Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 037

Wednesday, December 1 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:50:31 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Requesting this list to list machshava classics


At 07:07 PM 11/27/2004, David Riceman wrote:
>I don't recall who started this thread, but his original request was a 
>list of influential classics in machshava.  My guess is that he did not 
>ascribe to the word the meaning you do, which I don't believe is 
>standard.  Do you really think he meant to exclude books like Or Yisrael 
>and Nefesh HaHayyim (an anti-Hassidic polemic and so not qualifying 
>according to you by not incorporating Hassidus)?

Somewhere along the line another listmember asserted that RYBS was the
greatest Ba'al Machashavah of the generation. That was how the sub-thread
of "who is a Baal Machashavah" got started.

As to what are the influential classics in Machashavah, NhC certainly is,
but OY is not.

YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:29:05 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Tachlis HaBeriah (Was: Requesting this list to list machshava classics)


[Micha:]
>FWIW, I'm missing something from RYGB's position. First he said the
>topic of RYBS's philosophizing wasn't machashavah. But later he said
>the distinction in terms of the person not the topic, and said he would
>consider RYBS is a chosheiv not a ba'al machashavah. Doesn't a chosheiv
>also engage in machashavah?

To the extent that any of us mull over issues we are all Choshvim. So I 
guess what I should have said is that RYBS had a keen intellect and 
therefore was a very great Choshev. But as far as a curricular definition 
and as far as a scope of sources goes, RYBS's works do not afford a 
comprehensive, or even superficial, survey of the territory.

>RYGB doesn't question (<g>) RYBS's greatness, but rather whether that
>greatness is in a direction he would label a ba'al machashavah. As
>there is no nafqa mina, I have no idea why people are getting worked up
>about it.

This is certainly true. I spent a summer with RYBS in Boston and saw the 
greatness first hand.

YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:52:19 -0500
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Re: Requesting this list to list machshava classics


> As to what are the influential classics in Machashavah, NhC certainly is, 
> but OY is not.

But NhH doesn't "take note of all available approaches".  He advocates one 
and denigrates another.  How can it be machshava?

David Riceman 


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:01:00 EST
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Conservative O Rabbi


> Rav Lichtenstein spoke once (It was cited here before) about RYBS"s
> well known tshuva forbidding going to hear shofar in a Conservative
> shul,and said, essentially, that it doesn't apply to the assimilated Jew

See RAL's comments in his books and his hespedim for RYBS. IHO, he did
not state that the psak was not operative any more. He called it a radical
and necessary step and wondered whether it was per se effective as opposed
to being inapplicable. IMO, that is a huge difference in emphasis. IIRC,
RAL will be in Teaneck for a Shabbaton . Why not ask him what he meant
and report to us at that time?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:21:52 EST
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject:
Yisrael


In a recent Areivim discussion about varying translations of the first
pasuk of Shma, the following exchange took place:

[R' Alexander  Seinfeld:]
> A better rendering may be....
> Understand deeply you who grapple with the Infinite God:

[R ELPh  Minden:]
> Please explain to me how "Yisro-eil" can be translated, interpreted,
> or merely explained like that. I'm sure you don't refer to "Israel in
> the spirit", do you. [snip]

> And just as it isn't necessary to ignore a translation shared with
> Gentiles, it isn't necessary to canonise one just because people are
> used to it to the point that they don't realise they don't know what
> it means.

This exchange reminded me of something that has been gnawing at the back
of my mind for some time, and that is: I do not have a clear idea of what
the word "Yisrael" means. "You struggled with angels and you prevailed"
just doesn't do it.

Why are we called "Yisrael"? Because we can defeat angels? But the
"-el" in the name seems to refer to Hashem. But--WHAT about Hashem?
Something He does, something we do with Him?

Ever since it first struck me a few months ago that I don't really
understand why we are called Yisrael, it has been bothering me. It's too
basic a question to ask anyone I actually know, but my screen friends
are another story.

You are all quite used to my embarrassing myself with narishkeiten by
now. If you can answer my question, I would be grateful.

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


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:59:51 -0500
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
Kuzari question


A few friends and I have started to learn Kuzari together, and we have a
question. Well, maybe "learn" is too strong a word. We're nowhere near
the level of the many philosophy buffs on this list, who we hope might
offer some help. Be that as it may...

The issue of the greatness of the Jewish people is raised in sections
1:92-94, and in section 1:95, the rabbi attempts to prove that the Jews
are indeed superior to others. He begins by defining Adam HaRishon as
perfect (I would amend that to his having started out as perfect) since
he was created directly by the Creator, so no imperfection could have
become part of him. The rabbi then says that of Adam's many children,
Hevel was the only one who held this role. But Hevel was killed, so
this role passed on to Shes, Enosh, and so on until Noach. The rabbi
explains that this greatness continued to pass through the generations,
from Noach to Shem to Ever to Avraham, occasionally skipping a generation
and reappearing in a grandson. From Avraham it went to Yitzchak and to
Yaakov, and then it spread out to all of Yaakov's descendants, no longer
confined to a single individual.

I hope the above is an adequate summary of section 1:95. Our problem is
that in 1:96, the king accepts all of this without challenge, while we
see several clear logical flaws:

1) Why is it accepted unchallenged that Shes was indeed greater than his
brothers, or that Enosh was greater than his brothers, or that Shem was,
and so on?

2) If the answer to the above is that all three of the clergy summoned
by the king accept that genealogy, it would certainly stop at Yitzchak,
because the Moslems would say that the greatness of Avraham went to
Yishmael. Perhaps this point is raised further on in the Kuzari?

3) Even if all this is an acceptable demonstration that Yaakov was greater
than any other human of his generation, where is the logic in changing
the rules so that this greatness can now suddenly be shared by all his
children? Why can't the same be said about all of Noach's children,
or all of Adam's, for that matter?

We probably had other questions on this section, but if anyone can offer
ideas about these, we'd be grateful.

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:58:56 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Yet another occurance of the Hashkafic Fork


I noticed the following while reading a summary of a sichah by R' Amital.

Rambam, asei 5 quotes the Sifri: "Ul'avdo" (Dev 11:13) -- this is
tefillah. They also say: "Ul'avdo" -- this is talmud.

 -mi


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:08:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Three angels real or a vision?


T613K@aol.com wrote:
> So Rashi answers, A.  He's not saying "Hashem, don't pass by"--he's  saying
> to the apparent leader of the three men, "My lord, please don't pass by, stay
> here a while and be my guest."

> or, B.  He's speaking to Hashem but the pesukim are not in order--ein  mukdam
> ume'uchar--and the actual order was, he saw the angels [presumably while  not
> fully conscious], asked Hashem to please stick around, THEN ran to the  men.

> Rashi certainly seems to be assuming that the events were real, not part of
> a vision.  And he has anticipated your possible objections.

You ignore the Rambam's shitah, which is presumably a legitimate
alternative. But it's that shitah in particular that RZS has been
discussing.

The Ramban asks the original question on the Rambam, the Abarbanel answers
it. We've knocked this around a few times, not to mention my touching
the question in MmD <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mishpatim.pdf>
and related it to their approaches to the Kavod Nivrah.

You can't simply assert Rashi is right. (At least, not to much
satisfaction.)

The Rambam makes the mal'achim's visit to Avraham the body of the
nevu'ah that is Hashem's communication to Avraham, but then we presume
the mal'achim really saved Lot -- not within a vision Lot receives while
meditating. IIUC, it's that switch that RZS is exploring.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:18:21 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Torah and Allegory


hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
> In the following citation from Moreh Nevuchim (II:25), I would like to call
> attention to the last parameters (emphasized in my copy) the Rambam sets for
> interpreting scripture allegorically....

I find it difficult to consider this a last parameter.

The Rambam starts by listing two reasons why he did not taken Bereishis
1 as an allegory referring to an eternal universe. He explicitly says
there are two. Two quote your translation (note the first three words
of my quote):
> For two reasons, however, we have not done so, and have not accepted the
> Eternity of the Universe. First, the ... the Eternity of the Universe has not
> been proved, and THERE IS NO NEED TO FORCE INTERPRETATIONS ON SCRIPTURE TO
> MAKE IT FIT ONE POSITION, AS LONG AS THE OTHER POSITION IS DEFENDABLE.

> Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is NOT CONTRARY TO
> ANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR RELIGION, and it is NOT CONTRARY TO
> THE WORDS OF ANY PROPHET. ...On the contrary, Scripture itself teaches the
> Incorporeality of God. ...

Then the Rambam drifts afield from making a list, discussing "if we were
to accept the eternity of the universe..."

Why then would a statement unattached to a list be the third item in that
list -- and especially when the list is introduced as having two items!

RMS and I have a recurring debate over whether "contrary to the words
of any prophet or sage" is in addition to "fundamental principle", as I
believe, or as RMS asserts, an explication of it. IOW, does a statement
that counters every opinion in our mesorah and has no basis within our
mesorah BUT does not contradict any fundamental principles of Yahadus
qualify under the 2nd criterion (RMS) or not (myself)?

Ad sheyavo hakasuv hashelishi:
> But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of
> necessity, there would be occasion for the above questions. And these could
> only be answered in an OBJECTIONABLE WAY, IMPLYING DENIAL AND NULLIFICATION OF
> ALL THE PESHUTAY HATORAH, WHICH NO ENLIGHTENED PERSON DOUBTS ARE MEANT KFI
> HA-PESHUTIM HA-HEIM.

I disagree with RZL that this is a third criterion, rather, it's
explaining the 2nd. If no one would doubt based on their enlightenment
by the Torah that the words are meant kefi peshutam, then they're kefi
peshutam.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:10:57 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Ma'aser mystery


From: "Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR **" <>
> The TY says that the angel reminded Yaakov that he had promised to
> tithe everything Hashem gave him. However he had not tithed his
> children.

> He ignored the 4 "first borns" - one for each mother, leaving 8. ..
> He then started counting at Shimon and (coming around the 2nd time
> [PY]) the 10th was Levi..... then declared Levi to be "the holy one"
> for all times.

> I thought this was fascinating, but my son wanted to know since when we
> tithe quantities under 10 - and determine the 10th by starting from the
> beginning again. Any ideas how to explain this?

We discussed this interesting TY here as well and came up with the
same question.

A guess -
Efshar maaser was due - because lemaaseh there WERE 12 sons. After all,
how do we understand 'ignoring the 4 firstborns?

"Ignoring them" may rather mean that they - the 4 firstborn - cannot be
selected as 'the' maaser...

SBA 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:50:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Elokai N'tzor - dikduk


Sholom Simon posted the following question from a friend:
> In the individual coda to the amida, Elokai N'tzor, there appears the
> phrase "uv'mitzvotecha tirdof nafshi."...

In Nusach Sfard, it's "acharei mitzvosekha", thereby avoiding your whole
question.

>                               A simple translation of this might
> be, "may my spirit pursue Your commandments." However, I'm curious about
> the use of the preposition "b-" after the verb "r-d-f."...

I would suggest that the translation is wrong. It's not discussing the
object of pursuit, but the means. Similarly the previous phrase is not
"open my heart to Your Torah" but rather a request that using His Torah,
Hashem should open my heart. Again, "be-" in the sense of means.

Related to this is the Vilna Ga'on's understanding of the first 6 clauses
of "E-lokai, Netzor". See Emunah Sheleimah 2:1, or my translation at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n243.shtml#10>. We are referring
to Torah and mitzvos in their ability to shape how one pursues his
physical and personal desires, and avoid ta'avah and chemdah.

To take off on an idea from R' Shim'on Shkop: As we say about Moshe
Rabbeinu, "Yismach Mosheh bematnas chelqo, ki eved ne'eman karasa lo". It
is only through Mosheh being an eved Hashem that he got what he desired
as opposed to his desires getting him!

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:03:13 +1100
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Ma'aser mystery 2


schoemann@lucent.com 
> ....my son wanted to know since when we 
> tithe quantities under 10 - and determine the 10th by starting from the 
> beginning again.  Any ideas how to explain this? 

Further to my earlier post - another explanation may be, that whilst
generally there is no chiyuv maaser on quantities of less than 10,
in this case Yaakov Ovinu had promised: "**Vechol** asher titen li -
aser asreni loch.." "Vechol" = everything - even less than 10.

Looking into this further, I found a Midrash Rabba [Vayetsei 70:7]
where the cheshbon [and story] is slightly different to the TY's version.

There - it shows how Yaakov actually had 14 children 
[Efrayim uMenashe keRueven veShimon yihyu li]. 
So after deducting the 4 bechorim - there are 10 sons left - 
with Levi being the maaser. 
[How davka Levi comes up this way - veis ich nisht.]

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 12:09:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Textualism and Mimeticism rererere...dux


We've been discussing on Areivim mixed seating at weddings and
hair covering again, and so yet again we're looking at "Rupture and
Reconstruction".

Remember that R&R is a historian's work, not a halachacist's. R"D Haym
Soloveitchik (hereafter RDHS) is capable of writting either, however
that's what he actually did right. There is no "ought" stated in the
article, although it's not hard to read his own preferences between the
lines given the quotes from his father, RYBS.

IOW, RDHS does NOT say that halakhah ought to be determined textually,
mimetically, or give the appropriate synthesis of the two. He simply
says it used to be a richer mixture of mimeticism and textualism than
the heavy reliance on textualism after WWII. He notes a historical shift
in how we relate to Jewish practice.

Agreed that a strong sense of social norm means that certain issues
aren't asked. That doesn't make them more right. With fewer changes in
lifestyle, there are both fewer new questions, and fewer opportunities
to revisit mistakes.

 -mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:19:04 -0500
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
Re:Asking questions


WRT to the thread of asking questions. 

RYGB does not merely disagree with the position attributed to RCS, but thinks
that it is so problematic that he believes that RCS never said that seriously.

Without going into the merits (or demerits) of RCS's position, I find this
dismissal itself highly problematic. After all, there is no intrinsic evidence
to suggest that. FUrthermore, this position of RCS is reported by RYBS - a
family member in addition to his own gadlut. Therefore, the belief that RCS
never said that seriously is implicitly an attack on the ne'emanut of RYBS -
itself a serious issue.

In the past,RYGB has argued against accepting the reliability of different
mesorot - which may depend on the audience to which they were oriented (eg
the letters of the seride esh) or the chain of transmission - which is not
always reliable. Here, arguing that the chain of transmission is unreliable
would seem to have (at least for many of us) its own set of problems.

Meir Shinnar


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:04:12 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re:Asking questions


At 04:19 PM 11/29/2004, [RMS] wrote:
>In the past,RYGB has argued against accepting the reliability of different
>mesorot - which may depend on the audience to which they were oriented (eg
>the letters of the seride esh) or the chain of transmission - which is not
>always reliable. Here, arguing that the chain of transmission is unreliable
>would seem to have (at least for many of us) its own set of problems.

It is well known that there are more and less accurate traditions in
Beis Brisk (viz., stencils less accurate, etc.).

I didn't say the story is not true - I said it may be assur to believe
it is true because it attributes an error to RCS in a very basic nekudah.

It is your prerogative to assume RCS committed such errors. It is my
prerogative, knowing his gadlus, to assume he did not.

YGB


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:40:20 -0500
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Re: Kuzari question


From: "Kenneth G Miller" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Our problem is
> that in 1:96, the king accepts all of this without challenge, while we
> see several clear logical flaws:

You need to learn the Kuzari the way you study Plato (l'havdil).
That is, Plato often has his characters accept arguments we the reader
think are fallacious, and he expects the budding philosopher to reject
those arguments and find more acceptable arguments which lead to the same
conclusion. He'll often give hints later in the dialogue. RYH follows
the same paradigm.

For example the Kuzari begins with the philosopher denying (a) the
possibility of prophecy and (b) the efficacy of mitzvoth. The King
rejects this a priori since (a) he was moved by a prophetic dream and
(b) the prophetic dream specifically criticised his actions as opposed
to his beliefs. If the King hadn't had such a dream why would he have
rejected the philosopher? IIRC RYH doesn't deal with that question until
the middle of Book 5.

> 1) Why is it accepted unchallenged that Shes was indeed greater than his
> brothers, or that Enosh was greater than his brothers, or that Shem was,
> and so on?
> 2) If the answer to the above is that all three of the clergy summoned
> by the king accept that genealogy, it would certainly stop at Yitzchak,
> because the Moslems would say that the greatness of Avraham went to
> Yishmael.
> 3) Even if all this is an acceptable demonstration that Yaakov was greater
> than any other human of his generation, where is the logic in changing
> the rules so that this greatness can now suddenly be shared by all his
> children? Why can't the same be said about all of Noach's children,
> or all of Adam's, for that matter?

At this point the King already accepts the authenticity of the Bible,
and this is certainly implicit in the Biblical narrative. As to why
God planned it that way, I don't recall that RYH tries to answer that
question.

David Riceman 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:10:40 -0500
From: "" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Subject:
Re: Torah and Allegory


micha@aishdas.org posted on: Nov 29, 2004 [Re: Moreh Nevuchim]:
> I disagree with RZL that this [ie:
>> But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of
>> necessity, there would be occasion for the above questions. And these
>> could only be answered in an OBJECTIONABLE WAY, IMPLYING DENIAL AND
>> NULLIFICATION OF ALL THE PESHUTAY HATORAH, WHICH NO ENLIGHTENED PERSON
>> DOUBTS ARE MEANT K'FI HA-PESHUTIM HA-HEIM
> ] is a third criterion, rather, it's explaining the 2nd [ie:
>> Secondly, our belief in the Incorporeality of God is NOT CONTRARY TO
>> ANY OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF OUR RELIGION, and it is NOT CONTRARY
>> TO THE WORDS OF ANY PROPHET
> ]

You're right (although I only called it a "last parameter," not a
"third"). My point is that the Rambam holds that enlightened people
understand the peshutay haTorah are meant k'fi hap'shutim ha-heim, rather
than accepting objectionable interpretations of them. Unenlightened
people, on the other hand, accept objectionable intepretations. Which
means there's a limit to allegorial or other interpretation of the
Torah's passages, even regarding its narratives.

If, as you prove, the Rambam considers this part and parcel of his second
parameter [as an elucidation of "fundamental principles and/or words of
the prophets"), that 's fine.

RMB continued:
> If no one would doubt based on their enlightenment by the Torah that
> the words are meant kefi peshutam, then they're kefi peshutam.

I'm not clear, however, about what you mean by this. Is it an explanation
of your previous statement? A proof against saying this criterion is a
third parameter?

Zvi Lampel


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:13:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Torah and Allegory


hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
>> If no one would doubt based on their enlightenment by the Torah that the
>> words are meant kefi peshutam, then they're kefi peshutam.

> I'm not clear, however, about what you mean by this. Is it an explanation of
> your previous statement? A proof against saying this criterion is a third
> parameter?

I was showing how your hava amina "last parameter" is subsumed within
the second by paraphrasing it to match. Compare to the original "which
no enlightened person doubts are meant k'fi ha-peshutim ha-heim."

Implied is that the Rambam's second criterion is met as long as any
"enlightened person" can justify the abandonment of peshat for Torah
reasons.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:51:08 -0500
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
minyan vs. tzibbur


I'm trying to understand what constitutes a tzibbur for the purposes
of krias HaTorah. The Rama 135:2 citing the Or Zarua (the whole story
is in H. Shabbos 45) says that if a tzibbur misses krias haTorah one
Shabbos they may (the Or Zarua himself seems to say must) make it up
the next Shabbos.
If you read the story (maaseh b'Cologne ...) it's clear that the paradigm
is a shul where everyone attends every Shabbos. What, though, about more
marginal cases? Here are two:

1. The shul has a special minyan once every two weeks for people who
love to sing, and in the alternate week the attendees go to the regular
minyan. Naively reading the Rama this tzibbur misses krias haTorah
every other week. OTOH one of the acharonim, without citing any reasons,
says that if a majority of the tzibbur heard krias haTorah, then even
if that tzibbur didn't read they shouldn't read.

2. The shul takes advantage of this Rama and has a special weekly minyan
for people who missed shul last week. In this case the tzibbur (i.e. the
regular minyan) did not miss krias haTorah, but ALL of the attendees
did miss krias haTorah. May/must they make up?

I'm less interested in the din of making up than in the definition of
tzibbur. Incidentally, my impression is that Tzafnas Paneah H. Tefillah
12:5 would disagree with this Rama, so I don't think it's relevant.

David Riceman 


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:36:37 -0500
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <cmarkowitz@scor.com>
Subject:
V'Sain Tal U'Matar in Southern Hemisphere


I am interested in finding out when people in the Southern Hemisphere
(Australia and South America) say V'Sain Tal U'Matar. I have seen the
various teshuvos on this topic and I am just curious to know what people
actually do.

If you can email me privately in addition to posting it to Avodah it
would be appreciated. Thanks.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:48:37 -0800 (PST)
From: HG Schild <hgschild@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Chushim ben Dan


Bereshis Rabbah 93:7, YAlkut Shimoni Bereshis 44 Remez 150 imply that
Chushim ben Dan had good enough hearing to hear Uncle Yehudah far
away...etc..
whereas Pirke D'Rebbe Eliezer Chapter (38 or 39), Yalkut Shimoni
Tehillim Perek 58, #776 say he was hard of hearing / deaf and thus
killed Esav...etc..

Does anyone resolve this contradiction?

HG Schild
hgschild@yahoo.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:41:46 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Kavod Rabo


In learning the mishna in Kiddushin, I was asked how we know the din
of kavod rabo, as opposed to kavod talmid chacham which is presumably
learned from vehadarta penei zaken.

How do we know that there is a din of kavod rabo to the extent of taking
precedence over avedas aviv?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


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 >