tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post6175893349346400047..comments2024-03-19T23:03:01.685-05:00Comments on Beis Vaad L'Chachamim: Parshas Emor Vayikra 21:24 A Non-Kohen that Shechts a KorbanEliezer Eisenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16036989084122930226noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-51508675708311074892009-05-07T11:17:00.000-05:002009-05-07T11:17:00.000-05:00I'm taking Reb Meir Simcha's approach, in ...I'm taking Reb Meir Simcha's approach, in which he takes the Ibn Ezra's pshat seriously and at face value. Also, whether the Ibn Ezra meant it or not, it's interesting to see it in the context of Rav Gifter's zug. Anyway, I have a feeling that the "lulei hakabalah" is a bet-hedging proto-artscroll editorial interposition. I will bl'n check the annotated Ibn Ezras later.Barzilainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-14986923627497195742009-05-07T10:57:00.000-05:002009-05-07T10:57:00.000-05:00OK, I'm missing something. The Ibn Ezra is ex...OK, I'm missing something. The Ibn Ezra is explaining pshuto shel mikra, which does not have to accord with halacha. He even says that his pshat is "lulei divrei hakabalah", i.e. if not for the fact that we know from halacha that a zar (and hence ba'al mum) is allowed to do shechita. So what's the problem?Chaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-72234284919601249162009-05-07T08:29:00.000-05:002009-05-07T08:29:00.000-05:00Anonymous 11:22, I fixed the post to show the cita...Anonymous 11:22, I fixed the post to show the citation. The Ibn Ezra is a little unclear, but Reb Meir Simcha says that's pshat, and after thinking about it, I don't think there's any other way to read it.<br><br>Gush, the only thing I can say is, that's not how the Torah is written. The chiyub talmud torah as applying to every halacha, relevant or not, is a meta-halacha and does not need to be stated in the context of any particular din. <br><br>But it would be nice if your were right, because it always bothered me why at the beginning of this parsha of dinei ba'al mum Hashem tells Moshe to tell it to Aharon, and the last passuk says that he said it to Aharon and the Bnei Yisrael. Where was the tzivui to tell it to the Bnei Yisrael? It contradicts Hashem's instructions! But if pshat is that the first passuk, directed to Aharon, is for halacha le'maaseh, and the last passuk is just the mitzvah of limud hatorah, then it would be good. <br><br>Unfortunately, I can't be mekabeil that it is correct within the parameters of PSHAT. It does work well, but only as drush. Anyway, obviously Rashi and the Ibn Ezra did not hold like that.Barzilainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-20503057240877399732009-05-07T02:53:00.000-05:002009-05-07T02:53:00.000-05:00Perhaps the issue was addressed to all Bnai Yisrae...Perhaps the issue was addressed to all Bnai Yisrael precisely because one might think that the laws DON'T have to be learned by non Kohanim.Gushnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-26174460784314449902009-05-06T23:22:00.000-05:002009-05-06T23:22:00.000-05:00Can you give a MAreh Makom for this Ibn Ezra?Can you give a MAreh Makom for this Ibn Ezra?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-1039905737065147292009-05-06T09:37:00.000-05:002009-05-06T09:37:00.000-05:00You are making two very good points, Gush. And no...You are making two very good points, Gush. And now I will explain why you are wrong from beginning to end.<br><br>I know that all mitzvos were given to be learned. I know there are some that were given PRIMARILY to be learned, such as ben sorer umoreh and ir hanidachas. What I don't know is why Hashem ADDRESSED the parsha to us. Tell it to Moshe and Aharon and the kohanim, as was done by all the rest of the dinei kodshim. This is what bothered me and bothered Rashi as well.<br><br>As for this Latino proclivity of yours: I like Latin. I love Latin. It is a wonderful language for philosophy and for beaurocracy. What I don't like is <br>1. when people chose Latin to make themselves sound profound when in fact they are saying nothing. Bishlema when the foreign phrase adds a shade of meaning that is not present in the common tongue, fine. But often it is used to hide lazy thinking, like using cologne instead of taking a shower. EWWWW! <br>2. Using Latin phrases that have a perfectly good and clear Hebrew or English equal.For example: "imitatio Dei" means to emulate and imitate God. We call this "laleches bidrachav." Why can't you use the language you were born to use? Is Hebrew inferior or embarrassing?<br>3. Using Latin phrases that over the centuries have acquired secondary meaning. For example, once again, "imitatio Dei", which in the world as a whole has come to mean to suffer just as Yoshkeh suffered on the cross.Barzilainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6453787673476195995.post-50070505305867675972009-05-06T09:06:00.000-05:002009-05-06T09:06:00.000-05:00I would like to propose a (seemingly)obvious answe...I would like to propose a (seemingly)obvious answer to the original question: Maybe the halachos were told to B'nai Yisrael so they could learn them and be mikayeim mitzvas talmud torah. Not to mention, the question seems to assume that laws that aren't relevant should not be learned- which would effectively cut out much of shas. Further, i don't understand this hatred of latin- without it we wouldnt have half the eglish language so i don't understand what's wrong with it further- This is taken from wikipedia:<br><br>The American magazine National Geographic described the legacy of the Roman Empire in The World According to Rome:<br><br>The enduring Roman influence is reflected pervasively in contemporary language, literature, legal codes, government, architecture, engineering, medicine, sports, arts, etc. Much of it is so deeply inbedded that we barely notice our debt to ancient Rome. Consider language, for example. Fewer and fewer people today claim to know Latin - and yet, go back to the first sentence in this paragraph. If we removed all the words drawn directly from Latin, that sentence would read; "The.Gushnoreply@blogger.com