Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 225

Fri, 20 Jun 2008

• 1. NishmaBlog : Evolutionary Patterns in Halachic Texts (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Halivni's theology (Moshe Feldman)
• 3. Re: Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara? (David Riceman)
• 4. Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 5. MR was king (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: MR was king (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Rambam on Agunah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Did Tziporah say Lashon Hara? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: MR was king (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: MR was king (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Moshe Y. Gluck)

Richard Wolpoe has sent you a link to a blog:

This is an outline of repeating pattern of Halachic textual contraction
and expansion.

Blog: NishmaBlog
Post: Evolutionary Patterns in Halachic Texts
Link:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2008/06/evolutionary-pattern
s-in-halachic-texts.html

--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080618/4fdf0595/attachment-0001.htm>

I originally wrote:
> Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Elman (who teaches Talmudic Criticism at Bernard
> Revel) accepts the notion that many of our texts have been corrupted
> or misinterpreted,
<snip>

I did not write the above accurately, and am therefore rewriting it as follows:

I took a course with Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Elman 15 years ago dealing with
academic Talmud studies.  In that course we discussed Talmud
criticism.  Dr. Elman, who does *not* subscribe to Halivni's theories
regarding misinterpretations and large-scale lapses in masorah,
noted that *even* *if* one were to accept the possibility that current
Halacha does not always reflect the intent of the Tannaim, this does
not necessarily undermine the Halachic process.  Rather, based on R.
Tzadok HaCohen, Dr. Elman suggested that *if* one does accept the
above possibility, it is possible that Hashem deliberately caused
these textual problems in order for Halacha to develop differently
over time than the way originally envisioned by the Tannaim.

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.

 (Of course, it is quite possible that my 15 year old recollection is
inaccurate, and any mistakes are my own.)

Such a position works well according to the position of Rav Michael
Rosensweig that I discussed at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n067.shtml#05 .

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Zev Sero wrote:
> Since when is nevu'ah a job that one can accept or decline?
>
See Rashi Shemoth 4:10 s.v. "gam mitmol", Rambam H. Yesodei HaTorah 7:1.

David Riceman

I once heard a story from a prominent Orthodox rabbi who had exactly this
situation.  He was scheduled to perform a wedding for a woman, a Holocaust
survivor, who he did not know.	Shortly before the wedding he was speaking
to her and he asked her if she had ever been married before.  She said she
had, but her husband had been killed in the camps.  The rabbi then asked if
they had children (no) and if the husband had a brother who was still alive
(yes).	The rabbi then explained yibum and chalitza and asked if he could
contact the brother.  The woman said he could but he had to understand one
thing: the brother had converted to Christianity.  The rabbi contacted the
brother, explained the situation, and, nervously, asked the brother if he
would do the chalitza.	The brother said:  I love my sister-in-law dearly
and I would do anything necessary to let her have some happiness in her
life.  After the chalitza, the rabbi asked the brother:  forgive me for
asking, but you were so
  willing to participate in this Jewish ceremony (which is not the most
  pleasant), and you have such a good relationship with your sister-in-law;
  can you tell me why, after going through the travails of the camps, you
  converted.  The brother answered:  Hitler considered as Jews anyone who
  had a Jewish grandparent.  I converted with the hope that the next Hitler
  won't come until my great-grandchildren's time.

Joseph Kaplan   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080619/487fceef/attachment-0001.htm>

Would this have worked? Moshe Rabbeinu haya melech (see Tanhuma
Beha'alothcha 9, cited by the Rambam but I don't recall where).  A
king's wife may not remarry (H. Melachim 2:2).>>

How literally do we take this? Obviously he did not pass the kingship
to his son as a normal king would do. There are many other laws,
did MR have to shave often? (what MR didn't have a long umkempt beard!!)
Did he keep a sefer Torah with him all the time?
(Since the sefer Torah wasnt finished till he died obviously not)


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:32:35PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Would this have worked? Moshe Rabbeinu haya melech (see Tanhuma
:> Beha'alothcha 9, cited by the Rambam but I don't recall where).  A
:> king's wife may not remarry (H. Melachim 2:2).

: How literally do we take this? Obviously he did not pass the kingship
: to his son as a normal king would do...

Actually, just to remind people, it's not "how literally do WE take
this?" The suggestion didn't come from an Avodah poster. What RSBA wrote
(11:11am on Wed) was:
> Secondly, I see that the Shaarei Ahraon quotes "Eimek Hanetziv" saying
> that Tzipporah was definitely not complaining about MR being away from
> her. Had she been upset about it, MR would've divorced her to allow her
> to remarry.

(Aside: Who is the Shaarei Aharon?)

It's in Haameq Davar. Clearly, therefore, the Netziv didn't hold that
MRAH's melukhah extended this far.

Also, in last week's parashah, MRAH was mocheil his kavod. So I was
planning to point out that a melekh isn't allowed to. But then, neither
is a talmid chakham. So, it's a question either way.

: did MR have to shave often? (what MR didn't have a long umkempt beard!!)
: Did he keep a sefer Torah with him all the time?
: (Since the sefer Torah wasnt finished till he died obviously not)

Actually, that's a machloqes, Reish Laqish says it was all given at once.

The way I remember the dei'os: R' Yochanan spent a lifetime learning,
and holds that the Torah was given over the courst of 40 years. Reish
Laqish, the baal teshuvah, holds it was given all at once. I think
this is more than a mnemonic, and says a lot about the nimshal of the
aggadita.

Remember, RY belittled RL over his past. Either really, or didn't correct
RL when he took offense, thinking so, even as it lead to RL's death! R'
Yochanan clearly didn't hold "bemaqom sheBT omedeim...", at least, not in
a complimentary way. Leshitaso, Torah takes years of work. My bet is that
he was choleiq on Rebbe and held "ein mi sheqoneh olamo besha'ah achas".

The trick doesn't help for the tannaim who chime in on the machloqes.

But in any case, of course MRAH didn't carry a seifer if it didn't exist
yet. But you can't deduce anything from that -- ein danin es ha'efshar
mishe'i efshar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 01:06:56PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >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.

: No.  Ein adam oseh... is about people's yosher.  A person doesn't

... knowingly ...

: leave a chaticha dehetera to take an identical chaticha de'isura.

OTOH, there is a "forbidden fruit" effect which would mean that the two
possibilities aren't necessarily identical. The chaticha de'issura may
give someone more hana'ah because it's assur.

I could also see the sevara that it's based on "vedavaq be'ishto, vehayu
lebasar echad". The emotional state beshe'as ma'aseh is one where people
(who have a chezqas kashrus, as opposed to perutzim) dream of being
together foreever.

: 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.

Which would be true of either sevra. As I told each of my boys when we had
"the talk", the big price to pay for peritzus is that the deveq nature
of tashmish will fade. (Much like trying to reuse sticky tape that was
used and pulled off, used and pulled off...)


I'm not addressing the rest of your post because by-and-large you
disagreed what you heard and/or I misstated to state something in
agreement with what I was trying to say.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:32:01AM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: The AhS makes it clear (157:17) that even if the T'nai is Chal and the
: Kiddushin is not the Bi'os are still _not_ Be'los z'nus: "Kivan she'hee
: m'yuchedes eilav l'vado v'einah k'zonah."

Pilegesh bizman hazeh?

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.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:58:47PM -0400, Henry Topas wrote:
: I believe he quotes the Rambam as stating something to the effect that it
: would take great courage to find Kulos to "unchain" agunos.

The Rambam was speaking of real agunos, at least the rabbanan sort of
mayim she'ein lahem sof.

MSLS is rare nowadays. Telecom has made it very hard for someone to be
in the din of mei'ever layam. If shalom lo veshalom la (not a runaway
candidate), he would have contacted her. Unless his plane went down in
the Amazon rainforest...

Being a derabbanan that we aren't even sure is applicable, a woman whose
husband was lost in a near-MSLS can be freed by adding senifim lehaqeil.

Agunah today is more about mesarvei get. And what kind of
heteirim? Repealing tav lemeisav wouldn't have crossed the Rambam's
mind -- in his day the locals rarely let women out of their homes (his
famous 2x a month was a required MINIMUM), never mind being financially
and otherwise independent.

Would the Rambam's statement even be nogei'ah to any modern discussion?

Good luck finding it, though. I never heard of this before. It makes
sense, since mamzeirus can be forever. Which is the whole reason for
the taqanah of MSLS. And an agunah who thinks she's an almanah can
marry with the permission of BD, all the chazaqos and rovim in line,
and still produce a mamzeir.

This ties into the metaphysical consequences thread. Mamzeirus is a
clear case of negative impact even where the halkhah is followed.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 08:43:57AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Zev Sero wrote:
:>Since when is nevu'ah a job that one can accept or decline?

: See Rashi Shemoth 4:10 s.v. "gam mitmol", Rambam H. Yesodei HaTorah 7:1.

I thought MRAH was different, because he (and it seems that Eldad uMeidad
did too one time) had nevu'ah spontantaneously, without needing to put
in the effort to prepare for each and every visitation.

Also, those who say that Bil'am was sent so that the umos would have
their "Moshe" equivalent, and thus one fewer excuse, I assume he too
wouldn't need to work himself into the prophetic state.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

David Riceman wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> Since when is nevu'ah a job that one can accept or decline?
>>
> 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?


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

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.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> Would this have worked? Moshe Rabbeinu haya melech (see Tanhuma
>> Beha'alothcha 9, cited by the Rambam but I don't recall where).  A
>> king's wife may not remarry (H. Melachim 2:2).>>

> How literally do we take this? Obviously he did not pass the kingship
> to his son as a normal king would do.

Nor did he pass the kehuna on, even though he was a kohen.  Yerusha is
not an attribute of kingship, but a din in the choosing of a king; when
there is a vacancy on the throne, preference is to be given to the
previous king's sons, if they are fit.  But if they are not fit, then
it doesn't pass; in any case, when Moshe died he didn't create a vacancy,
so there was no occasion for one of his sons to fill it.


> There are many other laws,
> did MR have to shave often? (what MR didn't have a long umkempt beard!!)

A king does not have to shave often, or at all.  He does have to cut his
hair as often as necessary to maintain a perfect style; the Rambam
(Melachim 2:5) says that's every day, but the reason he gives doesn't
seem to support so strict a requirement.  If the style he wears can go
without maintenance for two or three days, or even a week, then surely
he can go that long.



> Did he keep a sefer Torah with him all the time?
> (Since the sefer Torah wasnt finished till he died obviously not)

OTOH once it was finished...

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

Eli Turkel wrote:
> How literally do we take this? Obviously he did not pass the kingship
> to his son as a normal king would do.
That's why I wanted to find the Rambam.  Is any CD enabled person 
available to do the search?

David Riceman

> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:32:01AM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> : The AhS makes it clear (157:17) that even if the T'nai is Chal and the
> : Kiddushin is not the Bi'os are still _not_ Be'los z'nus: "Kivan she'hee
> : m'yuchedes eilav l'vado v'einah k'zonah."
R' MB:
> Pilegesh bizman hazeh?

He's quoting a RaDaCH (with a Chaf). (I don't know who that is.) But in any
case, is he saying that she will be a Pilegesh, or that she isn't a Zonah?
And even if she is a Pilegesh, what's the problem? It isn't a L'chatchilah
Heter.

(BTW, this Halachah will be at http://tinyurl.com/669o7o when the project
gets to there.)

> 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?

KT,
MYG



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 225
***************************************

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..."