Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 048

Friday, July 16 2004

• Re: Evolution
• Re: Evolution
• Re: AZ in Nature Shows
• Re: Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Rov v Chazakah
• Re: Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Re: Evolution
• Jokes and Humor
• yehoshua as person who cleaned up the shul: source?
• Re: Indian sheitels
• Re: Singing the Zemer 'Bar Yocha'i in Shul
• Re: Singing the Zemer 'Bar Yocha'i in Shul
• Kamtze uBar Kamtze
• Re: yehoshua as person who cleaned up the shul: source?
• Re: yehoshua as person who cleaned up the shul: source?
• Re: Avodah Zara L'Maaseh
• Potential for kedushas EY is equivalent to the potential for tumah?
• nishtane hateva
• R. Chaim Eisen article follow-up
• Rov dleita kaman
• who yaaseh shalom alein

On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:00:30PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Both answers leave me with the feeling that we should stick to the text
: with its classical interpretations, and wait for science to catch up...

You're implying that a literal treatment of Bereishis 1 is more classical
than others treatments. I don't see a basis for that assertion.

 From "Ein Doreshin" on it seems clear that we are not to take it at
face value. See again my survey of "classical interpretations". The
oldest source I found for insisting it must be literal history is a
letter from RMMS.

One might argue that this means that it was taken for granted, if there
weren't rishonim who held of non-literal interpretations.

For the sake of those who didn't follow the conversation on Areivim,
let me repeat a URL. I summarized a number of shitos here, but I couldn't
find it in the archive. However, a more English version from an scjm post
based on that email is at groups.google.com at <http://tinyurl.com/7x23k>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The reason to believe in the theory of evolution is that there are facts
> already in evidence and new facts are constantly being discovered to
> support that theory. One cannot simply discount those facts by saying God
> created the world to LOOK that way. Those answers are far too simplistic
> to satisfy any rational individual. Besides, why would God fool us with
> such major indicators such as dinosaur bones and the like?

This argument has never made sense to me. Why would Hashem create
clues that make the world look like it evolved over time? For the
same reason that He created Adam Harishon with a navel, and the trees
in Gan-Eden with rings, and the sky Adam saw at night had stars in it.
Because He is the Perfect Artist (ein tzayar kelokeinu), and a world
that didn't look evolved would scream inauthenticity. If we want to
see the Artist's signature, we have to look very closely, and perhaps
we can't see it at all no matter how closely we look, because He didn't
sign His work, but rather put a notice on the wall next to it, in which
He described Whose work it is, and what it represents.

A lesser artist might have taken care of surface details, like Adam's
navel and the stars; he might even have thought of putting rings in the
trees, so that when Adam chopped one down he wouldn't notice anything
amiss, but he might not think of putting dinosaur bones where people would
find and interpret them thousands of years later, but Hashem thought of
everything, and since modern conceptions of what a world ought to look
like include extinct species, He made sure to put bones where they ought
to be.

He isn't lying, He doesn't intend to fool anyone, because He told us what
He did; it's our fault if we choose not to believe Him, and to believe
what we see in the artwork instead. Think of a book that reads like a
true story, and is very convincing, so that we come away thinking it's
non-fiction. There might even be a preface claiming that it's an old
manuscript found in an attic somewhere, where the first-person narrator
seems to have hidden it. I'm sure we're all familiar with many such
novels (including the 'Yossele Golem' story); but we all know that that
is a literary convention, and somewhere external to the book itself, the
author will readily acknowledge that of *course* it's fiction, how could
you think otherwise? I'm reminded of an interview of Jesse Ventura,
in which he was asked to admit that pro wrestling is fake; he responded
'is Hamlet fake?'. Hamlet isn't fake, it's fiction; and I'm quite happy
believing that so is this world.

The above is what I have believed for many years, pretty much since I
was old enough to understand that the scientific evidence for evolution
really exists, and isn't simply made up by evil atheist scientists,
as RAM would have us believe. But over the last few years, I've been
bothered by one problem with this whole scenario. Dinosaur bones don't
bother me at all, but if the above is true, and Hashem really created
an evolved world nearly 5763 years ago (on 25-Elul-1), and put Adam and
Chava in it to breed and produce all of us, then how can we explain the
diversity of human genetics? Modern genetic analysis seems iron-clad
proof of how many generations ago two lines diverged, so how can mutations
that seem to have happened more than 6000 years ago exist?

The only explanation I can think of is that not all humans are descended
from Adam and Chava, that Hashem also put many other people in the world,
who are not described in the Torah because their lines did not lead to
Noach, Avraham, and Bnei Yisrael; but if this is so, if there really
are people not descended of Adam and Chava, then what is the status of
those people? Are they not included in the brachot Hashem gave them?
Did they not participate in the Chet Etz Hadaat? (If not, why do they
suffer and die? Perhaps we can say that that is the nature of humans,
but Adam and Chava were meant to be higher than that, and as a result of
the Chet they became ordinary humans.) Are they subject to the 7 mitzvot?
Were they, too, offered the Torah before it was given to us? Can they
be megayer? (They must be able to, otherwise we would have been told
that they couldn't, and how to recognise them so as to reject them.
But how can this be, if they have neither the legacy of the pre-Chet
species, nor the effects of the Chet?)

[Email #2. -mi]

"Danny Schoemann" <dannyschoemann@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Here's my dilemma. As science "changes its mind" we find proof in the
> Torah to back the new findings.

> Is that because "everything" is in the Torah - including nonsense,
> or are some generations "cheating"?

Not 'cheating'; they find a way to read the Torah which will be consistent
with what they think are the facts before their eyes. In fact, they're
misreading both the facts and the Torah.

> Both answers leave me with the feeling that we should stick to the text
> with its classical interpretations, and wait for science to catch up...

But those interpretations were merely the attempts of earlier generations
to understand the Torah in light of what *they* thought were the facts of
nature (e.g. the first 4 chapters of the Rambam's Hil Yesodei Hatorah).
The only difference between those explanations and the ones we come up
with today is that our current understanding of nature *may* be true
(we haven't yet disproved it), and therefore we may also have stumbled
on the correct interpretation of the Torah, whereas we *know* the old
views of nature were wrong, and therefore we should be skeptical of old
interpretations of Torah that seem to have been tailored to fit those
mistaken scientific theories.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

>> It seems to me that watching nature shows on TV is basically
>> entertainment, albeit more educational than watching sitcoms. AZ rituals
>> often have aesthetically pleasing or compelling elements - masks, music,
>> dance, sculpture, and so on - which are enjoyable to watch. So wouldn't
>> this be getting hana'ah from AZ? How is it better than sheitls?

> I would think the questions is, what are you getting ha'naah from?
> the optical display produced by the TV? what physical connection does
> that have to the actual AZ? one can't get hanaah from AZ mamesh (unless
> its been denigrated by the goy) or an offering to the AZ ever. But both
> are physical things.

You also are not permitted to get hanaah from klei shir of elilim or
to look [histakel] at the beauty [noy] of elilim (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh
Deah siman 142, s'if 15) and the Rema adds (and anyway a devar sheano
miskaven is mutar).

On the other hand, where a elilim is made l'shem noy, and not l'avodah
then it is mutar to have hana'ah from it (see Avodah Zara 41a (and in
general statues in bathhouses are assumed to be l'shem noy see YD siman
142 si'if 14).

I am not sure what one would call the situation of a nature show.
After all, almost certainly the person making the nature show does not
worship those particular forms of AZ and is almost certainly making the
nature show m'shum noy (ie to entertain the punters back home) (this would
seem to distinguish it from a broadcast of, eg the Reagan/JFK funeral,
where the cameraman etc may well worship these particular forms of AZ and
may be shooting the film with the intent to make such worship available
more widely).

And since one does not actually hear the klei shir of the AZ, one hears a
tape recording of them, made for purposes (probably) of noy (and in this
regard we would seem to follow the chachamim and not be chayesh l'meuta
as per Rabbi Meir (see Avodah Zara 40b, the mishna))) - you might argue
that there is no prohibition. It would seme to rather get into the wider
question about the extent to which a tape recording is the thing itself
(kol isha, havdala, megila, etc). (Actually, come to think of it, why
is there all this discussion about a tape recording of sound, but far
less discussion about whether a picture is the thing itself - eg why
is a picture of an untzniusdik woman always taken to be synonomous
with an untzniusdik woman, while the voice of a woman isn't always?
Or is it just so obvious that a picture of an untzniusdik woman is so
untzniusdik that one does not need to draw any distinctions, in which
case how about a picture of a married woman with her hair uncovered
(lets say you don't even know if she is married or not married, would
that make a difference?) - somebody must discuss this somewhere?

Regards
Chana

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> You are saying that the announcement of
> the Bas Kol some how would interfere with his free-will if it the zivug
> were based on spiritual status. I simply don't understand what the Bas
> Kol has to do with man's free will. 

Remember that we know 'hakol biydei shamayim chutz miyir'at shamayim'
from the fact that this very bat-kol does not announce 'tzadik verasha'.
According to you, that the bat-kol merely reflects Hashem's foreknowledge,
which we know not to affect free will, then why doesn't the bat-kol
say whether the person will be a tzadik or a rasha? (And if it did,
how would we know that yir'at shamayim was not in fact biydei shamayim?)

I want to make two not-very-related points.

1. Foreknowledge v Bechira. As I understand the Rambam's answer (in
Hil Teshuva) to this question, it is that ein hachi nami, if Hashem
really knew in advance what we would do, there wouldn't be bechira.
But the term 'knowledge', when we use it of Hashem, doesn't really mean
what it usually means, but rather refers to a particular relationship
between Hashem and facts, for which we have no referent, and therefore
no word, but 'knowledge' is the closest word we can come up with. So if
we call that thing KNOWLEDGE, then we can say that Hashem doesn't know
what we will do, He KNOWS it. Indeed, He doesn't really know anything,
but He KNOWS everything. And part of the nature of KNOWLEDGE is that it
doesn't interfere with bechira, as knowledge would. If we could understand
KNOWLEDGE, it would be obvious to us how that could be so; the reason we
have a problem is that the only clue we have to what KNOWLEDGE is, is that
it's sort of like knowledge, and knowledge does interfere with bechira,
so we imagine that KNOWLEDGE must also do so, when in fact it doesn't.

If that is so, then when Hashem tells something to a navi, the navi, being
human, doesn't KNOW it, he merely knows it. And once he knows it, it has
to happen, so the people involved no longer have any choice in the matter.

2. The nature of a Bat-Kol. As I quoted the Maharal a week or so ago,
a bat-kol exists in this world, not in the higher worlds, and is always
from a this-world perspective, which doesn't always match the higher
perspective of, e.g., Torah. That's how the Maharal explains why the
bat-kol in tanur shel achnai wasn't the real Truth, and the chachamim
were free to dismiss it. So it follows that if a bat-kol announces that
somebody will do something, that prediction has metziut in this world,
in this frame of reference, and if it is guaranteed to happen then
the person who it was about has no choice but to do it. (This applies
whether or not anyone heard the bat-kol, therefore this isn't quite the
same point as I made above, but it's similar in concept.)

So if the bat-kol said someone would be a rasha (and if the bat-kol is
about certainties, not just probabilities), then that person wouldn't
have bechira. Conversely, since people do have bechira, it isn't possible
for the bat-kol to 'know' whether someone will be a tzadik or rasha.

Now if zivug rishon were according to people's deeds, then if the bat-
kol joined two people, it must 'know' that those two would end up on the
same level, both tzadikim, both resha'im, or both on the same intermediate
level. But it can't know that, because both of them have bechira.

BTW, a question about this particular bat-kol: the gemara gives it as
'bat ploni liploni', which implies that a particular couple is declared
when the man is born, not when the woman is born, and furthermore that
the woman probably hasn't even been conceived yet, and therefore isn't
'plonit' but 'bat ploni'. a) is there reason to believe that when a girl
is conceived, and the bat-kol announces her fortune, it also declares whom
she will marry, or is that unnecessary because it was already annnounced
when he was conceived? b) what happens when the girl is older than the
boy? In that case does she get a 'ben ploni liplonit', and does he not get
anything, because it was already announced? Or does the bat-kol happen
for both, and the first to be conceived gets 'bat/ben ploni liploni/t',
while the second one gets 'ploni/t liploni/t'? And does someone who
isn't destined to marry at all have that announced, or is that part of
the announcement merely left out?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> Thus, for example, the gemara says there is a chazakah that a borrower
> will not completely deny a loan (kofer ha-kol). Is this based on
> statistics? It cannot just be the "nature" of people because the gemara
> says that in later generations we no longer rely on this chazakah but
> require a kofer hakol to take a shvuat heset.

I think it is based on the nature of people, but it's not something
ingrained in the human genome, it's the result of a proper upbringing.
In a generation when almost everybody was well brought up, we could
rely on a chazaka that a normal person, no matter how bad his actions,
has an instinctive sense of shame that will prevent him from facing his
creditor and flatly denying that the debt exists. Ein adam me'iz panav
bifnei baal chovo. Even if he has determined in his heart that he wants
to repudiate the debt and keep the money, if faced with his creditor
and asked to deny it, without any possibility of evasion or half-truth,
something inside him, a remnant of his upbringing, will stop him.

In a later generation, chazal saw that many people weren't so well brought
up, that many people did have the requisite lack of conscience to lie
to their creditors' faces, but they still hadn't reached the point where
they could take a false oath without any discomfort, so they instituted
the shevuat heset.

In yet a later generation, even this lost its power, and people could
not be relied on to have this instinctive fear of perjury. But in all
cases, what we're relying on is not a rov but a chazaka, that a normal
person (normal in both nature and nurture) won't be able to behave in
a certain way.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Zev Sero wrote:
>> You are saying that the announcement of
>> the Bas Kol some how would interfere with his free-will if it the zivug
>> were based on spiritual status. I simply don't understand what the Bas
>> Kol has to do with man's free will. 

> Remember that we know 'hakol biydei shamayim chutz miyir'at shamayim'
> from the fact that this very bat-kol does not announce 'tzadik verasha'. 

I am not sure  why you state this. The principle is learned out from 
Devarim (10:12) - Berachos (33b)

> 2. The nature of a Bat-Kol. As I quoted the Maharal a week or so ago,
> a bat-kol exists in this world, not in the higher worlds, and is always
> from a this-world perspective, which doesn't always match the higher
> perspective of, e.g., Torah. That's how the Maharal explains why the
> bat-kol in tanur shel achnai wasn't the real Truth, and the chachamim
> were free to dismiss it. So it follows that if a bat-kol announces that
> somebody will do something, that prediction has metziut in this world,
> in this frame of reference, and if it is guaranteed to happen then
> the person who it was about has no choice but to do it....

I am concerned simply with Rashi's explanation of the gemora and I don't
think the view of the Maharal is relevant - unless you can show that
Rashi holds a similar view.

Daniel Eidensohn

Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> The reason to believe in the theory of evolution is that there are facts
>> already in evidence and new facts are constantly being discovered to
>> support that theory. One cannot simply discount those facts by saying God
>> created the world to LOOK that way. Those answers are far too simplistic
>> to satisfy any rational individual. Besides, why would God fool us with
>> such major indicators such as dinosaur bones and the like?

> This argument has never made sense to me. Why would Hashem create
> clues that make the world look like it evolved over time? For the
> same reason that He created Adam Harishon with a navel, and the trees
> in Gan-Eden with rings, and the sky Adam saw at night had stars in
> it.
> Because He is the Perfect Artist (ein tzayar kelokeinu), and a world
> that didn't look evolved would scream inauthenticity. 

Says who? ...and how do you know Adam had a naval? You're saying that
God wanted us to deduce evolution even though it didn't really happen?

When you see a star exploding that is millions of light years away, how
do you explain it? Light travels at a constant speed. We can therefore
calculate distance in terms of light years (i.e. the number of years it
takes for light to travel a given distance). This means that with a star
that exploded a million light years away it takes a million years for
the light from that explosion to reach our eyes. Are you saying that God
created a burst of light (midstream so to speak at a distance of 5764
light years away)to make it look like a star exploded a million years
ago? You are entitled to believe this but does this make more sense to
you than scientific explanations?

> so that when Adam chopped (a tree) down he wouldn't notice anything
> amiss, 

How would Adam have known any difference? He chopped down a tree. No
rings. So what?

> but he might not think of putting dinosaur bones where people would
> find and interpret them thousands of years later, but Hashem thought of
> everything, and since modern conceptions of what a world ought to look
> like include extinct species, He made sure to put bones where they ought
> to be.

You've got to be kidding. What possible need is there for mankind to
belive that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, if they really
didn't. If dinosaurs hadn't existed, what possible need for us would
there be to think that they did?

Yet you too have questions that are not in concert with the above
assertions:

> (If) Hashem really created
> an evolved world nearly 5763 years ago (on 25-Elul-1), and put Adam and
> Chava in it to breed and produce all of us, then how can we explain the
> diversity of human genetics? Modern genetic analysis seems iron-clad
> proof of how many generations ago two lines diverged, so how can mutations
> that seem to have happened more than 6000 years ago exist?

> The only explanation I can think of is that not all humans are descended
> from Adam and Chava, 

Here you diverge from the Torah narrative which states that God created
Man implying that man did not exist before Adam. You have found science
which you deem "iron-clad". So in essence while you might disagree with
the age of the universe, you still look to science and feel the need to
find alternative Pshatim in order to reconcile Torah with science... in
the creation of Man. In effect, this just bolsters my point only with a
different example whose data you have more confidence in than my examples.

HM

I recall seeing in one of the earlier series of publications by the SR
z'l - "Chiddushei Torah", where he has a whole drush proving when the
Malochim came to Avrohom promising him a son, happened to be a Pesach
which fell during Tishrei.

He adds that 'bederech haltozoh', using that drush, 'ken men farentferen'
the puzzle of Avrohom saying 'Vo'ekcho Pas Lechem' whilst when these
Malochim visited Lot it says 'Umatzos Ofoh'. Why did one call it 'bread'
and the other 'matzoh'?

He suggests, that seeing it was a special and sudden Pesach for which
they were totally unprepared, Avrohom Avinu couldn't produce hi u sual
mehudardig hand-matzoh and had to use Matzoh Ashireh or machine-matzos..

Now, AA who usually had 'glatt' matzos, consdered these as "Pas Lechem".
OTOH, for Lot, who ALWAYS used 'machine matzos', it was indeed 'matzoh'...

SBA

PS It's a joke, No one jump out of their skin, please...

I have many times heard an idea that Yeshoshua cleaned up the "shul"
or the equivalent in the midbar, or was a "gabbai," or the like.
I have never seen this written down, but it seems to be often cited,
ie. when I have been putting away siddurim, people have said, "Oh, just
like Yehoshua." In fact, I have heard some people say that it was in
the merit of this activity that Yeshoshua merited to become the leader
of am yisroel.

Does anyone know where the written source(s) is/are for this idea?
I recall looking once at the mefarshim on chumash and not finding any
reference to it.

Any help would be appreciated.

Sammy Groner

>I do not know if this is true but, if it were, are there circumstances
>that the "bet din"/Posek would be responsible for the financial loss
>incurred by those who destroyed their sheitels ? I know the gemora
>deals with this issue but don't know how it has been employed lmaseh
>over the years.

I just looked it over again. The gemoro in Bechoros 28: is in SA CM 24:1.

Unless the Posek physically destroyed the sheitel, there's no question
that he's off the hook.

Even if he did (or you want to start a discussion in shlichus), since
the poskim in question are treated as mumchim and/or have been accepted
by the questioner (else he'd go elsewhere), he'd be potur anyways. So
it seems from CM 24.

My conclusion: Since nowadays we choose our posek, (as opposed to being
under the power of the town posek/BD), our poskim are automatically off
the hook when they err.

 - Danny, not a posek by any stretch of imagination.

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
>> Are there any others cases where a man is praised mid-tefilah?
...
> How would it look, if someone during an audience with the King of Sweden
> in his royal palace - gave a speech praising the king of the Zulus?
> Al achas kamoh vekamoh, in a shul, beis Hashem, is it right to sing the
> praises of a bosor vodom?

IIRC, there is not a single word in kabbalat shabbat that addresses
Hashem directly. It's all *about* Hashem, not *to* Him.

Same thing.

SBA

From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
>> Are there any others cases where a man is praised mid-tefilah?

> How about Yhonoson ish anvasan in Akdamus.

Not Akdamus - but Yetziv Pisgam.
I am not sure what poshut pshat is and why Yonoson gets a mention here
bichlall.

Before Shovuos I offered to send a scanned pshat from the father of
RM Shapiro who explains that it refers to Reb Yonoson ben Uziel - and
is actually part of the hakdomo to the [earlier minhag of having a]
merturgem for the Haftoreh. ayin shom.

[If anyone wants it - I can still email it]

SBA

Discussion re Kamtze and Bar Kamtze
[were they father and son?]
<http://www.hydepark.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=1019414>

SBA

Samuel P Groner wrote:
>I have many times heard an idea that Yeshoshua cleaned up the "shul"
>or the equivalent in the midbar, or was a "gabbai," or the like.
...
>Does anyone know where the written source(s) is/are for this idea?

Bamidbar Rabbah (21:14): Midrash Rabbah - Numbers XXI:14

14. AND MOSES SPOKE UNTO THE LORD, SAYING: LET THE LORD THE GOD OF THE
SPIRITS OF ALL FLESH, SET A MAN OVER THE CONGREGATION (XXVII, 15f.).
Whoso petitions for the needs of a community is like one who comes with
main force.2 LET THE LORD... SET (ib.). What was his reason for asking
this after declaring the order of inheritance? Just this: that when the
daughters of Zelophehad inherited from their father, Moses argued: The
time is opportune for me to demand my own needs. If daughters inherit,
it is surely right that my sons should inherit my glory. The Holy One,
blessed be He, said to him: 'Whoso keepeth the fig-tree shall eat the
fruit thereof; and he that waiteth on his master shall be honoured
(Prov. XXVII, 18). Your sons sat idly by and did not study the Torah.
Joshua served you much and he showed you great honour. It was he who rose
early in the morning and remained late at night at your House of Assembly;
he used to arrange the benches, and he used to spread the mats. Seeing
that he has served you with all his might, he is worthy to serve Israel,
for he shall not lose his reward. TAKE THEE JOSHUA THE SON OF NUN '
(XXVII, 18). This serves to confirm the text, 'Whoso keepeth the fig-tree
shall eat the fruit thereof.'

In a message dated 07/14/2004 1:29:55 PM EDT, spg28@cornell.edu writes:
> I have many times heard an idea that Yeshoshua cleaned up the "shul"
> or the equivalent in the midbar, or was a "gabbai," or the like.

It was actually the chairs and cloths  - see Yalkut Shimoni Parshat Pinchas

KT
Joel Rich

RAM:
> And I realized that maybe we ARE supposed to remain totally ignorant of
> Avodah Zara, for fear that it might tempt us.

> Can this be? Would we be better off not knowing who Jesus or Buddha were?

I used to think this was a machloketh in Hazal. See Shabbos 75a ("i ata
lomeid laasoth ...") vs. the Sifra cited in SHM Lav #10. I changed my
mind a few months ago and found a way to harmonize the two, but I can't
remember what it was.

David Riceman

Hello,

I recollect long ago seeing a gemora stating that the potential for
kedushas EY is the greatest, and also is the potential for tumah.

Anyone recollect such a gemora, and its source?

Thank you,
Avroham Yakov

>> Nishtaneh hateva is not as easy an answer to use as people think. ... I
>> think the idea of camels
>> mating backwards is probably likewise not something that can be accounted
>> for by nishtaneh hateva.

> But that is how the Ben Yehoyodo explains the problem.

The fact that an acharon states nishtane hateva does not mean it is
reasonable from a scientific viewpoint.

The Chazon Ish explains the gemara about the urine and semen tracts
by nishtane hateva. I have spoken with numerous religious doctors and
not one of them believe that the internal parts of the human male have
changed over 2000 years.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

I was wondering if the promised sequel to an article in Jewish Thought
Volume 2, No. 1 by Chaim Eisen beginning on p. 45 called "You will be
like G-d" was ever published and where?

HG Schild

RMBerger has written about the conceptual basis of rov and kavua at
<http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf> See particularly section A2. 

See also <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/shoftim.shtml>. This is the Parhat Shoftim
section of Asplaqaria, divrei Torah on the parshiot, chagim, and tefilla by RMB.
(Accessible also by going to the Aishdas home page <http://www.aishdas.org>,
putting the cursor on "Torah" and clicking on "Asplaqaria").

Saul Mashbaum

The MB quoting the MA on O"C 123 makes aa big deal of saying
who yaaseh shalom aleinu,
vaal kol yisrael.
No reason is given  for the importance of the pause at that point.

Is there a difference in the meaning?  Any ideas as to the concern?

KT
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]