Thanks Mack

quote:

This is exactly what the sages do for it comes to teach us that we should not rely upon our own understanding but rather if we state somthing we should find a source for it as proof to the matter of what we are saying. (my bold)thus brings us full circle in dealing with layers or concept taken from the literal to some lofty concept.

What would be valid proof - from what sources do we get the proofs for it to be valid?
Is Written Torah enough?

Dov

Additional Question: The proof, how true would it have to be to context to be valid? Like it said in the text Rabbi Mitterhof 'quoted' - some times the proof provided by one Sage to validate/verify a statement does indeed seem 'farfetched', and one has great difficulties making the connection. It almost seems like there is no connection what so ever, as if the words are just plucked from anywhere - and it would be impossible if one didn't allow for 'unconvetional' reading.

Am I completely off here?

Dov

shalom Dov,

for all of Israel both the written and the oral Torah may can use proof. for as you see in the Gemora they bring their proof of using Torah, Navim (prophets) , and the kituvim (writtings).

as to you second question I have not heard an explination for. however i recall a story which Moshe Rabbinu ask to see Rabbi Akiva. and R' Akiva was given a shiur in which he expounded on every crown and letter in the Torah in such a way that Moshe did not understand what he said. then one of R' Akiva students ask what proof do you have to what you say. and he said "This is the Torah that Moshe recieve at Mount Sinai."

Moshe Rabbinu heard what R' Akiva was saying however felt that what was he saying as you said farfeteched until he heard that everything which R' Akiva said was linked to the Torah so it is with our sages that they do have some linkage with the Torah. I am not sure if that really help you.

Shalom Mack

quote:

however I know such a person who save another human life during that period is not punished by any measure.

Thank you for your patience with my questions and attempts to understand.

In my other post - I should have provided the source for "has saved the world" - I found it.
Sanhedrin 37a.

Dov

In Sukkah 23a, it explains the argument between R' Akiva and R' Gamliel. Everybody holds that a Sukkah that cannot withstand a regular wind that are on land is not Kosher. If it can withstand a regular wind from the sea (that is stronger) everyone agrees the Suka is Kosher. the argument is when it's strong enough that it can withheld a regular wind from the land but not from the sea. R' Gamliel holds that a Sukka needs to be a permanant structure, so it's no good, while R' Akiva says it could be more temparary structure, so it's Kosher.

thank you Rav Chaim i was wondering it's rational for a while.

Shalom Mack, and everyone

quote:

what proof do you have to what you say. and he said "This is the Torah that Moshe recieve at Mount Sinai." (...)until he heard that everything which R' Akiva said was linked to the Torah so it is with our sages that they do have some linkage with the Torah.

So how does one determine that what one hears is Torah? Is it like a line of associations to passages in f.i Written Torah, so that when one hears something, one is 'reminded' of specific passages or phrases? And one ability to determine increases with increased knowledge of f.i Written Torah?

Example (I am going to use an 'out-side teaching' I know to be false): - 'G-d is three in one' - I can determine this to be false, because it's right up front in the Shema, which clearly says: "...G-d is ONE" and I can then back that up with Rambam: "[His is] not like the oneness of a pair, nor like the oneness of a species, nor like man, whose complex oneness may be divided into many units, nor like the oneness of a simple body, which is one in number but may be divided and separated without end. Rather, He is One with a Oneness that knows no parallel in any manner."

I am not trying to be difficult here - I am trying to understand the process.

Dov

quote:

R' Gamliel holds that a Sukka needs to be a permanant structure, so it's no good, while R' Akiva says it could be more temparary structure, so it's Kosher.

I assume, because I don't know better, that R'Akiva's ruling is the one that is the rule - if it is so, why is that? How can one Sage's reading/understanding have 'higher status' - how is that determined?

Dov

Shalom Dov,
yes Dov
but instead of using the Shema first then teh rabam it would be the RamBam state this which he learned from Moshe Rabbinu the Shema.

which is why in the Mishnah Torah it doesn't ever expect a few times mention a source because the Rabam felt every ruling of the sages can be trace back to Moshe Rabbinu. expect when he names a person or he mentions himself of what he thinks the ruling should be. or he states clearly this is the custom of the our land and etc.

Shalom Mack,

Ok, thank you, I see now. It is very logical.

Dov

quote:

In Sukkah 23a, it explains the argument between R' Akiva and R' Gamliel. Everybody holds that a Sukkah that cannot withstand a regular wind that are on land is not Kosher. If it can withstand a regular wind from the sea (that is stronger) everyone agrees the Suka is Kosher. the argument is when it's strong enough that it can withheld a regular wind from the land but not from the sea. R' Gamliel holds that a Sukka needs to be a permanant structure, so it's no good, while R' Akiva says it could be more temparary structure, so it's Kosher.

I know this is probably utterly silly, but I am just happy I found it!

MISHNA: "If one constructs a Succah on the top of a wagon, or on board a vessel, it is valid, and he may ascend thereto on the festival. If he has constructed the Succah on the top of a tree, or on the back of a camel, it is valid; but he must not ascend thereto on the festival days. If two walls are formed by a tree, and one by human hands, or two by human hands and one by a tree, the Succah is valid, but one must not ascend thereto on the festival. This is the rule: Whenever the Succah can stand by itself, even should the tree be removed, the Succah is valid, and it is lawful to ascend thereto on the festival.

GEMARA: This Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba only, as we have learned in a Boraitha: If a Succah was made on a ship, Rabban Gamaliel makes it invalid, and R. Aqiba makes it valid. It happened once that Rabban Gamaliel and R. Aqiba were on a ship, and R. Aqiba constructed a Succah on the ship. On the morrow a wind blew it off, and Rabban Gamaliel said to him: Aqiba, where is thy Succah? Said Abayi: If the Succah cannot withstand an ordinary wind from land, all agree that it is not a Succah at all; if it can hold out a storm on land, all agree it must be regarded as a Succah; but if it can hold out an ordinary wind from land, but not an ordinary wind from the sea, there is the point of their difference: R. Gamaliel holds it must be a permanent dwelling, and as it cannot withstand an ordinary wind from the sea, it is not considered as anything; but R. Aqiba holds that only a temporary dwelling is needed, and so soon as it is proof against an ordinary wind from land, it is called a temporary dwelling."

Dov

quote:

yes Dov
but instead of using the Shema first then teh rabam it would be the RamBam state this which he learned from Moshe Rabbinu the Shema.

which is why in the Mishnah Torah it doesn't ever expect a few times mention a source because the Rabam felt every ruling of the sages can be trace back to Moshe Rabbinu. expect when he names a person or he mentions himself of what he thinks the ruling should be. or he states clearly this is the custom of the our land and etc.

I had to mull this over for a bit - and realized that there was something I had trouble getting:

To me this seems to imply that Oral Torah takes precedence over Written Torah - if that is so - why is that?

D.

quote:

Originally posted by Dov:
To me this seems to imply that Oral Torah takes precedence over Written Torah - if that is so - why is that?

I don't think you can say that. The Oral Torah complements the Written Torah. Neither can exist without the other and certainly the Written Torah cannot be understood without the Oral Torah.

quote:

I don't think you can say that. The Oral Torah complements the Written Torah. Neither can exist without the other and certainly the Written Torah cannot be understood without the Oral Torah.

Thanks

This is probably a silly question - but it has me thinking.

The laws of Kashrut - Written Torah says not to boil the kid in it's mother' s milk - now 'kid' indicates - 'goat' - why then does the Oral Torah extend this to apply to both bovine and chicken - bovine can be understood logically to be infered as it too produces milk - but chickens/fowl doesn't produce milk or suckle it's offspring, so why include poultry?

Why include poultry? The fact is that the Torah doesn't include poultry in the prohbition of milk and meat. However, the Rabbis decided to make mixtures of poultry and milk forbidden as people might become confused and mix actual meat with milk.

Similarly, the meat of wild animals (e.g. deer) is only Rabinically forbidden to be mixed with milk.

Why cows? Well I believe that the Torah was includng any domesticated animals - goats, sheep, cows, oxen, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:
Why include poultry? The fact is that the Torah doesn't include poultry in the prohbition of milk and meat.

Exactly, Torah Law doesn't include poultry in the prohibition. And Torah Law makes perfect sense.

quote:

However, the Rabbis decided to make mixtures of poultry and milk forbidden as people might become confused and mix actual meat with milk.

Do you know where I can find the reasoning behind this?

I am just learning about 'the fence' - and I thinking about that when I read and asked my question - what I don't get is how to reconcile the EXTENDED prohibition. To me it looks like an ADDITION to Torah Law. And, with no disrespect intended - aren't we forbidden to add or detract to or from Torah?

quote:

Similarly, the meat of wild animals (e.g. deer) is only Rabinically forbidden to be mixed with milk.

I am not entirely sure I understand the distinction between a Rabbinical Law and a Torah Law - other than the former is not in Written Torah. I would like to understand.

quote:

Why cows? Well I believe that the Torah was includng any domesticated animals - goats, sheep, cows, oxen, etc.

Yes, this makes perfect sense - they are all similar animals, so it's only logical that they fall under the same prohibitions - and the same with game animals that are similar to domisticated in behaviour.

Dov

quote:

Originally posted by Dov:
Do you know where I can find the reasoning behind this?

I am just learning about 'the fence' - and I thinking about that when I read and asked my question - what I don't get is how to reconcile the EXTENDED prohibition. To me it looks like an ADDITION to Torah Law. And, with no disrespect intended - aren't we forbidden to add or detract to or from Torah?

The reasoning is as I have mentioned, that people mught get confused. If they were able to eat (say) chicken with milk (and chicken is a kind of "meat") then they might come to eat actual meat with milk.

The Torah gave the Rabbis the authority to make such laws. They do not add to the Torah, merely protect it. Adding to a Torah Law would, for example, be if the Rabbis said that instead of 4 species are to be shaken when one shakes Lulav, 5 should be shaken.

quote:

Originally posted by Dov:
I am not entirely sure I understand the distinction between a Rabbinical Law and a Torah Law - other than the former is not in Written Torah. I would like to understand.

For most purposes there is no difference. The Torah tells us that we must obey the Rabbinical Laws. But in certain circumstances there can be practical differences. For example, as a general rule if we are in doubt about something which involves a Torah Law, then we must be strict on it. For the most part, however, if the doubt pertains to a Rabbinical Law, then we can be lenient.

quote:

The laws of Kashrut - Written Torah says not to boil the kid in it's mother' s milk - now 'kid' indicates - 'goat' - why then does the Oral Torah extend this to apply to both bovine and chicken

"Gidi",even though is usually translated as "kid", but in reality itmeans a young domestic animal. the proof to this that the Torah sometimes says "Gidai Ezim" "goat kids." If it's true that Gidi is exclusively goat then the above would be repetitive. Spit can't mean exclusively. (Rashi in Chumish)

For chicken, see YP's posts

in our day and age many jewry all over the world observe two days of the festival. such as the first two days of sukkot. etc the rational behind this is because tehre was a time when we didn't just have a jewish calnuadar and so in dinstant place we might live. they would light fires to tell us when a festival began. Today we still do it out of custom. we all know which day Pesch falls on we all know which day is the first day of Sukkot?

I heard a reason which was out of tradition and memory. and others reason which I don't know anymore. in Israel on one day is given to them by most Israeli.

so why do i bring all this up. in order to explain that this is not adding to the Torah in observing this way. for we do not say we are commanded two when it is really one. but rather the reasoning behind it. then after we are told this we are told somthing else "We are not to sepreate ourselves from the community"

meaning unless this thing is a serious burden upon you do you according to the community. the second thing is we are not adding to the Torah but rather creating a fence so that we do not cross over and error as the children of Israel did when they built teh golden calf for they figure Moshe must have died and needed somone else to go as their inbetween. i.e the golden calf.

thus we learn from Moshe his fence in which he tells teh people to puritify htemselves for three days when G-d told him only two. this way they people will not come into error. as we learn they did not error.

forgive me of my lack of sources for I do not know the soruces for any exect the last one which is Pikiat Avot D'Rabbi Natan chapter 2 i think.