Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 115

Thursday, April 14 2005

• geonim and gemara and Chasimas HaShas
• Re: Signing a Kesubah Before Dating It.
• Signing a Kesubah Before Dating It.
• Re: REED on education
• Re: Eiruvin
• Re: Avodah V14 #114
• Re: NonJew at a Seder
• Re: NonJew at a Seder
• Re: NonJew at a Seder
• NonJew at a seder
• Re: NonJew at a Seder
• Re: 2 Pesach Halocho Sheets
• Poetry in Judaism (Qadesh uRehhats)
• Re: Brocha on Tevila
• Re: 2 Pesach Halocho Sheets
• Re: 2 Pesach Halocho Sheets
• Re: NonJew at a Seder
• Re: NonJew at a Seder
• Non-Jew at the Seder
• RE: Erev Pesach on Shabbat (5765): A Short Guide
• Re: Erev Pesach on Shabbat (5765): A Short Guide
• Hasimas haTalmud - Rabbonan savorei
• Re: geonim and gemara
• Re: sheidim [was: fallibility or non fallibility of chazal]

R' Eli Turkel [eliturkel@gmail.com] posted on: Apr 11, 2005:
> In today's daf yomi, berachot 42b Rosh (6:32) points out that the
> phrase about going to the bet hamercatz or bloodletting...was added to
> the gemara based on the psak of the geonim.

A hearty y'ysher ko'cha'cha to R' Eli Turkel for spotting a most relevant
m'kor from inyanei d'yoma relating to the Avodah discussion. The fact
that the Rosh (see also the Ran and Shiltay Giborim) focuses on this point
bears out the Doros HaRishonim's teaching (which I posted earlier) that:

"The Rishonim devoted themselves to correcting any deviancies from the
original text that crept in, basing themselves on reliable manuscripts
or evidence from the Talmudic text itself."

Here, the Rosh. etc., note that most mss. did not have the clause "and
the day of going to the bathhouse and of bloodletting," and explain that
it was inserted in some mss. based upon the observation by the Geonim
that another Gemora (Nedarim 38) states that on these days people are
kovea their seudah al yayyin. Since our Gemora Brachos gives this as
the reason one's "borei p'ri hagafen" on his pre-meal wine covers his
post-meal wine on Shabbos and Yom Tov, it follows that this is the
halacha regarding meals on these occasions as well.

Nevertheless, the Rosh, etc., wanted to isolate those statements which
were not actually part of the authentic Gemora text, whose ha'aros were
"canonized" by the time of the first of the four generations of Saboraim.

Zvi Lampel

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was at a wedding recently where the Mesader Kedushin, in an attempt
> to circumvent questions about whether a Chupah was going to take place
> before Shkia or after... decided to leave the date unfilled and had
> the Edei Kesubah sign before that was done. The Chupah was called
> very close to Shkia and the Rav thought that, as weddings generally
> go, the Chupah would be a bit late and past Shkia. As it hppened, the
> wedding took place on time and the Kiddushin took place before Shkia.
> The Rabbi filled in the dates and proceeded.

> Isn't such a Kesubah Pasul?

It is not irrevocably pasul. Under the signatures, a line can be added
stating that the date was filled in after the signatures, and that
correction should then be signed by the witnesses.

However, his caution was not necessary. He could have written in either
of the two dates, and the k'subah would have been valid. A shtar mukdam
is invalid if the date precedes the obligations undertaken therein.
Since the kinyan was made, and the signatures appended, before sh'kiah,
it is the correct day of obligation. (Indeed, Chabad's custom is to
write a k'subah by day for all weddings, even if not scheduled until
after dark.) Granted that the statement is made in the k'subah that he
said "Harei at" and that she consented and became his wife; but that
statement is false at the time of signature in _every_ k'subah signed
at the choson's tish. (The best thing to do would be to have the kinyan
made, and the k'subah signed, under the chupah between the kiddushin
and the nissuin, as is done at some weddings in Israel.)

On the other hand, if the later date was written and the wedding took
place before sh'kia, it is no problem, since a shtar m'uchar is valid.

Incidentally, the fact that we have eidim sign the k'subah before
kiddushin makes a mockery of the insistence on not writing "v'kanina"
until after the kinyan. The reason given is that it is mechezei k'shikra --
it gives the appearance of falsehood to wrote "we made a kinyan" before
it was actually done. But that reason was given at a time when the entire
k'suba was written after the kiddushin. Now, when witnesses actually
*sign* to the "fact" of a kiddushin that has not yet taken place, which
is not just mechezei but is actual shikra, why should we object to the
writing of an event that is still in the future, but will not be signed
until it has already taken place?

EMT

I was at a wedding recently where the Mesader Kedushin, in an attempt
to circumvent questions about whterh a Chupah was going to take place
before Shkia or after... deided to leave the date unfilled and had the
Edei Kesubah sign before that was done. The Chupah was called very close
to Shkia and the Rav thiught that, as weddings generally go, the Chuipah
would be a bit late and past Shkia. As it hppened the wedding took place
on time and the Kiddushin took place before Shkia. The Rabbi filled in
the dates and preceeded.

Isn't such a Kesubah Pasul?

When this was pointed out to the Mesader, he seemed oblivious to the
Halacha and that kind of makes me wonder how many Rabbanim actually know
pertinent Halacha and create innovations that are problematic and cause
major problems. The Rav involved was a recognized Rabbi of a Kehhila,
yet ignorant of basic Halacha, it seems to me. I wonder how many Pasul
Kesubos there are out there?

Is this a problem... or am I all wet on this one?

HM

Efraim Yawitz wrote:
>>This has been repeated on this list forever. While it is known that
>>this was his shitah for his kollel can someone please provide a quote
>>that REED said that ALL yeshivot should be set up to develop gedolim.
...

>In MME vol. 3, page 357, he states this as the "approach of the yeshivos".
>Of course, this is in the context of a letter about a specific case,
>so one could imagine that other factors were involved, but he states it
>as a general rule.

Rabbi Schwab's critique and rejection of Rav Dessler's thesis HaMa'ayan
6:4 1966 translated in Traditiion spring 1997 indicates he understood
it as a general attitude and not limited to a single institution

Daniel Eidensohn

In his commentary to OH 345, the Aruch HaShulchan deals explicitly with
the question of how we can rely on contemporary eiruvin, which are
based on the opinions of a minority of rishonim, against the opinion
of most rishonim, who hold shishim ribo is not a requirement for reshut
harabim. He has a chiddush in the definition of reshut harabbim, which
he offers because it is, as he says, a mitzva to justify the widespread
practice of am Yisroel.

He starts out by noting that the Gemara in the beginning of Perek haZorek
defines m'lechet hotzaa by saying that Moshe was in machane Levi,
which was a reshut harabbim (everyone used to go to Moshe - Rashi),
and he instructed the Jews not to take things from their private areas
(reshut hayachid) to the reshut harabbim, where he was. Why does the
gemara emphasize that the machane Levi was a reshut harabbim? On the
face of it all of machane Yisroel was a reshut harabbim, and one would
be over on m'lachet hotzaa when he took something from his tent to the
public domain, even if he never went to machane Levi.

The AH says that a reshut harabbim is a central square which is connected
to all of the surrounding area; one cannot transverse the city without
passing through this central plaza. A city set up as a grid normally has
no such central square; there may be several important intersections,
but the are considered local intersections, not common to the entire
population. A reshut harabbim belongs to *all* the inhabitants of the
area (the rabbim). Thus an inhabited area set up as a star formation
will have a reshut harabbim, the center of the star (and the central
roads which lead up to it) , but not one set up a a grid.

Since our cities lack the essential geometric pattern which characterizes
a reshut harabbim, they in fact do not contain a reshut harabbim
d'oraita, and therefore our eiruvin of tzurat hapetach are applicable,
even according to the rishonim who do not require shishim ribo. See AH
to OH 345, sk 17-22.

Saul Mashbaum

I wrote:
> 2- Assuming that they are separate cities, does the 12x12 extend beyond
> the city? If you go 6 mil (appx 6 km or 9-1/2 miles) east of KGH,
> Flatbush or Boro Park you already past the east side of Manhattan.

Oy, I reversed the conversion! Yes, a mil is roughly a km, but that's
55/90 of a mile. It looks like I multiplied where I should have
divided. As that brings the distance down to under 4 mile, which puts
Manhattan beyond range of any of the locations in question, there's no
qushya. Nevermind.

-mi

In Avodah V14 #114 dated 4/13/2005 RGD writes:
> May a nonJew attend a seder? If not why not?

My husband holds that you can have a non-Jew at the seder, and we have
done so. There is a halachic question about whether you're allowed to
cook (or heat up food) ON YOM TOV for a goy, but you get around that by
making extra food for the Jews.

I've read someplace that "kol ditzrich yeisei veyifsach" applies only
to Jews, but "kol dichfin yeisei veyeichul" applies to both Jews and
non-Jews, at least theoretically. Don't ask me where I saw this.

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

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:54:29PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I've read someplace that "kol ditzrich yeisei veyifsach" applies only
: to Jews, but "kol dichfin yeisei veyeichul" applies to both Jews and
: non-Jews, at least theoretically. Don't ask me where I saw this.

Makes sense from peirush hamilim.

Only a Jew could need a Pesach (yifsach), but anyone could need to eat.

-mi

>2- One would have to be very careful not to do any extra bishul 
>for one's guest on yom tov.

There's actually a specific issur derabbanan against inviting a non-Jew
to a Yom Tov meal. SA, OC 512:1

Gil Student,          Yashar Books

> May a nonJew attend a seder?  If not why not?

Only on a Friday night. It is prohibited to invite a non-Jew to
any Yom Tov meal on a day when cooking is permitted, shema yarbeh
bishvilo. (OC612:1)

EMT

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Gershon Dubin wrote:
>> May a nonJew attend a seder?  If not why not?

> 1- Talmud Torah lenachri.

IMHO this issur applies only to talmud torah for the sake of the mitzvah,
not merely to find out what it says. In any case, though, Does what goes
on at a seder count as talmud torah? It seems to me that it's more like
pirsumei nissa, which would make it very appropriate to teach to goyim
(lama yomru hagoyim ayei na elokeihem; ulema'an saper shemi bechol
ha'aretz; sham'u amim yirgazun; et lots cetera).

> 2- One would have to be very careful not to do any extra bishul for
> one's guest on yom tov.

This IMHO is the only genuine objection, and of course it doesn't apply
when the seder happens to be on shabbat. But the din there is that one may
not *invite* a goy in advance to a yomtov meal; if he drops in uninvited
it is perfectly OK to feed him. So it seems to me that one may inform a
goy of this din, that he cannot be invited, but that if he should happen
to show up without notice he will be more than welcome.

Though perhaps one could argue that since a significant part of the
cooking for the seder generally takes place after it has started,
and therefore after the goy has shown up, the gezera will apply here.
In other words, when he shows up unexpectedly 3 hours before the food
will be served, and is invited to stay, that is the equivalent of inviting
him in advance.

Another objection that is often raised when this question comes up is
'vechol arel lo yochal bo'. But IMHO this is nonsense. 'Vechol arel lo
yochal bo' applies *only* to the actual korban, and not to the rest of
the seder. And this is not only bizman hazeh, but even bizman habayit
an arel was allowed to attend the seder, even though he would not be
allowed to eat from the korban. My proof is simple: an arel yisrael
is obligated in all the mitzvot of the day, except eating the korban;
he is obligated in achilat matzah, achilat maror, hagadah, kiddush,
and arba kosot, just like any other Jew, so he must attend the seder.
And if he is a katan, his father is obligated to have him at the seder,
in order to fulfil his mitzvah of hagadah. And the same applies to
a Jew who happens to be tamei. So what would they do bizman habayit?
Obviously the areilim and teme'im did attend the seder (the teme'im
being careful not to touch anything they shouldn't), but when the korban
was brought out at the end of the meal they would abstain. Similarly,
perhaps a goy at the seder should not be given a piece of the afikoman,
but he can still participate in the rest of the seder.

It might be a bit awkward, though, since of necessity he is really a
spectator, not a participant. The seder is a private celebration of
our history; 'avadim *hayinu*...vayotzienu...anu uvaneinu uvnei vanenu'.
The goyishe guest must necessarily be in the position of 'lachem velo lo'.
'Avadim hayinu - not John, of course - ...'. But I'm sure any goy who
would want to attend a seder would understand this.

Which leads me to another question: we pasken that a ger 'mevi vekorei',
since he is a ben Avraham, and part of Am Yisrael to whom all these
things happened. But what of the opinion in the mishna that 'hager
mevi ve'eno korei'? Does that opinion also hold that a ger, while he
is obligated in korban pesach, and presumably also in achilat matzah,
is patur from the other mitzvot of the day? Or at least from mitzvat
hagadah? Or must he change the hagadah, and say 'avadim hayu yisrael..'?

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In the sheets distributed by RSBA:
> Remove tablecloths, plates and cutlery that have chometz attached.
> Dispose in a place of Hefker. Do not place in your own garbage bin
> - even if it is on the street. 

But the Big Bins that are provided by Glen Eira council (and I assume also
by Port Phillip council) belong to the city, not to the householder, and
therefore it seems to me that (if one uses the eruv then) one can put the
chometz in the bin, and the bin out on the street, and it's all hefker.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[scjm is a usenet group, not a list.
Also, you may need to switch to a fixed-width font to line up the
rhythm notation with the words. The copy on the archive should do
if you can't figure out how to do so within your mail reader.
 -mi]

During a recent discussion on another list (soc.culture.jewish.moderated),
the question was raised as to why the seder poem goes "Qadesh uRehhats
..." with a vav only on the second word. A dohhaq drash or two were
given, then someone said the obvious, that it is to maintain the scansion
and the rhyme (with "Yahhats"); the objection was made however, that
certainly a word-choice in the liturgy could not possibly have been
made merely for its rhyme! I think that this kind of response is a
rather common one in the frum community - my response is as follows
(RMB asked me to send it also here):

I wonder why the rhyme by itself is considered trivial. The rhyme
is indicative of a certain desired rhetorical structure, as is the
imperative/imperative beginning of the poem, all of which contribute
to the overall feel of the piece. Such feeling, though very difficult
to make explicit in descriptive language, is an important part of the
meaning. Consider the first line of parashat Ha'azinu (a *tremendous*
poem):

  - - ' -  -  - ' -   -  - ' -            - -   '   - ' -   '  -  '
Ha'azinu hashamayim va'dabera           veTishma` ha'arets imrei fi

Notice the syllabic stress (marked above) the first strophe is much more
open than the second, producing a feeling of movement, while the second,
made up of iambs, has a greater weight and finality to it. This is
mirrored, of course, in the obvious contrast between "the heavens" and
"the earth", as well as the contrast between the active "listen" and the
passive "hear". This theme is further emphasized by the contrast between
the use of the root d.b.r and '.m.r, where the former is rabbinically
understood to mean sharp/harsh speech and the latter perhaps gentler
speech. One can certainly, with enough experience, analyze many of these
effects explicitly, but of course the analysis is not the meaning itself.

It seems to me that there is a certain Westernized emphasis on formal
and explicit representation that loses a great deal of meaning when
dealing with traditional texts. Much of this, no doubt, is due to the
progressive formalization of Judaism (as documented in different ways
by R. Dr. Haim Soloveichik in his article "Rupture and Reconstruction"
and by Prof. Moshe Koppel in his book "Meta-Halakha"), in which the
attempt to recapture the way of life of the old-time Judaism by way of
textual analysis is doomed to fail at capturing the "gefeel". The idea
is that at least one can capture a part of the "way it should be" in
this manner. Unfortunately (to my mind), this methodology tends to
give rise to an attitude that anything that cannot be stated explicitly
and in a "context-free" manner is not really anything at all (it's just
fuzzy feelings, or something). (This attitude is similar in style to
logical positivism and many strains of "scientism", BTW.) I wonder, now
that I think of it, if this doesn't have something to do with the lack of
sophistication (to be nice) of much Jewish music and art - after all, it's
not really all that important anyway, so why be sophisticated about it?

Thoughts?

	-Shlomo-

Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.org.uk> wrote:
> Note further that the Sde Chemed in chelek daled Marechet mem, ois 62,
> brings the Radvaz as stating in his teshuvas that the tevila, along
> with the shchita does not fall within the controversy of whether
> mitzvos need kavana or not, because these aren't mitzvos, but
> m'achsheri mitzvos - and of course, the fact that tevila does not need
> kavana is the basis of Rav Moshe's famous psak explaining why one can
> assume that a baal teshuva is not a ben/bas nida (because their mother
> must have accidently toyveled in the sea or some such). - which all
> kind of fits in with the idea that there is no independent mitzvah of
> tevila, other than in connection with what it enables.

And yet we do say a bracha on shechitah, and we do count it as one of
the 613 mitzvot.  So why the difference?

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>
>> Remove tablecloths, plates and cutlery that have chometz attached.
>> Dispose in a place of Hefker. Do not place in your own garbage bin
>> - even if it is on the street. 

> But the Big Bins that are provided by Glen Eira council (and I assume
> also by Port Phillip council) belong to the city, not to the householder,
> and therefore it seems to me that (if one uses the eruv then) one can put
> the chometz in the bin, and the bin out on the street, and it's all
> hefker.

The problem is that ratepayers pay an annual rental fee for the bins.

SBA

SBA wrote:
> From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>

>>> Remove tablecloths, plates and cutlery that have chometz attached.
>>> Dispose in a place of Hefker. Do not place in your own garbage bin
>>> - even if it is on the street. 

>> But the Big Bins that are provided by Glen Eira council (and I assume
>> also by Port Phillip council) belong to the city, not to the householder,
>> and therefore it seems to me that (if one uses the eruv then) one can put
>> the chometz in the bin, and the bin out on the street, and it's all
>> hefker.

> The problem is that ratepayers pay an annual rental fee
> for the bins.

That is not a rental on the bin, it's a service charge for picking up
the rubbish every week. Glen Eira charges a fee for each bin, but it is
explicitly called "service charge", not "bin rental". The situation is
even clearer in Port Phillip, where standard rubbish collection (i.e. one
120 litre bin per week) is included in the rates, so you only pay a fee
if you want a 240 l bin instead (and if you can save the city money by
only using an 80 l bin, you can get a $30 rebate).

In any case, I don't think this gives the resident a kinyan over the
bin itself. For instance, if it is lost, I believe both councils will
replace it at no extra charge, thus showing that it's not the bin you're
paying for, it's the service.

(Note to puzzled Avodahites: Glen Eira and Port Phillip are two cities
in the greater Melbourne area. RSBA's shul is in Port Phillip, but only
a block from the border with Glen Eira, and many kehilla members live
in Glen Eira.)

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> May a nonJew attend a seder?  If not why not?

Aside from the excellent responses so far for not doing so and possible
Heterim, I would also like to suggest a possible additional practical
reason for not soing so which may have Halachic ramifications especrally
at the Pesach Seder. One of the primary purposes of the that evenong is
VeHiggaditta L'Vincha... Magid. The Ikkar Mitzvha is to tell over the
exodus story to your children. The SA then delinieates the list of those
who should be told the story (via the Lashon of the Haggada) ending up
with telling onself the story if alone. Never is a non-Jew included. This
in and of itself does not make it Assir, but it can undermine the primary
focus of Magid. If a non-Jew attends the Seder the focus of the evening
becomes the non-Jew. The Bal Habos who invited him wants to make sure
the Non-Jew walks away from the evening with a positive experience.
This, IMHO takes away, if not completely destroys, Magid. One may go
through the same motions but the L'Shma aspect becomes severly reduced
if not eliminated.

For this reason alone I would strongly discourage it unless there is a
compelling reason (such as one's parnassa is on the line) and even then
I would ask a shaila.

HM

In a message dated 4/13/2005 2:54:29pm EST, T613K writes:
> I've read someplace that "kol ditzrich yeisei veyifsach" applies only
> to Jews, but "kol dichfin yeisei veyeichul" applies to both Jews and
> non-Jews, at least theoretically. Don't ask me where I saw this.

You heard this from me. But I saw it in one of the peirushim in the
Migdal Eider Haggadah where he mentions that the Chief Rabbis of Israel
traditionally had non-Jewish ambassadors and the like at their sedorim.

> May a nonJew attend a seder? If not why not? 

Before anyone gets confused, may I interject that this issue is not to
be confused with the issur of a non-Jew to eat the korbon Pesach (and
participate in /that/ Pesach ceremony).

Zvi Lampel

R. Aryeh Frimer wrote:
> If bread is used: Make ha-Motzi over two hametz challot AWAY from the
> table. Eat the Challot over a paper towel or hametz plate, collect all
> crumbs and dispose of them by flushing them down the toilet. Wash plate
> in bathroom sink and put it with the hametz dishes. Wash out your mouth
> and hands and continue with your Kasher le-Pesach meal.

And R. Akiva Miller responded:
> Regarding those who eat challa far from the table, clean themselves
> carefully, and then eat Pesach food, I asked
>> given those ground rules, I can't help but wonder: Is the other food
>> tafel to the bread, or maybe it isn't?

Following which RAM brought some interesting raiot to say that it isn't. 

What we had planned to do at my house is as follows:

1) Cook / store the food for Shabbat in Pesach keilim.

2) Eat challot chametz at the table with the food.

3) As we do every Shabbat, use a disposable plastic tablecloth to prevent
any contact between the food and the table, and (as we frequently do on
Shabbat u'Moed) use high-quality disposable eating utensils.

4) Transfer food from Pesach pots to disposable plates away from the
table.

5) Finish the meal by sof zman acheila. Dispose of chametz b'ein as
recommended by RAF.

6) Remove all disposables and all leftovers with any suspicion of contact
with chametz to the (Jerusalem) city public garbage before sof zman biur.

I think this resolves the RAF / RAM conflict, but may raise other
issues, so comments or critiques are welcome. (Comments on the impact
of using disposables (on Shabbat) on (a) the environment or (b) one's
children's shidduch possibilities -- send to Areivim (if you must)
unless well-grounded in sources.)

BTW, a possibility not raised by RAF but discussed in Avodah Vol. 7 is
to make rolls using boiled matzah meal (works only for gebrokst-eaters,
of course).

Kol Tuv,
David Hoffman

R' Akiva Miller wonders:
> ... Until then, the best idea I can come up with is that they put a
> great deal of importance on the idea that IF we are making HaMotzi,
> then we should eat the bread *during* the meal, and not merely at the
> beginning....

Could it be that until recently the concept of "grabbing a HaMotzi"
in the garden, maybe sitting on a garden chair, maybe standing around,
simply wasn't considered.

Mealtimes were an "occasion". I think my grandparents used more dishes &
cutlery per setting than we use for the whole family. :-)

Probably has to do with the advent of Fast Food (TM).

Same way the poskim don't talk about disposable Tefillin, yet.

Just wondering,
 - Danny

On 11 Apr 2005, I posted:
> I recommend a sefer entitled "HaRambam L'lo S'tiyya Min HaTalmud" 
> (The Rambam Is Not Contradicted By The Talmud), by R. B.Z. Benedict 
> (Mosaad HaRav Kook, 1985).

Correction: The title of the sefer translates, "The Rambam Not Veering
from The Talmud.

In Avodah V14 #114 R' Eli Turkel Writes:
>In today's daf yomi, berachot 42b Rosh (6:32) points out that the phrase
>about going to the bet hamercatz or bloodletting being a hefsek was
>added to the gemara based on the psak of the geonim.

The word the Rosh uses, "hugo" -- which translates to amended, usually
implies a correction, not something newly added.

You might recall that in daf 36b there are a couple of lines in
parentheses. The Mesoras Hashas explains that the Maharsha"l removed
these lines for the reason that it's from the Beha"g.

Rashi in 38a d"h hachi garsinan dsd"a also erases some words from the
gemara, since it's from the Beha"g (I recall a couple of Rashis in other
areas writing the same, but this is the only I remember off hand).

Now the Beha"g, according to most Reshonim and Tosafos in several places,
was authored by Rav Yehodoi Gaon, notwithstanding, Rashi and the Maharshal
erase a standing girsa davka because it's from the Geonim.

 - Avigdor Feldstein

In a message Avodah V14 #99 dated 3/22/2005 "Gershon Seif"  
<gershonseif@yahoo.com>
writes:
> If I recall correctly, the Biur HaGra on the halochos which have to
> do with the supernatural, rails against the Rambam and how his cursed
> philosophy caused him to deny the existence of shaidim. So we've also
> got the Gra saying that the Rambam was a human being with flaws.

My father zt'l once quoted someone--who? I don't remember, someone
famous--as saying that when the Rambam said there are no sheidim, his
gadlus was such that sheidim ceased to exist. When the Ramban said
that sheidim do exist, they came back into existence.

Anyone know the source?

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

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


[ 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         ]