Avodah Mailing List

Volume 19: Number 7

Thu, 14 Sep 2006

• 1. Re: Chazal are Infallible (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Chazal are Infallible (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 3. Re: Monsey kashrut problem (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Phantom Chazal? (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Sukkah GT 20 amot high (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Henna parties (from areivim) (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Chazal are Infallible (hankman)
• 8. Henna parties (Sober Family)
• 9. Re: Sukkah GT 20 amot high (hankman)
• 10. Re: Monsey kashrut problem (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 11. Re: Chazal are Infallible (Arie Folger)

 


I was particularly struck by the tosafot, especially on 8a s.v. kama,
which brilliantly (via an example of filling an area with strings which
are then cut and re-arranged) proved certain relationships between
squares and circles.  However, the basic issue of area and spatial
relationships are known to any high school freshman (if not earlier)
based on rudimentary equations of pi, x-squared, and the Pythagorean
theorem, which were obviously unknown to Rashi, Tosafot, and likely many
views of the gemara as well (see e.g. 8b).

SLK
======================================================
I was wondering about hafoch bah in this context. Is it possible that at
one time all knowledge was attainable through Torah mesorah but at some
point that mesorah was lost, or is kulah bah not to be taken literally?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' Shalom Kohn:
> I was particularly struck by the tosafot, especially on 8a s.v. kama,
> which brilliantly (via an example of filling an area with strings which
> are then cut and re-arranged) proved certain relationships between squares
> and circles.  However, the basic issue of area and spatial relationships
> are known to any high school freshman (if not earlier) based on
> rudimentary equations of pi, x-squared, and the Pythagorean theorem, which
> were obviously unknown to Rashi, Tosafot, and likely many views of the
> gemara as well (see e.g. 8b).
> 
> Should we lose our respect for the gemara, Rashi and tosafot because their
> understanding of geometry was so unsophisticated?

Why does the explanation of Tosfos, which is intended to explain to any
level of reader, indicate the Ba'alei Tosfos' own level of understanding and
comprehension? Indeed, we find that Rishonim and Acharonim were familiar
with advanced geometry and trigonometry, e.g. the Rambam and the Vilna Gaon.
However, when writing for the Hamon Am, they wrote on an easily understood
level. This is akin to the popular science books written these days to make
money, which would not sell were they written in the technical jargon and
intellectual depth common to experts in the field. 

KT,
MYG 

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 05:58:05PM +0000, Kohn, Shalom wrote:
: I understand that one ingesting non-kosher may need some kind of
: "tahara" on the principle that non-kosher is me-tamteim es halev, and
: that one properly feels violated for eating non-kosher, even b'oness.
: But "kaparah"?

Is this oneis or shogeig?

Second, the line between taharah and kaparah isn't well defined; they
seem to be causally linked in "yekhapeir aleikhem letaheir eskhem".

Last, isn't there a principle that misgalgelim chov al yedei chayav,
or aveirah goreres aveirah, or the Besh"t's explanation of why someone
who sees a sotah beqilqulah should become a nazir (that Hashem shows
you want He needs you to see), kol haposeil bemumo poseil, etc... IOW,
that the incident shows a pegam elsewhere.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R Moshe Yehuda Gluck <mgluck@gmail.com> writes:
: "One who prohibits the permitted will end up permitting the prohibited."
: Any takers?

I never heard it before. To me it sounds like a conflation of kol
hamosif gorei'ah and kol hameracheim al ha'achzarim...

-mi

On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:37:47AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: My conclusion is that when the halacha talks about "sitting in the 
: shade of the s'chach", this is an idiomatic phrase which actually 
: means, "sitting in a place which WOULD be in the shade of the s'chach 
: IF the sun were directly overhead."

If the sun were perfectly overhead, walls wouldn't block it at all. And
thus there would be no shiur.

Again, it seems safer to look at it as a psychological issue rather than
a physical one.

-mi

It would seem to me that the only problem is when an Ashkenazia marries
a Sepharadi. Since they aren't married yet, she has to follow Ashkenazi
pesaq until the actual chupah, and the henna is an iffy.

But the minhag exists because Sepharadim bedavka do not consider anything
that lasts that long and has no thickness to be a chatzitzah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

RSLK wrote:
Should we lose our respect for the gemara, Rashi and tosafot because their understanding of geometry was so unsophisticated? 

CM responds:
Of course not. A common response is that they knew that these values were not exact, but only approximations. They used these values because in halacha these approximations are sufficient. I am not sure if this answer can be used for all the later meforshim as well as it may be hard to fit into  some of their discussions.

RSLK:
 Or do we assume that "nishtaneh ha-tevah" and that the geometric relationships of circles and squares has changed?  

CM:
Again, of course not. There is no need for nishtaneh hatevah as they knew these were only approximations. Besides how do you apply this to a mathematical concept as opposed to a physical reality?

RSLK:
Or rather (my view) that it is perfectly fine for chazal to have dealt with the level of knowledge at the time, and we need not hold them to account on areas outside the purview of torah? 

CM:
Actual the Babylonians and Greeks had better values than the ones used in shas. It is safe to assume that chazal knew these values that well preceded the time of the mishna and gemara even if you choose to assume that chazal only knew what the intelligencia of their day knew in science. They chose to use these rounded values since these approx. were sufficient halachakly and easier for the less sophisticated hamon am to use. By the time of Archimedes, who preceded mishna by several centuries,  one could (theoretically) use the circumference of an 2n sided polygon to approx. a circle. As n grows large this converges (slowly and tediously) to pi. So they were able to calculate pi to great accuracy if they so desired.

BTW there is a well known remez to a better value in the pasuk about the yam shel Shlomo that ostensibly is the source for the value of 3 for pi. there is a kri and a ksiv for the word kav with and without the 'heh.' The ratio of 111/106 (ksiv over kri) when used as a correction for the approx. value of pi of 3 used in the pasuk gives 3.1415, a much better value, although not the infinite digits of the real decimal value. This value is the correct one (infinite places) truncated to 4 decimal places.

KVT

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060913/b0e1405f/attachment.htm

RSM: "This, if true,  sounds like a serious problem of chatzitza b'tvila to me (IIAMN, the henna party often preceeds the tvila by several days). ..."

SA YD 198:17 - "Colour with which women colour their faces and hands and the hair of their head is not chotzetz, and similarly a dyer whose hands are dyed - it is not chotzetz."

BY explains this, quoting RoSH: "Women who colour themselves - it appears that this is not chotzetz because it is decorative and they are not makpid but do so intentionally, and furthermore the colour has no independent substance but is merely an appearance."

AFAIK, we can be lenient with hair dye because she is ainah makpedet - on the contrary, she wants her hair to be dyed, and also because the dye has no independent substance but is absorbed into the hair. (I imagine that the same principle would apply if one were matbil an item of dyed clothing for tumah/taharah purposes?)

I assume that we can be lenient about henna on hands (cosmetic and absorbed into the skin) based on similar principles. In fact, with hands, there is definitely no problem of rov. With hair there is a problem of rov according to some Rishonim - but as we have seen the dye is considered part of the hair, not a separate substance that intervenes between the hair and the water. As you can see, both cases are brought down in the SA as mutar.

RnTK "was told that we posken not to make a fuss if women  
show up at the mikva with fake (glued-on) fingernails, colorful polished  
manicures,  or dyed hair."

Re dyed hair - see above. Acrylic nails or nail polish is a minority of her body about which she is not makpedet - in fact, the polish or acrylic is decorative and she wants it to remain in place. Long nails are not inherently a chatzitza - they are part of her body - the custom to cut them short is based on the difficulty in cleaning them properly. Some authorities consider this an absolute requirement, but others leave room for leniency and it is not uncommon especially for kallot to be allowed to clean their nails well without cutting them short.

For both hair dye and nail polish - the dye or polish should be in good condition, not chipped or growing out in such a way that most women would not like the way it looked. Dye or polish that looks bad is no longer considered a desirable cosmetic.

L'chat'chila, we try to remove all foreign substances before tevilah. Bediavad - when a woman has a need or desire not to remove some foreign object (e.g., a medical, cosmetic, or unremovable item) a specific individual she'elah should always be asked, especially if the alternative is delaying mikveh or chas v'shalom dropping mikveh observance altogether.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060913/9ee28aa0/attachment.html

RAM wrote:
My conclusion is that when the halacha talks about "sitting in the 
shade of the s'chach", this is an idiomatic phrase which actually 
means, "sitting in a place which WOULD be in the shade of the s'chach 
IF the sun were directly overhead."

CM responds:
I don't get it. If the sun is always considered directly overhead,  there is NEVER "tsel defanos." What is the difference between 19 amos and 21 amos?

Night never bothered me because it must mean "at some point in the day" but in  the arctic you can have entire 24/7 hour periods with the sun on or near the horizon (above or below).

Of course if it is all psychological then the actual angle of the sun is of no matter.

KVT
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060913/551a3589/attachment.htm

R' Shalom Kohn:
> Finally, I understand that if the chamor of Pinchas ben Yair did not eat
> treif, tzaddikim atzma lo kol she-kain, so that someone who might
> otherwise have considered that adage applicable to themselves would
> conclude that indeed, their status as a tzaddik may not be as firm as they
> would have hoped.  Thus, if anything, I would think the mussar for the
> Monsey community is that we are not at the level of Pinchas ben Yair's
> chamor.  This is a cause for increased humility and probably teshuva, but
> again, not "kaparah."

We have previously discussed the Chamor of R' Pinchos ben Yair, and I have
pointed out that entire "Tzadikim atzman lo kol she'kein" does not apply
B'zman Ha'zeh, as is clear in Chulin 5B, ToDH Tzadikim Atzman. 

KT,
MYG

RSKohn wrote:
> I was particularly struck by the tosafot, especially on 8a s.v. kama, which
> brilliantly (via an example of filling an area with strings which are then
> cut and re-arranged) proved certain relationships between squares and
> circles.  However, the basic issue of area and spatial relationships are
> known to any high school freshman (if not earlier) based on rudimentary
> equations of pi, x-squared, and the Pythagorean theorem, which were
> obviously unknown to Rashi, Tosafot, and likely many views of the gemara as
> well (see e.g. 8b).
>
> Should we lose our respect for the gemara, Rashi and tosafot because their
> understanding of geometry was so unsophisticated?

Eh, regarding the Rishonim, let me clearly state the opposite. There are 
elements in the Israeli education scene that want to make Tosafot's proof 
(which is actually from an earlier Jewish source, I believe) standard in 
teaching geometry, because students can more readily grasp it than the usualy 
calculations. That this beautiful and simple proof comes from our masters, 
the Rishonim, is of course an important benefit. The secular Israeli teenager 
will be somewhat exposed to their greatness through a subject matter he 
understands.

I would restate your speculation, saying that 'Hazal were interested in 
stating things in such a way that a non-scientifically trained person could 
apply halakhah. RMB stated the same thing regarding the height of the sukkah, 
IIRC.

It is only nowadays, when many people have the benefit of a science education, 
that we look at these statements askance, because we cannot remember that 
almost nobody among the common folk would have know how to apply the 
halakhah, had the gemeara stated that "sukkah 'agulah, midatah ``pi'' Yevanit 
pe'am shoresh shel shetayim kaful arba' amot." Come to think of it, even 
nowadays most people wouldn't know what to do with this, once they are out of 
high school.

Kol tuv,

Arie Folger


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 2, Issue 7
************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."