Sanhedrin 61a I wanted to take the time today to give the answer to my question on Tosphot that I asked yesterday on this blog .
Remember the Gemara (Talmud) said we could learn service not like its way from "bowing" (Deuteronomy 17).
Rav Acha asked on this: Then what would we do with "How do they serve?" (Deuteronomy 12)?
Tosphot asked on this: Why he did not ask this when we were learning from "sacrifice?"(He who sacrifices to false gods will be destroyed Exodus 22:19).
Tosphot answers: because bowing tells us everything.
Yesterday I asked: Then when the Gemara continues and limits "bowing" to a way of honor, then why did it not jump right away on the simple answer: So now we know what we could do with "How do they serve?" That is to forbid quadrant IV, service its way and dishonor.
Tosphot actually deals with this last question and suggested that that area quadrant IV would have remained forbidden under bowing. And his proof of this is that the Gemara anyway suggests that it would forbid a way of dishonor like exposing oneself to Markulis [an idol one usually throws stones at to worship].
There were yesterday two questions on this. One of my learning partner and one of mine. That of my learning partner is the best. So far we have no reason to distinguish between its way and not. So if we limit "bowing" to honor then that should be that.
But my question was different. I asked: All we know is dishonor to Markulis that is not its way. And so all we know in its way is the same thing. [It is an all the more so.] But a way of dishonor to idols one usually sacrifices to might still be permitted if done in a way of honor and then we have something for "How do they serve"? to forbid.
I asked my learning partner this today and he said an unbelievably simple answer. "There can't be any such thing." Think about it. It is an idol one worships in a way of honor and you are serving it in its way by an act of dishonor. Clearly there can't be any such thing. If one is serving it in its way, he is by definition serving it in away of honor. I can't imagine why I did not notice this. It is an obvious mistake on my part.
_______________________________________________________________________
Same essay with a little more Hebrew for people like me that understand it better in that way.
_______________________________________________________________________
סנהדרין סא עמוד א I wanted to take the time today to give the answer to my question on תוספות that I asked yesterday on this blog .
Remember the גמרא said we could learn service not like its way from "bowing" דברים י''ז.
רב אחא asked on this: Then what would we do with "How do they serve?" Deuteronomy 12?
תוספות asked on this: Why he did not ask this when we were learning from זובח לאלהים יחרם.
תוספות answers: because התשחוויה tells us everything.
Yesterday I asked: Then when the גמרא continues and limits התשחוויה to a way of כבוד, then why did it not jump right away on the simple answer: So now we know what we could do with איכה יעבדו That is to forbid quadrant IV, service its way and dishonor.
תוספות actually deals with this last question and suggested that that area quadrant IV would have remained forbidden under bowing. And his proof of this is that the גמרא anyway suggests that it would forbid a way of dishonor like exposing oneself to מרקוליס [an idol one usually throws stones at to worship].
There were yesterday two questions on this. One of my learning partner and one of mine. That of my learning partner is the best. So far we have no reason to distinguish between its way and not. So if we limit התשחוויה to דרך כבוד then that should be that.
That is if we learn from התשחוויה then quadrant I and II should be forbidden and III and IV permitted.But Tosphot says we would expand it to IV also so David asked then we would have to expand it to III also. That means that in the question of Tosphot we are assuming התשחוויה forbids
area 4. and we are looking for something for יכה יעבדו To permit. and we can't find it because area 3 is already permitted by means of התשחוויה. These are the conditions needed for the question of Tosphot to be valid. But David asked if IV is forbidden by התשחוויה then must III be forbidden by the same reasoning.
Now in the answer of Tosphot that is in fact what Tosphot says. That we don't distinguish. But the question of David is what reason did we have in the first place to think there could be a difference?
Remember the Gemara (Talmud) said we could learn service not like its way from "bowing" (Deuteronomy 17).
Rav Acha asked on this: Then what would we do with "How do they serve?" (Deuteronomy 12)?
Tosphot asked on this: Why he did not ask this when we were learning from "sacrifice?"(He who sacrifices to false gods will be destroyed Exodus 22:19).
Tosphot answers: because bowing tells us everything.
Yesterday I asked: Then when the Gemara continues and limits "bowing" to a way of honor, then why did it not jump right away on the simple answer: So now we know what we could do with "How do they serve?" That is to forbid quadrant IV, service its way and dishonor.
Tosphot actually deals with this last question and suggested that that area quadrant IV would have remained forbidden under bowing. And his proof of this is that the Gemara anyway suggests that it would forbid a way of dishonor like exposing oneself to Markulis [an idol one usually throws stones at to worship].
There were yesterday two questions on this. One of my learning partner and one of mine. That of my learning partner is the best. So far we have no reason to distinguish between its way and not. So if we limit "bowing" to honor then that should be that.
But my question was different. I asked: All we know is dishonor to Markulis that is not its way. And so all we know in its way is the same thing. [It is an all the more so.] But a way of dishonor to idols one usually sacrifices to might still be permitted if done in a way of honor and then we have something for "How do they serve"? to forbid.
I asked my learning partner this today and he said an unbelievably simple answer. "There can't be any such thing." Think about it. It is an idol one worships in a way of honor and you are serving it in its way by an act of dishonor. Clearly there can't be any such thing. If one is serving it in its way, he is by definition serving it in away of honor. I can't imagine why I did not notice this. It is an obvious mistake on my part.
_______________________________________________________________________
Same essay with a little more Hebrew for people like me that understand it better in that way.
_______________________________________________________________________
סנהדרין סא עמוד א I wanted to take the time today to give the answer to my question on תוספות that I asked yesterday on this blog .
Remember the גמרא said we could learn service not like its way from "bowing" דברים י''ז.
רב אחא asked on this: Then what would we do with "How do they serve?" Deuteronomy 12?
תוספות asked on this: Why he did not ask this when we were learning from זובח לאלהים יחרם.
תוספות answers: because התשחוויה tells us everything.
Yesterday I asked: Then when the גמרא continues and limits התשחוויה to a way of כבוד, then why did it not jump right away on the simple answer: So now we know what we could do with איכה יעבדו That is to forbid quadrant IV, service its way and dishonor.
תוספות actually deals with this last question and suggested that that area quadrant IV would have remained forbidden under bowing. And his proof of this is that the גמרא anyway suggests that it would forbid a way of dishonor like exposing oneself to מרקוליס [an idol one usually throws stones at to worship].
There were yesterday two questions on this. One of my learning partner and one of mine. That of my learning partner is the best. So far we have no reason to distinguish between its way and not. So if we limit התשחוויה to דרך כבוד then that should be that.
That is if we learn from התשחוויה then quadrant I and II should be forbidden and III and IV permitted.But Tosphot says we would expand it to IV also so David asked then we would have to expand it to III also. That means that in the question of Tosphot we are assuming התשחוויה forbids
area 4. and we are looking for something for יכה יעבדו To permit. and we can't find it because area 3 is already permitted by means of התשחוויה. These are the conditions needed for the question of Tosphot to be valid. But David asked if IV is forbidden by התשחוויה then must III be forbidden by the same reasoning.
Now in the answer of Tosphot that is in fact what Tosphot says. That we don't distinguish. But the question of David is what reason did we have in the first place to think there could be a difference?
