- This topic has 737 replies, 66 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“For those of you who don’t accept rayos from rishonim because they often mean the opposite of what they say
Who are you addressing with this??”
I am addressing you. To quote:
“Now about rishonim. Firstly, the simple reading is not always the correct understanding. Sometimes rishonim use language that nearly black-and-white indicates one side of a chakira when they hold of the other. That is a general rule of learning.”
And: ” You need a rebbe for rishonim too.”
There are two types of situations where you are trying to prove something:
1) A vaccuum
2) Not in a vaccuum
I never said that I don’t accept rayas from rishonim. The point I actually did make was that once there already exists a LEGITIMATE shitta for “x”, then, since it is axiomatically true that rishonim SOMETIMES employ lashon that to US is misleading, YOU cannot on your own reading bring a raya against it.
In other words, this situation is not in a vaccuum. Therefore, I don’t accept rayas from rishonim that are based on your understanding. Even a legit posek, gadol, etc who cites them as a raya is merely entitled to argue, but his opinion hardly invalidates the shitta.
But to emphasize the point you’re clearly missing, there is a difference between a raya brought from your puny, incapable, and lacking mind vs one brought by someone with DT, etc, who’s legit.
If you want to keep the statement, you can quote me that “You don’t accept rayas brought from rishonim by random nobodies who think they know how to read a rishon, against an established and legitimate shitta.
it isn’t muchach poskim know those exotic sources. I spoke to many tremendous talmidei chachamim who didn’t know they exist.
I assumed R’ Elyashiv knew of at least some of them. (The one I asked answered with R’ Elyashivs shitta, that he heard from him personally.)
Also, your point of the evidence not being good enough is nowhere near the same argument as you were making earlier, that we now have a Mesorah to not wear T’cheiles.
Correct. Because that’s what I was told by the one to whom I asked the shaila.
It is ironic that in this thread we have someone who has taken a long screen name to indicate that “secular knowledge is the equivalent of an evil king who tried to uproot Torah Judaism”.
That is incorrect. Secular knowledge is not, in and of itself, the equivelant of “evil king. . .”. Secular knowledge raised upon the same pedestal as Torah is. For that blurs the distinction between that which is kodesh and that which is chol. Etc. (For the record, “Cheil (ches-yud-lamed) Yavan” = 120 = “madda”. Meaning that the army of yavan is secular knowledge. For it has enormous latent danger within it.)
“the army of yavan is secular knowledge”
That is quite a hostile attitude towards knowledge.
Those with hostility to general knowledge tend to avoid Torah learning that has too much to do with any secular knowledge.
TUM: I would just like to point out that you are making a gross insult against Torah learning. “The RIshonim employ Lashon that to us is misleading.”??!! That’s a joke. Why ever learn? It should be Assur to open a Rishon by your logic unless you are a Gadol, because you know that you will potentially distort the Torah to the opposite of what it means. It’s ridiculous. It’s absurd. Sit down and learn the Rishonim. They are very clear in what they say. And we have Achronim to point out when they are potentially apparently being Soseir themselves and what the potential reasons for that are. But the RIshonim mean the opposite of what they say? It’s a joke. Go invent your own Torah and claim that’s what a Rishon really means because, after all, we can’t know what it means. (Unless we’re a “Gadol” and have “Da’as Torah”. But how could we get that in the first place if we misunderstood all the Rishonim until we achieved that point.) Honestly, you have nothing to add to this discussion. Say you don’t know enough to discuss this Sugya. That’s fine. But don’t go around throwing made-up axioms into a Sugya that do nothing but distort actual Talmud Torah.
“it isn’t muchach poskim know those exotic sources. I spoke to many tremendous talmidei chachamim who didn’t know they exist.
I assumed R’ Elyashiv knew of at least some of them.” (
it isn’t muchach bchlal that rav elayshiv zatzal knew a teshuvos maharil mksav yad.
“The one I asked answered with R’ Elyashiv’s shitta, that he heard from him personally.”
just curious what did he say is rav elyashivs shitta?
I claim that in 13 pages of discourse on this topic there has not been any dissenting opinion that says that there is an inyan to keep the status quo. Go find one such dissenting opinion in the 13 pages and I will retract my statement.
This is ridiculous, as I was not referring to solely this thread. I can’t believe that I have to point this out.
(Your anonymous rosh yeshiva who may or not hold this is not a dissenting opinion)
Any more than yushka is Mashiach.
“the army of yavan is secular knowledge”
That is quite a hostile attitude towards knowledge.
Um, that is pointing out the “latent danger”. Furthermore, I was not being serious. It’s a gematria. Almost by definition, that implies that it’s cute drush. We can debate the merits and dangers of secular knowledge in a dedicated thread.
Those with hostility to general knowledge tend to avoid Torah learning that has too much to do with any secular knowledge.
Could you clarify what you mean by that exactly?
it isn’t muchach bchlal that rav elayshiv zatzal knew a teshuvos maharil mksav yad.
maybe, but it seemed to me that there are a few maare mekomos that all are saying the same point. I therefore assumed that it’s likely that R Elyashiv saw one or some of them.
Sam2:
Hopefully, with a rebbe, one learns how to learn.
Furthermore, I’ll repeat what I responded to PAA earlier, that default is to assume they are talking straight, but here, the shitta already exists, making it possibly reasonable that there is an underlying premise the rishonim just don’t talk about. This is similar to the Maharals supposed revolution in how to learn aggadata — conventional scholarly understanding would have it that he invented a new approach that the rishonim en masse did not ascribe to whatsoever. However, the truth is that (some/most) rishonim did hold that aggadatas can be understood as describing mystical realities, etc, but they chose not to discuss, and even sometimes seem hostile towards it. I am not definitively claiming this is what is pshat here [techeiles], just a maybe.
Take a look at the levush mordeachai hakdama to bava kamma
TorahUmadda-731-MelechYavanHarasha: re Rav Elyashiv, Rav Elyahu Zilberman Shlit”a R”Y Aderes Eliyahu told me his Teshuvah was about janthina not murex (as is clear from the fact he refers to 3rd definite opinion for Tcheiles) — Saul Kaplan from Rechovot claims he found a process to dye blue from janthina but refuses to reveal the process.
tora umada-
I am just curious whatdid your posek say bsheim rav elyashiv ?(especially since he supposedly heard it directly from rav elyashiv)
can you fill me in?
i know many different claims bsheim rav elyashiv.
(including hearing from someone reliable that when asked if he wrote a teshuva that says it is a problem of min kanaf, he answered that there is no problem and he never wrote such a teshuva and he doesn’t know who did)
one thing vadai is that Rav MM Karp who is a talmid muvhak of Rav Elyashiv ztvk”l wears techeiles.
whats an example of something thats “patur avul assur”??
torah731 – why cant you give us at least one name?
mariokart: Any Issur D’rbannan.
PAA: I thought I mentioned it above, but I thought the Gemara in Bava Kama was a Ra’aya that Kla Ilan can’t be indigo. Or, at least, not the plant. Maybe it could still be the color but that doesn’t work so well with that Gemara either.
sam2- we already answered your kasha ????
patur. rambam 2:1 (?”? ?????)
??? ??? ???? ????? ??????, ???? ??????: ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ???? ??????
Isatis means indigo kayidua.
than in halacha 8 rambam says
???? ???? ??’ ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??’. ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????.
so all rambam (and k”m) means if something else besides isatis is domeh to techeiles it has the din of kala ilan (i.e. it isn’t techeiles, can’t be used for lavan on tallis shekula techeiles) But it doesn’t mean that in the times of the gemara they had something else. Just lidoros if they find something else it has this din.
And of course the rayos from the gemaros are very muchach that there was nothing else known to be like indigo. The Murex was around Bizmanum memeila Ba harug braglov
“So if the chilazon was some other creature and the murex trunculus was around and could dye the same color as techeiles (which we know it could because it’s the same color as plant indigo) then according to the kesef mishna the murex trunculus would be nichlal in kala ilan.”
the kesef mishna never meant that everything is called kla ilan, rather everything that color is nichlal in DINIM the gemara says for kal ilan. for example on a talis shekulo techeiles kla ilan can’t be used as chutei lavan so too anything else that color. and anyway the gemara in menachos is muchach that kla ilan is a specific thing.
about the ben yehoyada that says based on arizal there is ??”? on anything not real techeiles the sefer hakanah is mevuar that the mekor of the ??”? on kla ilan is talui on the fact it grows from the ground.
read on. kesef mishna is mefurosh
????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??”? ????? ?????? ???? ?”? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?”? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ????
“Ant the gemara in menachos is only muchach that kala ilan is a specific thing if you make the hanacha that murex trunculus is not kala ilan”
no. gemara is muchach that vadai a testthat will reveal kla ilan will reveal all kla ilans, meaning al karchach they are identical. murex and indigo are not.
“And correct me if I’m wrong but I think the nimulei yosef did not say “plant indigo”, he just said indigo”
yeah but what does kla ILLAN mean, either referring to plant, or it is a take-off of a name of the min, mmeaning only that min. Either way plenty of rishonim say ISatis, name of plant.
“And anyway the fact that the rishonim don’t mention murex trunculus as part of kala ilan is very reasonable considering they didn’t know of any blue dye from it”
well the shiltei giborim knew techeiles was from murex and still said it was blue.
“Reading onward in the kesef mishna only shows that ???? is not included in ??? ????. Which makes sense because ???? can basically mean any dark color whereas ??? ???? is exactly like Techeiles”
the question you quoted from the kesef mishna is
??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????, ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????
so his question is based on hanacha that shachar in the rambam is included in kla ilan and he has it shver because it shouldn’t be. So the only hechrech kla ilan is kolel more than one min is based on the lashon shachor
The teirutz I quoted says
?”? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ????
meaning that shachar is NOT nichlal in kla ilan, meaning there is no makor that kla ilan is more than one min. vdoi”k
about the gemara in menachos, there is definitely a chemical difference and Levush Haaron and others say the gemaras test was indeed done and it differentiated, and there is pictures backing this up. But forgetting about the Murex, the lashon hagmara is surely mashma that not everything that color is nichlal, because what was the raya when it got darker, maybe he discovered a new type of kla ilan
my point with the shiltei hagiborim is that he writes bfeirush techeiles is blue and writes elsewhere it is from murex. Meaning the shiltei giborim knew murex made blue, so who said rishonim didn”t know?
PAA: Your example was not of something Patur Aval Assur. By Mapis Mursa, it’s either Chayav Chatas or Patur UMuttar. If it’s L’hotzi Leicha then it’s Ein Tzricha L’gufa and Chazal weren’t Gozer in this case. If it’s La’asos Pesach, it’s Chayav because now it’s Tzricha L’gufa.
Chacham: I don’t know if you’ve seen or mentioned it at all in this thread, but Tosfos Shabbos 75a seems pretty clear that the Chilazon is a fish. Any thoughts?
Sam2, there are snails that jump. So it is no raya to say that tosfos thought it is a fish.
I am asuming The bais halevi you are referring to is
Sorry for this being late Sim 613. Fortunatley i am aware of the halacha that permits the strings to be pretty much any color. Rambam goes on to say better to wear red strings on a red beged etc. first of all i beleive that color of stam strings can’t be the color of “techilis”. second of all the whole aisur of Bal Tosef is when one says that he is performing the Mitzvah of techilet and in fact is not. meaning when you find out what you were wearing was not techilet. you can’t just say oh well at least i was yotzeh mitzvas tzitis. no in fact your over Bal Tosef for saying you were yotzeh techilet.
PAA- I hear your tayne from the gemara in menachos.
my point about bais halevi is that all he needed was a sibah why it stopped and to this the ramban is an answer since he says there were gezeiros.
???? ??”? ????? ???? ????? “???? ????????” (?’ ??) “…??? ??? ????? ??????”? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?????
???? ??? ????? ???? ???? 1612 ?? ????? ????? ????? ????”? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??”? ????? ????. ??? ???????? ???”? (??”? ?) ?????”? (??”? ???”?) ????”? (????? ?.).
?????”? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????
as for not using expensive things as a ziyuf, what about hamotzi bashuk, because al kol ponim murex was heavily used, so you have to be choshesh that it is murex. besides if it isn’t kla ilan, rav achai should still be choshesh for it
RI HAKODESH-
1. The discussion of the color of the strings was never said on the strings in place of techeiles; it was only said on the strings of lavan. See Mishna Brura 9,14, Yam Shel Shlomo Yevamos 3, Artzos Chaim 9, 5, Chazon Ish 3, 25 and others.
2. You claim there is Bal Tosif if I try to do a mitzvah and it turns out to not be one. So you are suggesting not to do it even misafek.
Can you explain to me why this is different than tefillin that there is a safek if they are kasher, or esrog safek murkav, and every other safek mitzvah where the poskim say you are chayav to do it misafek deoraysa lchumra and aren’t choshesh for Bal tosif if it is passul?
the sefer hachinuch doesn’t seem to agree. He writes in mitzvah 454
???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???, ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????
The Riaz brought in Shiltei Giborim 4b of dafei hariph in Rosh Hashona says the same thing that there is no bal tosif if you put tefilin in the wrong place.
Do you have any source that there is Bal tosif on a pasul Mitzvah?
It could be you are oiver bal tosef if you make up a new issur of Bal tosef that the torah never assured.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.