Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 062

Monday, August 9 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 20:58:19 +0200
From: "Akiva Blum" <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>
Subject:
Re: Tosefet Shabbat


From: T613K@aol.com
> IIRC a woman can make a hefsek tahara after benshing lecht--so there is one
> more instance of doing something Friday-ish even though you have already
> accepted Shabbos.

There is a significant difference here.

One distinction is between day and night. Another is between Shabbos
and Chol.

Tosefes Shabbos is Shabbos during the day. It still is day but is also
Shabbos. This would make it strange to daven Mincha which belongs on
Friday and not Shabbos, when it is already Shabbos.

However, hefsek taharo has no regard for Shabbos. It must be done by day,
not night. Being Shabbos already is irrelevant. It is simply Shabbos by
day, and that's okay for hefsek taharo.

Akiva Blum


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:10:04 +0300
From: Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com>
Subject:
RE: Evolution and Creationism


R' Eli Linas cited the following from an anti-evolution website:

"The evolutionary establishment fears creation science, because evolution
itself crumbles when challenged by evidence. In the 1970s and 1980s,
hundreds of public debates were arranged between evolutionary scientists
and creation scientists. The latter scored resounding victories, with
the result that, today, few evolutionists will debate. Isaac Asimov,
Stephen Jay Gould, and the late Carl Sagan, while highly critical of
creationism, all declined to debate."

(Apologies if I have mentioned this already - ) When I was in the Mir,
I once had a debate with an avreich about whether man ever landed on
the moon. He had many proofs that it was all a US hoax, e.g. that the
Torah says that the Heavens are for Hashem, etc. I discovered that it
was utterly impossible to win the argument, since every proof I brought
merely became part of the Great Conspiracy.

There are lots of questions with evolution that still need to be resolved,
which is why a Creationist who raises these questions can come across as
having scored a victory. But there are far more questions to be raised
with Creationists - it's just that they don't usually put their theory
up for debate! Anyway, haven't you ever heard of "von a kashya, shtarbt
man nisht!" (It's interesting how selective we are with using that!)

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 11:44:51 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?


RMB and I have discussed this offlist, and he asked (or at least hinted
that he wanted) me to summarize and move the discussion back on list.
RMB wrote (way back when):

<<According to the way REED understands the story of R' Chanina ben Dosa,
the burning of oil is no less divine intervention than the burning of
vinegar. HP is therefore not all divine intervention.

According to the Rambam, teva causes oil to burn. HQBH is involved only
indirectly, as the Cause of teva. Vinegar burning would be HP, as all
divine intervention is HP.>>

I queried (a) whether the Rambam believed that vinegar actually burned
(i.e. did he take the story literally? and (b) whether the Rambam
interpreted the story as having any relationship to HP?

RMB clarified that he did not think the Rambam took it literally.
In his words:
> According to the Rambam "vinegar burning" and "oil burning" must
> be meshalim.
> Plugging in HP and teva, we get RCbD asserting that the G-d who made teva
> could perform HP. That's an awareness of G-d -- most of us don't see Yad
> Hashem within teva. And bizechus, he merited HP.>>

I then asked:
: According to the Rambam a mashal in Hazal is like a treasure chest,
: and the context in which you interpret it is like a key to the chest.
: What you get out is more valuable than what you put in. In the nimshal
: that means that the mashal deepens your understanding of something.
: In this case though, you plug in HP and get back that RHbD merited HP.
: What did the mashal add?

Here's RMB's answer, followed by a new response:
> 1- That HP is earned.
> 2- That it is earned by his attitude, rather than for a particular chovas
> ha'eivarim.

> But again, I regret dragging that medrash into the Rambam. First, because
> the interpretation is mine, not his. Second, because it means we stopped
> discussing the points of overlap and of difference between the shitos
> of the Rambam and REED. (Although I don't think REED was mechadeish this
> idea, he just has the most accessible exposition of it.)

But according to the Rambam RHbD's "awareness" of God is false doctrine
(that God makes vinegar burn). I find it astounding that you think
the Rambam thought that one can get HP by believing false things about
God. Incidentally I think you are conflating two meanings of "teva".
According to REED teva means scientific law and HP means suspension of
scientific law, but according to the Rambam teva means the absence of HP
(which for the Rambam is a low level of nevuah).

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 20:15:16 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Subject:
Re: Height of people in chumash


Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com> wrote:
> R' Zev Sero quoted the other Gemara about Moshe being tall, based on
> his being able to spread the paroches over the Mishkan. I agree that the
> Mishkan was literally 10 amos tall, but that Gemara (it's Nedarim 38a)
> still can't be taken at face value. For example, it proves that he was
> rich because he had the residual material from which the luchos were
> made. What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Um, what's your problem with this?  It seems completely pashut to me.

>> In any case, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, who says his bed
>> has any relation at all to his size? Perhaps the point is that he had
>> an enormous bed even after taking his size into account. IOW the pasuk
>> is saying that not only was Og well known to be a giant, but he had a
>> bed which was more than twice as long as he was tall.

> Why such a big bed?

To impress people?  Or because he wasn't the only occupant? (A friend
pointed out that his daughter only uses a small proportion of her bed
to sleep - the rest is given over to stuffed animals...)

Why do some people sleep in enormous four-posters that are far bigger
than they need?  Because they like it.  Maybe Og just liked sleeping
in a bed in which he got lost.  Or maybe he tossed and turned a lot,
and needed such a big bed in order not to fall out during the night.
This is all idle speculation.  My only point is that, when the Torah
tells us how big his bed was, we don't need to suppose that we can
derive *anything* from this about his height.

> In any case, the passuk is rather strange. Why
> doesn't it state his height - why the length of his bed?

Perhaps because it isn't *trying* to tell us his height, it's trying
to impress us with the size of his bed.

>> But Rashi in chumash doesn't do agadah, unless it's necessary to the
>> simple meaning. If he says beamat ish means Og's amot, he must mean it
>> literally, and be forced to this translation by a difficulty with the
>> pshat, not by following some allegory in the gemara, that the 5-year-old
>> he's writing for hasn't learned yet.

> I am rather uncomfortable saying that Rashi really thought that Og was a
> several hundred foot tall, hideously disproportioned giant, rather than
> simply learning like Rashba. Rambam has very harsh words for such people.

But you haven't confronted the fact that this is Rashi *in chumash*, where
he just doesn't *do* agadah as such.  Perush Rashi on the chumash is pure
pshat, aimed at a 5-year-old who has never learned gemara, and he only
brings midrashim that are necessary to explain the pshat.  If he tells
his 5-year-old reader that the measurement of Og's bed is in Og's amot,
not normal ones, he is not trying to reconcile a possibly-not-literal
gemara, he is trying to explain the pasuk here.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 10:13:59 +0300
From: Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com>
Subject:
"Height of People in Chumash" ties in with "Evolution"!


[Umm... this discussion is on Avodah. Let's not confuse ikkar,
discussing Torah, with tafeil, discussing everything else. There are no
"Areivimites"; Areivim exists solely as a "General Discussion Area for
Avodah" members. -mi]

A confluence of two threads of Areivim! What a happy event!

The mysterious SBA writes that the idea a fifteen-foot Moshe and a
skyscraper Og need not be discounted due to its physical impossibility,
because:

<<Neither is Krias Yam Suf and the earth swallowing up Korach and his
gang "physically possible"... What about the 10 makkos in Mitzrayim? Or
Sarah Imeinu giving birth at 90 or Yocheved giving birth etc etc. And
what about Moshe Rabeinu going up to heaven and staying there 40 days
and nights [and not eating and drinking]? And the whole parsha of Mattan
Torah? I could go on, but I am sure you get my drift.

And later in the same digest, Rebbetzen Katz writes regarding the
emergence of new species that:

<<my feeling is--in for a penny, in for a pound. If you are already going
to postulate a supernatural interference in the course of the universe,
why not go all the way and postulate the there was a separate creation
for each species or at least for every major class?>>

While I doubt that Rebbetzen Katz believes in a skyscraper Og, the same
basic point is being made by both these Areivimites: since Hashem can
do miracles, then we can accept anything as being a result of miracles,
and we need never look for alternate explanations.

I must disagree. Sarah Imeinu laughed at the thought that she would give
birth, for good reason. Nobody on Areivim is denying Hashem's ability
to perform miracles. But we do not believe that miracles are things
that Hashem does lightly, for lots of reasons. The system of natural
law that He set up is very, very good, and He doesn't usually need to
tinker with it in order to accomplish His goals. The Gemara records a
miracle of a man who grew breasts to nurse his baby (which is actually
known in medical literature and is called gynecomastia.) Abaye says,
Woe to this man, that the order of the world had to be changed for
him! Da'as Chachmah U'Mussar explains that miracles are a last resort,
something done only when extremely necessary, such as with Kriyas Yam
Suf showing the Bnei Yisrael who runs the world. And when miracles do
take place, they are usually highlighted as such, and are also relegated
to specific categories e.g. miyut machazik es hamerubah. The beginning of
the universe would have to be a miracle - physical coming from spiritual -
but there's no reason why other events in the later development of the
world would have to be miracles.

Let's get back to these cases. A skyscraper Og would be an extraordinary,
ongoing miracle. Rashba and Rambam (amongst many others!) consider this
absurd. Either Rashi believed things that his contemporaries thought
to be absurd, or he agreed that it was metaphorical and was merely
showing how the pshat of the passuk can be made to conform with its
deeper explanation - a known methodology discussed by Ben Yehoyada and
others. I'm not averse to the possibility of Rashi making mistakes,
but I'd prefer to go for the latter any day.

And now for evolution. Rebbetzen Katz agrees that millions of new
species have come into existence at various times over the last billion
years or so. Either they keep on popping into existence out of thin
air - poof! (Imagine how much money you could make if you caught it on
video!) Or, the Creator who can design a tadpole that turns into a frog
in its own lifetime, is also capable of designing a system whereby one
species turns into another species. The latter sounds far more reasonable.

Going back to Og - SBA also claimed that Rashi had a mesorah from Sinai
that Moshe was literally ten amos tall and Og 300 or so. So what of
Rambam etc. who held that these were not literal - didn't they have a
mesorah too?

Rambam and many other Rishonim did not use the reasoning of "Hashem can
do anything" to accept the numerous fantastic stories in the Gemara at
face value. It's worth going over his words again:

"There are those... are those who believe in their literal (or "simple")
meaning. They do not under any circumstances reason that there is a
hidden explanation, and they consider that the impossible is always
necessarily true. However, they do this because they have not understood
the wisdom, and they are far from understanding, and they lack the
capacity to alert themselves to it, and they have not found someone to
alert them to it. They reason that Chazal intended with all their true
and perfected words nothing more than that which they understand with
their own minds, and that they are all literal. This is even though some
of their words appear strange and far from reason, so much so that if
one were to relate their literal meaning to the common folk, and all the
more so to scholars, they would be astounded upon contemplating them;
they would say, "How can it be that there exists in the world a person
who thinks or believes that this is the correct faith!"; all the more
so would these people not see it as correct."

"And this is the group of the intellectually weak. One should bemoan their
foolishness; for they think that they are honoring and elevating Chazal,
but in fact they are degrading them with the ultimate degradation, yet
they do not realize this. And by the life of God! This group destroys
the glory of the Torah, and darkens its illumination, and they place the
Torah of God in the opposite of its intent. For God said in the perfect
Torah, ".that [the nations of the world] should hear all these statutes,
and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people"
(Devarim 4:6). But when this group relates the judgments of the words of
Chazal, when other nations hear they will say, Surely this little nation
is a stupid and despicable people. And much of what the sermonizers do, in
explaining and informing the masses that which they do not understand - if
only they would be silent, since they do not know and do not understand,
as it is written, "If only you would be silent, and you would have wisdom"
(Iyov 13:5). Or if they would only say that they do not understand
the intent of the sages in this statement, nor how to explain it. But
they think that they do understand it, and they attempt to announce and
explain it to the people according to what they understood with their
weak intellects, rather than what Chazal actually said."

Actually, it's interesting to note the differing responses of Rambam
vs. Rav Svei, shlita and, libadel mei'chaim l'chaim, Rav Pam zt"l. The
former was greatly saddened by people who learn this way, while the
latter were merely amused!

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Height of people in chumash


R Zev Sero wrote:
> That isn't the only source. It's also mentioned with regard to Moshe
> putting up the mishkan, which was 10 amot high, the same as his height.
> I don't think anyone will suggest that the height of the mishkan was
> not literally 10 amot.

But he could have been only figuratively "the height of the mishkan".

>                           .... Indeed, it's always been my understanding
> that Og was not human, that he and his race, the Nefilim/Refaim, were
> not descended of Adam and Chava. Perhaps they were of extraterrestrial
> origin, but in any case I see no reason to assume that they had human
> proportions, or indeed looked at all like humans.

But they had correspondants to an ankle and an amah. (Which makes their
terrestrial origin far more likely.)

...
> But Rashi in chumash doesn't do agadah, unless it's necessary to the
> simple meaning. If he says beamat ish means Og's amot, he must mean it
> literally, and be forced to this translation by a difficulty with the
> pshat, not by following some allegory in the gemara, that the 5-year-old
> he's writing for hasn't learned yet.

I know this is RMMS's position. However, who writes a notebook for anyone
but themself as the primary reader?

Also, would Rashi's grammatical notes make sense to a 5 yr old, or
address questions a 5 yr old was capable of worrying about?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 04:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Evolution


T613K@aol.com wrote:
> You can bang on their doors begging for acceptance, but the Asimovs, the
> Goulds and the Sagans do not and will not recognize you as a member of
> their august fraternity. Like anti-Semites who can't tell the difference
> between old cultured Jewish money and tattered refugees from the shtetel,
> scientists do not distinguish between intellectual, sophisticated
> religious believers and primitive, ignorant religious believers.

I do not believe it is as black and white as you say. True... many
scientists are atheist or agnostic. But that has absolutely nothing
to do with science. It is merely a conclusion by these people that
anything unproven is not yet factual. And since there are no facts that
conclusively prove God's existence, why bother?

But belief is not necessarily based on fact although facts may have a
part in that belief. If God was a profvable fact, then we would have no
Bechira Chafshis. God purposely hides himself from us in order to give
us Bechira Chafshis.

Science does not recognize belief as playing any part in its system.
It deals with experiment, repeatable results, collected data and
conclusions thereof. One's beliefs play no part. We can therefore have
scientists who are atheists and base that atheism on a default assumptuion
that if God is unproven why bother believing... or L'hephech... that
God does exist and ..IS... the Creator. It is a belief in an ultimate
truth... a philosophic concept not a scientific one. Creation however
is unproven and therefore outside the realm of science.

It is my personal belief that science and Torah are 100 percent
compatible. Any percieved conflict is either a misunderstanding of Torah
or science... or both.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:48:02 +0300
From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
sciencists and religion


[RnTK:]
> Our very sophisticated Avodah readers and writers esteem scientists, but
> that esteem is not mutual. In the eyes of the scientific establishment,
> a person who believes that G-d created the Big Bang and then set the
> universe in motion--after which all unfolded by scientific laws, with
> no further Divine involvement; or a person who believes in "guided
> evolution"--such people are self-del uded fools, no wiser and no more
> "scientific" than the most fundamentalist Millerite who believes in
> a literal six-day creation. You can bang on their doors begging for
> acceptance, but the Asimovs, the Goulds and the Sagans do not and will not
> recognize you as a member of their august fraternity. Like anti-Semites
> who can't tell the difference between old cultured Jewish money and
> tattered refugees from the shtetel, scientists do not distinguish between
> intellectual, sophisticated religious believers and primitive, ignorant
> religious believers.>

I find this post very deceiving. While there are scientists who are anti
religious I have heard enough high level scientists who do indeed believe
in G-d and many more who leave the question open. The extremists quoted
above are certain not the typical scientist.

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 22:52:52 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Cleaning up the world


Avodah V13 #61 dated 8/8/04 Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> 
writes:

> And not just Noach. Suddenly, I now understand Shem and Ever much better
> as well. They were genuine tzadikim with genuine spiritual knowledge (can
> I call it "Torah"?).... 

Yes, you can call it Torah, because that's what it was. Adam Harishon
knew the Torah and taught it to his descendants. Noach taught it to
Shem and Ever, who taught it to the Avos. The Avos voluntarily kept
the mitzvos, e.g., Avraham Avinu served matza when the malachim came,
because it was Pesach. Yakov Avinu said, "Im Lavan garti veTaryag
mitzvos shamarti."

There were only a few exceptions, necessary for the founding of
Am Yisrael--e.g., Yehuda doing yibum with a daughter-in-law, Yakov
marrying two sisters (though one died as he entered E"Y, so he was not
out of compliance with the Torah while in the Holy Land), Amram marrying
an aunt. And the shevatim marrying their sisters. All these exceptions
have to do with the continuity of a small people in its foundation stage,
with few suitable mates.

But enough rambling.  Yes, Shem and Ever taught Torah.

 -Toby Katz
=============


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 23:02:41 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject:
Re: minhag avoteichem


In a message dated 8/5/2004 5:48:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> But we don't follow any of those. Why? What *is* the determinant which
> allows us to do what we're doing?

> The answer I found was in Rav Eliyahu Kitov's Sefer HaTodaah. Volume 1,
> Page 230 of the translation ("The Book of our Heritage") as translated
> by the father of listmember R"n Katz, reads: <<< ... Hillel, the Nasi
> (prince), grandson of Rabi Yehudah the Nasi ... He and his Beit Din ...
> sanctified in advance all the new months to be observed in accord with
> their calculation, and the sanctity of Rosh Chodesh therefore adheres
> to every Rosh Chodesh, when it arrives in accord with our calendar... >>>

> Unfortunately there is no source given for that statement, but it answers
> my question very well. How else can we observe Yom Tov properly? Someone,
> at some point, *must* have been mekadesh our months long in advance.

> If the Geonim disagreed about which day was Rosh Chodesh, that does not
> prove that the calendar <<< was never fixed in our sense of a computer
> program >>>, it only proves that some details may got a bit lost in the
> transmission through the doros. Rather, our observance of Yom Tov proves
> (to my understanding) that it *was* <<< fixed in our sense of a computer
> program >>>.

I attend the RIETS dinner this year for my first time. They honored
the Roshei Kollel. One of them - iirc Rav Willig - spoke about kiddush
hachodesh ... He gave a bit of a mehalech based upon iirc the Avnei
Nezer. Ther is a macholkes in the Mishnah RH re: whether the 31st days
requires kiddush hachodesh. R. Elazar b. Zadok says im lo nir'eh bizmano,
eil medkashin osso shecvar kidshuhu shamayim

We pasken like R. Elazar b. Zadok. The svara as explained is that once
there is NO MORE SAFEK it is as if we KNOW when the kiddush hachodesh
is and BD need do no more. ONLY when they are mekadesh early - which is
the only day of doubt, is BD required to take action.

So ONCE Hillel II Hanassi delcared when Rosh Chodesh will be THERE IS
NO MORE safek and therefore NO BD needs to take any further action.
{AISI almost like an anan sahadi we don't NEED witness....}

So it works like this. During zman of BD musmachin, BD had the
responsility to make Iddush hachodesh on day 30. Day 31 was by default

After Hillel, ALL days have been automated and no further action by BD
is required. Furthermore - AISI if Ben Meir or Saddya Gaon or Eliyahu
Hanavi or the Moshiach tweek the formula it's no big deal. Once Everyone
IS MASKIM then the new "anan Sahadi" would kick in. Only when there is
a machlokes exists could safek exist, etc.

Kol Tuv;
Rich Wolpoe RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 10:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
RE: minhag avoteichem


R David Cohen wrote:
> The Ramban adopts the "advance kidush by Hillel II" approach, while
> the Rambam holds that it's today's inhabitants of Erets Yisra'el that
> are doing it. This seems consistent with the Rambam's position that
> a consensus of the contemporary chakhamim of Erets Yira'el has the
> authority of a Sanhedrin (as per Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:11).

I'm confused by this Ramban, and do not see the connection to the Rambam.
Sanhedrin has the power to perform qidush hachodesh not in their role
of poseqim but in their role as representatives of the kahal. The same
as their role in buying qorbanos tzibur.

Second, about the Rambam: if they truly have the power of a Sanhedrin,
why doesn't the Yerushalmi take a far greater role in halakhah than does
the Bavli?

...
> As for how this relates to the dispute between R' Sa`adyah Ga'on and R'
> Aharon ben Me'ir, I refer you to the excellent articles written by list
> members R' Yosef Gavriel Bechofer and R' Ari Zivotofsky, which perhaps
> one of them would be kind enough to share.

They were posted to the list when they originally appeared. There was
subsequent conversation. Ayin sham.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:49:59 +0300
From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
Re: minhag avoteichem - fixed calendar


Since I have received several off-list comments let me try and clarify
my position.

My claim is that the change in the calendar from a (almost) pure witness
based calendar to a fixed calendar occurred over several centuries.
Like the law that "Lo Adu Rosh" was introduced (probably in stages)
much earlier than Hillel II. Hence, is is quite fuzzy what Hillel II
actually did. As pointed out his was not even the final nail as there
were arguments over the details hundreds of years later.

Thus, it is very conceivable that way before Hillel II yomtov sheni was
sufficiently fixed that the discussion in gemara beitzah took place.
Again, a reminder that in the time of Saadyah Gaon Rosh Hashana was
celebrated on different days in EY and Bavel. So again there was no 100%
certainty what day yomtov would fall out for several hundred years after
the completion of the gemara. As such in the days of Hillel II the date of
yomtov may have changed from 90% certainty to 99% (for example). There is
no reason to assume that this change prompted the discussion over keeping
2 days of yomtom in galut. Again, MAYBE the gemara in Beitzah predates
Hillel II (I don't claim to have any proof that it does only a maybe).

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 00:52:02 -0400
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Subject:
t'cheiles (was: tfillin not worn)


R' Saul Mashbaum wrote <<< Almost everyone who does not wear t'cheilet
feels that "if lavan alone was good enough for my father and my rebbeim,
it's good enough for me". >>>

I sure hope no one says that kind of stuff when the Beis Hamikdash
is rebuilt.

That was not sarcastic. Their not wearing it was because it wasn't
available; lavan alone was *not* necessarily good enough for them.

The main reason that I don't wear t'cheiles is because of my (perhaps
mistaken) understanding the the tzitzis must be either white or techeiles,
and other colors are problematic. Therefore, while I do see some respected
gedolim wearing it, I don't sense that so many of them are wearing it
that they would constitute a consensus, or majority, or whatever. Perhaps
some of them will stop wearing it, or perhaps the snowball will gather
even more steam. Meanwhile, I*am* watching and listening.

BTW, among those who do wear it today, is there only one kind? I've gotten
the impression that there are at least a couple of mutually exclusive
kinds, which would weaken any arument that a consensus is developing.

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 03:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Shiv'im pa'nim la'torah


RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> I haven't researched this but the question is why 70 and not some other
> number like 100 or 10 etc.

Think... Septuigent.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 13:19:13 -0500
From: Elly Bachrach <ebachrach@engineeringintent.com>
Subject:
Re: Who saw the Luchos?


RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/2/2004 2:24:58 PM EDT, ykaganoff@yahoo.com writes:
>> Over Shabbos a question came up regarding the Luchos? Who, besides
>> Moshe, saw either the Luchos Rishonos or Shniyos? If they were put away
>> immediately after they were carved, did anyone, in Moshe's generation
>> or later, ever see them?

> for sure at least Yehoshua saw the first set before Moshe smashed

I imagine according to the midrash, shaul saw them too.

There is a medresh my daughter showed me, in which shaul took the luchos out
of the aron.  At the time when the aron was captured by the pelishtim, the
pesukim mention a person from binyamin who ran and told Eli of the deaths of
his sons and the capture of the araon.  The medresh says this was Shaul.
After running all the way from the battle to shiloh, he realized the luchos
were in danger, and ran back.  He managed to sneak in (apparently golyas was
there guarding), open the aron (!!), grab the luchos, and run back to shilo
with them.

I did not see this medresh in any  original source; I read it in the radak,
who calls it rachok m'od.

elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 22:54:35 +0300
From: eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
tikun ha-olam


"On the contrary. There is a huge obligation of tikun olam in terms
of encouraging the moral development of goyim. But that obligation is
entirely on us, not on them. A goy has to worry about his own moral
development, and has no mitzvah to educate his neighbour. A goy can be a
Noach, and when the flood comes he will build his tevah and be saved. He
doesn't have to care about his neighbours' behaviour, or try to improve
them and prevent the flood. But Avraham's mission is different, it's not
just to perfect himself but to perfect the whole world. The nitzotzot
that are among the goyim must be retrieved, not by the goyim but by
us. Which is why 'the Jews were only exiled among the goyim in order
that converts be added to them'."

According to this all those people (not just Germans) who knew what was
happening in the death camps were perfectly justified in ignoring it.
The story is that the future pope was pleaded with to help the Jews in
his city and he refused (and is not up for sainthood). According to the
above he was completely justified according to Halacha.

So why do we object to such people?

Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:59:58 -0400
From: "" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Subject:
Evolution and Creationism


RNS, zoorabbi@zootorah.com posted on: Aug 8, 2004: 
> There are lots of questions with evolution that still need to be resolved,
> which is why a Creationist who raises these questions can come across as
> having scored a victory. But there are far more questions to be raised
> with Creationists ....

Really? Are there many "questions" other than those that exist simply
because the questioners refuse to accept the principle (which was not
first invented to "answer" evoutionists) that Hashem created the universe
in full form, and yes, with light-waves from stars already on their way
to earth?

>   Anyway, haven't you ever heard of "von a kashya, shtarbt
> man nisht!" (It's interesting how selective we are with using that!)

We Creationists have a mesorah from HaKadosh Baruch Hu, and therefore
we look with skeptisicm at claims that contradict it. What compelling
cause is there that makes evolutionists discount creation out-of-hand?

Zvi Lampel


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:10:20 -0400
From: "Feldhamer, Stuart" <Stuart.Feldhamer@us.cibc.com>
Subject:
RE: Height of people in chumash


[ R Zev Sero:}
>> Why such a big bed?

> To impress people?  Or because he wasn't the only occupant? (A friend
> pointed out that his daughter only uses a small proportion of her bed
> to sleep - the rest is given over to stuffed animals...)

> Why do some people sleep in enormous four-posters that are far bigger
> than they need?  Because they like it...
> This is all idle speculation.  My only point is that, when the Torah
> tells us how big his bed was, we don't need to suppose that we can
> derive *anything* from this about his height.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. I definitely
agree with you that it's hard to draw any specific inference about Og's
measurements from the size of his bed, given that we don't know how much
extra space he wanted to have, etc.. However, it seems pretty clear to me
that the pasuk is trying to tell us *something* about Og's measurements,
not about how much extra space he had on his bed.

The beginning of the pasuk says, "Ki rak Og melech HaBashan nishar
mi'yeter harefaim". Then it goes on, "hinei orso..." and gives us
the measurements. If refaim means "giants" or something similar, it
would make sense why the Torah then gives measurements for Og's bed,
to prove the point. However, refaim may mean something else, in which
case the second half of the pasuk would be trying to tell us something
else. But I can't see refaim referring to a class of people who really
liked to have a lot of space in their beds or a lot of stuffed animals
or something like that. There must be some connection between the two
parts of the pasuk, right?

Stuart


Go to top.


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


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >