros in Chazal that imply 
: anything relevant?

In Kabbalah there are five levels of soul; three are p'nimiyos and two are
chitzoniyos. The three p'nimiyos are nefesh, ruach and neshamah (Nara"n);
the two chitzoniyos are chayah and yechidah. According to R' Aryeh Kaplan
(see, for example, InnerSpace), the three p'nimiyos are internal to the
self, the three chitzoniyos are external.

The division of labor within Nara"n is a subject of machlokes. Ramchal
places all of thought and emotion in the nefesh, and the ruach is the first
step toward being a spiritual being. The Vilna Gaon in his "Peirush al Kama
Aggados" (most easily found as the appendix to "The Juggler and the King")
is choleik. He writes:

    There are three watches each night. In the first, the donkey brays. During
    the second, the dogs bark "hav, hav". At the third, the infant nurses
    from his mother's breast, and a woman converses with her husband. (Bava
    Metzi'a 83b)

    The commentators explain that this [text] is about three souls of a person:
    Nara"n. Nefesh has in it the lust for things of the body, which is why
    these things are called [by the expression] "a wide nefesh". The ruach
    contains honor and jealousy, as it says "a tall ruach", "an overpowering
    ruach". Apparently, ruach is the jealousy that dries one out, as it says
    (Mishlei 14), "The dryness of bones is jealousy, and all honor and its
    traits are suspended by the vanities of the world."

    The first watch is the beginning of childhood. Man is drawn to desire
    because of childhood and freedom. As it is said, "Things done in his
    youth are much vanity in his old age." As Rashi wrote about sexual desire,
    and so it is for all desires. This is the braying donkey [chamor] it is
    a creature of its flesh's desires, in all things physical [chomer]".

    In the middle: Man goes and chases honor and wealth, like dogs that bark
    "hav hav" [which in Aramaic means: "Give me, give me"].

    In the third watch, when he sees that his demise approaches, he returns in
    teshuvah, and that is when the neshamah sparks up. That is when the baby
    nurses from his mother's breasts, as it says (Mishlei 5) "Her breasts will
    nurse you at any time that you love her." And a woman talks with her
    husband as it says (Hoshea 2), "And I will return to my first husband", for
    he returns to Hashem. Because Torah brings one to action, as it says in the
    prayer Hashiveinu [in the Amidah], "Return us, our Father, to Your Torah,
    and bring us close to Your worship."

The similarity between this model and psycho-analytic models has lead more than
one author to venture that Freud was aware of the notion of Nara"n. The
contrasts are more interesting, but beyond my ability to fully explore.

Either way, it would seem that one's ego is associated with the Ruach. My
"I" is my ruach, not my neshamah.

The Maharal's model is similar. (See Derech HaChaim 1:2) He also relates
this triad to the three amudim, the avos, and the three aveiros that are
yaharog vi'al ya'avor. Torah is the means to perfect oneself, avodah to
perfect one's relationship with HKBH, and gemilus chassadim -- with
other people. Note that the amud of Torah is about the self.

RSRH's Naran is different, but he uses similar notions in describing the
meaning of 6, 7, 8.

I explore the usability of this model of self in understanding halachah
and aggadita in two sections of the aforementioned rough draft (the one
with the appendix on birur and experiential reality):
    http://www.aishdas.org/book/book2.pdf
    http://www.aishdas.org/book/book3.pdf
If you do take a look, kindly remember that it's a *ROUGH* draft. Feedback
is welcome. Chapters 4 and 5 address tum'ah and kedushah in terms of the
relationships between the elements of Naran. (Heavily drawing from RSRH,
but RYBS and others, even R' Kook, make a showing.) They are even more
rough, though. I think I have half-sentences and whatnot.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 31-May-00: Revi'i, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Yeshaiah 7

In a message dated 5/22/00 7:51:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, RMB writes:
  
>  Peenichas did die, though. Otherwise he couldn't be migalgeil.

See Tos. D"H Shivah B"B 121b.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/31/00 7:54:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "David and Tamar 
Hojda" <hojda@netvision.net.il> writes:

> Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 01:16:13 -0400
>  From: 
>  Subject: Ameylim BaTorah
>  
>  Theoretical question regarding a theoretical 1920's-era maskil in a 
European
>  Yeshiva who learns gemara 17 hours a day, including Shabbos, and smokes
>  cigarettes 7 days a week, including on Shabbos: Is he to be counted amongst
>  those who are ameylim baTorah, albeit one who is also a ba'al aveira?
>  
See Tos. D"H Lolom Soteh 22b (and in many places) S"A Horav Hil Talmud Torah 
4:3.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/22/00 7:51:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, SBA 
<sba@blaze.net.au> writes:


>  I have tried to research thE saying "Halacha beyodua"
>  and the only place I found it was Rashi in Vayishlach
>  and his source the Sifri.
>  
>  I have doubts  on how "halachik" this halacha really is.
>  (It's not brought in Shulchan Oruch).

Rabbi Hirschprung Z"l explained the Nafkoh MIna Lhalacha WRT eating Milchigs 
and Fleishigs on the same table as Achim Hamakpidim Zeh Al Zeh are permitted.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/24/00 6:28:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, RMB writes:

>  I have also seen gemiri to mean "we have a masorah". But why? Ligmor is
>  to conclude. Gemara (see Rambam Hil Talmud Torah) is the art of making
>  deductions of reaching conclusions. Where do we get to "tradition"?

Hilchisa Gmiri, Gzeiroh Shava Loi Gomir Inish (Shabbos Reish Hazoreik).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Two weeks ago, in Pirke Avos we read: "Minimize your business activities
and occupy yourself with Torah."

Someone in shul asked the following question: _if_ one has enough money to
live on for the rest of his life (not necessarily comfortably, but enough),
it is incumbent upon them to cease working and start studying Torah?

Any thoughts?

-- Eric

In a message dated 5/31/00 11:28:44 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
<<   In the third watch, when he sees that his demise approaches, he
     returns in teshuvah, and that is when the neshamah sparks up. That is
     when the baby nurses from his mother's breasts, as it says (Mishlei 5)
     "Her breasts will nurse you at any time that you love her." And a woman
     talks with her husband as it says (Hoshea 2), "And I will return to my
     first husband", for he returns to Hashem. Because Torah brings one to
     action, as it says in the prayer Hashiveinu [in the Amidah], "Return us,
     our Father, to Your Torah, and bring us close to Your worship." >>

Thus Koheles, which, when read with understanding, initiates one into middle 
age.

David Finch

On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 04:42:54PM -0400, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: Ruach haChaim on Avos 1:3 writes that the ideal is al
: menas l'kabel schar - to draw Hashem's shefa to the
: world and reap its benefits, but most of us aren't on
: the madreiga to do avodah that way so we settle for
: shelo al menas l'kabel pras.  An interesting twist.  

The distinction between sechar and peras seems to vaguely relate to our
earlier discussion of sechar seguli vs sechar gemuli. But nothing specific
comes to mind.

Anyone want to compare/contrast?

-mi

On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 08:50:16AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: It is that Ritva in Rosh Hashana (17a) that holds that an asmachta is an
: indication that that RBS"O wanted Chazal to make their din, except that RBS"O
: didn't want to make it a chovah, and instead put the matter in Chazal's hands
: to make their din if they should decide to. In other words, says the Ritva,
: Chazal were never mechadesh dinim on their own.

Never? Or were never mechadeish asmachtos in particular?

This concept reminds me of the laws of melachah on chol hamo'ed. Hashem said
that Chazal must define how we are to rest on Ch"hM.

-mi

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


[ 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         ]