[HANASHIR:2411] Pirkei D'Rabbi Anipurim

[RaizelD <RaizelD...>]

In honor of the upcoming folliday...Enjoy, RDG

Pirkei D'Rabbi Anipurim

Reb Barry Glassner speaking of Rabbi Tarfon of Bet Shean who said of Rabbi
Shlomo ben Yechezkel of Tiverya: It is said that in those days Rabbi Shlomo
ben Yechezkel of Tiverya designed a web site for the mother of his father,
Sarah the daughter of Pinchas, who begat Yechezkel, who begat Rabbi Shlomo
benYechezkel of Tiverya.  Thus Rabbi Shlomo ben Yechezkel of Tiverya performed
the  mitzvah of web site design.

Rabbi Michal ben Elkanah, who had only one eye, said:  But is it not also said
that in those days there was no web, only gopher?

Rabbi Shmaryahu of Hevron said:  It is true, but as it is written: "A web
browser may also use the gopher protocol, in addition to the HTTP protocol."

Rabbi Eliezer asked:  Why does it specifically mention that the web browser
may also use the gopher protocol, when it is written elsewhere that a web
browser may use any protocol?  Because the gopher protocol is especially
meritorious, since it enables support of legacy systems.

One time a poor man came into the home of Rabbi Shmaryahu of Hevron and asked
for two megabytes of disk space on the web site of Rabbi Shmaryahu of Hevron.
Rabbi Shmaryahu of Hevron refused the man, but instead gave him a personal web
server for his own use.  At this point Rabbi Yehudah  ben Yerachmiel asked
Rabbi Shmaryahu of Hevron: Why did you refuse this  man's request, but instead
give him a personal web server for his own use?

Rabbi Shmaryahu of Hevron replied:  It [the Mishnah] teaches:  "When a poor
man comes into your home and asks for disk space on your web site, first
ascertain whether he is going to use it for his own purpose or for the purpose
of idol worship.  If he is going to use it for his own purpose, grant him the
space he asks, unless it exceeds twenty ephraot [one ephrah  213 kilobytes],
in which case you may refer him to a local Internet service provider, for as
it is written:  It is not upon you to complete the task, but neither are you
free to desist from it. If he  is going to use it for the purpose of idol
worship, then do not give him the space, but instead rebuke him, that he might
see the error of his ways and refrain from idol worship."

Rabbi Gideon of Shchem disagreed, saying:  It [the Mishnah] also teaches:
"When a poor man requests space on an FTP server, you must grant it without
asking why he is going to use it."  Why would the Mishnah impose requirements
on a web server but not an FTP server?

Rabbi Shmaryahu of Hevron said:  Rabbi Eliezer said:  Why does it specifically
mention that the web browser may also use the gopher protocol when it is
written elsewhere that a web browser may use any protocol? Because the gopher
protocol is especially meritorious, since it enables support of legacy
systems.  Similarly, the FTP protocol is especially meritorious.  Therefore,
it is unfair to deny a poor man
access to FTP, whereas it is sometimes permitted to refrain from giving a poor
man  access to HTTP, because without HTTP he can still serve files using FTP,
but without FTP he will be unable to put his files on the server, since the
means for saving files over HTTP are unreliable.

Reb Jonathan Cohen says of Rabbi Yerubavel of Ashkelon who replied, saying:
The Mishnah says: Thou shalt GET [receive] mercy all the nights and days of
thy life, but PUT [give] all the days of thy life. Therefore, just as the day
follows the night, PUT shall follow GET. And so it is that, arguing fom the
greater case to the lesser case, the innovation of the PUT method shall follow
the tradition of the GET method; for truly, as it is written, it is better to
give than to receive. Hence, the poor man may put his files within his
filesystem using HTTP, and yet we may reserve a portion of bandwidth for their
getting, as "challah." As to the reliability of the PUT method, we must refer
to the appendix of responsa Elef Tish'mea Arbaim Chamesh; it is true that,
therein, it says "Implementors should be aware of these features [Additional
Request Methods], but cannot rely upon their presence or interoperability."
Yet, if we remember that this responsa has been superseded by that of the
RefRaf (Rav Fielding), we find that the PUT method is not only "idempotent"
but "safe." (RefRaf, 9.1, 9.1.2, 9.6) Hence, we can conclude on the basis of
no lessan authority than that of the RefRaf that PUT is to be permitted to the
poor man, since one would not give a poor man an unreliable method. The
confusion over the supercession has been, alas, augmented by Rav Rosh Lavan,
whose work on versioning is not yet complete. 

Targum anyone? (for the laiety in the congregation) 

(source:  unknown.  via Rosalind Glazer (RaizelD (at) aol(dot)com, aka Rabbi 
Anipurim!)

------------------------ hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org -----------------------+
Hosted by Shamash: The Jewish Internet Consortium  http://shamash.org
------------------------ hanashir (at) shamash(dot)org -----------------------=