Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 080

Monday, July 30 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:57:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
good guys

>The Maharatz Chajes quotes the teshuvah and expands on it in his Mevo 
>HaTalmud (I think around chapter 21).  He is clear that Chazal did not have 
>a mesorah on these things but knew who were the good guys and who were the 
>bad guys.  For the good guys, Chazal would take every opportunity to darshen 
>in his/her favor, even to great extremes.  The opposite for the bad guys.

I think it is less clear than that. Amoraim argue if Achashverosh was
a good or bad guy. Even people like Yishmael send mixed messages.
It seems that different amoraim had differing attitudes toward
King David and his possible sins. Certainly the same applies to
King Solomon.

Even stranger is the gemaras difense of some of the later Judaen kings
like Menassheh whom one would be hard pressed to call a good guy.

Certainly among Rishonim and Acharonim we find discussions about possible
faults in various figures in Tanach that don't appear in the Talmud.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:43:30 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Re: Avodah V7 #79

Avraham Yaakov Sherer:
> I had a Sufaik tonight in Ma'ariv. When there are more then 20 people in
> a minyan - lets say 25, and 10 finished Shmoneh Esray - can the Chazan
> start? ...

Accordiing to KSA the Chazan need wait until only 6 are done for Maariv  to 
cotinue to say Kaddish (iow when there is no Chazaras Hashatz) and 9 to 
listen when there is chazaras haShatz.

Perhpas lechatichillah the Shatz should wait longer...

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:38:19 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Rashi to Bavel

From: Eric Simon < >
> Can anyone trace the teachers from Rashi going back to Bavel?

See Mordechai Margalioth's "Encyclopedia of Great Men of Israel" {legdolei 
esp. Vol. Iv p.s 1279 onwards

Also see works by Dr. Israel Ta Shma including "Minhag Asheknaz haKadmon" 
might have more info

It is unlikely that Rabbeinu Gerhom learned at all by R. Hai Gaon.  Then 
again I would have considered RMF as "poseik hador" when I grew up even thouh 
I never met him personally. Fruthermore I did ask several Sh'eilos form his 
Talmud muvhak - R. Nissan Alpert OBM.

Point: The subservience of a younger Gadol to an older one does not 
necesarily imply that they had a face-to-face relatoinship, just a 
deferential relationship.

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 12:50:20 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Kamtza and Bar Kamtza

I came across a somewhat different version of this story in eicha rabbah. One 
of the differences is that R' Zecharia ben Avkulus is identified at the party 
as being unsure as to whether to give tochecha and deciding not to. Another 
is that it seems to differentiate in an interesting way as to who gets the 
blame - "Briata amrin bein kamtza ubein ben kamtza charav mikdasha" whereas 
R' yosi says its the anvatnuto of R' zecharia.  

Is anyone aware of any analysis of the differences in the stories?  


PS Mi-I'll fax it if you want to put it on the fax site

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:50:26 +0300
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@netvision.net.il>

At 08:47 AM 7/27/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:56:12 EDT
>From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
>Subject: Re:
> > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 03:21:24 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
> > Dear Rabbi Neustadt,
> > It is well known that Shitat Rabbenu Tam and also the modification
> > of Minchat Cohen do not conform with the physical reality.

But check out the story in the introduction to the Bostoner Rebbe's book, 
"And the Angels Laughed," where, as I recall (read it a few years ago) he 
says he checked with some astronomers, and they said that from the 
scientific pov, nightfall corresponds with shitas RT.


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:46:36 +0300
From: Eli Linas <linaseli@netvision.net.il>
Re:mitzva kiyumis again

>From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
>  RsF&B take as their paradigm the mitzva
>of shechita. As they correctly say, God doesn't give you a gold star
>whenever you shecht, instead the mitzva is to eat only meat which has
>been geshochten. They contrast this to Rabbi Feinstein's opinion on
>dwelling in Eretz Yisrael, where the desired action is itself the mitzva.

But it seems that Reb Moshe himself calls the act of shechita itself a 
mitzvah. See Choshen Mishpat II, 47a, last paragraph on page 257, where he 
says:"...Ach hashocheit l'achila, d'hu meisa mitzvah..."


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:46:05 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: mitzva kiyumis again

On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 09:21:42AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: I'm extremely puzzled by the concepts mentioned by Rabbis Feldman and
: Berger, so I'm going to write at length , hoping that someone will
: explain where I've gone wrong. RsF&B take as their paradigm...

Well, the first step to cleairing up the confusion is to realize that
RMF and I do not agree.

Let's start at the begining, the Rambam Hil Berachos 11:32 draws a
chakirah between mitzvos chiyuvos and mitzvos kiyumos. He defines chiyuvim
as things "one must try and pursue until he does them, such as tefillin,
sukkah, lulav and chofar." Whereas a mitzvah kiyumis is "domeh lirshus,
like mezuzah and ma'akah; because a person isn't obligated to have a
house that requires a mezuzah".

I understand RMF to be saying exactly like the Rambam. That there are
mitzvos that are obligatory, and those that are only obligatory if you
"have a house that requires a mezuzah" or the like.

With one exception. RMF allows for a purely voluntary mitzvah in the
case of MASG for women, since they are given as chiyuvim for men. I
therefore suggested that even lishitaso, R' Moshe could say that yishuv
E"Y bizman hazeh is a voluntary mitzvah. Because it was given as a chiyuv
to those doros that have a beis hamikdash -- and we can therefore be in
the role of an eino metzuveh vi'oseh.

My own position was that of my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz, although I have
an uncertain memory that the chiddush is actually R' Shimon Shkop's.
R' Dovid divided the Rambam's second category, noting that some mitzvos
are "mitzvos matirim" -- such as shechitah and eiruv chatzeiros. I assume
eishes yefas to'ar is similar. R' Dovid holds that such matirim carry no
sechar; they exist to allow you to do some desired thing beheter.

See the Bahag, as brought down by the Ramban on the first shoresh of
Seifer haMitzvos. The Bahag doesn't count mitzvos matirim. Which is
why the Ramban asserts that the berachah on shechitah is a birchas
hoda'ah, not a birchas mitzvah. In fact, in Pesachim 7b therefore
reules out the lashon "al hashechitah". (It's still tzarich iyun why
"asher kidshanu bimitzvosav" is said.)

Of course the Ra'avad (on Seifer haMitzvos) joins the attack on the
Rambam on this, asking why he counts shechitah as a mitzvas asei, and
suggests "ulai lav haba mikelal asei asah".

If there is interest, I have notes that I didn't get to yet about
the impact of this chiluk on einah zevuchah, neveilah and eiver
min hachai. I recall three shitos, but I'm not prepared to present
them yet.

: 1. Hekdesh. The mitzva is precisely to transfer ownership to hedesh,
: which is what being makdish something does.

Hafla'ah and tzedakah are a topic I don't have fully developed. I
therefore will set aside your cases of hekdeish and nedarim, as well
as the questio I raised about tzedakah.

As for the other two examples in your continuum, it would seem that IE
would consider minui melech to be a mitzvah kiyumis, while a yefas to'ar
is most clearly a mitzvah materes.

: Puzzle #2: what good is a chiluk if it doesn't classify all possible
: cases?

I answered this problem already; it's based on your false assumption that
there are only two categories.

: Now consider yefas toar a bit more. The pasuk "vchashakta bah vlakachta
: lcha lisha" might be rendered as "you desire to marry her" or "you
: desire her, and so must marry her". Arguably these options explain the
: machloketh about when biah rishona takes place; if you want to marry her,
: it's after the entire procedure, if you desire her, it's at the onset.
: But in the second case, according to RsB&F, the mattir takes place after
: the act being permitted.

Even if I were to concede your "arguably" -- and I don't know the subject
well enough to form an opinion -- I don't see why lemafrei'ah is a problem.


Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:20:52 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Rabbeinu Gershom's Teacher

In response to Eric Simon's question about who Rabbeinu Gershom's teacher 

The Chida in his Shem HaGedolim (vol. 1, gimmel 13) quotes the Tzemach David 
who says that Rabbeinu Gershom was a student of Rabbeinu Chananel.  The 
Chida also quotes the Tashbetz, in the name of his teacher the Maharam of 
Rotenberg, who says that Rabbeinu Gershom was a student of R. Yehudah bar 
Meir Leontin.  The Artscroll Rishonim book only lists the latter.  I'm not 
sure what Avraham Grossman says in his Chasidei Ashkenaz HaRishonim, but I 
saw in a footnote of another book that you should be looking at pp. 106-174.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 09:16:12 -0700
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
Re: Rabbeinu Gershom's Teacher

At 10:20 PM 7/29/01 -0400, Gil Student wrote:
>The Chida in his Shem HaGedolim (vol. 1, gimmel 13) quotes the Tzemach David 
>who says that Rabbeinu Gershom was a student of Rabbeinu Chananel....

I'd like to know more about Rabbeinu Gershom as a student of Rabbeinu
Chananel.  Where did this take place?  I ask this because I thought it was
settled that Rabbeinu Chananel taught the Rif (in Morocco?).  If so,
Rabbeinu Chananel certainly got around!  (And we know that Rabbeinu
Chananel was a student of Rav Hai Gaon).

-- Eric

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 05:47:57 -0700
From: "Dovid Pernikoff" <talmid@onebox.com>
Balus Bavel is Galus Yishmael?

I saw in a sefer that  Golus Bavel is Golus Yishmael ( I believe this
is based on a medrash.   Was Nebuchadnetzer a decendent of Yishmael 
and why is this called Galus Yishmael?

talmid@onebox.com - email
(212) 894-3748 x7949 - voicemail/fax

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 23:30:56 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>

From: Eli Linas <linaseli@netvision.net.il>
> But check out the story in the introduction to the Bostoner Rebbe's book, 
> "And the Angels Laughed," where, as I recall (read it a few years ago) he 
> says he checked with some astronomers, and they said that from the 
> scientific pov, nightfall corresponds with shitas RT.

Could someone please look this book (by the Bostoner Rebbe)  up and give
additional details?  

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 03:03:59 EDT
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
saying Tehillim on tisha be'Av

I was at a large gathering yesterday (on tisha beAv) where Tehillim was 
publicly recited ('betzibbur') for (IIRC for EY and 'people without 

It 'felt funny' to me....and I was hesitant about joining in...

Afterward I asked someone (an Aish Das chaveir who was there) about the 
propriety of it. He said that Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l opposed / prohibited 
it, while someone else was mattir.

Anyone know more about this?


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:57:12 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: saying Tehillim on tisha be'Av

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:03:59AM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: I was at a large gathering yesterday (on tisha beAv) where Tehillim was 
: publicly recited ('betzibbur') for (IIRC for EY and 'people without 
: shleimus').

I'm not sure about "people without sheleimus" or even what that means.

However, the situation in EY could very well override any rules about
Tish'a B'av and bakashos because it's piku'ach nefesh.

(Aside from the obvious connection between the tzarah itself and inyana


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:14:55 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Mazal and Siyata diShemaya

On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
:> Note that a person is better off in the long run with the nisayon that
:> being abandoned to teva. (Assuming a hashkafah that includes the latter.
:> Normally I do not. I would assume that "abandonment" is an illusion that
:> is itself a nisayon.)

: Even for a non-believer?

I'm not sure what your question is. My two possibilities were:

1- You're asking if I'm disagreeing with the Rambam.

Somewhat, and leaning more toward the absolutist approach found in
chassidus and mussar. More precisely, though, I would say that given
HKBH's timeless perspective, can one really distinguish the two? His
setting up teva in advance presumes an "in advance". And, when Hashem
set teva up, He knew its effects. Or, to play with the meaningless
tense in this sentence -- Hashem keeps teva going knowing its effects
on each individual.

Also, unlike Aristotle's teva, teva is no longer deterministic. Saying
that one is "abandoned to teva" no longer seals his fate. Someone can
be fully resigned to teva and still benefit from HKBH playing with
loaded dice.

2- If you're asking about the value of a nisayon to someone who doesn't
believe in the One who metes it out, I've posted on this question before.
Someone need not realize that the lesson is intentionally given in
order to take the lesson. For example, a child will stop touching the
stove after getting burned a few times. Misery as the power to shake
complacency. If one is unhappy with the status quo, he will do whatever
you can to change the odds in the future. Even if the person believes
the connection is physics or "karma".


Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:46:20 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
The Rambam on use of the middos

This email from R' Steinberger at Yeshivat haKotel discusses an Avodah
perennial. I would have offered a different answer to pretty much every
one of the questions he raised. But I'll leave that for after people
digest the article itself.


----- Forwarded message from owner-hk-rambam@lists.hakotel.edu -----
: From: owner-hk-rambam@lists.hakotel.edu
: Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 18:58:22 -0400

:     "The Use of the Thirteen Middot (Rules of Interpreting the Scripture)"

: 	The Rambam states that those laws, which are based on one of the
: thirteen "middot" [of R' Yishmael's Braita, appears in the beginning of
: "Torat Kohanim" ("Safra") the Halachic Midrash of Leviticus (Vayikra)]
: require the approval of the Supreme Rabbinical Court.  This implies three
: things: a) That even a layman has the authority to apply the "middot". All
: he needs is the approval of the authorities.  b) That any "middah" - even
: a "kal vachomer", which is usually based on simple logic, needs the
: approval of the Beit Din HaGadol, c) That even the greatest Sage of the
: teh generation has to get the official stamp of Beit Din. We will try to
: explain these rules one by one.  Some of them constitute a big "chiddush",
: and create some problems, as we shall see.

: a) The initiation of a "drasha" by any layman learner is problematic since
: we need a Mesorah learnt from Rabbis of previous generations, at least for
: "Gzeirah Shava" [A Halachic tool used for decoding the intention of the
: Torah by interpreting the use of identical words in two separate issues,
: as implying resemblance in Halachic ramifications, i.e. matters of
: criminal - penal law and of monetary issues require two witnesses.  
: Chazal concluded (in Sotah 3b) that the same applies to issues of "Erva" -
: marital laws (betrothal, divorce, etc.).  They based this conclusion on
: the word "Davar", which appears in the psukim of both issues.] See
: Pesachim 66a and Rashi Sukkah (11b - "lo yalfinan").

: 	It is possible, that according to the Rambam the insistence on a
: "Mesorah" from previous generations, in the case of "Gzeirah Shava", all
: the way back from Sinai, is telling us the Beit Din's method of approval.
: Indeed, the layman has to turn to them for authorization.  Then the Beit
: Din checks if there is a tradition for using such a "Gzeirah Shava".  And
: not as with other Middot here, they do not rely on their own judgment.

: 	[It is important to note that the Rambam himself (in "Sefer
: HaMitzvot" Shoresh 13) according to the commentary of "Kinat Sofrim" (page
: 49 n the common prints of Sefer HaMitzvot) gives a different meaning to
: the rule in Pesachim (ibid.).  He says that a layman needs to consult the
: Beit Din HaGadol (The Sanhedrin) because especially in the case of
: "Gzeirah Shava" there is a risk of making a mistake.  Since one has to
: establish with a certainty that there are extra words which were written
: just to teach us the "Gzeirah Shava", people might abuse this "middah".
: Only the supervision of Beit Din can guarantee that this does not happen.
: Thus, the turning to "Rabotav" - his teachers, does not refer to the
: Mesorah of the previous generations and going back all the way to Sinai,
: but just to the current Beit Din HaGadol.  The "Kinat Sofrim" even quotes
: our very Rambam (here in the introduction) to substantiate his explanation
: in "Sefer HaMitzvot".  All this is based on Temurah 16a.  Otniel ben Kenaz
: upon realizing that 1700 "Kal Vachomers" and "Gzeirot Shavot" were
: forgotten, once Moshe departed - used his "pilpul" to reconstruct all
: these halachot.  If Otniel used his own judgment, argues the Rambam in
: "Sefer HaMitzvot" according to the "Kinat Sofrim", then it implies that we
: do not revert even in "Gzeirah Shava" to the Sinai tradition.  Yet, Beit
: Din HaGadol is needed for approval.  Otniel, obviously had gotten such
: approval.

: 	According to the approach of the "Kinat Sofrim" in applying the
: story of Otniel we have to say that the Beit Din's approval had been
: necessary only in the case of "Gzeirah Shava", but not in the case of Kal
: Vachomer.  Only "Gzeirah Shava" requires "Kibla MeRabotav" (in Pesachim
: there).  If so, why doesn't the Rambam, in our introduction, make this
: distinctiono, but instead states that in all the Middot one needs the
: approval of Beit Din HaGadol?

: 	The possible solution to this is that only Rabanan, the Sages,
: required the special approval of Beit Din in Gzeirah Shavah".  But
: "MeDeOrayta" - the Biblical law, permitted one to use the thirteen middot,
: without an exception, on one's own, provided he was a Talmid Chacham.
: Hence, Otniel did not have to acquire any special approval of Beit Din
: HaGadol.  In his time, concerning this case, the Rabbinical decree for
: obtaining the approval of Beit Din had not yet been instituted.  The
: "Kinat Sofrim" seems to say that till the time of Rebbi any Middah enjoyed
: automatically the approval of Beit Din.  Only from Rebbi's time and on,
: Rabanan, realizing possible pandemonium, restricted the use of "Gzeirah
: Shava" and demanded a special reliance on Beit Din.  Without this, people
: would take the liberty of using this difficult esoteric middah in a
: mistaken irresponsible manner.

: 	All said and told, the "Kinat Sofrim's" approach does not do
: complete justice to the text of our introduction.  Even the very idea that
: in "Gzeirah Shava" we do not need Sianic tradition is too big a chiddush
: (as the "Kinat Sofrim" himself admits there).  Therefore, we prefer, with
: all respect, our explanation.] [By the way the Tosafot (Shabbat97a) says
: that there is a clear Messorah about the number of Gzeirot Shavot that the
: Sages knew.]

: b)  The Rambam, unlike Rashi (in Sanhedrin 73a "Hekesha Hu"), holds that
: every "middah", even a "Kal Vachomer", needs the approval of Beit Din
: HaGadol.  This implies that one, even a great scholar cannot trust his own
: logic, concerning issues that do not appear in Scripture.  ["Kal VaChomer"
: is a logical "Middah".  It works with the principle that if the Torah is
: strict in an easy case, certainly there should be strictness in a more
: serious case, i.e. if a witness who plotted to testify a false testimony,
: and was caught, has to pay, or be punished measure for measure - before
: his testimony caused the execution of the verdict; certainly he should be
: punished similarly in the case when, based on his testimony, the verdict
: was carried out (see Makkot 5b).  There is also an opposite kind of "kal
: Vachomer" : If the Torah is lenient in a very serious case, certainly we
: should be lenient in an easier case. i.e. In the previous case mentioned,
: the conclusion is that there is a decree not to punish the witness who
: caused the accused to be punished - (for instance to be stoned, if accused
: for desecration of the Shabbat).  If so, the Gemara (Makkot 2b according
: to the commentary of Rashi), mentions a Kal Vachomer: if in the case of
: the accused being already punished, based on the false testimony of the
: witness - we acquit the witness - certainly he should be acquitted, if he
: was caught lying before the execution.  Both types of Kal Vachomer, are
: based on simple and strong logic and common sense.]

: 	The explanation for mistrusting one's logic is based on the
: suspicion that there might emerge an argument which will negate the "Kal
: Vachomer".  [i.e. we can probably find a special reason for being so
: strict in a seemingly lenient case, a reason unknown presently. It is
: called a "pircha" to the "Kal Vachomer"].  This is the idea, mentioned, in
: "Ginat Veradim" (a profound compilation of the rules of exegesis and
: analysis of the Talmud, written by R' Yossef Teomim, the famed author of
: the "Pri Megadim" on Shulchan Aruch), for refraining to give out a
: punishmnt based on "Kal Vachomer", or even on other Middot, like "Bameh
: Matzinu" (a simple comparison of two issues; it is like "Binyan Av") and
: others.  But if it is not a matter of punishment ("ein onshin min haDin")
: like establishing an Issur (or even a "Heter") - we can trust a "Kal
: Vachomer".

: 	Yet, according to the Rambam here, we see that no Middah should be
: used without a supreme approval.  Indeed, this constitutes a problem: if
: always, the posek or the Dayan can trust what he sees and even to use his
: judgment to render a criminal guilty, to the extent of ordering his
: execution - why cannot, even a great scholar, make a simple "Kal
: Vachomer"?!

: 	The answer is probably the following: our very use of the thirteen
: Middot is based on a Mesorah - a Sinaic decree that these thirteen Middot
: are the keys for deciphering the text of the Scripture.  these "keys" are
: a license in the hands of a learner, but (according to the Rambam) with a
: stipulation: every "drasha" based on them requires the confirmation of
: Beit Din HaGadol.  This includes even a "Kal Vachomer", because after all,
: without the specific permission of the "Mesorah", formulated by R'
: Yishmael, one would not have had the liberty even to use the logical "Kal
: Vachomer".

: 	Indeed the Rambam, in the beginning of Hilchot Mamrim (Halacha 2)
: mentions using all the Middot, without an exception, as the exclusive
: prerogative of Beit Din HaGadol.  Otherwise, when it comes to judgment
: ("LeDamot Milta LeMilta"), any Talmid Chacham is permitted to use his
: logic.  The Rav of Brisk used to say that no one can invent even a "Kal
: VaChomer" unless he is well versed in "Kol Chadrei HaTorah", being in
: perfect command of the Torah.

: c)  The Beit Din HaGadol is really the stamp of authority for verifying
: any meaningful innovation in Torah.  This is manifested through the fact
: that no "Middah" is sufficient for "drasha" without their approval.  But
: this means also something further: the embodiment of the "Mesorah" is the
: Beit Din HaGadol (see beginning of Hilchot Mamrim), and whatever is learnt
: from the thirteen "middot" is a very integral part of the dynamic Oral
: Tradition, and its creativity.  Therefore any fruit of the Messorah
: belongs to the Beit Din HaGadol.

: 	Indeed all along - the Rambam, in this introduction, mentions the
: leaders of the generations together with their Beit Din.  He does not mean
: just their private legal councils.  The Rambam says by mentioning the
: various courts, that the Sanhedrin (Beit Din HaGadol) has always been the
: forum of the transmission.

: 	Thus the mark of excellence and the stamp of pure quality is given
: to the fitting Torah work of each generation by the Divinely licensed
: authority - the Beit Din HaGadol.  (To be sure, there were smaller and
: even private Batei Din, like "Beit Din Shel Kohanim, Batei Din of the
: tribes, Beit Din Shel Chashmonaim, Shel Shlomo, etc.  But they all derived
: their power from the presiding Supreme Court in Lishkat HaGazit - Beit Din
: HaGadol SheBeYerushalayim).

: 	This means that the A-lmighty has given His promise to us, that
: the Supreme Beit Din could always be reliable.  We know that, especially
: during the Second Commonwealth, many institutions were infiltrated and
: consequently destroyed by the Tzdukkim - the Monarchy, the Priesthood,
: etc.  Only the Sanhedrin seemed to stay pure.  Obviously the fake
: pretensions that characterized the Tzdukkim, could work when it came to
: matters of state, even in matters of worship and ceremony (the High
: Priesthood).  But when Torah scholarship was the issue, the Hellenistic
: Tzdukkim could not pretend and thus failed to conquer the last bastion of
: Torah true Judaism.  This enabled the Beit Din HaGadol to preserve their
: high status, and this is the reason for their necessary endorsement for
: the authenticity of the Oral Law.  (See also my article - the Sanhedrin in
: Lishkat HaGazit Congress of Torah She Baal Peh 1997 Mossad HaRav Kook 38th
: issue p. 118).  In these days, more than ever, we have to pray for
: "HaShiva Shoftaich" for the restoration of the former glory of these
: unique judges, who made the Mesorah to be what it became.

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 08:36:02 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Re: mitzva kiyumis again

At 08:46 AM 7/30/01 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
>My own position was that of my rebbe, R' Dovid Lifshitz...
>R' Dovid divided the Rambam's second category, noting that some mitzvos
>are "mitzvos matirim" -- such as shechitah and eiruv chatzeiros. I assume
>eishes yefas to'ar is similar. R' Dovid holds that such matirim carry no
>sechar; they exist to allow you to do some desired thing beheter.

I very much like the chilluk, but am unsure as to the "sachar" 
implications. If the mattir is done l'shem shomayim, and, to use the 
kabbalistic model, is ma'leh nitzotzos, why no sachar?

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

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 >