Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 056

Tuesday, July 2 2002

• RE: The MB and psaq
• Re: The MB and psaq
• The MB and psaq
• The MB and psaq
• re: The MB and psaq
• Re: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim
• RE: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim
• Re: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim
• Re: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim
• FW: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim
• FW: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim
• Re: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim
• The DAAT YACHID game
• Instinct for Moral Behavior
• RE: The DAAT YACHID game
• RE: The DAAT YACHID game
• Re: The DAAT YACHID game
• re: The DAAT YACHID game
• The DAAT YACHID game
• Re: The/A mesorah
• Re: avenu malkanu
• Re: Derashah and Sevarah
• Savora'ic addition in this week's daf yomi?

From: Seth Mandel [mailto:sethm37@hotmail.com]
> Virtually all non-chasidic frum Jews in Europe at the beginning of the 
> century viewed the CC as the greatest living tzaddiq, yet none of them in 
> Europe considered him a poseq, 

As you can tell from my posts, I have the same impression. Someone
asked me offlist whether the publication of Shmiras Halashon and Ahavas
Chesed would imply that he did intend to pasken. I would answer (but
invite public comment, as I have no proof) that those works were meant to
m'orer people to learn the issues, but were not meant as definitive psak.
Does anyone think that the style of those works is different from that
of the MB/Biur Halacha?

I will admit that the CC did publish a halachic work for Jewish soldiers
(Machane Yisrael). I have not seen it, but (from what I've read) I assume
that it was meant to give actual halacha l'maaseh guidance. Nevertheless,
from skimming the intro to "Kol Kisvei CC" I got the impression that
the CC composed this work because he felt that there was a great need
for such a work and no one else had stepped into the breach. Has anyone
seen this work? Is it more of a guidebook or more of a sefer psak?

Also is it possible that the CC wasn't an accepted posek but that he
did intend to pasken?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 7/1/02 10:28:34am EDT, sethm37@hotmail.com writes:
> I would like to remind people that the CC himself told us what the
> purpose of the MB was. No need for conjecture. He went to the trouble
> of writing an introduction, which was not necessary.

> The practice of reading introductions seems to be a lost art....

I tought MB at a post-college level this past year.  The Hakdamah was 
required reading and we spent about 2 sessoins on it

I also planned to cover - but unfortunately failed to completed -
the intros to the Mechaber and Rema in class.

> First is that the SA by itself without learning the Tur is not
> comprehensible, because when he wrote the SA it was the BY's intention
> that people should first learn the sources of the halokho in the Tur
> and the BY...

FWIW, I learned Tur and BY with a chavrusa for years.     My {former?} 
chavrusa still gives the MB shiur at KAJ/Breuer's. I asked him point blank, 
"After learning Tr/BY who needs the MB?"  His response was, "ein hachi nami 
that is pretty much what the MB himself says in his hakdamah!"

> The second reason... is that it is difficult to know the halokho l'ma'aseh
> because of the multiple disagreements brought by the acharonim... and
> even if he would want always to be mahmir in the matter, that is also not
> a safe way, because sometimes it will be a chumra that leads to a kula....

I like the MB in many ways.

That said I much prefer the methodology of both the BY and the Arush
Hashulchan who methodically survery poskim pretty much in a chronological
order and give a very good feel as to how Halachah did evolve - and
occasionally how it should have evolved. {For example of the latter, AhS
disagrees with the logic Rosh/Tur re: the Bracha of Al nkiyuus yadayyim
and favors the Rashba's take, nevertheless he refuses to overrule them}

I have not quite fathomed the methodology of the MB except that he often
favors being yotzei lchol hadyaos. And FWIW MB's shitos on Zmanim for
tfilla have left me mystified because he leaves me confused as to how
much GRA vs. Magan Avraham we should follow.

IMHO MB would have been BETTER to explicate the various shitos of
Acharonim one by one, and THEN to come to a bottom line as to how to
pasken at the end.

This is pretty much what the BY did for Rishonim, to survey the "Major
League" Rishonim one by one and to draw a conclusion at the end.

The advantage of the MB over AhS is that he includes MORE, but the
disadvantage is that his presentation is not so methodical.

AISI, the MB remains a great Halachic textbook, though I prefer to pasken
more like the Rema, and the AhS

And FWIW IMHO, Anyone at a Beis Midrash level ought to be learning Tur
and BY first

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From the CC's introduction to the MB:
>learning every din in the SA with its sources and reasons from the Tur and 
>the SA is too great a task for most people nowadays...

So, as I wrote earlier, the MB is a crutch!  <g>

>Notice that nowhere does he mention presenting his conclusion about the
>halokho as one of his intentions. Of course, in a work of this kind it is
>inevitable the some of the CC's own views would work their way in, but that
>clearly was not part of his plan. Nor was deciding in each halokho which of
>the opinions that he brings should be followed. Contrast this to the
>introduction of the Beis Yosef, who explicitly states that his work is
>intented to pasken halokho for all Jews so that the Torah will no longer be
>like "two Torahs."

What's curious, however, is that there are places where the BY does
_not_ pasken (I'm currently studying OH 235, where he presents many
options, and no psaq (well, he says "any of the above options are OK")
-- furthermore, in the S"A he paskens in a way differently than any of
the options he presented in the BY (as pointed out by the Taz or M"A
(I forgot which and don't have it handy)).

-- and -- (more relevant to this thread)

There are plenty (tons) of places where the MB _does_ make a psaq.
He paskens all over the place (at least in hilchos shabbos, where I am
most familiar). So while in the introduction he claims he is not --
he most certainly is!

So the MB paskens. How are we, then, not supposed to view it as something
that can legitimately be followed?

-- Sholom

Reb Simon wrote:
> -- furthermore, in the S"A he paskens in a way differently than any of
> the options he presented in the BY

That's not unusual. In the BY he's explaining the Tur. In SA he's
paskening. So I recall from my Kollel days, when we learnt Tur, BY and
SA in the afternoons.

- Danny

R' Sholom Simon wrote <<< There are plenty (tons) of places where the
MB does make a psaq. He paskens all over the place... So while in
the introduction he claims he is not -- he most certainly is! So the
MB paskens. How are we, then, not supposed to view it as something that
can legitimately be followed? >>>

My understanding is that the Chofetz Chayim did not yet have semicha
when he wrote the Mishnah Berurah. This makes it likely (or at least
possible) that his intention was not to pasken for anyone, but merely
to share his derech of learning halacha, and to suggest shitos which
people might choose for themselves.

Akiva Miller

> All I am saying is that there _is_ a cost to having an eruv, and I see it
> all the time vis-a-vis knowlege/practice/awareness of "the 39th melacha".  

Proof please? I have learned SSK and similar sefarim and gone to shiurim
on Hilchos Shabbos and there is no skipping of hotzaah simply because
"we have an eruv in our community." Conversely, one sees many people
who haven't looked at the subject that carefeully ignoring an eruv
built with the approval of RMF as a chumra or midas chasidus. When
we learned Shabbos, RHS stated that this chumra which is based on one
pshat in a Rambam based on a Yerushalmi is a chumra which was properly
the province of Gdolim as opposed to every man dhu. IMHO. such a chumra
is quite problematic. Note, many Gdolim in Europe such as the CI were
exponents and builders of eruvin in major European cities, as opposed
to just the proverbial shtetl.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com [mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com]
> When we learned Shabbos, RHS stated that this chumra which is based 
> on one pshat in a Rambam based on a Yerushalmi 

Could you please explain this at length?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> Rambam states that any street wider than 16 amos is a rshus harabim min
> HaTorah. That shitas haHarambam is based on one view of the pertinent
> Yerushalmi. According to that Yerushalmi and the Rambam, it is practically
> impossible to construct an Eruv as we know it. RHS was very adamant in
> rejecting this pshat. 

However, it is more than a Rambam based on a pshat in Yerushalmi that
could lead one not to rely on eruvin. There is the opinion of Rabbeinu
Tam, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ran, Mordechai, Rashbam, Y'rei'im, Rivash
and M'iri, all of whom hold that 16 amos plus rabim (not 600,000) suffice
for r'shus horabim mid'oraisa, and hence for disqualifying an eruv. True,
there is an equal number of rishonim who hold that it takes shishim ribo;
but it is this division of opinion which leads the CC to write, in Biur
Halacahah on 345:7, that "kol y'rei shamayim b'vadai yesh l'hachamir
l'atzmo." (And lest the above paragraph be taken as a sign of my b'kius,
it is the CC who quotes all the rishonim mentioned. Also, it should
be noted that the CC stresses *l'atzmo* -- not to impose it on others,
which has unfortunately happened with some eruvin, which are removed by
their opponents.)

As far as RHS's comment about Manhattan, if it is because of mechitzos
that it would be permitted to carry if the north side would be taken care
of, that would be valid even according to the Rambam. It is only tzuras
hapesach that is ineffective for a true r'shus harabim -- m'chitzos
remove it from that category.

As for the contention that the CI constructed eruvin in chu"l, perhaps;
but I can attest that he was against the eruv in B'nei B'rak to the
extent that if someone visiting him on Shabbos was wearing a wristwatch,
the CI would ask him what time it was; and when the individual consulted
his wathch, the CI would suggest leaving the watch with him until after
Shabbos. Of course, this may merely reflect his opinion of that specific
eruv, not objection to eruvin in general.

In terms of m'leches hotza'ah being forgotten: a relative of mine
visiting from Israel in the pre-eruv days in our community was about to
go to shul with a handkerchief in his lapel pocket. When I told him he
couldn't do it, he looked at me as though I had just landed from Mars.
It was this experience that motivated the decision, when our eruv was
constructed 18 years ago, to declare that one Shabbos a year the eruv
would be intentionally inoperative, unless it had happened during the
course of the year without intent. It is usually done on the week after
Parshas Zachor, since the previous week has the biggest crowd in shul
to hear the announcement.

It should be noted that the halachah takes note that it might be forgotten
that it is only the eruv that permits carrying, and as a result requires,
under many circumstances, that there be areas not included in the eruv
(see siman 392).

Elazar M. Teitz 

On 1 Jul 2002 at 20:00, Elazar M Teitz wrote:
>         However, it is more than a Rambam based on a pshat in Yerushalmi
> that could lead one not to rely on eruvin...

IIRC Rebbetzin Luntz (are you there?) once posted that her husband's
community follows the view that the only eruv that is effective is a
(real) mechitza, and therefore he is not somech on eruvin anywhere.
It is also the case that Briskers are generally not somech on eruvin;
therefore Boston and Chicago did not have eruvin for many years.

>         As for the contention that the CI constructed eruvin in chu"l,
> perhaps; but I can attest that he was against the eruv in B'nei B'rak to
> the extent that if someone visiting him on Shabbos was wearing a
> wristwatch, the CI would ask him what time it was; and when the
> individual consulted his wathch, the CI would suggest leaving the watch
> with him until after Shabbos.  Of course, this may merely reflect his
> opinion of that specific eruv, not objection to eruvin in general.

Don't at least some of those who don't hold of eruvin still hold from
constructing them so that if someone forgets and carries by accident he
will have al mi li'smoch and not violate a d'oraysa?

> It was this experience that motivated the decision, when our eruv was
> constructed 18 years ago, to declare that one Shabbos a year the eruv
> would be intentionally inoperative, unless it had happened during the
> course of the year without intent.  It is usually done on the week after
> Parshas Zachor, since the previous week has the biggest crowd in shul to
> hear the announcement.

The only time I can recall the eruv being down here was after a Friday
snowstorm ten years ago. It was announced on the radio just before
Shabbos.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com [mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com]
> In a message dated Mon, 1 Jul 2002 3:25:47pm EST, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
>> Could you please explain this at length?

> Rambam states that any street wider than 16 amos is a rshus harabim min
> HaTorah. That shitas haHarambam is based on one view of the pertinent
> Yerushalmi. According to that Yerushalmi and the Rambam, it is practically
> impossible to construct an Eruv as we know it. RHS was very adamant in
> rejecting this pshat. In the course of his shiur, he stated that all
> that Manhattan lacked was a halachically proper fourth wall because the
> buildings on the west, east and south sides of the island were were
> mechitzos. RHS stated that if the north side had a proper mechitza,
> that he would use an eruv. He did not see Shishim Ribu as an objection.

> Steve Brizel
> Zeliglaw@aol.com

Why didn't he see shishim ribo as an objection?

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com [mailto:Zeliglaw@aol.com]
> In a message dated Mon, 1 Jul 2002 3:25:47pm EST, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
>> Could you please explain this at length?

> Rambam states that any street wider than 16 amos is a rshus harabim min
> HaTorah. That shitas haHarambam is based on one view of the pertinent
> Yerushalmi. According to that Yerushalmi and the Rambam, it is practically
> impossible to construct an Eruv as we know it. RHS was very adamant in
> rejecting this pshat. In the course of his shiur, he stated that all
> that Manhattan lacked was a halachically proper fourth wall because the
> buildings on the west, east and south sides of the island were were
> mechitzos. RHS stated that if the north side had a proper mechitza,
> that he would use an eruv. He did not see Shishim Ribu as an objection.

> Steve Brizel
> Zeliglaw@aol.com

Why didn't he see shishim ribo as an objection?

  *The* problem is the definition of a public domain (reshut ha'rabim,
  m'doraita).The following decisors ruled that a public domain must be
  16 amot wide (about 24 feet) and 600,000 traverse it daily: Rashi in
  Eruvin 6a; ROSH Eruvin Perek Alef Siman 8; Tosfot Shabbat 64b; RAAVYA
  Siman 216; R. Sar Shalom Gaon in Tshuvot haGeonim Chemda Genuza Siman
  70; TUR OC 303 and 325 and 345; Rema; TAZ OC 345 s"k 6; magen Avraham
  OC 345 s"k 7; GRA in OC 345 s"k 11; Chayei Adam Klal 49 Din 13.

  The problem ? The Rambam didn't require 600,000 people traversing
  the area but any street 16 amot wide is reshut harabbim d'oraita.
  Ditto for the RIF, the Ramban Shabbat 57a; Ramban on Eruvin 59a; the
  RAN Shabbat 57a; Tshuvot haRashba Chelek Alef Siman 724; the Meiri;
  and the RIVASH Siman 7. And that's the consensus in the Bet Yosef TUR
  Orach Chaim 345 as well.

  That's why Sfardim don't hold by the eruv.

Josh

Since the post by R. Seth re: sturgeon, I've been considering the DAAT
YACHID game [Kids: DON'T play this at home !].

OK campers, here we go:

1. gelatin (I expect all Americans on this list to follow the ACHIEZER
and to start devouring gallons of Jello :-)]

2. shmitta: I expect all Israelis on the list to follow the BAAL HA'MAOR
and forget about shmitta. After all, it's only a minhag.

3. no KLI SHLISHI: (followed by a major posek): so I expect you all to
forget about drinking tea on shabbat.

4. chicken (or beef) fried in butter. After all, the PRI MEGADIM (YD 87)
does matir tigun b'hefsed meruba.

5. and for those who want to treif up their chickens before melicha, you
obviously have to follow the Rashbam that allows pouring boiling water
over the chicken to remove feathers before melicha. After all, he's the
daat yachid re: irui kli rishon > sheni.

In all seriousness, playing this game is dangerous to your frumkeit. I'm sure
others can come up with a DAAT YACHID from a rishon that NO ONE relies on.

Josh

Akiva Atwood wrote:
> It's clear that man has no *inate* instinct for moral behavior -- therefore
> it must be taught.

This is not at all obvious. People, for example, clearly have an innate
instinct for language, yet language must be taught. This is because
there are many different implementations of language.

The analogy is quite good. The Kuzari (echoing Plato) points out that
even a band of thieves has a form of morality. It is the particular
implementation of morality that must be taught.

David Riceman

> I'll grant you that a kli shlishi is "obviously" capable of
> cooking. What is not so obvious, and is the subject of this
> machlokes, is whether it is capable of *bishul*.

You can't prove otherwise by bringing tea as an example -- since tea is
"kalei bishul".

The question is if bishul can take place in a kli shlishi. To answer
*that* question we have to define what "bishul" is, if and how it differs
from "cooking", and what is different between a kli rishon, sheni and
shlishi that would allow bishul in one and not the other.

Those who are machmer about kli shlishi hold that the metziut is that
there is no difference between kli sheni and shlishi (the temperature
is obviously the same).

Akiva

> 3. no KLI SHLISHI: (followed by a major posek): so I expect you all to
> forget about drinking tea on shabbat.

Not relying on Kli Shlishi is actually very mekubal here in E.Y.

(It's also an example of halacha vs. metzia -- the water in the kli shlishi
is obviously over yad soledis bo, and capable of cooking)

Akiva

On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:27:00AM +0200, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
: Since the post by R. Seth re: sturgeon, I've been considering the DAAT
: YACHID game [Kids: DON'T play this at home !].

However, youHefsed meruba. said no one. One and zero are different numbers.

Besides, a couple of your examples are flawed:

: 2. shmitta: I expect all Israelis on the list to follow the BAAL HA'MAOR
: and forget about shmitta. After all, it's only a minhag.

Since when do we drop minhagim? Perhaps you can kulah-away almost all of
a minhag, but not do away with it altogether.

: 4. chicken (or beef) fried in butter. After all, the PRI MEGADIM (YD 87)
: does matir tigun b'hefsed meruba.

Where's the hefsed meruba? Perhaps very poor people, for whom the chicken
would be a significant loss. And even then, does that matir frying
them lechat-chilah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

R' Akiva Atwood wrote <<< Not relying on Kli Shlishi is actually very mekubal here in E.Y. (It's also an example of halacha vs. metzia -- the water in the kli shlishi is obviously over yad soledis bo, and capable of cooking) >>>

I'll grant you that a kli shlishi is "obviously" capable of cooking. What is not so obvious, and is the subject of this machlokes, is whether it is capable of *bishul*.

Rav Moshe's svara is very logical. As I recall, it appears in the back of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos vol 4, and was reprinted in Igros Moshe O"C vol 4. His argument, IIRC, goes along the lines of: It's true that when you put a tea bag into a kli shlishi the water changes color. But it also changes color when you put a tea bag in cold water, and that is certainly not bishul. So the fact that it changes color more quickly in the hot water of a kli shlishi proves nothing.

Akiva Miller




________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

Akiva Miller wrote:

<<<
R' Akiva Atwood wrote <<< Not relying on Kli Shlishi is actually very
mekubal here in E.Y. (It's also an example of halacha vs. metzia -- the
water in the kli shlishi is obviously over yad soledis bo, and capable
of cooking) >>>

I'll grant you that a kli shlishi is "obviously" capable of cooking.
What is not so obvious, and is the subject of this machlokes, is whether
it is capable of *bishul*.

Rav Moshe's svara is very logical. As I recall, it appears in the back
of Rav Eider's Halachos of Shabbos vol 4, and was reprinted in Igros
Moshe O"C vol 4. His argument, IIRC, goes along the lines of: It's true
that when you put a tea bag into a kli shlishi the water changes color.
But it also changes color when you put a tea bag in cold water, and that
is certainly not bishul. So the fact that it changes color more quickly
in the hot water of a kli shlishi proves nothing.
>>>

The problem with kli shlishi is that it is not a halakhic category.
There is kli rishon (on the fire) and kli sheini (off the fire).  The 
only possible difference between kli sheini and kli shlishi is the
temperature of the water, but a kli sheini can have water of 
a high temerature or a low temperature as well.  So if you are
hosheish for kli sheini there is no good reason to be meikil for 
a kli shilishi.  

I once got yelled at for making this point by someone who 
accused me of being disrespectful of R. Moshe who accepts
a kli shelishi.  When I was shown the teshuvah, it seemed 
clear to me that R. Moshe couldn't understand why kli
shelishi works either, but was struggling to find some 
rationalization for it, since the practice of relying on it has,
for some reason, become widely accepted.  When I drink
tea on the Sabbath I dunk the tea bag into the water with 
my teeth, whether using a kli sheini or a (pseudo) kli 
shelishi.  

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 7/1/02 2:38:47pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: Think about this: Let's say a community followed some combination of
>: Tanach and Josephus, how would you view them?

> But we're talking about one that didn't break from TSBP. Rather, one whose
> TSBP evolves differently than ours. And yet evolved entirely within the
> rules of pesaq.

This pre-supposes Josephus broke with TSBP.

IMHO the main reason Josehpous is deemed to have broken with TSBP is that
he does not conform to the mishanh and hte BAvli which were clearly not
around nin his day.

IOW, JOsephus would be probably be astounded to be deemed an apikoros and
probably thought of hismelfs as an apologist for authetnic Torah Judaism.

If your pre-supposition is correct, that because Joesphus deveiated so
much from what WE NO consider proper TSBP then Kal vachomer some shevet
Dan etc. would be ought of the pale.

I once meta Mormon at a social gathering and he told me I am from the
tribe of Joseph and you are from the tribe of Judah. Now while YOU might
no agree to his pedigree as one of the 10 lost ribes, it is likely you
would not recognize the Judaism of any bona fide descendants of the 10
lost tribes either.

so to re-iterate What we NOW called Judaism today is founded on Ezra
and what we now call Rabbinic Judaism is founded on RYBZ and any Judaism
wihtou those major events would IMHO not be recognizable as Judaism.

Put this another way. Samaritans today would probably be as Jewish as
any of the hypthetical tribes considered to have a Bayis Rishon Pedigree.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 7/1/02 2:38:47pm EDT, rwdnick@yahoo.com writes:
> I have been unable to locate the source or the reason why in most shul's
> they do approx ten verses in Avenu Malkanu responsivly. Does anyone know
> where this comes from?

In the German Minhag ALL verses are responsive {even on weekdays}.
On RH and YK they are recited or sung to melodies...

In KAJ/Breuer's, the melody shifts at the Kasveinu's and shifts back
when they are completed

And FWIW, my shul has EVERY and Every "al cheit on YK as responsive.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 7/1/02 2:38:31pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: All of the above begs the more fundamental question, which came first
>: the Halachah or the Midrash?

> Both are from Sinai, no?

> I think you're asking whether derashos are used to prove halachos that
> are already yadu'ah, or used to derive new halachos. This question has
> been debated here repeatedly.

Debated Here and Elsewhere, too

I don't know the entire universe of Drashos but it is clear that they
come in different forms

1) Halachah miSinai with a later "guess" as to the source
2) Halachah miSinai or Miderabbana with a pasuk as merely an asmachta
{mnemonic devise perhaps}
3) Torah implies but the mining of the Halachah came out LATER the Sinai
albeit it might have been implciti at Sinai. But if you asked Yehoshua bin
Num he might have not realize the implication in his generation so thius
is not al pi Masora. Perhaps restrcicting M'lachah on Chol Hamoed,
probably layed dormant for a long time and then was awakened.
4) Drasha is known but implication is unknown {I believe Rashi on Gzeria
Shava syas something on this. Location of Source is unkown to me....

When the Maharil Darshnes that we do not wear Tzitzis until marriage
because of ki yikach ish isha is samuch to gdilim ta'aseh lecha do you
consider that miSinai?

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that what we CALL misinai is not always
miSinai, Sinai can indidcate a status meaning fixed as if it came
from Sinai.
 Therefore, Any drasha frozen at the time of the Sanhedrin's desctruction
would take on that status. I understand that a Rash in Zra'm is a
source for this concept. the Maharil referred to Misinai melodies.
They are unlikely to have been derived from Sinai literally. The term
is used to mean "fixed" by masorah.

So you have Amoraim who are okei harim {IOW experts at Svara and drush}
and also Sinai's - experts on sources and Masoros. Sinai can mean
rock solid.

Truly all Torah emanates from Sinai and I can show you Apikorsim --smile--
that concede that at least some TSBP is literally miSinai.

I'm not sure if a Halachah that is inferred by a Halachic Darshan is
meant to be literally miSinai even though the tools were provided there.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Since we've discussed the subject of the closing of the gemara here
a number of times before, I though the local band of daf yomi addicts
could be interested in the following.

-mi

: Date:         Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:10:00 +0200
: From: Machon Zomet <zomet@NETVISION.NET.IL>
: Subject: Shabbat-B'Shabbato: Mattot-Massei 5762

: Shabbat-B'Shabbato - Parshat Mattot-Massei
:          No 916: 26 Tamuz 5762 (6 July 2002)
...
: NOTES ON THE DAILY "DAF":
: Was this Added by the Savora'im? - Bava Batra 108-114
: by Rabbi Yehuda Shaviv

: Chapters 8 and 9 of Bava Batra are concerned with issues of inheritance.
: The first section of the Talmud is completely anonymous, without any
: specific names of sages. This is similar to the beginning of Kedushin. In
: that case early commentators noted that this section by was written by the
: later sages, the Savora'im, and not by the Amora'im, who are the authors of
: most of the Talmud (see Rashi's letters and the novel commentaries of the
: Ramban). Perhaps the same is true of the first section of Chapter 8 of Bava
: Batra.
...
: SHABBAT-ZOMET is an extract from SHABBAT-B'SHABBATO, a weekly bulletin
: distributed free of charge in hundreds of synagogues in Israel. It is
: published by the Zomet Institute of Alon Shevut, Israel, under the auspices
: of the National Religious Party.
:      Translated by: Moshe Goldberg
: To subscribe, write "sub shabbat-zomet-l <firstname> <lastname>" to:
: listserv@listserv.ac.il
: For the current issue or archives: http://www.zomet.org.il/comee.asp
:      Visit the Zomet Institute web site: http://www.zomet.org.il
: Contact Zomet with comments about this bulletin or questions on the
: link between modern technology and halacha at: zomet@netvision.net.il
: Or: Phone: +972-2-9931442; FAX: +972-2-9931889 (Attention: Ezra Rosenfeld)

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


[ 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         ]