Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 17

Fri, 31 Jan 2014

• 1. Re: Is there one halachic truth? (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. talmudic treatments (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Avoiding Religious Hubris (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Stam Gemara (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Stam Gemara (Micha Berger)
• 6. Sages of the Talmud-- basic thumbnail sketches (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: talmudic treatments (Micha Berger)
• 8. What was in the Aron carried out to war? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: talmudic treatments (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: talmudic treatments (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: talmudic treatments (Zev Sero)
• 12. Women Wearing Tefillen (Prof. Levine)

 
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>

Rashi (Kesuvos  57a, "QM"L") seems to support a real plurality. To  quote:

....when
two Amoraim enter  into a halakhic dispute, each arguing the halakhic
merits of  his view, each drawing upon comparisons to establish the
authenticity of his perspective, there is no absolute truth and
falsehood. About such issues one can declare that both represent
the view of the living God. On some occasions one perspective  will
prove more authentic, and under other circumstances the  other view
will appear to be more compelling.

--  
Micha  Berger           
mi...@aishdas.org         




>>>>
 
This reminds me of nothing so much as the paradox of the wave-particle  
duality of light.  It also reminds me of Schroedinger's cat.   (Shroedinger's 
halacha?) 
 
 

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




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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140130/3cbbd149/attachment-0001.htm>

<<It seems to me, the medical treatments are simply what various members
of chazal accepted of the doctors of the day taught. There is a lot of
Hippocrates (galus Bavel or early bayis sheini) and Galen (contemporary
with the 2nd gen of amoraim) in shas.>>

I personally agree with Micha. However, see the recent book of Rabbi
Meiselman
Torah, Chazal &
Science<http://www.amazon.com/Torah-Chazal-Science-Rabb
i-Meiselman/dp/1600912435/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&;ie=UTF8&qid=139107
3645&sr=1-1&keywords=meiselman>
 by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman (Nov 11, 2013)
who strongly disagress and argues that Chazal are always right on
scientific matters

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140130/74f54936/attachment-0001.htm>

> I wrote:
>


> <<Or at least, if you hold that tzitzis is a normal mitzvah aseh shehazman
> graman, then a woman has an option to keep it, so there is no loeg l'rash
> issue.  But if you hold that it is forbidden for women to wear tzitzis,
> then why is it not loeg l'rash to wear them out in a woman's presence just
> as much as it is in the presence of the dead?  Of course in shul, no men
> are by definition "in a woman's presence" given that the fundamental
> requirement of mechitza is to create a separate reshus. However in a modern
> eg working environment, where's the heter? >>
>

And RET replied:



>  >Is loeg lerash ever used except for the case of doing things in the
> presence of a corpse.
>

I am not aware that it is.  But the key thing appears to be understanding
the concept.  The concept seems generally agreed to be:

a) people do (or ought to, hence those in the olam haemes will)
legitimately feel bad if they cannot perform mitzvos.

b) it is encumbant upon people performing mitzvos to therefore be sensitive
to that, and thus not flaunt their ability to perform mitzvos in front of
those who cannot.

Now there is clearly a major exception to this, as RTK hinted to in her
post, which is performing a mitzvah which is done specifically to help the
person who unable to do such mitzvos - for example in the case of the dead,
tahara and kevura.  Added to this list might be saying kaddish, saying a
hesped that contains divrei torah etc.  That is not considered loeg l'rash
as it is done specifically for the exempt person's benefit.

>Is a Cohen eating terumah in the presence of non-priests loeg lerash?

There are major issues regarding kohanim eating terumah in the vicinity of
non cohanim in any event.  Think of what we do to prevent people who are
eating meaty not technically eating with people who are eating milky.  But
in the case of meat and milk, any mixing that was to occur would violate at
most a d'rabbanan, as none of the meat will be in any way cooked with the
milk (and of course there is always regular bittel).  But in the case of a
kohen eating terumah, if any non kohen were to accidently or by mistake get
any drops of that terumah on their food and eat it, they would be over on a
very serious issur Torah.  And bittel occurs at nowhere near the level of
milk and meat.  Not only that, but unless the non kohen is eating his food
al taharas hakodesh, then there is a risk that the terumah may become tamei
if there is any intermingling the other way (and the non kohen would have
to be in the necessary state of tahara to be anywhere near the terumah).

I think given all these concerns it is pretty safe to say that they didn't,
unless the non kohen had specifically prepared themselves to be in a state
of taharah and was eating all his food al taharas hakodesh (ie putting
themselves into the domain of the kohanim).  And even then, the risks of
him eating something he shouldn't would most likely to be considered too
high.


>  Why is Tzizit any different than wearing tefillin in the presence of
> women?
>

It's not, The gemora discusses loeg l'rash in relation to tephillin as
well.

It is just that it is not normative to wear tefillin in the presence of
women, but it has in recent times become the prevalent minhag (if one can
all it that) to wear tzitzis out (as RTK notes, it was not done in Europe,
nor, according to my husband, was it done in Sephardi lands, so we are
talking about a very recent change).



>  > In the old days men wore tefillin all day long presumably also when
> women were present
>

How do you know that? The most common case of men wearing tefillin all day
long would have been in the beis hamedrish, where women would not generally
go.   When they said that men wore tephillin all day long, I don't know
that anybody reads this as saying that the amei ha'aretz (ie the sort of
people who were suspected of not taking trumah properly) wore tephillin all
day long.  Fundamentally we are talking about talmidei chachamim and their
students - it is those people that men are told it is not appropriate to
try and emulate today.  It is most likely that none of this tephillin
wearing was in the presence of women.


>  Eli Turkel
>

Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140130/516968fe/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
> Also, the stam process may have begun with the first attempt to
> compile the Bavli -- Abayei veRava. So there could be stam from
> their conversations that even predates over a generation of quoted
discussion.

Care to elaborate about this "first attempt to compile the Bavli"? In my
ignorance I never heard about this.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wieviel Feste feiern wir an Sukkot (Audio-Schiur)
* Die ethische Dimension des Schma Jissra?ls (Audio-Schiur)
* Ein Baum, der klug macht?! (Audio-Schiur)
* Podiumsdiskussion ?J?dische Religion zwischen Tradition und Moderne?
* Great Videos from the CER in Berlin
* A Priest Returns to his Faith
* The CER Berlin Conference in Pictures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140130/230df0c4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:43pm EST, I wrote:
: Also, the stam process may have begun with the first attempt to compile
: the Bavli -- Abayei veRava. So there could be stam from their conversations
: that even predates over a generation of quoted discussion.

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:44pm CET, Arie Folger replied:
: Care to elaborate about this "first attempt to compile the Bavli"? In my
: ignorance I never heard about this.

My tutorial in this area was <http://j.mp/1ezZ89A>, a PhD thesis by Joshua
Even Eisen titled, "Stammaitic Activity versus Stammaitic Chronology;
Anonymity's Impact on the Legal Narrative of the Babylonian Talmud"
<http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac
:160601/CONTENT/Eisen_columbia_0054D_11300.pdf>
I'm not referencing his work

It's discussed in Doros haRishoinim (R' Yitzchaq haLevi, Frankfurt, 189) and
Hischavus haTalmud beShleimuso (R' Avraham Weiss, New York, 1943). DhR sets
out three periods:

1- The acceptance of Rebbe's work as The Mishnah to Abyaei veRava. In
   this period, halakhah was discussed using Rebbe's mishnayos as the
   structure, but not attempt at organizing.

2- AvR to Rav Ashi veRavina. I am preserving the name order used by the
   Rambam, as it's likely this Ravina is R' Ashi's grandson, not the
   one of "Ravina veR' Ashi". New discussion and redaction of earlier
   conversations into the start of a formalization.

3- The savoraim, under whom the basic gemara wasn't changed much, it was
   more a cleanup and the insertion of a few notes that ended up in the
   final text. (To which I would add: whether by intent or not, I have
   no idea.)

I would also note that with Abayei's death, Yeshivas Pumpedisa (asher
yei'amer hayom "Faluja") moved to Mechoza and was taken over by Rava. So
there is a geographical discontinuity between (2) and (3) as well.

There are some who try to show that the Rambam never pasqens like material
that is provably after RAvR over other positions from Chazal. Which would
imply that the Rambam looked to see what was added by savoraim to reject
it -- a predecessor of a Revadim approach, perhaps. (Although for those
of us who place sof hora'ah with chasimas hashas rather than RAvR, it
is more easily argued that Revadim highlights a side-issue rather than
the true point of talmud Torah.)

There is halachic significance, though to the break after AvR. "Halakhah
kebasra'i" is only miAbayei veRava va'eilakh, and before that "ein
halakhah ketalmid bemaqom harav" held sway. (See he.wikiperida.org
"halakhah kebasra'i" <http://j.mp/1ie1Wxi> for sources.) The Mahariq
(shoresh 84) writes that it's because before AvR a student learned only
"al pi qabalas raboseihem, kefi mah shehayu shonim lahem." But from
AvR onward "lomdu kol hadei'os". Which could be taken to be a change in
teaching style, or as a standardization of set shaqlos vetaryos consistent
with saying they compiled a proto-Bavli.

And in fact it was in context of learning this last idea from a public
speaker (forgot whom) that I was first told of this idea of AvR's
proto-gemara. It was said en passant, not presented as the lecture's
focal chiddush. So I thought I had just filled a lacuna in my own
knowledge. (Which was when I found the above-cited thesis.) I am relieved
to learn from RAF that I was not alone.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

A basic database of the sages of the Talmud--their primary teachers 
and students--with scholarly links.
<http://www.joshua-parker.net/sag
es/>http://www.joshua-parker.net/sag
es/

The compiler is a Harvard librarian (who may not even be Jewish)-- 
www.joshua-parker.net


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140130/1b5d8eae/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:21:53AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> It seems to me, the medical treatments are simply what various members
:> of chazal accepted of the doctors of the day taught. There is a lot of
:> Hippocrates (galus Bavel or early bayis sheini) and Galen (contemporary
:> with the 2nd gen of amoraim) in shas.

: I personally agree with Micha. However, see the recent book...
: Torah, Chazal & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman (Nov 11, 2013)
: who strongly disagress and argues that Chazal are always right on
: scientific matters

The position that you and I lean toward is the Ramchal's, aside from
being stated by Rebbe (curious to know what RMM does with that admission
that the Romans knew more astronomy), the Scholastic-Kalamite rishonim
(Rambam, his son and the like), and perhaps others.

I wonder, though, if any of the chevrah knows a source (and I mean a
maqor specifically, not some modern or self-coined argument) before the
late-19th cent Counter-Reformation who asserts RMM's position.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

So I take it there were two aronos during bayis rishon, one in the
Qodesh haQadashim, and one that went out to war with the mashuach
milchamah.

What did the latter aron contain?

R' Yosef (Menachos 99a) says "luchos ushevurei luchos yahu ba'aron".
(Sadly ironic tangent: he takes from this the lesson that a TC who later
r"l forgets his Torah because of an oneis must be respected. R' Yosef
himself gets ill and needs his talmid Abayei to remind him of his learning
(Nedarim 41a). Really sad if you think that for most of his life R' Yosef
wasn't sure he was a bar chiyuvah because he was blind (Qiddushin 31a),
and than not long later he becomes questionable bar daas...)

So both pairs of luchos were in the same aron, or at least could havve
been. (Might be a machloqes or an ahistorical medrash.)

Was the other aron empty? If an empty aron has value, why didn't Ezra
have an empty aron made for bayis sheini?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

(Kindly remember to CC R' Dov Kramer <dovgol...@cs.com> on any replies.
TIA! -micha)

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle

On 30/01/2014 8:29 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The position that you and I lean toward is the Ramchal's, aside from
> being stated by Rebbe (curious to know what RMM does with that admission
> that the Romans knew more astronomy)

Rabbenu Tam already answered that one. No, that position is *not* stated by
Rebbi.  It's an assumption that can be read into Rebbi's words, and some
Rishonim do so, but he does not actually say it.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:52:04PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> Rabbenu Tam already answered that one. No, that position is *not* stated by
> Rebbi.  It's an assumption that can be read into Rebbi's words, and some
> Rishonim do so, but he does not actually say it.

I would have said, and indeed have said, that the mesorah the Shitah
Mequbetzes (on Kesuvos 13b) had of Rabbeinu Tam's position is a das
yachid among rishonim who says Rebbi's words can't be taken at face
value. And this R' Tam didn't make it into our Tosafos (the sugya is in
Pesachim 94b). Pashut peshat of "Venir'in divreihen midivreinu", even when
followed with a proof to their devarim ("shebayom..."), would be that it
seems to him their conclusion is right, not that it wrongly would seem
from their proofs that it is. Look at other uses of "nir'eh" in Chazal.

Also, I don't know the relevance, but Rebbe's proof isn't one Greeks
would actually give. He points out that spring water is cool during the
day but hot at night. Implied is that Rebbe thought the earth was
flat, and therefore the sun was closer to the wellspring at night,
when it was under the earth and heading it from behind. Not the
sun going around a spherical earth posited by Pythagorus or Hesiod,
but in any case in writing by Herodotus and well accepted by the 5th
cent BCE -- at least a century before Aristotle and 6 centuries before
R' Yehudah haNasi.

But thanks for reminding me who the Counter-R have as al mi lismoch on
this point. That was what I was looking for. Anyone have any others?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On 30/01/2014 10:35 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 09:52:04PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Rabbenu Tam already answered that one. No, that position is *not* stated by
>> Rebbi.  It's an assumption that can be read into Rebbi's words, and some
>> Rishonim do so, but he does not actually say it.

> I would have said, and indeed have said, that the mesorah the Shitah
> Mequbetzes (on Kesuvos 13b) had of Rabbeinu Tam's position is a das
> yachid among rishonim who says Rebbi's words can't be taken at face
> value.

Maybe so, but RMM still doesn't have to think of an answer; he can give
RT's answer.


> Pashut peshat of "Venir'in divreihen midivreinu", even when
> followed with a proof to their devarim ("shebayom..."), would be that it
> seems to him their conclusion is right, not that it wrongly would seem
> from their proofs that it is. Look at other uses of "nir'eh" in Chazal.

One needn't take a strong position and say Rebbi is positively saying that
he's still right and they're wrong.  That seems a stretch.  But it seems
obvious to me that "venir'in", not just here but everywhere, *never* means
a judgment about who is right.  It *always* means simply that one side is
more plausible than the other.  The more plausible side may be right, and
all else being equal one would expect people to adopt it, but it's never
necessarily so.  There are many cases in which the less plausible side turns
out to be right after all, and "venir'in" allows for that possibility.



> Also, I don't know the relevance, but Rebbe's proof isn't one Greeks
> would actually give. He points out that spring water is cool during the
> day but hot at night. Implied is that Rebbe thought the earth was
> flat, and therefore the sun was closer to the wellspring at night,
> when it was under the earth and heading it from behind. Not the
> sun going around a spherical earth

Indeed, the Greeks would not have made such an argument.  But who says
the "chachmei ha'umos" in this dispute are the Greeks of his day?  Maybe
they're some other, less advanced, nation that did believe that the earth
is a flat disc, and the sun travels under it at night.  That was, after
all, a popular theory at one point.

Another problem is that lich'orah Rebbi's proof is contrary to the easily
established reality.  I haven't actually measured it myself, but to the
best of my knowledge and belief springs are colder at night than by day,
and it makes no sense that they should be warmer.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Much has been written about this issue since SAR announced that it 
would allow two girls to put on Tefillen during davening at this 
school.  It was reported that their mothers have this practice .

 From http://tinyurl.com/meld3ob

In Parshat Tetzaveh, we read about the bigdei kehunah (the priestly 
garments). When describing the kohen gadol's mitznefet (turban), the 
Torah states:

"You shall place the mitznefet upon his head." (Shmot 29:6)

The Gemara (BT Arachin 3b) cites this pasuk when discussing the laws 
of tefillin. Specifically, the Gemara wonders if the kohen gadol is 
exempt from the mitzvah of tefillin shel rosh, because the mitznefet 
gets in the way. Since the tzitz (forehead plate) is placed in front 
of the mitznefet, there is, presumably, no room for the tefillin. 
However, the Gemara finally rejects this possibility and states:

"His hair appeared between the tzitz and the mitznefet, which is 
where he would place the tefillin."

In other words, there was, in fact, room on his head between the 
tzitz and the mitznefet, and that spot was where the kohen gadol put 
his tefillin shel rosh.

The Rosh (Hilchot Tefillin 18) derives from this sugyah that there 
must not be a chatzitzah (a partition or separation) between one's 
head and one's tefillin shel rosh. After all, if there was no problem 
of chatzitzah, the kohen gadol could have simply placed his tefillin 
on top of the mitznefet, and the Gemara's question would have been a 
moot point.

Yet, the Rashba (282) disagrees and insists that tefillin may be 
placed on top of a hat. In his opinion, there is generally no issue 
of chatzitzah with respect to the tefillin shel rosh. However, the 
kohen gadol had a specific problem: namely, a dvar mitzvah (an object 
used as a mitzvah) was the cause of the chatzitzah.

The Halachah follows the Rosh. Therefore, one must ensure that 
nothing comes between one's tefillin and one's head.

The Machatzit HaShekel raises an intriguing related question. Does a 
person's own hair constitute a chatzitzah? On one hand, hair is part 
of one's own body and thus clearly not a chatzitzah. However, on the 
other hand, perhaps there are some specific cases where hair does 
serve as a chatzitzah.

The Machatzit HaShekel is stringent in this regard. According to him, 
tefillin may not be placed atop the long hair in the front of one's 
head (i.e. the forelock or blorit, as it is called in Hebrew). In 
other words, he holds that the forelock is a chatzitzah.

The Aruch HaShulchan distinguishes between the hair that normally 
grows on one's head and the forelock, which includes hair brushed or 
pulled to the front of the head from elsewhere on one's head. In any 
event, he concurs with the Machatzit HaShekel that tefillin shel rosh 
may not be placed on the forelock.

In contrast, Rav Ovadiah Yosef is more lenient due to a s'feik 
s'feika (a "double doubt"): First of all, there is a safeik (doubt) 
whether the Halachah follows the Rosh or the Rashba. In other words, 
does the issue of chatzitzah apply to tefillin? And even if we say 
that chatzitzah does apply, we are still left with a second safeik: 
Can hair be considered to be a chatzitzah?

However, practically speaking, due to ideological reasons, Rav 
Ovadiah recommends that men avoid growing their hair long.

----------
Women often have longer hair than men.  Does this mean that women do 
not "fulfill"  the mitzvah of wearing Tefillen if their hair is 
long?   I do not know how long the hair of these two girls is,  but 
is it not possible that the entire business is a tempest in a tea 
cup, since if their hair is long,  they are not wearing their 
Tefillen properly.

Furthermore,  how can a married woman who is supposed to cover her 
hair properly wear Tefillen in public.   Wouldn't the sheitel 
constitute a Chatzitzah?   Wouldn't a hat also?   And if the mothers 
of these girls are putting on Tefillen in private with their hair 
uncovered,  then why are these girls asking to be allowed to put on 
Tefillen in public.  Putting Tefillen on in private as their mothers 
may be doing should be good enough.

If the mothers of these girls do not cover their hair in 
public,  then to me this says something about their commitment to 
halacha.  Why put on Tefillen which women are not required to do and 
yet not cover one's hair which a married woman is required to do?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140131/6935517f/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 17
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)