Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 95

Sun, 15 Jun 2014

• 1. Re: Classifying rishonim (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Classifying rishonim (David Riceman)
• 3. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Architect of Modernity (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Kuntreis Binyanai Hatekhelet (Saul Guberman)
• 5. Any Holistic Sepharadi Rishonim? (Ezra Chwat)
• 6. Why didn?t R? Elyashiv publish (M Cohen)
• 7. Any Holistic Sepharadi Rishonim? (David Wacholder)
• 8. Re: Classifying rishonim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Classifying rishonim (David Riceman)

RMB
> 
> 1- Could somone provide categories of halachic literature that I may
> have missed (or unfairly lumped together); and
Enumerating mitzvos, taamei hamitzvos
> 
> 2- Can anyone think of Sepharadi rishonim that the above taxonomy
> would place in the same category as Tosafos?
Hiddushei haRamban and haRashba.  I would put some teshuvos, e.g. The Rivash and the Tashbetz in the same category.
> 
> I have a theory that Tosafos's modality is a legacy of the Y-mi's
> influence on Ashkenaz.

It's very hard to claim that Ashkenazim studied Yerushalmi more than Sefardim, and genetic arguments seem just silly.

> David Riceman

You might also want to look at professor ta shma's book about r. Zerahiah halevi.

DR


Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 11, 2014, at 2:38 PM, David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> RMB
>> 
>> 1- Could somone provide categories of halachic literature that I may
>> have missed (or unfairly lumped together); and
> Enumerating mitzvos, taamei hamitzvos
>> 
>> 2- Can anyone think of Sepharadi rishonim that the above taxonomy
>> would place in the same category as Tosafos?
> Hiddushei haRamban and haRashba.  I would put some teshuvos, e.g. The Rivash and the Tashbetz in the same category.
>> 
>> I have a theory that Tosafos's modality is a legacy of the Y-mi's
>> influence on Ashkenaz.
> 
> It's very hard to claim that Ashkenazim studied Yerushalmi more than Sefardim, and genetic arguments seem just silly.
> 
>> David Riceman

See http://tinyurl.com/pql2tbx

This is a lecture given by Henry Abramson.

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Abramson   Henry (Hillel) 
Abramson (born 1963) is the Dean for Academic Affairs and Student 
Services at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touro_College>Touro 
College's Miami branch 
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touro_College_South>Touro College 
South). He is also currently the interim Chair of Judaic Studies there.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140611/3d0ec353/attachment-0001.htm>

The folks at Ptil Tekhelet have released the 8th annual kuntreis on tzitzit
and tekhelet in honor of parshat shlach

http://tekhelet.com/Kuntreis5774/Kuntreis5774.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140611/0c47291c/attachment-0001.htm>

In general your taxonomy is an excellent nutshell description. I
think what you're looking for, Holistic commentary in Sepahrad, If I
understand correctly- a comparative approach aligning Talmudic sources
(in essence the extension of the work started by the Talmud itself)
as we find in Tosafot.

This can be found in three stages:

1. Ri Migash and his disciples up to Yad R'mah (Andalusia and its refugees
in Toledo). These have no awareness the Euopean Tosafot and start their
inquiry independent of them. The former has no awareness of Rashi, and
his starting point is Gaonim ,Rah and Rif. The latter starts often with
Rashi, so he functions, effectively as an original Sephardic Tosfot. (One
citation of R. Tam- Sanhedtin 9b).

2. Ramban and disciples (Catalonia- not really Sepharad). As opposed to
his format in Milhamot, Ramban explicitly describes his intention in the
Hidushim to continue the work of Tosafot (intro to essay on Dina D'Garmi).

3. Tosfot Rosh. True composed by the last of the Baaley Tosfot, but
includes a layer of Ramban. Its usage is almost exclusively Sephardic,
where it served as The Tosfot (generic) until the printed Talmud reverted
them (and us) to a less developed Tosfot.

Ezra Chwat, National Library of Israel

I?ve had this question for a while, and I?m sharing an answer I rcved from r
yitchak berkovitz (jer?m) with the olam. Mordechai cohen

(its from a daily hashkofa shir that he gives)

 

Why didn?t R? Elyashiv publish ?????? He said who am I to publish ????? that
will be used for generations? And R? Moshe did?

 

R? Elyashiv didn?t like to pasken. Most of the stuff that was published was
from his time in the ?"? ??????? (?"? of appeals) ? he was paskening whether
you can accept the psak of the first ?"?. How he himself would have paskened
? maybe he wouldn?t have paskened like that. The ???"? ??"? ? he didn?t see
himself as someone who could be ???? like them. There are a lot of ????? of
R? Moshe that were published after his death. All kinds of ??????? whether
they are good or not. The underlying problem with these are not that someone
forged his ?????. (Do you really think someone did that ? we are so quick to
judge when people are the person we want them to be). The problem is that
??"? ? wasn?t just any ????? that he wrote rather he decided that these are
????? for ??? ?????. More than that ? some of the family say that there are
a lot of ?????? in the sefer that when it came to ????? he didn?t go with
them. So he put in the sefer what he held should be part of the library of
??? ????? what he held was a proper ????? in psak. 

 

And if you have different situations that you will have to pasken otherwise
- fine. But this is the starting point. R? Elyashiv held he wasn?t that
person. Was he right? It?s not for us to decide. It?s known that ??"? didn?t
like paskening. His grandchildren were poskim (mainly the ???? ????'). 

 

At what point does one decide that he needs to pasken for the generation?
You need to be up there to be able to decide. (fine the collected ????? of
R? Elyashiv ? there are contradictions ? he would proof each side in a
different ????? ? they weren?t written to be published, and not written to
be classics. R? Moshe felt he had the ?????? ? America was a new world. It
was a new era ? times had changed. Besides the fact that the ????? were
different. The question was what was appropriate for the Klal. R? Moshe
shaped ??' for the new world. R? Elyashiv decided he wasn?t the person for
it. 

 

Do you think he wasn?t a big person? Do you think that didn?t mean he didn?t
learn ?? ????? ???? ? he would pasken on every small part of ??"? ? did
someone come close to him in ??? ????? He just held that he wasn?t the ???"?
who paskened for generations. He made the decision. Only he could since no
one else was big enough. 

 

So the obvious next question is ? did the ????? in ??? ????? decide that his
????? was to go by? A large portion did. The question is did he really want
that? It?s a very good question. When we read a biography we feel that he
holds like that. To know every ????? and to have your hand on each one the
whole time. His clearness on every ????? and every ???. He had it all on his
fingertips. The stories belittle it. Try to imagine what that means. How
many life times would it take to know it let alone remember it? So to sit
and say ? he was this and wasn?t this ? who are we. 

??? ????? decided that he was the Gadol Hador. There was no ??' ? he was the
biggest. For the ???? ?? ? R? Shlomo Zalman was the ????. 

 

?R? Elyashiv ? would be ????? they say because he knew too much. R? Ovadia
was mekil because he had a bunch of ??????? to rely on and R? Elyashiv would
have a question on all of them from a ?????!?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140612/df1ccdef/attachment-0001.htm>

The only intact work of the Geonic period is She'iltos of Rav Achai. it
combines Agada and Halacha in the most incredible way. See Parshas
Vayeitzei - in the Mirsky edition it is clear - where Yaakov approaching
years of exile needs an anchor and is Koveia a Makom Litfilato - and the
Makom place of the Mikdash came to him.
What a deep lesson from Kefitsas Hederech!
 The same way Makom Kavua where one stands, within the Amidah,  the
blessings of the Tefila are anchored, they cannot be moved. Thus if one
forgot the entire blessing of  Bareich Aleinu - one cannot fill it up by
adding into Shomei'a Tefila. But if it is just an insertion that was
skipped, going back to Shomei'a Tefila will be valid. He prayed validly,
just the insertion was absent. Thus one would need to add it in Bareich
Aleinu Lchatchila, not like the Mishna Brurah that it is better to fill in
at Shomeia Tefila.
Makom Kavua - Zman Kavua - Tefila Kevua. That is the theme, all are under
our control. They deepen our connection with Hashem.
The Tosafos in the last screen of Rosh Hashana is applying the She'iltos,
deriving that skipping Yaaleh veyavo and being Yotzei with the Chazan is
valid even according to those who invalidate a Baki being Yotzei through
the Chazan's repitition. [To be precise, BHaG applied or perhaps copied the
She'iltos, so Tosfos quoting BHaG is really the She'iltos. No time to look
it up now. ]


I once visited a man recovering from brain surgery. Rav Moshe Feinstein had
ruled that it is impossible and invalid for a Yachid (no Minyan)  to be
Motzi a Yachid, even under these difficult circumstances.  I am now
wondering theoretically. The concept is that Hashem's Rachamim - has
distinct pipelines for each and every individual. Only a Tzibur has special
entree - allowing a shared pipeline for the Tefila.

A person who has neurological deficits and cannot speak so many words -
should be considered Eino Baki. Can we extend that - since the person
cannot be asked to study and learn - that even a Yachid can be Motzi him?

Rambam, in contrast to his predecessors, has two conflicting sides. On the
one hand rambam is trying to keep the integrity and accuracy of the Geonim
before him. On the other hand, his approach is to make an entire
magnificent unity of everything - a Unified Theory that fits together.
 This forced him to rebuild and add in many places. He truly had a
Weltanschauung.
She'iltos - three hundred years earlier - is still quoting  Midrash
verbatim, populist though some ideas may be.Contrast She'iltos, Hashem is
Guard, embodied in Mezuzah, Mezuzah is Hashem guarding us at the door,
always Hashem is to our right.
Rambam sees potential superstition here. The practice of counter-spells on
the front of the Mezuzah - very widely practiced world-wide - gives him an
opening to protest this superficial attitude.
Rambam calls the prevalent attitude Minus, indeed he - almost - coined and
patented the word. , Rambam alone demanded solid doctrines, defined
precisely.
Hashem is One, reminder that Hashem is One, obey that Hashem is One, and
the result is Shmirah. See Moreh part 3 chapter 51.7


I am not clear on your definition of who is Sfardi.  North of the Arab
conquest - culturally was Franco-German dominated, with whiffs of mystery
coming from the South. Rabi Aharon Haleivi, to some extent Ramban, is
Sfardi or is Ashkenazi?
This is my "reflex" reaction, not thought out.

You see Yerushalmi in Tosfos. Pre-Micha, the widely used cliche was that
Tosafos is such a genuine extension of  Bavli that one does not realize
there is a transition. Look in Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim - the Magnes
book - or Chachmei Tzarfas Harishonim, somewhere.

Rabeinu Shimshon of Senz is the importer of Yerushalmi  - in terms of
eclectic texts.  Through the RI there was no usage of Yerushalmi. Is the
thought process different?

Rashi was an "Iskufa" - a kind of stepping stone to Talmud and Mikra and
Midrash. His grandson RI had scribes and students and Rabeinu Tam to use.

Where does Rabeinu Tam fit in? More often than most see, he went in the
"mainstream" halacha of Rashi, starting from validation of early Shma,
which already was at least dangled by Rashi. Clearly he cannot have equated
"Night" with the time of Shma, the a priori assumption of Rov Rishonim.
The one and only Rishon with a defense of the universal Minhag is RA'BaN,
though Deblitsky tries to prevent his opinion from being clear. RABaN said
that when most or all are sleeping - Chas veshalom to wake them up! Rather
- when normal people are working in the field, that is the Day. When the
"Shofar" blows to end work and go home - one is approaching the multiple
steps toward Shochbecha, such as arriving home making supper consuming it.
Those end the day. [ Veering off topic - Those in Trumah kitchens Kohanim
and other of Mikveh lifestyle - became Tamei in afternoon to have short
Tvul Yom and eat Trumah at night, as a practical matter. Leil Shabbos has
its main advantage that it shows the warmth and kindness of Hashem, that we
have joy in the relationship. Truma would be forbidden until after Shabbos.
Contrast the  Tzdukim et al who could not conceive of warmth on the
Sabbath.  They forbade light and also warmth on Shabbos. ]
When one is wrapping up the day - and taking stock and putting trust in
protection overnight - that is Zman Kriat Shma.
Friday night - that preparation starts earlier and is mandatory - why the
Shofar was blown in Mikdash, a stone of that spot was found.  Thus ZKS
Friday night is earlier! Custom [inevitable?] with no known basis has basis
and arrives in Shulchan Aruch without its basis.
Raavan gives a great base for the Sugya, that the time of cooking or eating
is Beshochbecha. That makes sense to me. Once we are exhausted and
desparate to sleep, it would seem too late.
RAABaN also marks the last of Rashi's school of deep explorers of Siddur.
His grandson RAViYH had the Halachic approaches still, but not the Siddur
and Midrash mastery. Raaviyah also quotes all Yerushalmi's. He quoted in
Megila that Rabi Zeira commanded his Shamash to have kavana to be motzi the
Chazan with Amein so the Chazan will be shomeia ke'oneh! Rabi Zeira is the
dominant authority in Kavana sugyos.

He took Rashi's already customary and accepted approach, and advocated it
without appealing to authority. The difficulty of filtering genuine Sefer
Hayashar from the emendations of later students is documented.

Regarding the controversy of making the average for the Lunar cycle more
precise, keeping Pesach anchored in one position. I suggested that the
Special Mysterious Connection of the Bnei Yisrael with Hakadosh Baruch Hu -
finds a confirmation in the impossible to track mysteries of the moon's
rhythms.  Since the moon varies its course month by month, and cannot
reconcile itself with the Solar Year, either ten days too short or an extra
month -

This represents Hashem's special connection with the Bnei Yisrael - which
is there and manifest, but on the other hand it cannot be tied down to a
precise location. Thus the ultimate mathematical precision may not be the
desideratum! It may be better to be off by a small amount, leaving room and
need for Hashem or the Beth Din to refine it and amend it to something more
exact and precise.  This is a mystical approach.

The Halacha Lmoshe Misinai is only to use averages and long-term tendency
toward the norm when Beth Din does not exist.  The exact numbers were not
part of the Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai - see Chazon Ish.  When Beth Din
exists, their duty is that month by month and year by year they determine
the "appointed days" to approach Hashem. They keep the long-term Tekufah
issues in mind. Month by month, their decision is "spur of the moment".
 Hashgacha Temidis!



-- 
David Wacholder

Email: dwachol...@gmail.com
dwachol...@optonline.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140613/c7444d39/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:38:16PM -0400, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
: > 1- Could somone provide categories of halachic literature that I may
: > have missed (or unfairly lumped together); and

: Enumerating mitzvos, taamei hamitzvos

Taamei hamitzvos? Sefer haChinukh appears to be more an exception than a
category. I also negelected aggadic writing in general, Chovos haLavavos,
the Moreh... Arguably, taamei hamitzvos are more aggadic than halachic.

Counting mitzvos, I agree, although in most cases those are codes (Semag,
Semaq) -- or a prelude to writing a codes (Rambam's Sefer haMitzvos). 

:> 2- Can anyone think of Sepharadi rishonim that the above taxonomy
:> would place in the same category as Tosafos?

: Hiddushei haRamban and haRashba. I would put some teshuvos, e.g. The
: Rivash and the Tashbetz in the same category.

I ignored the genre of explanatory sefarim altogether. There was no place
to put the Beis Yoseif. (Assuming you count it as a rishonic work; in
terms of halachic authority, it does precede the SA. In terms of history,
it's a bit late.)

:> I have a theory that Tosafos's modality is a legacy of the Y-mi's
:> influence on Ashkenaz.

: It's very hard to claim that Ashkenazim studied Yerushalmi more than
: Sefardim, and genetic arguments seem just silly.

I was thinking of a cultural attitidue about how one views halakhah.

The greater source of shaqla vetarya in the Y-mi is testing comparisons
and making contrasts between dinim that have similarities. It is a
holistic tendency, in contrast to the Bavli's reductionism. Sepharadim
not only aren't the cultural heirs of this attitude, the Andalusians are
more heavily influenced by the Greek philosophers, who were masters of
reductionism and taxonomy rather than analysis by comparison and contrast
and finding connections between taxonomically distant categories.

But in any case, you already provided counterexamples. I still think
the cultural legacy of the Y-mi might be why the Baalei haTosafos and
the sheer volume of that kind of analysis was so predominantly on the
Ashk side of the fence.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Sent from my iPad
> RMB:
> I ignored the genre of explanatory sefarim altogether.

How are tosafos any different?


> 
> I was thinking of a cultural attitidue about how one views halakhah.

One of my high school rebbeim observed that Rashi and the Rambam tended to
learn sugyos very similarly.  Professor Ta Shma, in the book I recommended,
attributed the change in Ashkenazi derech halimud to rabeinu Tam, though I
think there are occasional glimmerings of it in Rashi and the rashbam.

He says that r zerahia halevi was very influenced by Sefer hayashar.  I
don't recall how he fits the raavad into this paradigm.  Iirc rabeinu yonah
studied in ashkenaz and trained his cousin the Ramban.

Of course the rosh moved from ashkenaz to Ohio, but I don't know if he formed an influential school other than his son.

I've been sick in bed for a while, and I don't have access to many
reference books, but I'm suggesting that the proximate cause is rabeinu tam
rather than the Yerushalmi, and eventually his derech halimud became part
of everybody's toolkit.

David Riceman
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140615/52449f3b/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


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

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.)