Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 037

Wednesday, June 16 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:16:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Admin: Avodah is down


Avodah is down. I don't know why. Submissions have been evaporating
without showing up anywhere in my email system. (I've submitted test
posts to check.)

I found some posts in the queue, so I'm sending them out. Don't reply
until this problem is resolved! I will inform the chevrah on Areivim.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:04:08 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Wednesday and Tamuz


From: Micha Berger micha@aishdas.org[, in a private email:]
> The name of the day was chosen to honor Woden, (in Norse: Odin),
> the father of the [Germanic] pantheon. The spelling preserves that,
> the pronounciation does not.

> The reference to pagan deities bothers me on a gut level. However,
> if Anshei Kenesses haGedolah could be okay calling a month "Tamuz",
> I guess my gut is wrong.

I have long ago questioned the 'kepeida' - or even issur - in writing #
1, 2 etc to denote January February etc - becuase of the posuk 'Hachodesh
hazeh l ochem Rosh Chadoshim' and the chiyuv to rather use the months
names. [IIRC beshem the CS]

However as months are named mostly after AZs - is it any better?

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:55:37 -0400
From: "Brown, Charles F" <charles.f.brown@gs.com>
Subject:
VIDC


>>>In BK 56b we learn the law of "Perutah d'Rav Yosef" - viz. that a
shomeir aveidah is exempt from giving food to a pauper because he is
osek b'mitzvah (hashavas aveidah) and therefore pattur min ha'mitzvah
(of gemilus chesed or tzedakah).<<<

My wife's answer: performing hashavas avieda is itself an act of gemilus
chesed and therefore another similar act of chesed cannot encroach upon
it. I'm not sure this fully answers the question - even if we subsume
tzedaka under chesed, why indeed would we allow a chesed which has a
potential lav to be nidche by chesed which is purely aseh - but I feel
like I missed the forest for the trees in looking for technical chilukim
and not considering this angle.

-CB


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:53:47 EDT
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
Subject:
inyan of wearing a tallis while doing things for the tzibbur


From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au> To: "areivim" <areivim@aishdas.org>
> ...Some time ago, I saw in a sefer - whose name I can't recall -
> a discussion whether the baal tefileh should or needn't wear a tallis.
> The psak was that if he is wearing a long coat - it is not necessary - but
> with short jackets - they should.

> [Achrei kosvi zos, I am now having doubts if the subject was indeed
> the Shatz or if it referred to an oleh letorah - or both..]

Perhaps someone wrote that, but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

Minhag Ashkenaz is to wear a tallis when doing things for the
kahal/congregation 'mipnei kevod hatzibbur' - and it is not connected
to the length of someone's coat or jacket. It goes back a long time,
to days long before 'short jackets' came in style in Western countries
- so it's not due to them. So therefore, the shat"z wears a tallis at
mincha and maariv (unfortunately this custom has gotten weak among some
people - e.g. it seems that Hassidim seem to usually not do it and some
people have been influenced by them and do or rather not do the same - and
perhaps that comes from the fact that Hassidim often daven mincha late -
so perhaps people think that 'laila lav zeman tzitzis' or so - and surely
so for maariv - so a tallis then might seem to be inappropriate at first
glance - but that actually seems to be mistaken reasoning - after all, the
same people, Hassidic minyonim wear talleisim at night at other times -
e.g. shat"z on Friday nights for kabbolas Shabbos / maariv even when they
daven late, Yom Kippur / Kol Nidrei nights - and how could they do so,
if they claim that talleisim are not appropriate at night ?), people who
get aliyas, do hagbah, geliloh wear taleisim, when the Rav darshens he
wears a tallis (e.g. Shabbos hagodol, Shabbos shuva......). The wearing
of the tallis is not for the mitzvoh of tzitzis (though that could be
a fringe benefit perhaps) but rather, 'mipnei kevod hatzibbur'.

There is an excellent piece on this in Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, cheilek 
aleph, by by Rav Hamburger shlit"a.

Mordechai


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:06:37 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Re: inyan of wearing a tallis while doing things for the tzibbur


From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> Minhag Ashkenaz is to wear a tallis when doing things for the
> kahal/congregation 'mipnei kevod hatzibbur' - and it is not connected to
> the length of someone's coat or jacket.It goes back a long time, to days
> long before 'short jackets' came in style in Western countries - so it's
> not due to them. So therefore, the shat"z wears a tallis at mincha and
> maariv There is an excellent piece on this in Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz,
> cheilek aleph, by by Rav Hamburger shlit"a.

I looked it up this morning - and indeed he brings many sources showing
why a tallis should be worn by a BT at all times.

[I have often asked my chassidish friends - how come they make such a
chashivus of their malbushim - shtreimel, bekeshe, rezevulke etc etc
-while at the same time seem to be quite lax [almost mezalzel - I could
say] about a wearing a tallis - as a BT or even when being oleh letoreh
at Mincha etc? After all, doesn'y a tallis metzuyetses at least warrant
the kedusha of a bekeshe??? [I am still awaiting an answer...]

Our main shul - Nusach Ashkenaz - does not require the BT wearing a
tallis for mincha/maariv. [Though, kad havina talya, I do remember and
elderly gentleman - ex-Budapest - who, when he had yorzeit - did put on
a tallis when being BT for Minch/maariv].

However it is required for Mincha on a Taanis Tzibbur [ and of course
all tefilos on Shabbos].

Also, we insist on every oleh letorah and hagbeh-gelileh [even young
boys] to wear a tallis. And we have the Ob [Yekke?] minhag that on
Shabbos mincha the olim keep the tallis on - until after Kedusheh. [I
think SMA talks about this.]

Re my opening comment - I found it this morning - it is from the back
of the sefer 'Ishei Yisroel' by a R Pfeiffer - where he has many short
answers by Rav Chaim Kanievsky to his shaalos. And it indeed refers to
an oleh letorah - with RCK paskening that if short-jacketed - must wear
a tallis.

Incidentally I last night heard from a former ben bayis of the CI saying
that he [CI] bemoaned short jackets. He asked "How can be talk to women
about tzenius - when we men wear such short jackets?"

[I also heard in his name saying that he is 'mekaneh' chassidim for 3
things - letting their beards grow, long coats and marrying young.]

And on that note, in the abovementioned Ishei Yisroel - in reply to a
question - if one must make netilas yodayim after shaving ones beard
[similar to after having a haircut], RCK replied: "It is ossur to shave
ones beard..."

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:35:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Filtering water for copepods


acl100@juno.com wrote to Areivim:
> For the benefit of the public I will share the way I constructed a
> very good water filter for under a hundred dollars.

If one holds that there is a kashrus problem with unfiltered water,
one should check whether one's LOR also holds that filtering the water
is not boreir. Since you need the filtering, and consider the pesoles
visible, I could see this being a real problem. Unless you can argue
achilah le'alteir, or somehow make a chiluq between pesoles and pesoles...

You would need to have a filter that you can take out of the loop for
Shabbos and Yom Tov.

-mi

-- 
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: (413) 403-9905


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:40:24 -0400
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <cmarkowitz@scor.com>
Subject:
filtering on shabbos


regarding using a filter on Shabbos, I know that Rav Dovid Feinstein
holds it would be assur to use one. I don't know if he says this in
general-even without the bug problem or only in this case where you are
filtering for bugs. Al kol panim, According to Rav Dovid, to use a filter
to remove bugs would be assur on Shabbos.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:31:19 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #12, MC p. 99; #13, MC p. 128


The past week's VIDC:
>In BK 56b we learn the law of "Perutah d'Rav Yosef" - viz. that a
>shomeir aveidah is exempt from giving food to a pauper because he is
>osek b'mitzvah (hashavas aveidah) and therefore pattur min ha'mitzvah
>(of gemilus chesed or tzedakah). This would seem difficult, as osek
>b'mitzvah pattur min ha'mitzvah (OBMPMHM) applies only when two mitzvos
>aseh conflict - not when a mitzvas lo ta'aseh is involved. If so, how can
>the shomeir aveidah be exempt from the mitzvah of tzedakah - by not giving
>tzedakah does he not transgress the lav of "Lo te'ametz es levavecha?"

>VIDC?

>See if you can come up with at least two resolutions!

Since Micha said some of the posts were lost, I would like to share what my 
BIL, Reb Chaim Brown wrote:
>I have no ra'aya that this makes any sense, but maybe it will get 
>creativity points ; )  It's not that the mitzva of tzedaka is chal and 
>pushed off by hashavas aveidah (dechiya).

>Rather, tzedaka applies only when there is an ani.  In the context of 
>hashavas aveidah the Torah does not define *anyone* as an ani so m'meila 
>the chiyuv tzedakah (aseh or lav) never gets off the ground!

RCPS himself writes what several writers have submitted this week, that
the prohibition of Lo Te'ametz is only applicable when someone does not
give tzedaka because he is miserly and does not want to give tzedaka;
but if he does not give tzedaka because he is engaged in another mitzvah
and osek b'mitzvah pattur min ha'mitzvah, he does not transgress the
prohibition of Lo Te'ametz.

It's a nice teirutz, however, it seems to me that it generates a
qualification which almost completely obviates the teirutz: If he really
is a miser and is just using osek b'mitzvah as an excuse, he should be
considered to transgress Lo Te'ametz.

The second answer given by RCPS has also been proposed here, that the
prohibition of Lo Te'amatz is meant to sustain the positive command of
tzedaka - Nason Titein - hence, where the aseh is inoperative the lav
is also inoperative.

I like Reb Chaim's answer better!

YGB

Now, for this week's VIDC, MC vol. 1 p. 128:

We know that murder is one of the things that are not overriden by
Pikuach Nefesh, because of the sevara of Mai Chazis: What did you see to
lead you to conclude that your blood is redder than your friend's blood
(Sanhedrin 74a et al)? On the other hand, when two people are drowning the
Gemara in Horios (13a) suggests a hierarchy of who to save first. Thus,
we see that in the Gemara in Horios we do reckon whose blood is redder;
why, then, in the case of murder do we reject that assessment?

VIDC?
YGB  


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:20:40 -0400
From: "Brown, Charles F" <charles.f.brown@gs.com>
Subject:
RE: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #13, MC p. 128


>>> We know that murder is one of the things that are not overriden by
Pikuach Nefesh, because of the sevara of Mai Chazis: What did you see to
lead you to conclude that your blood is redder than your friend's blood
(Sanhedrin 74a et al)? On the other hand, when two people are drowning the
Gemara in Horios (13a) suggests a hierarchy of who to save first. Thus,
we see that in the Gemara in Horios we do reckon whose blood is redder;
why, then, in the case of murder do we reject that assessment? <<<

The question sounds forced. If A is threatened and can only save his
life by involving and endangering B (e.g. shoot B or I'll shoot you),
mai chazis tells us we cannot create a situation of pikuach nefesh for B.
If A and B are both already in danger, there is a hierarchy of who to
save first.

Similar idea, more "lomdish" - mai chazis is not an independent din,
but is just a means of strenghening the issur retzicha so that "v'chai
bahem" (save yourself) cannot push it off. In Horiyos there is no issue
of retzicha at hand.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:32:09 +0100
From: "Elozor Reich" <countrywide@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject:
Rebbe & Rabon Shimon ben Gamliel


Has anybody besides me noticed, the following curious fact. When a Mishnah
quotes the conflicting opinions of R' Shimon ben Gamliel and his son,
Rebbe, the father's view is (usually/always?) stated first. I must admit
that I have only found one such Mishnah; Maasros 5:5. Yet, when such a
disagreement is quoted in a Tosefta or other Bryso the order is usually
reversed. (For a few of many examples see the following in the Tosephta:
Terumos 3:15, 4:12, 4:15, 5:1 (twice), Demai 5:2, 5:4, Niddah 4:8: but
note the exception in Bechoros 3:19). (I do not have computer disks to
search and would welcome statistical data on this curious anomoly).

The following possible reason has occured to me. Rebbe edited the
Mishnah and naturally gave precedence to his father's opinion. However,
the Toseftas (Tosephtot for the pedants) and Brysos were edited by R'
Chiyo and R' Oishiyo, pupils of Rebbe. They honoured their teacher by
giving priority to his opinions.

Any better suggestions ?

ER 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:48:07 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #12, MC vol. 1 p. 99


On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 07:57:55AM -0400, RYGB wrote:
:> It seems to me so obvious and you won't ask an obvious simple question,
:> so I am probably wrong:
:> Don't we have 'Ase ve-lo ta'ase - 'ase kodem Therefore, if a person is 
:> 'asuk bi-dvar mitzva, he should be patur from that lo ta'ase!

...
: It's a good question and a solution may lie in that direction. However, 
: superficially it is not a good solution because an aseh is only doche a lav 
: by itself, but not an aseh and a lav, as would seem to be the case here.

However, if one combines asei dichel lav with ha'oseiq bemitzvah, neither
half of the lav hanitoq la'asei should be an issue.

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 11:39:21AM -0400, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
: L'ma'aseh it could be toloi in whether oseik b'mitzvah is an oneis or
: petur...

I'm lobbing RCM an easy one, since I know he recently gave a speech
in shul on the subject. However, the question seems far from obvious.
The phrase is ha'oseiq bemitzvah *patur min hamitzvah*. Not oneis
Rachmanah patrei pardoning the onesh, but the lashon spells out that
oseiq is a petur.

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 07:23:41PM +0000, I wrote:
: My first reaction is to wonder if not giving because he is oseiq bemitzvah
: qualifies as amitzas haleiv. There is a far gap between being too busy
: helping the person who lost an object and being too callous hearted
: to give.

I wonder the limits of this mehalekh, though.

This seems dangerously close to pasqening based on ta'am hamitzvah.

I would therefore ask what the limits are between Telzer sevarah and
ta'am.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                - R' Binyamin Hecht


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:44:14 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: The importance of secular studies


On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:53:59AM +0200, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: Here is Rav Aviner's Torah thought for last week:
...
: Go study math.
: Rabbi Shomo Aviner
...
:                                           Consider what our master Rabbi
: Avraham Yitzchak Kook wrote:
:     "Regarding the distribution of academic talents in accordance with the
:     various psychological strengths, some have a strong proclivity for
:     secular studies. In this, they have to follow their inner leanings,
:     and they should fix set times for Torah learning. Then, they will be
:     successful in both, for Torah learning coupled with a profession is
:     a fine thing. Tosafot Yeshanim at the end of Yoma (85b) dealt with
:     the question of which should come first. As a rule, it depends on
:     the nature and personality of each individual" (Orot HaTorah 9:6).

I wonder what the original Hebrew was, as it has serious impact on our
TIDE vs TuM discussions.

"Academic talents" sounds like a discussion of TuM. However, "Torah
learning coupled with a profession is a fine thing" reads like a
translation of TIDE according to RSRH.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Dale Carnegie


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:55:33 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject:
Re: 'paying respects'


In Avodah V13 #36 dated 6/11/04 2:39:11 PM EDT, from: Phyllostac@aol.com:
> Suppose a Jew wanted to file past his bier/coffin, to 'pay respects'

> ... Would there be a problem with it ? 

My own twelfth grade students in Bais Yakov of Miami happened to be
on their class trip in Washington, D.C. during this past week. The
principal of the school, R' Ephraim Leizerson, told the girls that they
could file past the bier. The only reason they did not do so was that
they had limited time and the lines were very long.

I would just like to add, tzadikei umos ha'olam yesh lahem chelek
le'olam haba.

 -Toby Katz
=============


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:33:11 -0400
From: <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Subject:
Re: Disputing earlier generations


On 6/10/2004, David Glasner wrote (in reply to Zvi Lampel):
> [Y]our second argument, that R. Yohanan obviously recognized 
> the Mishnah (and other tanaitic sources) as authoritative inasmuch as he
> kept citing them to attack Reish Lakish's opinions, seems to me
> dispositive.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what "dispositive" means. Is it related to
"positive," or perhaps "disposition"?

David Glassner continued:
> I am reluctant to rely on the Yerushalmi in Pe'ah (even apart from my 
> uncertainty about its "tone") because it opens up the whole question of 
> what is halakhah l'moshe mi-sinai, which we don't have a very good
> handle on.

Since we are dealing with the Rambam's shita in Mamrim 2:1, we can
safely use his own definition of Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai, which is
simply a halachah whose sole source is Hashem via Moshe Rabbeynu, and
which no real indication for itself has been planted into the p'sukim to
be seen through drash. (Actually, I don't know od any other definition,
putting aside the two apparently rabbinical enactments the Rambam puts
in his list of HLMS.) At any rate, as I noted in my original posting,
the fear of contradiciting Sinaitic laws extends to all Oral Laws,
including those generated through the methods of drash, so that Rebbi
Yochonon must apply his statement to HLMS in its broader sense (viz.,
*any* Oral Laws received through Moshe).

> Why didn't the possibility of halakhah l'moshe mi-sinai deter every later
> tana from disputing an earlier tana? What changed all of a sudden to make
> amoraim suddenly more nervous about halakhah l'moshe mi-sinai than were
> the previous generations of tanaim confronted with halakhic traditions
> that they were free to dispute?

My thesis is that the tumultuous events (Roman persecutions, etc.,)
that mandated the revolutionary change of formulating a (written as per
Rambam, himself, or at least oral) text of the Oral Law *because it would
be totally forgotten,* caused, as per R' Ypchonon, an actual forgetting
of which posuk-related halachos were actually generated through drash,
and which were actually received Oral Laws to which the posuk was merely
found as a remez. This is what caused to be inoperative the distinction
Mamrim 2:1 between the two, which Rambam's makes re: ability to uproot
drash-generated halachos.

David, thanks for this stimulating dialogue!

Zvi Lampel


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 06:46:26 +0300
From: Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com>
Subject:
Re: Animal Proof


Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
<<Without knowing all the words on the list, we don't know if there
isn't a misassigned word that refers to kangaroo.>>

The shafan is described in Tehillim as a small animal that hides under
rocks - not a kangaroo.
The arneves is discussed many times in the Gemara as a familiar animal -
not a kangaroo.
The kangaroo is not remotely similar to any animal that was familiar to
the Jews of the Tanach and Gemara.
Hence, it is an omission from the Torah's list.

<<But camels far more central to the lifestyle, and therefore might have
a richer lexicon.>>

Eh? Yes, there can be many words for camels. But we are discussing whether
one particular word - gamal - can include a very different animal, the
llama. It's difficult - not impossible, but very difficult - to argue
that it does, seeing as they are much, much less similar to each other
than horses are to donkeys, and they can't even naturally interbreed.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com/hyrax


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:33:50 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Re: inyan of wearing a tallis while doing things for the tzibbur


Just to add a point:

The MB 53:13 writes:
"...veroui sheyihyu bigdei sha''tz aruchim shelo yiru raglov.."

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:03:06 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: inyan of wearing a tallis while doing things for the tzibbur


On 15 Jun 2004 at 14:06, SBA wrote:
> [I also heard in his name saying that he is 'mekaneh' chassidim for 3
> things - letting their beards grow, long coats and marrying young.]

Interesting. In the Litvish Yeshivas here today, most bochrim don't 
let their beards grow (except during sefira and bein ha'metzarim), 
don't wear long coats before they marry, and in many Yeshivos are not 
allowed to marry until they have been there at least 4-5 years.

 - Carl


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:03:06 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Filtering water for copepods


On 14 Jun 2004 at 12:35, Micha Berger wrote:
> If one holds that there is a kashrus problem with unfiltered water,
> one should check whether one's LOR also holds that filtering the water
> is not boreir. Since you need the filtering, and consider the pesoles
> visible, I could see this being a real problem. Unless you can argue
> achilah le'alteir, or somehow make a chiluq between pesoles and pesoles...

Wouldn't using a filter also be a problem in that it violates b'yad 
v'lo b'kli? 

 - 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. 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:03:06 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Wednesday and Tamuz


On 15 Jun 2004 at 13:04, SBA wrote:
> I have long ago questioned the 'kepeida' - or even issur - in writing #
> 1, 2 etc to denote January February etc - becuase of the posuk 'Hachodesh
> hazeh l ochem Rosh Chadoshim' and the chiyuv to rather use the months
> names. [IIRC beshem the CS]

Rav Asher Weiss once said in a shiur that it's preferrable when writing
lists to use Alef, Beis Gimmel, etc. rather than 1, 2, 3 etc. Similarly,
when taking notes in shiur, one should write that there are Heh examples
of ____ rather than 5 examples of _____.

 - 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. 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:49:08 +0300
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com>
Subject:
Learning the Daf in Laaz


Thought this might be of interest. 

-- Carl

------- Forwarded message follows -------
x-mailing-list: daf-discuss@shemayisrael.com
(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________

                 THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
             Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                      daf@dafyomi.co.il

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________

Re: Learning the Daf
David <dmoshe@netvision.net.il> asked:

Dear Rav Kornfeld,
Thank you for your interesting points. 
What do you think about businessmen that do not have the patience to
sit learn the language of a gemora but instead learn it thouroughly,
but only in english? I had heard that Rav Yaakov Kaminesky that the
language that the gemora is learned is not significant.

Thanks 
David
------------
The Kollel replies:

I am not sure that I agree with that. I would find it hard to believe that
Rav Yakov meant the words of the Gemara can be learned in a language other
than the original Aramaic itself. He probably said that the discussion
between study partners can take place in any language (when the Torah
was given, each word was heard in 70 languages; see also Berachos 13a,
regarding whether the Torah was given in every language or only in Lashon
ha'Kodesh). If one does not understand the language of the Talmud,
though, some of the original meaning is inevitably lost. L'Havdil,
would anyone respect a professor of Greek mythology and culture who
doesn't understand Latin?

Best wishes,
Mordecai
_______________________________________________
Daf-discuss mailing list
Daf-discuss@shemayisrael.co.il
http://mail.shemayisrael.co.il/mailman/listinfo/daf-discuss_shemayisrael.co.il
[TinyURL for the above: <http://tinyurl.com/29btk> -mi]


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:18:12 -0400
From: <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Subject:
Re: Disputing Previous Generations


On 6/1/2004 Carl Sherer wrote:
> See Ramban Bava Basra 131a s"v Amar Lei Abayei (starting from 
> "u'l'inyan piska") and Rabbeinu Yona Bava Basra 131a s"v Ela Tnai 
> Beis Din Sha'anee, both of whom indicate that there are instances 
> when amoraim feel free to disagree with tanaim. There's also a Kovetz 
> Shiurim on this, but I was unable to find it (all cited by R. Zev 
> Cohen in his Daf Shiur on Chulin 117). 

Actually, the Ramban there is opposing the idea that an Amora could
argue on a Tanna, and also explains his opposition (on another issue)
in such a way as to avid asserting such an occurence. I think the same
can be said of Rabbaynu Yonah.

The Kovetz Shiurim is problematic, l'fi aniyas datti, because he cites the
phenomenon of the Gemora stating "Aynah Mishneh" to show that an Amora
sometimes disputes a Tanna. But checking through these Gemoras shows
that this phrase merely means the Amora is poskening like another Tanna
(as in "Bes Shammai b'm'kom Bes Hillel aynah mishneh") or is declaring
the version in possession to have been corrupted. This is not disputing
a Tanna!

The Meiri in his Hakdama to Ahvos, as well, seems at first to be citing
this as an example of showing that even Tannaim are not infallible,
and Amoraim could argue with them. But a closer look in full context
shows that he is merely saying that despite the superiority over the
braisssos of Rebbi Yehudah HaNassi's version of the Oral law, in its
style and language, the Amoraim sometimes found grounds to improve the
language, or, again, decided to posken like a Tannaitic opinion other
than the one Rebbi Yehudah poskened like in the Mishnah. Again, this is
not contesting the authority of Tannaim!

Refuah Shleima for your son,
Zvi Lampel


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >