Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 104

Tuesday, March 29 2005

• Re: Startling historical beliefs
• Re: What's the right way to explain it.
• Re: fallibility or non fallibility of chazal
• Re: schiavo case
• Re: Is Yahadus a 'religion'?
• RE: Hallel HaGodol
• RE: Startling historical beliefs
• Startling histoical beliefs
• RE: fallibility of chazal
• Re: fallibility of chazal
• Re: fallibility or non fallibility of chazal
• RE: fallibility of chazal
• Reading megillah in English
• Re: Reading megillah in english
• Re: What's the right way to explain it.]
• Re: R' Eldad Hadani
• Races of Mankind
• Re: kavod hatorah

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:42:58PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: I have unfortunately not been ever able to see the offending passage
: inside but I think that it may be understood by referring to R. Saadia
: Gaon's view on authorship of tehilim in introduction to tehilim. RSG
: writes that all tehilim (even those with other author names) were dictated
: directly to David Hamaleach and he draws a direct parallel to the way
: the Chumash was given to Moshe Rabbeinu...

Then why is it categorized as Kesuvim?

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 05:52:34PM -0500, Jonathan S. Ostroff reposted in
part of his critique of RMS's book, ch 7:
: The Tzioni answers: <<It is well-known that the whole Torah from
: "Beraishis" until "in the eyes of all Israel" (i.e from the very first
: word of the Torah to its very last word) was from the mouth of the
: Holy One Blessed be He, to the ear of Moshe as it says "from his mouth
: he dictated to me all his words and I wrote them on a scroll with ink
: [Yermiyahu 36:18, a prooftext brought by R. Shimon in [3] to show that
: Moshe wrote the whole Sefer Torah word for word as dictated to him by
: G-d]. Know that here (in the official Sefer Torah) Moshe wrote only a
: brief summary of the story of Bilam.. it appears from the Sages that that
: Moshe wrote his own (private) sefer in addition to to the (official)
: sefer Torah and the (private) sefer (with an expanded description of
: parshas Bilam) was lost to us like many others.>>

The centrality of the Bil'am story is that the combination of AZ to
justify arayos (and the whole Asheirah-as-consort thing) had much to
do with the problems of bayis rishon. By the time of the canon, the
yeitzer hara for avodah zarah was muffled in a lead pot. It probably
has something deep to do with why the protagonist of Purim, which was
just around the same time and a critical link leading to bayis sheini,
was named for the Persian version of Asheirah. Which would explain why
this siefer was lost, unlike Iyov's more timeless message.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:06:27PM -0500, mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Can someone help me come up or direct me to an expanation of Hashem
: being referred askel kana, A jelous G-d in Devarim 4, 21 and also in
: the 10 commandments . In the latter it is defined as Poked avon avos
: al banim. ONe of my students asked me to explain it and I found myself
: unprepared.

: I am aware of targum who says that it is only when they children
: follow the deeds of the fathers, as well as the Ibn Ezra's explanation
: that G-d is ling suffering waiting for 3-4 generations to collect his
: debt...

If one believes that a person is judged ba'asher hu sham, than any
factor that shapes the person positively would cause sechar, and also
the reverse.

A person chooses how to react to an event. In our case, he could see
his parents actions as a cautionary tale, a lesson to learn what not to
do, or he could embrace them. A person is judged for that decision. The
person chooses whether to see the old lady or the young, the two faces
or the goblet. That bechirah is the difference between someone who is
punished for following their parents and someone given the allowance of
a tinoq shenishba for doing so.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:27:33PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> *Maharal (Derech Chaim 5:17): *The Mishna says that the dispute between
:> Shammai and Hillel etc.

: Beautiful translation. And once again, you have illustrated from the
: Maharal that elu v'elu is *not* applied to all halachic disputes...

The sevara the Maharal gives in Be'er haGolah (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 19-20
would apply regardless of whether it's Beis Hillel vs Beis Shammai or
other machloqesin. His reasoning gives no room for a machloqes where one
side captured divrei E-lokim Chaim and the other not, as such perfect
capturing is impossible.

Since I'm at my parents' apartment and not near my bookcase,
I took that reference is from RMRosensweig's paper at
<http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm>,
which in turn I summarize in
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-i.shtml>. (My
own opinions are in part II, at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-ii.shtml>.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
micha@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:49:24AM -0500, Shaya Potter wrote:
: If someone's is on a feeding tube, actions have to be explicitly done
: to keep on refilling it.

: Is not refilling it equivalent to taking someone off a respirator?

First, as others noted, you're extrapolating from the case of a goseis
to someone who was not a goseis. Vehara'ayah, it's been far more than
72 hours even without the food.

Second, there is a big difference between a sibah and hosaras hamonei'ah.
See R' Amiel's formulation, as explained by R' Ralph Frankel at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n121.shtml#07>.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 01:21:13PM -0600, Gershon Seif gave the position
of Rabbi Shmuel Fuerst, Dayan of the Agudah in the Midwest:
: Are the umos haolom guilty of murder in cases of brain death when they
: pull the plug? He answered they are not obligated to seek out a Jewish
: beis din to determine what is considered being alive. They are obligated
: to use their own legal system to attempt to arriving at truth...

What about the Rambam, who defines keeping the 7 mitzvos as specifically
keeping them because they were given at Sinai. Wouldn't that imply a
duty to follow halakhah, not some natual/intuitive moral law?

Second, I thought retzichah was more chamur for non-Jews, not less.

Third, assuming that this goes by the actor, not the recipient, should
a patient choose a doctor in line with his living will wishes?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - unkown MD, while a Nazi prisoner

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:59:29PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: One might suggest in a moshol inspired by Franz Rosenzweig, that the
: magen david represents two overlapping triangles. The upper triangle
: has three ends - man, G-d and World.

Alternatively, the Maharal on Avos 1:2, that Torah, Avodah and Gemillus
Chassadim are about the world within our heads, Shamayim, and olam
hazeh respectively, and also the residents of each -- ourselves, HQBH,
and other people.

We could take this lesson from the keilim. Three are crowned, three not.

But this is tangential to my question about the role of bein adam
lachaveiro in chassidus, and whether it's inherently "religious".

-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.

>>I believe that the above quote is a misrepresentation of the position 
>>of R. Yehudah Hachassid on Hallel Hagadol...

> There is a tape that I heard of a talk given by Dr. S. Leiman 
> that appeared to me to back up what Micha [forwarded] in no 
> uncertain terms. The tape is "Torah Min Hashamayim: Recent 
> Perspectives on the Divine Origin of Torah" , Shnayer Leiman. 
> I no longer recall from who I ordered this tape.

Having heard two talks (the tape you mention as well as a later
presentation in Toronto on CD) by Dr. Leiman on the topic of R' Yehuda
Hachasid and Hallel Hagadol, I subsequently mailed my Avodah submission
to him. He thanked me for an "important contribution", but it is best
that you speak to him directly for his views.

My suggestion is to look up the quoted sources -- the evidence speaks
for itself.

KT ... JSO

[RMS on R. Yehudah Hachassid]
> To prove something false, one counterexample is all that is 
> needed - even if one can show that there are many people who 
> fully support the eight ikkar. The issue isn't the relative 
> weight of them - but the existence of people fully within the 
> mesora who dissented.

I was actually hard pressed to find good counter-examples in Shapiro's
7th chapter by which I mean (a) a full quote *in context* from a reputable
source and (b) a clear statement from the putative source as to why they
disagreed with Chazal (see the sources in my post).

The reason for (a) is obvious from my original post
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n125.shtml#03) where I gave
examples of severe misrepresentations. For example,

---
Shapiro writes on p96:
<<According to a number of Midrashic sources, R. Meir himself had a
Torah text that differed from that of his colleagues (BR 9: 5,20). For
example, while the standard version of Genesis 1:31 reads "tov me-od",
R. Meir's text read "Behold, death was good" (tov maves)... According
to Nachmanides, this was not the result of an error made by an ignorant
scribe, but rather that that R. Meir himself was responsible for the
variant.>>

According to Shapiro (using Nachmanides as support), R. Meir had a
legitimate variant text! This is to be contrasted, Shapiro asserts, with
the Rambam in the Guide 3:10 that this reflects R. Meir's interpretation
of the verse rather than a variant text [footnote 35, p96].

But, what Nachmanides actually says is: <<R. Meir was a scribe. Once when
he wrote a Sefer Torah, he pondered deeply in his heart that "very good"
refers even to death... His hand followed his thoughts and he erred
and inadvertenly wrote in his Sefer Torah that... "death was good">>
[Kisvei Ramban 1:p184]
---

(b) is important in light of the ongoing debate current on Avodah (see
posts by RDE and RSC) about why we are obligated by the Talmud or chasimas
hatalmud (a universally agreed upon principle in the poskim). Thus, a
later opinion kenegged the Talmud would normally be a shita dechuya unless
it could be shown to be consistent with Chazal. A few counter examples
will not do the trick against the Talmud itself and the weight of the
many Rishonim and Achronim who quote the sources in Chazal approvingly
(theTzioni being one of them) -- the Rambam's formulation is referenced
in the Shulchan Aruch lehalacha (see also the beginning of the Oruch
Hashulchan) -- all this omitted by Shapiro yet central to the issue at
stake. Many of the opinions quoted by Shapiro do not address the Talmudic
sources and we may thus be making the same mistake with them as was made
by Shapiro w.r.t. to the Tzioni/RYH.

> Note 
> that Rav Moshe Feinstein disagreed with this reinterpretation 
> - which is why he wishes to ban the book.

I am not sure why you say this as Rav Moshe Feinstein was apparently
not aware of the following quote from the Tzioni:
<<It is well-known that the whole Torah from "Beraishis" until "in the
eyes of all Israel" (i.e from the very first word of the Torah to its very
last word) was from the mouth of the Holy One Blessed be He, to the ear
of Moshe as it says "from his mouth he dictated to me all his words and
I wrote them on a scroll with ink [Yermiyahu 36:18, a prooftext brought
by R. Shimon in [3] to show that Moshe wrote the whole Sefer Torah word
for word as dictated to him by G-d]..>>

At the very least, it seems to me that Rav Moshe would heartily approve of
the above Tzioni, and who knows what he would have said about R. Klein's
peshat which I would say is solidy based on a prooftext from the Tzioni.
Contra Shapiro, the Tzioni would not contradict himself.

> The warning given by RJSO, caveat emptor, is quite correct - 
> but we differ where to apply it...

Indeed, caveat emptor, as stated originally. We are dealing with an
ikkar as outlined in Perek Chelek.

KT ... JSO

On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:42:58PM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: I have unfortunately not been ever able to see the offending passage
: inside but I think that it may be understood by referring to R. Saadia
: Gaon's view on authorship of tehilim in introduction to tehilim. RSG
: writes that all tehilim (even those with other author names) were dictated
: directly to David Hamaleach and he draws a direct parallel to the way
: the Chumash was given to Moshe Rabbeinu...

[Micha:]
Then why is it categorized as Kesuvim?

Tha is a question on R SG. One possible answer is as per Meiri in intro
to Tehillim. Both Neviim and Kesuvim contain nevua except that only
those nevuos that were explicitly sent as commands to do or not to do
are grouped in Neviim. General predictions etc belong in Kesuvim.

M. Levin

RD Eidensohn wrote:
> My text of the Chazon Ish says no such thing. He says that the Kesef
> Mishna did not do Klall Yisroel a favor by proposing that authority is
> based upon the acceptance of Klall Yisroel. Chazon Ish says authority
> is based on the superiority of Chazal.

On March 28, 2000 R' David Glasner responded:
> The Chazon Ish dismisses the Kesef Mishna, but the Kesef Mishna only
> came to explain how the Rambam could havepaskened in Mamrim 2:1 that
> a beit din ha-gadol may overturn the halakhah decided by an earlier
> beit din ha-gadol based on its interpretation of the Scripture even if
> the later beit din is inferior to its predecessor in wisdom and number.
> The Kesef Mishna is trying to reconcile this psak l'halakha of the Rambam
> with the method of the Talmud, which doesn't allow an amora to argue
> with a tannaitic source. The Chazon Ish may not like the Keseph Mishna,
> but his problem seems to be with the Rambam about whom he is silent
> (at least in the quotations I have so far read).

Excellent point. And this is precisely why I believe that rather than the
Chazon Ish dismissing the Kesef Mishna, he is appending a nesinas ta'am,
a reason for klal yisroel's universal acceptance. In fact, a neutral
reading of the text of his letter yields exactly this conclusion. I've
quoted it on a previous post but I'll do it again.

Uma shekasav maran shekiblu kein, translation - and that which our master
(the Kesef Mishna) wrote that they (the generation of ammoraim after
the chasimas hamishna) accepted thus (i.e. not to argue on the chosmei
hamishna), lo tova vachesed assu im harishonim, translation - they
(meaning the first generation ammoraim, notice the plural form here assu,
they did. According to RDE who understands the Chazon Ish as dismissing
the Kesef mishna, it should say assa, singular) were not performing a
goodness and kindliness with the Rishonim (i.e. the chosmei hamishna),
ela haemes cheeyeiv osam - translation - rather, the truth (of the fact
of the more profound stature of the earlier generations) obligated them
(to accept not to argue on the earlier generations).

I think it is clear that the Chazon Ish was appending a reason for the
Kesef Mishna's "universal acceptance" peshat, not dismissing it. I simply
do not see any hechrech to make a machlokes between the Chazon Ish and
the KM. Earlier today, Jonathan Ostroff pointed out to me that in the
final letter from R' Elchonon to the Chazon Ish (found in the back of
Kovez Inyanim) R' Elchonon states clearly that there is no question that
the Kesef Mishna would agree with this idea of the superiority of the
previous generations as a reason for why later generations accept not to
argue on previous generations. R' Elchonon too agrees with it and was
chagrined that the Chazon Ish had misunderstood his words (although he
admits that he was inordinately mikatzer). R' Elchonon simply wants to
add that even if theoretically someone would come along that all would
agree had the superior understanding of say, an amaora, he would still
not be able to argue against the amoraim because the chosmei hatalmud
had the din of a beis din haGadol.

All the best
Simcha Coffer

S & R Coffer wrote:
>I think it is clear that the Chazon Ish was appending a reason for the Kesef
>Mishna's "universal acceptance" peshat, not dismissing it. I simply do not
>see any hechrech to make a machlokes between the Chazon Ish and the KM.

I asked Rav Sternbuch. He said that he views the Chazon Ish as explaining
the Kesef Mishna but said that I could understand it as a dispute.

However, I think it is clear that Rav Shlomo Fischer also understands
that the Chazon Ish disagrees with the Kesef Mishna.

Bottom line is that from the context - a commentary on the the Rambam
- it is a dispute. Taken from the point of view that the Kesef Mishna
would not disagree with contemporary hashkofa, it is important to read
it as an explanation rather than a criticism. Perhaps our respective
positions reflect the dispute between the Rosh and the Raavad - 4th
perek of Sanhedrin - as to the permissibility of disagreeeing with
gaonim. I would assume that there are other sources which could lead to
a clariication of the actual view of the Chazon Ish.

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Daniel Eidensohn quoted Emes L'Yaakov (Bereishis page 15), regarding
astronauts on the moon: "How could the Rambam explain this since he has
written that the moon is a spiritual entity."

It seems to me that this "spiritual entity" has a physical manifestation,
and this strikes me as contradictory. Are there any other "spiritual
entities" which are visible to even the most ordinary of people?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what the Rambam meant by the term "spiritual
entity". Can anyone define it for me?

Akiva Miller

S & R Coffer wrote:
>>I think it is clear that the Chazon Ish was appending a reason for the Kesef
>>Mishna's "universal acceptance" peshat, not dismissing it. I simply do not
>>see any hechrech to make a machlokes between the Chazon Ish and the KM.

On March 29  2005 Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> I asked Rav Sternbuch. He said that he views the Chazon Ish as
> explaining the Kesef Mishna but said that I could understand it as a
> dispute.

IMHO, you need not appeal for authorization to maintain your position. We
are like two chavrusos who are learning a sugya and attempting to reach a
maskana based on the sources. I am interested in what R' Daniel Eidensohn
has to say regardless of whether Rav Sternbuch gave you the go-ahead to
learn a particular source this way or that. It is nice to know though
that Rav Sternbuch is aligned with my view :-)

> However, I think it is clear that Rav Shlomo Fischer also understands
> that the Chazon Ish disagrees with the Kesef Mishna.

I haven't read his piece on the topic so I don't know if you are correct
but as I stated above, bandying around names doesn't do anything
for me. I maintain my position regardless. As far as I'm concerned,
a straight reading of the Chazon Ish yields my peshat, not Rav Fischer's.

I would like to add that this all started when you asked me to support
my position on the infallibility of Chazal. I believe I have done that
using the historical account of the times as seen through the eyes of
the Doros haRishonim. As far as I'm concerned, whether the Chazon Ish
is arguing on, or supporting the Kesef Mishna is academic (although I
enjoyed our shakla v'tarya immensely). I am simply expressing my own
view using a synthesis of the Chazon Ish's idea together with the Doros
haRishonim's account. For a full treatment of this account, please see
Rav Avigdor Miller's book titled Exalted Nation.

> Bottom line is that from the context - a commentary on the the Rambam -
> it is a dispute. 

I don't think this is the bottom line at all! On the contrary, as David
Glasner wrote, the Chazon Ish is faced with the same problem in the Rambm
as the Kesef Mishna is. I don't think that even you would propose that
the Chazon Ish is arguing on the Rambam. Thus, it makes the most sense
to say that the Chazon Ish is clarifying the Kesef Mishna's approach to
the Rambam rather than disagreeing with it.

> Taken from the point of view that the Kesef Mishna
> would not disagree with contemporary hashkofa,  it is important to read
> it as an explanation rather than a criticism. 

I strongly disagree! I don't mean to sound presumptuous but as I think
I have illustrated by now, I care about only one consideration; truth,
nothing else (at least consciously. Everyone is human and I pray "v'taher
leebeinu l'avdicha b'emes"). The kesef mishna has to be learned using
only the standard darchei haLimud, nothing else.

Personally, I could care less about currently accepted norms in hashkafa
and would never (at least consciously) be misalef the words of the Torah
to satisfy a hashkafa that happens to be currently fashionable. In fact,
currently accepted views are often-times a barometer of what the opposing
view of daas Torah would be. (I just *had* to stick that last sentence
in to say something controversial :-)

> I would assume that there are other sources which could lead to
> a clariication of the actual view of the Chazon Ish.

I think we've exhausted them all as well as ourselves :-) 

Best Wishes
Simcha Coffer

RMF:
> A baal tshuvah who does not have a knack for Hebrew asked me what to
> do on Purim-is it OK for him to read the megillah (with his eyes) in
> English while the baal koreh reads it in Hebrew?

Has Artscroll put out an interlinear megillah yet?

- Ilana

[Answers to the implied question about whether an interlinear megillah
would qualify as listening to every word belong here. Answers to the
litereal question, on Areivim. -mi]

> (An English reading from a megillah written in English would work,
> but I have never heard of this being done.)

See R. Kapach on this halacha in the Rambam - he records that in Yemen
they used to have megillot in R. Sa'adya Gaon's translation. The megillot
where written following all the dinim of megilla and in Hebrew characters.
He writes that the megilla should always be in ktav ashurit. See there
for a picture of such a megilla, and also where he records a discussion
with his grandfather (R. Yichye Kapach) about the issue. IIRC he raised
the difficulty of a Yerushalmi which indicates one should always read
the Megilla in Lashon HaKodesh, and the terutz was that this was better
given the improved understanding. IIRC these megillot were predominantly
for the women, as the men tended to be fluent in Hebrew. I have never
heard of such a practice in Ashkenaz, perhaps someone might have used
Targum Yehoash? Although it's a bit late, the R. Kapach does write b'da'at
haRambam that not only can women be motzi men in mikra megilla, but that
there is no issue of kvod hatzibbur for them to read publicly. This is
because the din of kvod tzibbur in leining is due to the fact that women
are patur from talmud torah so it is not a kavod for someone patur to be
motzi a chayav. It's interesting that among Edot HaMizrach poskim there is
so much more latitude for potential feminist positions, but that in that
world the women don't tend to be nearly as interested. Comments? Perhaps
on Areivim...

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@yahoo.com

mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
>Can someone help me come up or direct me to an expanation of Hashem
>being referred askel kana, A jelous G-d in Devarim 4, 21 and also in
>the 10 commandments . In the latter it is defined as Poked avon avos
>al banim. ONe of my students asked me to explain it and I found myself
>unprepared.

      The fundamental relationship to G-d is a bris. The covenental
      relationship is similar to marriage. There are many discussions
      in the literature of the marriage. Marriage entails jealousy if
      one party is unfaithful.

The following is a quote from the Encyclopeidia Judaica concerning the
concept of covenant.

      The Origin of the Covenant

The idea of a covenant between a deity and a people is unknown from other
religions and cultures. It seems that the covenantal idea was a special
feature of the religion of Israel, the only one to demand exclusive
loyalty and preclude the possibility of dual or multiple loyalties;
so the stipulation in political treaties demanding exclusive fealty to
one king corresponds strikingly with the religious belief in one single,
exclusive deity.

The prophets, especially Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, expressed this
idea of exclusive loyalty by speaking of the relationship between God and
Israel as one of husband and wife, which in itself is also considered
covenantal (cf. above and especially Ezek. 16:8). Although the idea
of marital love between God and Israel is not mentioned explicitly
in the Pentateuch, it seems to be present in a latent form. Following
other gods is threatened by the statement: "For I the Lord your God am
a jealous God" (Ex. 20:5; Deut. 5:9; cf. Ex. 34:14; Josh. 24:19). The
root (anc, /qn/, "jealous") is in fact used in Numbers 5:14 in the
technical sense of a husband who is jealous of his wife. Similarly the
verb used in the Pentateuch for disloyalty is /zanah a//harei/, "to whore
after." Furthermore, the formula expressing the covenantal relationship
between God and Israel, "you will be my people and I will be your God"
(Lev. 26:12; Deut. 29:12, etc.), is a legal formula taken from the sphere
of marriage, as attested in various legal documents from the Ancient Near
East (cf. Hos. 2:4). The relationship of the vassal to his suzerain or
of the wife to her husband leaves no place for double loyalty, and they
are therefore perfect metaphors for loyalty in a monotheistic religion.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 02:04:54 EST  T613K@aol.com Wrote
Quoting
>The only writers of the Middle Ages who expressed
> doubts as to the genuineness of Eldad's narrative and his halakot were
> Abraham ibn Ezra (Commentary to Ex. ii. 22) and Me?r of Rothenburg
> (Responsa, No. 193).

The Even Ezra most probably implied to the Sefer Eldad Hadani, which
recounts the travels and stories of R' Eldad Hadani (it can be found in
Otzer Hamidrashim - Eizenstein p.19), and not to his Sefer Hilchos E"Y
(which stand for Amar Yehoshua, but the "bochur ha'zetzer" translated
it to Eretz Yisroel).

And that is not necessarily due to any suspicion as to the legitimacy
of R' Eldad Hadani himself, but rather the dependability of the legends
of his travels and stories as passed over the centuries.

My basis for this assumption is the fact that the Even Ezra mentions
it in comparison to Sefer Divrei Hayomim Le'Moshe (which can be found
in Otzer Hamidrashim - Eizenstein p.356), and Sefer Zrubavel, (Otzer
Hamidrashim - Eizenstein p.158.) which are of the same genre as the
above mentioned Sefer Eldad Hadani.

I didn't find the Maharam Rotenburg quoted.

><http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=126&letter0>
>> These halakot, written in Hebrew, deal with the
>> slaughtering and subsequent examination of animals. They differ widely
>>from the Talmudic ordinances....There are no less than eight versions
>> with important variations.....

Rav Tzemach Gaon (quoted in Shem Hagdolim) wrote a tshuva explaining
the fact that some halachos from Eldad Hadani differ from the Talmud,
despite the fact that Eldad Hadani claims his halachos as mekubal
from Yhoshua m'pi Moshe. Rav Tzamach Gaon attributes those differences
"sheyesh litlos sheshokach meharpakti de'adi alei"

>Is Eldad Hadani really considered a legitimate source?

The sources that T613K@aol.com quotes as questioning the validity of R'
Eldad Hadani, (see Beis Yosef YD 53 and a host of Rishonim, including the
Semag Ha'Agur Ha'Itur that refer to him as "Rebbe Eldad Hadani") is as
relevant as the their opinion on the authenticity of the Torah's account
of Yetzias Mitzrayim, Kibush Haaretz, Malchus Bais Dovid etc. ("fanciful,
strange, weird").

Anything and everything, especially historical facts, that are based on
sifrei kodesh, be it Tanach, Talmud, Sifrei Geonim and Rishonim, that
have no secular source, are to the mentioned sources just a collection
of fanciful, weird and strange stuff. Therefore their opinion on R' Eldad
Hadani -- Which are based on pure speculations, should be treated as such.

> However, I think that Eldad Hadani cannot qualify as "Chazal."

The halachos of Eldad Hadani begin with "Amar Yehoshua m'pi Moshe m'pi
Hagvura". I think that meets the criteria as a m'kor in Chazal

- Avigdor Feldstein

> RTK writes ...Another possibility is that people--even many people--were
> created AFTER Adam Harishon.  We know that there were people who were
> created without being mentioned explicitly in the Torah, by the very fact
> that the sons of Adam and Chava married and had children, yet the creation
> of their wives is not mentioned (except in midrashim).  If two or three
> extra people could be created without being mentioned, why not thousands or
> millions?

I don't understand this chidush of that people--even many people--were
created AFTER Adam Harishon.

Every source that I know of understood that the fact that the sons of
Adam and Chava married and had children was because that they married
other children born to Adam/Chava by normal means.

do you have any sources that indicate otherwise?

Mordechai Cohen

Harry Maryles wrote on Sat, 26 Mar 2005:
> I just had a quick look at the YU Eruv site you referenced and noticed
> the situation at YU is one of being Koneh Reshus and D'lasos. That takes
> the YU segment out of the geder of Reshus HaRabbim and is an entirely
> different story.

> The truth is that I do not know the exact situation with the Flatbush
> Eruv. But it is my understnding that there are no D'lasos and therefore
> RMF's Psak that it is a Reshus HaRabbim D'Oraisa still stands.

The YU eruv utilizes dalsos on Amsterdam Ave. If the population of
Manhattan is more than 3,000,000, since the island is less than twelve
mil by twelve mil, RMF's shita would require dalsos around the whole
border of the eruv and not just Amsterdam Ave. If Manhattan has less
than the required population of 3,000,000, then there would be no need
for dalsos, even on Amsterdam Ave.

The Flatbush (Sfardic) eruv utilizes dalsos on Ocean Parkway. If
Brooklyn's population encompasses 3,000,000 people according to RMF there
would be a need for dalsos along the whole border instead of just tzuras
hapesachim. If Brooklyn's population is less than 3,000,000 there would
be no need for dalsos even on Ocean Parkway according to RMF.

However, even if a twelve mil by twelve mil area does not contain
3,000,000 people but a road (sratya) that cuts through it has 600,000
people traversing it daily, dalsos would be required for the road itself,
according to RMF. The fact is that these streets have nowhere near
600,000 people traversing them daily. Consequently, according to RMF --
as opposed to other poskim -- there would be no benefit in the current
use of dalsos either on Amsterdam Ave. or on Ocean Parkway.

Notwithstanding all of this, IMHO since Brooklyn is bounded
by mechitzos RMF would allow an eruv in Flatbush (Igros Moshe,
O.C. 5:28:5). (Additionally, Brooklyn does not encompass 3,000,000
people and the eruv -- the tzuras hapesachim -- encompass less than
shishim ribuy.)

SP

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


[ 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         ]