Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 079

Wednesday, December 18 2002

• Re: age of the universe
• RE: age of the universe
• Tzur
• Re: EBay on Shabbos
• Re: Kaddish responses
• Re: Age of the universe
• Re: Age of the universe
• Re: Science and Halachah
• age of the universe
• sacrifice
• Re: sacrifice
• [none]
• hesed
• Chessed ... and Gevurah
• RE:
• Re:
• [none]
• (no subject)
• Re: tosafot

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:06:16PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: > : 1. Rav Avigdor Miller answers the question by saying that Hashem created
: > : a mature universe. Just as Adam Harishon was not created as a newborn
: > : but rather as a mature adult, so to Hashem created a mature world.

: > RMMS says similarly.

: This argument has serious philosophical problems:

: 1) Why would HaShem *lie* about the age of the universe?

You presume the conclusion by calling it a lie.

Events carry a chain of consequences forward through time. This means
that if HQBH allowed, nissim would not only disturb teva at their
moment of occurance, but the non-teva would ripple forward until
the end of time.

Perhaps the only way teva could be meaningful (and to run at the right
speed for humans to be able to use it for day-to-day activities) is for
ma'aseh bereishis to leave a universe that is as though things happened
in a slower, more mundane manner.

: 2) If we accept that He would do such a thing -- how do we know he didn't
: create the universe 1 second ago -- with all our memories?

That's why we have a Torah. <grin>

I have a problem that's harder to explain.

Time itself is a beryah. HQBH didn't create the universe at any given
time, He create time such that it has a first moment. So then what does
"creating an old universe" mean? How is creating a universe 6,000 years
ago that has a 15 billion year history any different than H' creating
a universe 15 billion years ago?

What makes the present year any more real than the alleged "false
history"?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

: > RMMS says similarly.
>
> : This argument has serious philosophical problems:
>
> : 1) Why would HaShem *lie* about the age of the universe?
>
> You presume the conclusion by calling it a lie.

Not at all -- the proposed explanation was for a 6000 year old universe that
looked 15 billion years old.

IOW, a fake "antique", if you will.

Akiva

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 08:57:00AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: The word tzur in that halacha is also explained by the rambam in MN
: 1:16 - liyesod kol davar umotzao - and ...nikra hasehm yitaleh tzur
: ki hu hamotza vehasibba haoseh lechot ma shezulato - again refering to
: hashem's role as the First Cause.

Tangent:

The Gra defines tzur as being of the same shoresh as tzurah and
tzayar. Tzur is the cookie-cutter that both causes the cookie's
shape, and is the shape the ideal cookie ought to have.

Tzur Yisrael -- the cause of Israel and the Form to which we
aspire.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I believe the Binyan Shlomo has a teshuvah in which he says that the only
prohibition is on making a ma'aseh kinyan on Shabbos/Yom Tov but making a
kinyan without a ma'aseh, such as through kinyan chatzer, is permissible.
But I don't have it in front of me so I could be totally distorting his
view.

Gil Student

>IIRC, I heard that the (last) Brisk'er Rav did not answer omein after the
>fourth word of kaddish (and perhaps didn't answer / say anything after
>'brich - hu' either ?). I believe the hesber was, because really, the
>only places where omein should be answered are where, in the text of the
>kaddish, it states (instructing the listeners / tzibbur) 've'imru omein'
>(and say omein) - which is not the case after the fourth word (nor after
>the word 'mishichei' in the Sepharadic kaddish).

I think this only applies for the kaddish after yishtabach and the kaddish
before the amidah at mariv.  My recollection is that that was the practice
of the Rov zt'l.

Reb Motya Gofman wrote:
> Two ways of addressing the issue:
> 1. Rav Avigdor Miller answers the question by saying that Hashem created
> a mature universe. Just as Adam Harishon was not created as a newborn
> but rather as a mature adult, so to Hashem created a mature world.

RAM's reasoning is circular. Let me quote Rav Walter Wurtzburger to
explain: "it never bothered me whether the 'afar from which God made Adam
were dust particles or dust particles preassembled, running around as
monkeys". IOW, (a) may be the creation of Adam is (partly) misunderstood
as well, and thus (b) RAM's argument is merely compelling to those who
were inclined to accept his argument in the first place. Kind of like
preaching to the choir.

Just trying to get the logic straight.

[Email #2. -mi]

RMB wrote:
> This shitah used to be more popular. Most of the people I know who were
> adherents of it in my youth now espouse RGSchroeder's position. He shows
> how relativistic gravitational effects could make a universe that
> undergoes 15billion years in one frame of reference in what would be
> 6 days in our current frame. Our chaveir R' Shlomo Argaman's father,
> R' Morris Engelson, goes throught the math in his sefer, and shows how
> the range of quantum theories about at which energy level symmetry
> is broken (the various particles and forces become distinct) yeild
> various ages of the universe.

IIRC, you misstate GS's shittah a bit. Not 6 days in our frame of reference, 
since we didn't exist yet, but a frame of reference, any frame of reference.

Arie
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:20:25PM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
:> This shitah used to be more popular. Most of the people I know who were
:> adherents of it in my youth now espouse RGSchroeder's position. He shows
:> how relativistic gravitational effects could make a universe that
:> undergoes 15billion years in one frame of reference in what would be
:> 6 days in our current frame...

: IIRC, you misstate GS's shittah a bit. Not 6 days in our frame of reference, 
: since we didn't exist yet, but a frame of reference, any frame of reference.

Well that's no trick. Given the right pair of frames of reference, I could
make any

Then the theory I prefer is R' Morris Engelson's -- although
I really thought RGS had done more of the work than that. He
actually compares the frame of reference given the energy density
(*) we live in with that of the cooling universe. In his book
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964287005/aishdas> he RME
actually matches various quantum theories about the energy density at
which subatomic particles and forces become distinct and how far that
would stretch six days. For reasons I don't want to take the time to
explain, the differentiation into different particles and forces is called
"symmetry breaking".

(* Energy density: this is the density of energy and mass -- e = mc^2,
and therefore a measure of how much space-time is warped by gravity.)

The significance of symmetry breaking as a starting point is that before
it, everything is one huge blur. No difference between energy and matter,
between electron, quark (which make up protons and neutrons, among other
things), and photon, etc... Tohu vavohu in a very literal sense.

RME personally is hoping they find that the temperature at which
symmetry breaks is at 9.7x10^12 deg. This would mean the universe aged
14.2 billion years, well within the range current cosomology expects,
and exactly the same (given the precision of the data) as the calculation
in Avos diRabbi Nassan.

That calculation is based on the world having existed 1000 generations
before matan Torah (Tehillim 105:8). Minus the 26 generations from
Adam to Moshe Rabbeinu, we get 974 prehistoric generations (see Chagiga
13b). Forty years per generation. However, there are no people yet, so
these are Divine Years -- ki elef shanim be'einekha kiyom esmol. IOW,
974 * 40 * 365.25 * 1000 = 14.23 billion years.

BTW, here is RYmA's reasoning, as RME gives it: RYmA holds that this is
the seventh cycle of 7,000 yrs. The previous cycles, not containing man,
were Divine Years (as above). 7000 * 6 * 365.25 * 1000 = 15.3 billion.

Note that these are two arguments for an old universe that weren't
motivated by a scientific challenge. Natural philosophy of their day
taught that the universe had no begining -- 14 or 15 billion years would
be no closer of a reconcilliation than 6000. The arguments are entirely
based within Torah, on making sense of a pasuq in Tehillim or of ideas
Chazal relay of TSBP.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

A discussion in some detail about conflicts between halacha and science
(mainly biology). There is a book on Hishtanut HaTevim by R. Guttal which
is highly recommended. There is also a long article by Rabbi Dr. Steinberg
in his enclyopedia Halacht Refuit. See also the articles on the internet
by R. Slifkin and Gil Student at www.aishdas.org

Here I concentrate on an article by Dr. Sternberg that appeared in BDD
vol 4. There were responses in vol 6 by R. Carmell and Goldberger and a
response by Sternberg. Since Carmell was the editor of Michtav MeEliyahu
his remarks deserve more attention than they receive as they elaborate
on his notes to R. Dessler's thoughts.

Shlomo Sternberg is a professor of Math in Harvard and I believe head
of the department. He learned together with TYBS for many years in
the Boston area but was never a formal talmid of R. Soloveitchik.
He mentions that he was in fact sent by the Rav on several tasks.


Shlomo Sternberg (SS) presents 4 viewpoints how to treat the disagreements
between the Talmud and modern science. Others have argued over the number
and prefer to combine some approaches but that is a minor point. Again,
the stress is on halacha and not agaddah since in halacha one has to
make a decision and not simply ignore the problem.

1. R. Dessler (REED) - Chazal is based on science of their days and
so frequently in error. However, the halachot are independent of the
reasoning behind them and go back to Sinai.

In his response Carmell insists that this was not meant a golden rule
but only as an answer in some cases. Other answers may apply in other
cases. Of course that leaves it open as to when it does apply. SS also
points out that this shittah is very popular in many circles even if
REED only used it in a limited way. Indeed much of R. Slifkin's and Gil
Student's arguements are based on this theory.

Thus the difference in halacha between an animal attacked by a cat or
dog is not in the venom in their claws as described by the gemara but
some other reason as differenced in their habits which leave venom on
a cat's claw. In any case the halacha does not change.

Similarly, R. Tam's opinion on shekia is based on unscientific
understanding of the sun's cycle but Minchat Cohen re-interpret's it in
terms of the declination of the sun below the horizon.

Most interesting is Carmell's explanation for the difference between
animal and human terefot. He explains that animal terefot affect every
housewife and local Rav and so Chazal could not allow it to depend on
the latest scientific knowledge. However terefot in humans affect on
laws in a formal bet din and so can change with science !

However, with regard to an 8th month fetus since it can involve pikuach
nefesh already the Rashbash and later SA and MB allow pikuach hefesh to
override shabbat in spite of the gemara (note even the MB allows it for
the beginning of the 9th month not in the 8th)

SS points out that though this shitta is the most philosophically sound
it is the most extreme in halacha le-maaseh. Thus, consider an 8th month
fetus with regard to Chalitzah and not pikuach nefesh. According to REED
we would allow the woman to remain an agunah because her 8th month fetus
that dies was never viable while according to modern science it was
viable. According to REED even though the science changes the halacha
does not.

With regard to Rabbeny Tam SS points out that the Michat Cohen is very
problematic on scientific grounds and in fact the degrees below the
horizon that Minchat Cohen assumes (about 16) don't correspond to the
times he himself gives for Amsterdam (about 8). He also points out that
one cannot wait 72 minutes after shekia for motzei shabbat without a
clock which Rabbenu Tam did not possess!


2. Chazon Ish (CI) - opposite of REED - (a) Laws from Sinai were given
in generalities - Chazal interpreted them (b) this interpetation does
not exist after the close of the Talmud (c) all scientific remarks with
halachic consequences made by chazal were correct ! however in many
cases the times have changed (nishtanu ha-teva). So for example in the
days of Chazal there were 2 ducts in the urinary tract that the anatomy
of man changed of the last 2000 years! Terefot that do not affect the
lives of animals today indeed were fatal in the days of chazal. However,
even though the body changed only Chazal can define a terefah.

3. Scientific facts that contradict the Talmud are wrong. So 8 month
fetuses are not viable and modern medecine cannot change this (minchat
yitzchak). Blood type cannot prove paternity since according to the
Gemara blood comes from the mother (tzitz eliezer). Shinui hateva only
applies when stated by rishonim or early achronim. We cannot invent that
reason ourselves. Note that SA YD 34:10 states that the trachea splits
into the vena cava and aorta (see similarly Rashi in Chullin).

4. Chazal were influenced by theories of their day and we account for
changes in modern science and medicine. However, we have no general
philosophy to answer the contradictions but instead treat every case
individually (RMF and R. Herzog among others). R. Herzog has a letter
in which he says he is almost embarassed by a position that would deny
the validity of blood tests for paternity (today we could reconfirm it
by DNA which does not appear in the gemara).

examples of problematical halachot:

1. 8 month fetus
2. puncture of testicles and pezuah dakah
3. a pregnant woman becoming niddah
4. Rabbenu Tam on time of shekia
5. needle in the heart - Rama paskens that if it is small then the animal
   is kasher because it entered from the windpipe and will exit by
   coughing modern medicine - there is no connection between the heart
   and lungs and one can't cough up a needle in the heart.
6. blood tests for paternity (now superceded by DNA testing)
7. A chicken without a heart: Chacham Tzvi says it is impossible and so
   any witnesses to this fact are not believed. R. Eibeschutz disagrees
   that there is nothing in the gemara to justify the position of the
   Chacham Tzvi. We do not follow nature but the Gemara.
8. Anatomy of the urinary tract
9. killing lice on shabbat
10 mouse half akive and half dirt

Several articles note that Hishtanut Hateva is quite reasonable in animals
where we see changes over the years. Larger changes are unlikely and
there is no evidence of changes in humans or nature. It is interesting
that CI believed in greater evolution than contemporary scientists,

< 1. Rav Avigdor Miller answers the question by saying that Hashem created
a mature universe. Just as Adam Harishon was not created as a newborn
but rather as a mature adult, so to Hashem created a mature world.>

Akiva responded:

<This argument has serious philosophical problems:
1) Why would HaShem *lie* about the age of the universe?
2) If we accept that He would do such a thing -- how do we know he 
didn't create the universe 1 second ago -- with all our memories?>

A more serious problem with Rav Avigdor Miller's answer is that it is
basically sophistry. A world that looks like it is a billion years old
to every test is really 1 billion years old. To say that it has every
aspect of a billion years but is only 5000+ years old and made to look
like a billion years is meaningless.

As the old joke goes if it look like a noodle and tastes like a noodle
then it is a noodle
(of course with modern science we would need to add that chemical analysis
says it is a noodle)

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 17/12/2002

I received the following as part of an email joke:
> Eleven people were hanging on a rope under a helicopter, ten men and
> one woman. The rope was not strong enough to carry them all.

My question is what halacha would have to say to each of the individuals
involved in such a situation. What are their obligations and what might
they do but not be required to do? Does halacha say anything to them
as a group (eg pick someone as a karbon)?

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 12/17/2002 11:45:56 AM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
>> Eleven people were hanging on a rope under a helicopter, ten men and
>> one woman. The rope was not strong enough to carry them all.

> My question is what halacha would have to say to each of the individuals
> involved in such a situation. What are their obligations and what might
> they do but not be required to do? Does halacha say anything to them
> as a group (eg pick someone as a karbon)?

See Sugia Horiyos 13a, S"A Y"D 252:8,9 and Klei Nosi'im also see Tarkei 
Tshuva Y"D 157 S"K 51.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

JB wrote:
>Why don't we do business
>on Shabbat in general? As a seyag against writing things down,

See Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 24:1. The Rambam writes that there are things
forbidden to do on Shabbos despite the fact that they are not similar to
any of the melachos nor will they lead to any of the melacos. Included
in the list is doing business on Shabbos.

My wife told me an alternative explanation, b'shem Rav Berel Gershenfeld,
as to why the verb for hesed is ligmol. Another usage of ligmol is
ligmol yeled, meaning to wean a child. Weaning a child is essentially
making the child independent. The highest form of hesed is making the
recepient independent, which is why employing a person is considered a
higher form of tzedaka as opposed to giving money.

motya

In hachi nami: what I said was the more complicated way of concluding that
chessed like any middah (except perhaps the spectrum between anivus and
ga'avah) requires finding the right level, the Rambam's shevil hazahav.

Perhaps this is why they're called middos -- it's the measure that's
relevent. All of us have all of them, in varying amounts.

The need to temper chessed is no chiddush to any parent of older
children. As the child gets older you have to give them more room to make
their own mistakes. Avinu shebashamayim also blends chessed with gevurah.

In Tomer Devorah, the Ramak notes the ultimate in gevurah: while a
person sins, HQBH is giving him existance, is allowing his arm to get
the energy to move, etc... The very ko'ach with which one sins is being
given as he abuses it.

Paradoxically, this means that gevurah to has its source in chessed.
Gevurah is HQBH being generous enough to let us be independent free-willed
beings. This underlies the most fundamental dialectics of the human
condition: man as recipent vs man as giver.

We find this idea in Malbim on Dani'el (pereq 9) IIRC. The navi writes
belashon kaful that when Gavri'el came to him, the malach employed
"mugaf beya'af" to get there. R' Saadia Gaon ad loc quotes the aggadita
that while Micha'el can span the universe in one wingstroke, Gavri'el
requires two. The Malbim explains why two: because the first is to get
to Micha'el to get instruction, and the second to go to his duty.

As the tefillah we say with qeri'as Shema al hamitah says, Gavri'el is
on the left, where the sefirah of gevurah resides. But before that we say
that Micha'el is on the right, in chessed. Li nir'eh the Malbim's ma'amar
is saying that the mal'ach for gevurah answers to that for chessed.

This is consistant with what I wrote before: gevurah is the restraint
necessary for HQBH to do us the chessed of allowing us the opportunity
to be ba'alei chessed. Gevurah too only has a role /within/ the greater
goal of HQBH bestowing chessed upon us, and therefore Gavri'el takes
instruction from Micha'el.

Gevurah, though, has a connotation beyond restraint. In the Gra's
understanding of birchas Avos (which, you may recall, was what I was
saying when all this was dawned on me -- albeit not all in one day!) the
entire berachah is an elaboration of Moshe Rabbeinu's shevachos of
"haKel haGadol haGibbor veHanorah".

"HaGibbor" parallels "E-lokeinu" in the opening words of the berachah --
middas hadin. It also parallels "veqonei haqol" which the Gra spells
chaseir and translates "repair" (as in lesaqein). Next, "uMoshia'"
(in "Melech Ozeir uMoshia' uMagein") to save. Also a connotation of
salvaging something that went awry.

And lest you think the connection between gevurah and repair or salvaging
is the Gra's chiddush, it continues in birchas gevurah: "mechayei
meisim atah", "rav lehoshia'", "mechayeh meisim", "someich nofelim",
"rofei cholim", "matir assurim", "umatzmi'ach yeshua'", and finally
"mechayei hameisim" is repeated as the chasimah of the berachah. Birchas
gevurah is about Hashem setting something straight that is currently dead,
in trouble, fallen, ill, or imprisoned.

Isn't that too middas hadin, as per "E-lokeinu" in the opening of birchas
Avos? Din as a means of getting a neshamah back on track?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Regarding your second point, Rav Chaim Volozhner in Nefesh Hachayim actually
> says the world is recreated every moment. Hence, in the beginning of birchos
> krias shma we say... "u'borei es hakol" in the present tense.

I know -- but the key word here is "REcreated" -- refering to HaShem's
*maintaining* of existance as an *active* act.

Akiva

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:49:25AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
:> Regarding your second point, Rav Chaim Volozhner in Nefesh Hachayim actually
:> says the world is recreated every moment. Hence, in the beginning of birchos
:> krias shma we say... "u'borei es hakol" in the present tense.

: I know -- but the key word here is "REcreated" -- refering to HaShem's
: *maintaining* of existance as an *active* act.

Mah beinaihu? Is the initiation of beri'ah a different act than its
maintenance?

On the other side of the aisle from Nefesh haChaim, the Besh"t says that
Bereishis 1 describes creation as amirah because when one speaks the
words exist as long as one is speaking. The written word is written once
and continues to exist on the page without further action. With speach,
as soon as you stop talking, the word ceases. Hashem is still saying
"yehi or" -- and those words are the light that still exists.

Not to mention the very taitch of shem havayah. Both RCV and RSRH consider
it to be hif'il for hoveh, to exist. In Nefesh haChaim, RCV ccombines
this with the notion that it's a contraction to produce "hayah, hoveh,
yihyeh umhaveh es hakol".

For that matter, in what sense is a Divine act an "act"? Doesn't action
imply a specific time in which it occurs? I think this is why qabbalah
speaks of atzilus rather than pe'ulah.

BTW, the continual creation is a theme of the entire berakhah of
yotzeir. Starting with "yotzeir or uvorei choshech oseh shalom uvorei
es hakol. Hamei'ir..." the verbs for creation are all belashon hoveh.
Then it says explicitly "Hamchedeish betuvo bekhol yom tamid ma'seh
bereishis, ka'amur..."

(I don't understand why Qedushah was spliced into this particular
berachah. What's the thematic connection?)

It would seem that the berachah is actually identify all of hashgachah
peratis with this perpetual creation. "... Ki Hu levado po'el gevuros,
oseh chadashos... Adon hanifla'os, Hamchadeish..." However, RMMS
considers this the Besht's chiddush, that the universal giving of
continued existance implies universal hashgachah peratis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Akiva Atwood wrote-
> This argument has serious philosophical problems:

> 1) Why would HaShem *lie* about the age of the universe?

> 2) If we accept that He would do such a thing -- how do we know he didn't
> create the universe 1 second ago -- with all our memories?

Modern science has determined the age of the universe based on the
distance of stars and based upon the age of objects found on the earth.
Why would this be considered a lie on Hashem's part to create an already
mature world? Rav Miller explains that Hashem wanted the world to function
from the very beginning. In order to do that the world had to already
be running at full speed?

Regarding your second point, Rav Chaim Volozhner in Nefesh Hachayim
actually says the world is recreated every moment. Hence, in the beginning
of birchos krias shma we say... "u'borei es hakol" in the present tense.

motya

There's been a discussion about certain points in Miketz on Areivm,
but I think it is more suited for Avodah, so I'm moving this one there.

R' Jonathan Baker pointed out <<< What bothered me about mikeitz was
the incredible denseness of the shevatim. You know, Yosef essentially
hits them with a clue-by-four when he says "et ha'elokim ani yarei". HOW
MANY ELOKIM-WORSHIPPERS WERE THERE IN EGYPT IN 1675 BCE? Yosef, Asnat,
Menashe and Efraim, and the Shvatim themselves. That's it. And yet,
they didn't twig that it was Yosef. >>>

Here is a thought. The Shavatim try to copy the approach of their father
Yakov in dealing with the Gentile world. You find as pointed out by
the Netsiv that he tried to hide from Lovon. That did not work out
well so he notified Eisav; did not try to hde from him. That did not
work either. The Shvatim try to relate to Yosef as if he was a goy by
using both approaches ( sometimes very honest, sometimes disingeniuos)
but find themselves frustrated at every turn because Yosef is very aware
of what they are doing.

This may be the key to understanding this parsha.

M. Levin

In a message dated 11/21/2002 4:10:10 PM EST, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
> In numerous cases we know that tosafot haRosh disagree with tosafot
> on the daf. More importantly a disagreement bewteen tosafot in
> different mesechtot probably represents different opinios rather than
> a contradiction and should be treated differently than a contradiction
> in the Rambam.

differences between versions of Tosafos are probably differences in
girsaos

AIUI, Tosafos Harosh were not at all written by the Rosh {Yeshivas R.
Yitachak Elchana was not started by R. Yitzcahk Elchanan either!} Rather
they are the manuscripts owned by the Rosh

As per Dr. Irving Agus, an expert on Tosafos, the versions printed
in Shas were used because they were more less expsensive and more
expedient than the more "premium" copies around. I'm not sure about
the Soncinco connectin but it sure makes sense that what we have is NOT
such a high-quality copy. EG there are a number of mistakes in didduk
in our Tosafos. This is AIUI a function of the poor quality of the
copyists not of the authors.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]