Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 059

Tuesday, November 27 2001

• Fwd: Re: Herzl
• Re: FW: zaddik (Rav Saadya)
• Herzl
• Re: Herzl
• z"l and zt"l
• Re: tzrichos kavanna
• Re: Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz zt"l and the Ethics of Halakha
• RE: Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz zt"l and the Ethics of Halakha
• Not in Heaven: R' Eliezer Berkovits
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkowitz and the Shulhan Arukh
• Dr. Berkowitz, Conservativism and Orthodoxy.
• Schechita on Purim
• Re: Confessions of a hyper correct leiner?
• Fwd: Confessions of a hyper correct leiner?
• Re: Confessions of a hyper correct leiner?
• yayin nesech
• ikkarim and halacha

 From any anonymous chaver:
>The tshuva by Rav Herzog re: Herzl appears in his Psakim u'Ktavim Vol.
>5 SHU"T b'dinei Yoreh Deah Siman 127, dated 17 Tevet Tashat and sent to
>Mar Shragai of the Jewish Agency. Not only does he refer to Herzl as 'z"l'
>in the opening line, he also repeats Herzl z"l 3 more times in the tshuva.
>But then again, he also refers (in the same tshuva) to R. Menachem
>Ussishkin as 'z"l' and Dr. Pinsker as 'z"l' :-)

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

At 07:48 AM 11/26/01 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>with Regard to Rav Saadia Gaon, RYGB wrote
> > The RSG is exactly my ra'ayah - he says there that tzaddik and rasha here
> > are used just as we use the term "hot" to describe a substance that is
> > relatively warmer than another substance, even if it is not truly "hot",
> > and, vice versa, for rosho, we use the term cold to describe a cooler
> > substance even if it is not absolutely "cold".
>
>Hu asher dibarti lei'mor.
>
>BMKVT, I find this strange.
>
>The discussion is whether the term zaddik refers solely to some absolute
>notion (as RMB notes, One last nequdah: Tzidqus (as used in this context)
>is an absolute.), or instead to a more relative notion.
>
>In rav saadya, there is no absolute notion of zidkut (the closest is
>a shalem or zaddik gamur, which is still a far cry from the notion of
>absolute zidkut promulgated here.
>      For him, all of humanity (including Moshe rabbenu) is part of a
>continuum, and one's place on the continuum is determined by one's
>actions.
>
>One can change one's place by changing one's actions. Whoever is at a
>certain place of the continuum is called a zaddik. It isn't that this is
>zaddik bedino versus zaddik, Rav Saadya seems to lack this absolute notion
>of zidkut, and is therefore highly relevant to the current discussion.

Ka'amur, hu asher dibarti lei'mor. The normative use of tzaddik when we 
say"ZT"L" refers ti RSG's shalem or tzassik gamur or the Rambam's chacham. 
Your decision to use it any othert way, i.e., for you to be machri'a that 
Herzl was a "rubbo zechyos" by a cheshbon which the Rambam says is reserved 
for HKB"H and then use it thus here, was an affront to those of us who use 
tzaddik in ZT"L in the m\normative way. I was offended and continue to take 
offense.



>RYGB writes about my citation of RAYK
> > True, RAYHK called the chalutzim's strivings glimmerings of teshuva
>
>BMKVT, RAYK is far more radical than that, and ascribes to the actions
>of the chalutzim far more value than glimmerings of tshuva.
>
>first, the famous passage in Orot (Orot hatechiya, chapter 43) hanefesh
>shel poshe yisrael shebeikvata dimeshicha, otam shehem mithabrim beahava
>el inyane clal yisrael, leeretz yisrael velitehiyat hauma, hi yoter
>metukenet mehanefesh shel shlome emune yisrael.
>
>(he does differentiate between the nefesh and the ruach, but this is
>not quite mere glimmerings of tshuva)

It certainly is no more than a glimmering. One who understands "nefesh" in 
Kabblah knows that such a person may well still be subject to kareis!

>With regard to the discussion about the requirement of kavana, and
>leshem shamayim, again, this is not rav Kook's position. Many places,
>but one that quickly summarizes this is brought from Aviezer Ravitsky,
>Messianism, ZIonism and Jewish radicalism, p. 113 - no direct citation
>is given to where from Rav Kook it is taken)
>
>We need never lament the lack of mention of the divine in the achievement
>of social justice, for we know that the aspiration to justice, whatever
>form it may take, represents in itself the most radiant divine influence.
>[Consequently], while [the protagonists] may believe that the good they
>accomplish is contrary to the Torah, it is in fact of its very essence.

Huh?

It may be good but who says the person who does it is therefore good?

>lastly one passage from arpiley tohar , p. 37(translated by Ish Shalom,
>Rav Avrahahm Itzhak Hacohen Kook, between Rationalism and Mysticism, p. 95
>
>Every positive attribute and manner of living is part of the Torah,
>and every wisdom originates in Torah, and every good quality in man
>and community shines with the name of God, but there is a difference
>between he who knows that all is light sparkling with the name of God
>and he who does not know. Yet this difference of knowledge is only
>a matter of degree, and really depends on the inward point of will,
>to what extent it is verified to the good.

I have no clue as to the relevance of this passage. Nor the subsequently
cited ones, here deleted. I am sure Isaac Mayer Wise also held that
"our nation is only a nation because of its faith" - was he also a
tzaddik for ZT"L?

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

 From an anonymous, yet reliable correspondent:

>I heard that when Herzl died they wanted to make (or actually made) a 
>memorial in Telz, inviting the Maharil who refused and stated "ubeavod 
>resho'im rinoh."

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
> The tshuva by Rav Herzog re: Herzl appears in his Psakim u'Ktavim Vol.
> 5 SHU"T b'dinei Yoreh Deah Siman 127, dated 17 Tevet Tashat and sent
> to Mar Shragai of the Jewish Agency. Not only does he refer to Herzl
> as 'z"l' in the opening line, he also repeats Herzl z"l 3 more times
> in the tshuva. But then again, he also refers (in the same tshuva)
> to R. Menachem Ussishkin as 'z"l' and Dr. Pinsker as 'z"l' :-)

Why, "then again"? These people would be remembered as a blessing for the
same reason as BZH was, they worked to save the Jewish people. In fact, IINM
(If I'm Not Mistaken) Ussishkin was Shomer Shabbat (you even gave him an
R'), so why not z"l?

Moshe

This whole thread started when RYGB, objecting to my use of zt"l for
Herzl, claimed that this use was so far out of the normative use of the
phrase that it required editorial condemnation, a position I still
find difficult to appreciate (I can understand reluctance to use the
phrase zaddik, but given common usage of honorifics and elu ve'elu,
I still don't understand the basis for the vehemence,( nor how could it
have lasted for this long).

We have now established that fairly normative sources have used the phrase
z"l (again, I have seen zt"l, but can't locate it now). The argument
is now made that there is a substantive difference between z"l and z"t.
While there may be some who would make such a differenentiation, I don't
think that most are careful. Furthermore, as Micha noted, the basis for
both phrases is the same.

There is a tshuva by Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin shlita that is relevant
(bne banim II, pp. 127-133), where he deals with the converse issue -
may one refrain from using zt"l for a certain rebbe.

He discusses the origin of the usage - two, one from kiddushin 31:2
about his father or teacher after the first 12 months, and one source
from breshit rabba parsha 49 kol mi shemazkir zaddik veeyno mevarcho
over baase, and it is learned from the passuk zecher zaddik livracha
veshem reshaim yirkav.

In all the discussion of Rav Henkin, there is no apparent differentiation
between zt"l and z"l, as they both come from the same source - referring
to the passuk in Mishle (as RMB already poointed out) Furthermore,
he brings an interesting svara - the ramban and rashba used z"l when
refereing to ther rishonim, but not to tannaim and amoraim (and indeed,
we rarely hear rabbi akiva zt"l..), so he claims that the use of z"l is
to proclaim the meirt of a zaddik, but in a zaddik yesod olam (the type
that RYGB claims is the sole legitimate use of zt"l) , there is no need,
but the very mention of his name is a bracha, and so one does not need
to say zichrono livracha.

Lastly, even if one believes that there is a a real, universally accepted
difference between z"l and zt"l (a difficult position to uphold) and
even if one believes that one could say only z"l but not zt'l on Herzl,
it is still problematic to argue against it and claim it is not normative.
 There is a tshuva in Maase ish (brought in sde hemed, maarechet het, clal
140) that there is nothing wrong in adding honor to someone who is
deserving of honor, and one gives him more honor than he may deserve,
that to be machanif only applies in giving honor to someone who is utterly
undeserving.and the shitta mekubetzet on ktuvot 17:1 on kezad merakdin
brings down that one is allowed to add to the title of someone even if
he isn't deserving, like one praises a kalla even if she is not deserving.

Meir Shinnar

Shlomo Goldstein (8:58) wrote:
> In Ahavas Chessed pg 43b the CC requires kavanna latzais by all mitzvos,
> even chessed. This was eloquently explained by an earlier letter as
> the position which "no one holds".

I have already withdrawn my earlier statement. However, there are clearly
mitzvot e.g., shehitah, that do not require kavanah. Even though the
shoheit is supposed to recite a blessing, as long as the two simanim
are properly slit mikoah adam the shehitah is valid. No doubt the
Chofetz Chaim has his sources, but I don't think that his position is
universally accepted.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On Avodah, at least, since it is moderated, can we begin please to
enforce the no honorific rule. I do not mind if someone wants to call
REB a tzaddik, that is there prerogative, at least he was a shomer Torah
u'Mitzvos, but I believe there is beginning to be an "in your face"
thing here.

Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Seth & Sheri Kadish [mailto:skadish@attglobal.net]
> 1. For a more balanced essay than the one you read, I suggest
> looking at a recent article in the last issue of Tekhelet, "Al Eliezer
> Berkovitz ve-Torat ha-Musar ha-Yehudit", by David Hazony (brother of
> the controversial author). I had the pleasure of briefly meeting David
> Hazony in Yerushalayim this summer; he is writing his doctoral thesis
> on Berkovitz under the supervision of Aviezer Ravitzky.
> 
> If I am not mistaken, the articles in Tekhelet may be 
> available online,
> including the English versions.

It is available at http://www.azure.org.il/11-hazony.htm

Kol tuv,
Moshe

One tiny postscript to R' Jonathan Baker's excellent post. He wrote <<<
I don't think having a state stam is enough to justify de-textualizing
halacha. Restoring the Sanhedrin, however, which has the absolute
authority to ignore precedent... >>>

I would just add that another pre-requisite to "de-textualizing halacha"
would be that we'd have to undo the condition which "textualized" it to
begin with. As I understand it, this was our lessened mental abilities,
i.e., our (or at least our leaders') inability to remember the entire
body of Torah Sheb'al Peh without writing it down.

Akiva Miller

Harry Maryles (8:58) wrote:
> On page 82 of the HTC journal in footnote 13, R. Twerski indeed does
> mention Dr. Berkowitz's connection to the Dor Revi'i and he does follow
> the thesis of Rav Glasner, the Rav of Klausenberg and author of the Dor
> Revi'i, as written in the introduction. My apologies for this omission.

No apology necessary.  Just checking.

> To qoute (from page 82):
> "Dr. Berkowitz defines Halacha as "the wisdom of the application of the
> written word of the Torah to the life and history of the Jewish People".

> "With this insight, we readily understand why Halacha is necessarily an
> oral and not a written law, for it is impossible for any text to deal
> in advance with all the changes which occur in the course of historical
> development. Only an oral law has the innate flexibility to deal with
> changing situations".

> It is easy to see how such a view could be used to abbrogate the entire
> Shulchan Aruch.

Actually based on the Dor Revi'i and what I gather from your summary,
precisely the opposite is the case. The oral law was inherently flexibile
and therefore allowed much greater scope for halakhic change than we have
had since the hatimat ha-talmud. The scope for halakhic change has been
further limited by the attempts of the Rambam and others to codify the
torah she-ba'al peh as it was crystalized in the talmud. To recognize
that the scope for change that was once inherent in the torah she-ba'al
peh has been progressively circumscribed over the generations since the
hatimat ha-talmud is simply to recognize reality. It implies nothing
about the authority of the shulhan arukh.

Rabbi Berkowitz, as you summarize him, argued that the time had come
to reinstitute flexibility into the halakhic process, not by denying
the authority of the shulhan arukh, but by reinstituting a halakhic
institution of unquestionably superior authority to the shulhan arukh,
i.e., the sanhedrin. On those points, he is in perfect sync with the
Dor Revi'i, who, by the way, points out in his essay on Zionism that,
based on the shemona esrei, the reinstitution of the sanhedrin must
occur prior to the coming of the Messiah.

> Does Dr. Berkowitz qualify as an Apikores or is he merely way out on
> the extreme end of legitmate Orthodoxy?

Well, based on the evidence adduced so far, you would have a difficult
time classifying Dr. Berkowitz as such without also placing the Dor Revi'i
in the same category. Although you would certainly not be the first one
to do so (my learned friend Mechy Frankel could provide you with a long,
though not necessarily complete, list), I would advise you to think long
and hard before making such a pronouncement.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

--- DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/26/2001 6:57:31 AM Central Standard Time, HM writes:
> > <<R. Twerski proceeded to state the main elements of Dr. Berkowitz's
> > thesis and I was amazed at the extent of the departure from mainstream
> > Orthodoxy his views really were. In essence he adopted the view of the
> > Conservative movement that Halacha could easily change. What makes this
> > view so unusual is that Dr. Berkowitz considered himself Orthodox. . . .
> > Dr Berkowitz's held to the Orthodox theology that the Torah is of Divine 
> > origin. Never-the-less,
> > as R. Twerski points out in the essay, Dr. Berkowitz, right along with
> > the Conservative clergy, claims that it can be altered quite readily.

> > In this Dr. Berkowitz stands alone and it is quite shocking for me to
> > have read the outline of his ideas in R. Twerski's critique.>>

> I dunno. Talmudic debate is always about "change" in the literal sense 
> (i.e.,"you say it means this; I don't agree, it means that"). Rabbinic 
> exegesis is sometimes more ore less legislative, sometimes more or less 
> interpretive, but it is always dynamic.

The word "dynamic" is often used by the Conservative movement to describe
the nature of how they perceive Halacha, that is, that it is susceptible
to change as conditions change. In the Orthodox view, This has always
been tantemount to the virtual abndonment of any standards that do
not fit into one's lifestyle. and the "dynamism" reffered to by the
Conservative movement seemed to be more of an excuse to violate Halacha
than a rationale for the application of Halacha.

Until I was made aware of Dr. Berkowitz's view, I assumed that this
"dynamic" application of Halacha was strictly within the domain of the
Conservative movement. But Dr. Berkowitz has demonstrated that this is not
necessarily so. He seems to be using the same arguments the Conservative
movements use and cites as his source the Talmud itself. Indeed the
outline I cited in his name seems to justify that very "dynamism".

The irony of Dr. Berkowitz's view is that theoertically, Orthodox and
Conservative Jews could end up having no differences between them on
any practical level and indeed the differences between Jews and non-Jews
would disappear. Judaism would become nothing more than an intellectual
excersize debating the relative divinity of the Torah.

HM

[In a 2nd email. -mi]

--- Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Dr. Eliezer Berkowitz and the Abrogation of the Shulchan Aruch
> 
> Already one sees the critiquer's perspective. Yes, that is indeed what
> Berkovits suggests, but then, what do the nosei keilim on the SA do,
> if not subvert the literal pshat of the SA in many places? If they
> didn't do so, there would be no need to print them/follow them. Also,
> that he's called "Dr." rather than "R'" or "R' Dr."

In all fairness, Dr. Berkowitz preffered the title Dr. to Rabbi and
this is How all of his Talmidim reffered to him, including me.

As to some of the many points you raise below, I stated in a later post
that Dr. Berkowitz bases himself on the Dor Revi'i. Indeed many of the
point by point analysies you make I made myself. Tanur Achnai is written
all over these principles. So, too, aremthe many classic explanaitons
you give ( e.g. Elu V'Elu... Eis Laasos... Aseh Doche Lo Saaseh... etc.)

It isn't so much the principles articulated that are problematic. It
is his appliction of those principles to areas such as Agunah where-in
he seeks to override responsa of many generations in an almost cavalier
manner, much the same way the Conservative movement does. See my previous
post on this subject to see just how he attempts to do it.

You mention that you showed his book to Yeshivishe Rabbonim or the
like and they basicly said it was well within the acceptable limits of
Orthodox thinking. Could... or would you share with us who they were?

[In a 3rd email. -mi]

-- Gil Student <gil_student@hotmail.com> wrote:
> HM wrote:
> >Dr Berkowitz further contends that the codification of Torah SheBal
> >Peh (oral law) is an aberration of it's essential nature, an
> >imposition created by historical exigencies, compounded by the
> >destruction of Bayis Sheni.

> The Dor Revi'i says similarly in his introduction to Chullin.  He argues 
> that we are stuck with whatever was codified in Shas.  The Oral Torah cannot 
> progress beyond that point.

> Others, however, argue that this is the natural, historical progression
> that Hashem intended.

I beleive that this is precisely what Dr. Berkowitz is saying. But, as I
indicated, these principles can be used to change the face of Judaism as
we know it. Think about it. Dr, Berkowitz want's to restore torah SheBal
Peh to it's original form... Bal Peh. This would mean that the Shalchan
Aruch would become nothing more than a curious historical document.

HM

[In a 4th email. -mi]

--- wexler@attglobal.net wrote:
> As a student HaRav Dr. Berkovitz I am suprised to read that you never
> read "Not in Heaven". May I suggest you read the book before debating
> Rav Tweski's critique. I believe the book will deepen your understading
> and appreciation of an Adam Gadol and a true Talmid Chacham.

Yes he was a true Talmid Chacham and and Adam Gadol. that does not mean
he was or wasn't an Apikores. One can be a "great man" and still qualify
for Apikursus. The fact that I had him for several philosophy courses
does not make me a Talmid, at least not in the sense your are implying.
His courses were offered in the afternoon and were part of the university
program of electives which one could take to fulfil degree requirements
and this is the spirit in which I took his classes. Nevertheless I still
learned from him... and about him and particularly enjoyed the general
philosophy course that I took. He did indeed influence my thinking.

But, I consider myself a Talmid of R. Aaron Soloviechik and adhere more
so to his "Logic of the Heart and Logic of the Mind". During the last
years of R. Aaron's tenure in HTC, they were enemies.

Additionally, RYBS's written works, specificly "Halakhic Man" and "Lonely
Man of Faith" have had the biggest impact on me Hashkaficly and I beleive
RYBS's words to be the essence of G-d's will and the best understanding
of what G-d wants of Man.

[In a 5th email. -mi]

I AM RESUBMITTING THIS POST AS THE ORIGINAL WAS INCOHERENT. I DON'T KNOW
WHAT HAPPENED, BUT EXAMPLE NUMBER 2) HAD 2 KEY WORDS MISSING... "of
Agunos"

BELOW IS THE CORRECTED POST.  HM

--- Moshe Rudner <mosherudner@hotmail.com> wrote:
> R' Harry, I haven't read the book, but the six principles that you
> mentioned (A - F) do not seem to be extraordinarily controversial or
> original. Perhaps a few examples of how R' Berkowitz utilizes these
> principles would clarify his position.

MY paragraph after those principles articultes the problem somewhat:
>Dr Berkowitz further contends that the codification of Torah SheBal Peh
>(oral law) is an aberration of it's essential nature, an imposition
>created by historical exigencies, compounded by the destruction of
Bayis >Sheni. He claims that Judaism in Galus is a confrontation of Torah
>and reality in which preservation of Halacha in adverse situations is
>the primary concern. The codification therefore is nothing more than
>an exercise in the preservation of Judaism itself and as conditions
>in Galus became more adverse, Halacha became more restrictive and
>defensive binding itself to a text, as self->preservation became the
>primary goal. He further claims with the advent of the State of Israel
>and therefore in control of our own destiny, we no longer need the oral
>law codified but rather we should attempt to return it to it's pristine
>stage of being just that... oral.

This is quite an astonishing conclusion on the part of Dr. Berkowitz
utilizing the above mentioned principles

Two examples:

1) Dr. Berkowitz wants to do away with the observance of Shmittah,
which is D'Rabbanan today.

2) He want's to solve all of the problems of Agunos.

In this he uses the concept that Svara can and does have the ability to
change the pervailing law. He uses the Gemmara in Kesuvos 3A where the
Gemmara tries to find a source for Rava's ruling of Ain Onaise B'Get. Rava
ruled that the husband cannot claim that the situation was beyond his
control (Onaise) and that a Get, that stipulated that he would be "back
in town" by a certain time and was prevented by Onaise from doing so,
the Get is never-the-less, still valid.

The Gemmara goes throgh several Tannaitic proofs and rejects them all
concluding that Rava based himself on Svara for the sake of the modest
and immodest women.

IOW, practical considerations are the basis for Rava's ruling, not
precedent. This gives us TODAY, precedent to do the same when practical
considerations warrent.

Thus does Dr. Berkowitz open up an entire pandora's box enabling us
to dispense with hundreds of years of Teshuvos by merely utilizing his
afforementioned principles as in Rava's case where Rava himself utilized
savra for the sake of the rectifying a difficult situation for woman.

Innovative Genius... misunderstanding of the Gemmarrah... or Apikorsus?

--- Seth & Sheri Kadish <skadish@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 2. R. Berkovitz zt"l himself would have been
> horrified by language like
> "the abrogation of the Shulhan Arukh", and I think
> it should have been
> left out of the subject line.
> 
> Bivrakha,
> Seth (Avi) Kadish

But isn't that exactly what he advocated in that he wants to return
Torah SheBal Peh to it's pristine Oral state?

[In a 6th email. -mi]

--- David Glasner <DGLASNER@ftc.gov> wrote:
> Actually based on the Dor Revi'i and what I gather from your summary,
> precisely the opposite is the case.  The oral law was inherently flexibile
> and therefore allowed much greater scope for halakhic change than
> we have had since the hatimat ha-talmud....
>          To recognize that the scope for change that was once inherent
> in the torah she-ba'al peh has been progressively circumscribed over
> the generations since the hatimat ha-talmud is simply to recognize 
> reality.  It implies nothing about the authority of the shulhan arukh.

Don't you think that the concept of "returning Torah SheBal Peh to
it's original pristine oral status" implies dispensing with the written
Shulchan Aruch?

> Rabbi Berkowitz, as you summarize him, argued that the time had come 
> to reinstitute flexibility into the halakhic process, not by denying the 
> authority of the shulhan arukh, but by reinstituting a halakhic institution
> of unquestionably superior authority to the shulhan arukh, i.e., the 
> sanhedrin.  

A reconvened Sanhedrin may be his means but in the end if one wants to
return to the purity of Torah She Bal Peh one must dispense with the
written Shulchan Aruch.

>> Does Dr. Berkowitz qualify as an Apikores or is he merely way out on
>> the extreme end of legitmate Orthodoxy?

> Well, based on the evidence adduced so far, you would have a 
> difficult time classifying Dr. Berkowitz as such without also placing
> the Dor Revi'i in the same category....
> I would advise you to think long and hard before making such a 
> pronouncement.

I'm too lazy for that. Besides, thinking long and hard gives me a
headache. But I don't think you have to place Dr. Berkowitz in the same
category as the Dor Revi'i. I beleive that Dr. Berkowitz may have used
the Dor Revi'i's principles as a springboard to advance his own theories
about what can be done today with some of the more troubluing issues
such as that of the plight of Agunos.

I have not branded him as an Apikores. I am merely asking if he qualifies
or not. So far the responses seem to be in his favor.

HM

We have discussed for a while the story of Rava, R. Zeira with regard
to whether there was a true techiyat hametim on Purim.
What about the recent daf yomi where R. Yochanan also seems to have
performed techiyat hametim. In this case he actually went to the
gravesite.
-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 11/26/2001

In Avodah V8#58, RRichWolpoe asked:
> What am I missing in this sequence?

As I'm sure Rich knows, t'vir is a lesser ta'am mafsik than tipcha, thus
the phrase breaks at "le-echol" rather than "lechem"; why p'sukim like
that one (innumerable throughout TaNaCh) have a weaker mafsik followed
by a stronger mafsik instead of a m'shorais followed by a mafsik [of
any strength] is another question (and one I'm not capable of handling),
but I do try to read such multiple-mafsik phrases as closer to one phrase
that closes with the stronger mafsik (similar to, e.g., a pashta-followed-
by-[zokaif_]katan situation).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 11/26/2001 4:54:38pm EST, MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:
>> What am I missing in this sequence? <
> As I'm sure Rich knows, t'vir is a lesser ta'am mafsik than tipcha, thus
> the phrase breaks at "le-echol" rather than "lechem"; why p'sukim like
> that one (innumerable throughout TaNaCh) have a weaker mafsik
> followed by a stronger mafsik instead of a m'shorais followed by a mafsik
> [of any strength] is another question (and one I'm not capable of
> handling),
> but I do try to read such multiple-mafsik phrases as closer to one phrase
> that closes with the stronger mafsik (similar to, e.g., a pashta-followed-
> by-[zokaif_]katan situation).

I only get this half-way

The MAIN point for me is why not break at LI instead of at LECHEM?

Again according to simple structure it should read: 
V'nasan li
    lechem Le'echol
       uvegged lilbosh

R Michael has helped show that lechem is not a big hefsek legabie
LE'ECHOL. OK Yasher ko'ach! Nevertheess, why have a mercha under LI
and a svir under LECHEM

AISI the placement of the svir is shver. OK not IMPOSSIBLE just difficult.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe

R Rich Wolpoe wrote:
...
> Why is the svir under the lechem instead of the li?
> The way it is under Lechem it reads more like:
> Vnassan li lechem
>    le'echol vuegged lilbosh
...

It seems to me, that T'vir is not as strong as Tipcha. Tvir is a Mishneh
(ranked 3rd), while Tipcha is a Melech (ranked 2nd).
Therefore, the right way to read would be:
V'natan li lechem, le'echol
U'Veged lilbosh.

And what about the Ashkenazi melody?
Nothing's perfect.
Kol Tuv from snowy Winnipeg,
Amihai Bannett.
P.S. Where is the Ashkenazi melody from, anyway? Sabba? RSeth?

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Someone asked why is yayin nesech/stam yaynam an issue in non-wine items.
The answer is that it is even assur when in a mixture. See SA Yoreh
Deah siman 134 for example.

Shlomo Goldstein

with regard as how we pasken with regard to ikkarim, I saw this shabbat
a letter from the Lubavitcher rebbe about techiyat hamesim. He brings
the argument between Rambam and Ramban (among others) whether techiyat
hametim is the ultimate end (Ramban) or the body will die again and the
ultimate stage is pure souls (Rambam).

the LR states that in the days of rishonim both viewpoints were
legitimate. he claims that the Ari "paskened" like the Ramban and
therefore only that side is legitimate today.

Do others agree that the the position of the Ari on issues is similar to
that of the Mechabber on halachah? In particular that implies we always
pasken like kabbalah against philosophic opinions of rishonim.

kol tuv, 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 11/26/2001

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


[ 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         ]