Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 018

Tuesday, August 11 1998

• Re: Avodah V1 #17
• Re: Avodah V1 #17
• Learning on Tishas Beav: PERIODIC ROTE REVIEW PERMITTED
• Lucoth: Their dimensions: What was written: Actuarial Analysis
• Rav Hirsch: 3 letter radicals=1 letter meaning+ 2 letter radical
• Zera L'vatala
• Re: Rambam and Hashgachah
• Re: Avodah V1 #17
• Who wrote the mishnah?
• Re: Lucoth: Their dimensions: What was written: Actuarial Analysis
• Re: Zera L'vatala

In reference to Rashi in Eruvin 62b, who says that no devar halacha was
written in that time outside of Megilas Ta'anis, see Rashi to Shabbos 6b,
..'megilas setarim,'
where he says that when they would hear the words of a yachid that were a
chidush, not taught in the beis hamidrash, they would write them down so as
not to forget them, and hide them.This was called megilas setarim because the
megilah was hidden.When Rashi in Eruvin says that absolutely no devar halacha
was writen besides megilas ta'anis, he apparently meant 'written for
distribution, or 'publication.' Saul Lieberman pointed out this distinction in
an article included in one of his books- How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine-
if my memory serves me corectly.
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Someone raised the issue of the medieval legend that Simon/Peter was the
author of Nishmas. This is mentioned somewhere in the Sifrut de-vei Rashi
(i dont recall which---maybe Sefer haPardes?) and those who believe this
are said there to be hayyav to bring a "parah shmenah lehatat" when the
Mikdash is rebuilt.
Daniel

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Just a small thought on the issue of learning on Tisha Beav.
The heter of Rogatchover has been explained as learning to avoid
SUFFERING vs learning to gain PLEASURE.

I don't think it is necessary to use such strong terms. I would rather
say that PERIODIC ROTE REVIEW (Such as going over ones Mishnaic learning or
Laining (without reading/understanding the text) would be permitted.
True; cessation of any habit (especially a mental one) would cause 
SUFFERING; but the term is too strong. I am simply suggesting that one
can CONTINUE ones periodic review since rote memorization does not
really cause pleasure.

On the other hand intensive learning (which usually gives one a sense
of fulfillment and pleasure) such as occurs in Talmudic learning is
prohibited.

These distinctions also correspond to the traditional 3 fold division
of learning into TNACH, MISHNAH (Memorization) and TALMUD (Analysis).

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA RHendel @ mcs drexel edu
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

A thorough (and surprising) actuarial analysis of the dimensions of
the lucoth/aron was provided by me in HebLang about a year ago.
I will just briefly from memory go over the logic and conclusions (and give
complete details later if people are interested or after I look it up).

* The Biblical dimensions are clear...
        2 1/2 length, 
        1 1/2 width
        1 1/2 depth (Ex 25)

* It explicitly says that ONLY THE LUCOTH were in the ARON (Tnach verse)

* The phrase "Two tablets" suggest by symmetry that each tablet was 
the same in dimension.

* When you put the above together you get that each 
                each tablet = 1 cubic cubit

* One can count the following:
                * number of letters in the 10 commandments
                * number of words (each word gets one space)
                * number of paragraphs (each paragraph gets indentation)

* Assuming all letters/spaces occupy the same surface area one can
then derive the actual placement of words on the tablets.

* The conclusion is that
        TABLET 1: Had the first 2 commandments
        TABLET 2: Had the remaining 

* The above conclusion contradicts folklore that there were 5 on each
side (The contradiction is justified by simple arithmetic computations)

* The assignment of a special status to the first two commandments(on
one tablet) is consistent with 
        --the first person style (I am the Lord...No other..on My Face)
        --the Midrash that the first two were said by God (and the rest
        transmitted by Moses)

As I said: The above should be sufficient for anyone to go and derive
the actual structure. But if there is interest (or if I am interested
and will do it) then I can rederive with all details

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA Rhendel @ mcs drexel edu


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

* Popular folklore incorrectly ascribes belief in two letter radicals to
Rav Hirsch.

* [MBerger] Correctly asserts that [RHirsch] believed in 3 letter radicals

* BUT also believed in FAMILIES of 3 letter radicals (each family having
2 letters in common). These FAMILIES have SIMILAR meaning

* I would like to supplement this by pointing out that [RHirsch] Also 
believed that individual letters had SPECIFIC meanings in 3 letter
members of 2 letter families.

* For example: Following Rashi(Job 38) RHirsch explains that an
        ALEPH           =       thing, person, or individuality

* EXAMPLES:     EVN = Rock = The Thing (Aleph) you build with (BNH)
                AVD = lost = isolated (BD) from a person (Aleph)
                ASM = guilt= self(Aleph) desolation
                AHV = Love = giving (hv) of the self(Aleph)
                AGL = dewdrop = a thing(aleph) that is round(Job 38:Rashi)

* About a year ago I gave the COMPLETE list of LAMED ALEPH verbs and showed
how ALL of them follow the above theory (their meaning comes from the
two letter radical and the Aleph). This was posted on HebLang (Where from
time to time I have given examples of what [MBerger] Calls MetaFamilies..
e.g. a few weeks ago I posted on HebLang a list of examples showing
the true derivation of TTFoTH = Tefilin = Ornaments (from TF which always
means "some little thing" like TF=child=little person; TFX=inch=smallest
unit of measurment (acutally of course not an inch); NTF=pearls (not 
actualy)= small ornaments) etc.

* I would be happy to give complete lists of these phenomenon (with many
chidushim) if people are interested. I compiled them about 25 years
ago but no one seemed interested at the time (though I don't know why)
I also completely generalized RHirschs/Rashis ideas on the meaning of
Aleph to other letters.

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA RHendel @ mcs drexel edu



[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

This posting deals with subjects which some might feel should not be
discussed in public. If this is true, then I sincerely apologize. But
since the subject appears in the Shulchan Aruch, and Avodah is intended
to be a forum for high-level Torah discussions, I really don't know what
could be wrong. If you want to, please feel free to start a new thread to
discuss the pros and cons of these issues.

Orach Chaim 240:1 describes the obligation a husband has of having sexual
relations with his wife, and gives a list of times and situations in
which he must fulfill that chiyuv to her. It then continues:

<<< V'im hu m'kavayn ligdor atzmo bah shelo yis'aveh l'aveirah, ki roeh
yitzro gover umis'aveh el hadavar hahoo, gam bazeh yesh kibul s'char, ach
yoser tov hayah lo lid'chos es yitzro ulichbosh oso. >>>

<<< And if he intends to guard himself via her so that he will not lust
for sin, because his yetzer is getting strong and lusting for "that
thing", here too, he will receive reward, however it would be better for
him to push off his yetzer and conquer it. >>>

In other words, if a man wants to prevent himself from lusting for sin,
that is an acceptable reason for having relations with his wife. No
limitations are mentioned, so I presume that this applies even if his
wife is pregnant or post-menopause, in which case it is impossible for
these relations to result in a pregancy. It also seems that his wife is
not particularly desirous of having relations at the moment: If she did
desire relations, then the husband would be obligated, but this situation
is clearly optional. Of course, if she did not want to have relations
with him, then he has no permission to rape her, no matter how strong his
yetzer gets, so we are dealing with a woman who is genuinely willing to
help her husband control his urges in this manner.

So if the above is correct, then this is my question: In such
circumstances, why is relations with his wife preferable to masturbation?
She will not become pregnant, and she might not even enjoy it. Is this
not a case of zera l'vatala? What is the zera accomplishing here? Both
seem equally wasteful. The only difference I see is that instead of
masturbating with *his* body, he's doing it with his *wife's* body.

(Note: The above question was inspired by my beloved ezer k'negdi, who
saw me reaching for a third helping of dinner, and said, "I think that
putting that food into your stomach might be a worse bal tashchis than
merely putting it in the garbage.")

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

In v1r15, Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> writes:
: I don't want to discourse here on Rambam's view of hashgaha, as I am
: publishing a long article touching on the subject in next Torah UMadda
: Journal (=a chapter in the forthcoming Jewish Perspectives on the
: Experience of Suffering). 

First, a side note. I invite people to announce any relevant articles they may
publish. But please, do so close to (or after) the publication date. Some of
us won't remember to look for the next Torah UMadda Journal by the time it's
published, or even know when that is.

: I would observe, however, that it may be anachronistic to ascribe to the
: Rambam a theory of "physical determinism" akin to that often maintained
: today. The Rambam's commitment to the regularity of nature does not, as
: far as I know, entail a rigidly deterministic doctrine.

I guess this ought to wait for said article, but this comment confuses me too
badly.

The physical theory maintained today is non-deterministic. AFAIK, this century
is the first time in western history that this is true.

Aristotle's physics, for example, appears to me to be very deterministic.
Intellect creates impulse which imparts motion to an object until the impulse
runs out. (Instead of Newton's world, where momentum is conserved, neither
created by intellect nor diminishing with time. Instead, we invoke friction to
explain why objects come to rest.)

The metaphysics of the intellect may not have been deterministic, however, if
we exclude bodies that have free will, I see the Rambam's universe as pretty
tightly constrained. Of course, unlike Newton, he has that major exception.


This tangent aside, whatever the reason may be, the Rambam's language does
present hashgachah and teva as different alternatives. I leave it to Rabbi
Carmy to explain why this is so if teva is non-deterministic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5890 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

You wrote:
: Aishdas,
: 
: My name is Simcha.  I have recently joined the avodat group.  However, 
: while I have significant background in Torah learning, I am embarrassed 
: to admit that to the extent I am able to learn in a way which would 
: allow reciprocal exchanges to this particular effort is clearly limited.  
: I am able to read, write and understand Biblical Hebrew (Chumash) to an 
: extent that only a limited need to consult a dictionary is necessary.  
: However, my Gemorrah learning is severally at a marked deficit, though I 
: have had a good deal of learning in that we learned babah mitzeyah.  I 
: would be tremendously grateful if I could acquire an on-line Chevrusah 
: for study of a number of various areas of Jewish Learning.  Please 
: E-mail your reccommendations to
: traci17@hotmail.com.  Todah Rabah.
: 
: Very truly yours,
: Reb Simcha Shimone Rutchik
: (Mr. Tracy Stephan Rutchik) 

This request, while laudable, does not belong on the avodah mailing list. This
is a place for discussing Torah -- halachah and Jewish thought -- on a
relatively high level. It's not for general conversation, no matter how
important the topic. There are plenty of other lists for that.

In addition, your Hebrew (or more importantly, your Aramaic) may be too weak
to follow much of the content of this list. We are not expecting posters to
translate technical terms. Yaakov Menken and the rest of Project Genesis do a
wonderful job hosting other lists, where such translations are expected. In
particular, you may want to look at their torah-forum, or the somewhat higher
level beis-medrash. Check www.torah.org for details.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5890 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

I'm unclear as to which of these questions we are discussing:

1- Who chose the text of individual mishnaios?

Here I was taught that Rebbe compiled already existing mishnaios. OTOH, stam
mishnah k'Rav Meir would imply that R Meir or a talmid of his (such as Rebbe)
at least chose the wording of the attributions (or lack thereof).

2- Who chose which to include and to order?

Here I'd be very surprised to learn that we don't assume it was Rebbe.

3- Who was the first to actually write the text down (beyond Rebbe's personal
   notes)?

This is an interesting question, as it may involve determining who first
declare "ais la'asos Lashem" for writing down Torah sheba'al peh.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5890 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

R.J. Hendel wrote:

> As I said: The above should be sufficient for anyone to go and derive
> the actual structure. But if there is interest (or if I am interested
> and will do it) then I can rederive with all details


There is interest.


---sambo
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

I think to properly address the question we must understand what the
issur of zera lvatala is. From your question you made it seem (correct me
if I'm wrong) that you connect the issur with the relations not leading up
to a pregnancy. This is for sure incorrect because you yourself indicated
that one can have relations with a pregnant women and in fact halacha
requires the man (mitzvas onah) to have relations with his pregnant wife.
Even though this relationship can't lead to pregnancy. Therefore, it
would seem that the issur is based either on the fact that zera is
released not through relations, or that the zera doesn't end up in the
women. (I'm not sure which and I don't know if there is a nafka minah)but
in any case the being motzei zera into a women through a normal
relationship isn't assur (ie. this act doesn't fall into the issur of zera
lvatala) The question as I see it (and what you might have been asking all
along) is what is defined as zera LVATALA (ie. what constitutes the
lvatala aspect of it) thus making it assur
Elie Ginsparg

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]