Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 030

Wednesday, May 15 2002

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:23:43 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
CC'S CHIDDUSH ??


From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> I think R. Seth Mandel's explanation (that the CC was mechadesh) is
> more likely....

Talking about "Ure'isem Osoy' and the CC's chiddush, someone showed
me a Biur Hagro on "...Ikkar mitzvas TK kdei shetomid yirehu veyizkor
hamitzvos" (Mechaber OC 8: 11) ...k'moy shekosuv ure'isem osoy... He also
writes there '...shetzorich leharos bechosem shehu eved..." - Which may
(according to my friend) somehow be a rayoh to the CC's views.

Now we'll wait for our resident Gro'nik's learned response...

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:55:46 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: tzitzis


On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 12:41:22PM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote:
: And, also, I guess I need to read RSM's gevaldig post again, but I still
: don't understand why we darshen that we don't have to wear it at night
: and yet also that we don't have to see them during the day.

We don't build pesaq from hashkafah. If it seems mistabeir from the
ta'am hamitzvah but isn't a chiyuv, you have to rethink the ta'am
hamitzvah. Here there's a bit of a keneitch since that ta'am appears
to be peshat in the next word "velo sasuru..."

In this case, the pasuq says "ur'isem oso". Mesorah tells us that this
gives a time -- wear them when they can be seen, ie during the day.
There is therefore no pasuq left saying that it actually has to be
seen or visible.

Now, while pesaq doesn't come from sevarah, dinim derabbanan do (which no
one claims this is); and it's the most common source for minhagim. This
was the point I obliquely raised WRT yarmulka. There is no halachic
basis for yarmulka -- "just" a comparison to head covering during the
more intense avodas Hashem of the kohanim.

Wearing tzitzis out fits that model of minhag. Even if it's a relatively
new idea.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   unity-how does it draw out one's soul?


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:18:53 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
RE: Shabou'ot, Yom Tob, Meat or Dairy


From: SBA [mailto:sba@iprimus.com.au] on Areivim
> We have a minhag - and AFAIK so do many Oberlenders - of actually forgoing
> the standard meat meal Shvu'os night for a delicious dairy (+ fish) meal.
> And family and visitors have a real Oneg Yom Tov...

I think that this is common among many families in the US, though I
don't know whether they have a old minhag to that effect, or are simply
looking for an excuse to get away from the typical Yom Tov fare of one
meat meal after another.

It seems clear that the Ramo's minhag was to have dairy followed by
meat at the same meal (the Ramo gives the makor for the minhag that by
doing so, you have to bring out a different loaf of bread--alluding to
the shtei halechem). When did the Oberlander minhag start? Are there
other communities which have such a minhag? How does such a minhag
overcome the general halacha that one should eat meat on Yom Tov because
"ain simcha ela b'basar v'yayin?"

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:19:09 +0300
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
RE: Shabou'ot, Yom Tob, Meat or Dairy


On 14 May 2002 at 12:18, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> It seems clear that the Ramo's minhag was to have dairy followed by
> meat at the same meal (the Ramo gives the makor for the minhag that by
> doing so, you have to bring out a different loaf of bread--alluding to
> the shtei halechem). 

There was a lengthy discussion about this two years ago and I know
because I started it :-) The heading was "Shavuos Minhag." See Vol 5,
Number 69-71 and Volume 7, Number 47.

-- Carl


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:21:10 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Fwd: RE: Shavuos Divrei Torah


 From my brother in law - I should note that I do own a NE somewhwere!

YGB

			--------------------------------
From: "Brown, Chaim F"
To: "'Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer'" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: RE: Shavuos Divrei Torah
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:06:52 -0400
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2655.55)

N.E. writes b'kitzur, basar=gashmiyus, chalav=ruchniyus (mentions
the gemara of dam ne'kar v'na'asah chalav=being ma'aleh gashmiyus to
ruchniyus). Malachim can achieve that yichud where both are one and the
same; it was an ideal realized at mattan Torah as well, but for most of
the time there remains an issur of basar v'chalav that represents our
inability to bridge the chasam.

I spoke at seudah shlishis at Agudah before pesach and discussed B.M. 86b
Avraham fed malachim lechem=matzah (RS"G, Rashi), and they ate simply not
to be meshaneh. There is no a priori reason for malachim not to be able
to eat (see maharasha there!), but matzah represents itkasya, a stira
to malachim whose whole essence is represented by their food=man (lechem
abirim), itgalya. (See Maor V'Shemesh remez yom rishon shel pesach that
we never find man and matzah together, R' Tzaddok in Yisrael Kedoshim
draws the contrast, also mentioned the Berdichiver on mem-tzadi=at bash
of shem Yud-Key to represent hidden aspect.) That mehalaich is similar
to yours, but I used the matzah idea instead of chalav.

One he'ora - pashtus in the gemara is they ate the lechem of Avraham.
mefurash on the next daf that the bread was never served because pirsa
sarah niddah. I have no good teirutz.

Shabbos 89a the Satan asks Hashem where the Torah is - Hashem responds
I gave it it the aretz. Aretz says I don't have it - go to the yam.
Yam says I don't have it - go to ben Amram. Satan searches all over
and comes back empty handed. Hashem then tells him go to ben Amram, etc.

Asks the Noam Elimelech - Why go through this hide and seek game?
Why did Hashem not reply directly that Moshe has it, esp. as everything
else seems to circumvent the truth?

Aretz=gashmiyus, yam=tshuvah. Torah reaches even the lowest levels of
"shelo lishma" within gashmiyus, but a satan=midas hadin cannot fathom
anything except Torah given to ben Amram who was mufrash from the world.
(N.E. has it a drop differently-hopefully I have not corrupted the idea).

Its time you add a Noam Elimelech to your library!


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:19:10 +0300
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: tzitzis


On 14 May 2002 at 15:55, Micha Berger wrote:
> Wearing tzitzis out fits that model of minhag. Even if it's a relatively
> new idea.

R. Zvi Cohen in his sefer on Tzitzis brings wearing tzitzis out in
8:54-55.

The mkoros he brings include the Shla (brought in Eliyahu Rabba 12,
Artzos HaChayim [Beis Heh Mem Lamed - not clear to me what this is]
50a and Pischei Olam 23); and Shu"t Az Nidbaru 3:43.

And of course the Mishna Brura I cited earlier in this discussion.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:57:29 GMT
From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
Subject:
RE: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael


Someone wrote <<< large families (around 60 IIRC) to get from 70 to
600,000 in 210 years. >>>

R' Akiva Atwood wrote <<< It doesn't require large families -- given a
15 to 20-year generation, we are looking at 11-14 generations. I'll try
to dig up a excel spreadsheet I made a few years ago -- but the problem
was how to keep the population DOWN to 600,000 after 210 years. >>>

Try this:

1) start with 70 people
2) 35 couples with 5 kids each: 175 people
3) 87 couples with 5 kids each: 435 people
4) 217 couples with 5 kids each: 1085 people
5) 542 couples with 5 kids each: 2710 people
6) 1355 couples with 5 kids each: 6775 people
7) 3387 couples with 5 kids each: 16,935 people
8) 8467 couples with 5 kids each: 42,335 people
9) 21,167 couples with 5 kids each: 105,835 people
10) 52,917 couples with 5 kids each: 264,585 people
11) 132,292 couples with 5 kids each: 661,460 people
12) 330,730 couples with 5 kids each: 1,653,650 people

Akiva Miller


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:28:07 +0300
From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
RE: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael


>
> 1) start with 70 people
> 2) 35 couples with 5 kids each: 175 people
SNIP
> 11) 132,292 couples with 5 kids each: 661,460 people
> 12) 330,730 couples with 5 kids each: 1,653,650 people

That's the idea -- but mine went up faster because I figured it year by
year -- with 1 birth every 4 years between 18 and 40

I ended up factoring in a huge mortality rate to keep the figure down.

IOW, there was no need for 6-at-a-time births.

Akiva


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:46:53 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael


On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 06:57:29PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: 1) start with 70 people
: 2) 35 couples with 5 kids each: 175 people

The 70 people were far more than 35 couples, even excluding those who
were too old to have children. Yaakov's daughters in law aren't counted
among the 70.

You also ignore the high mortality rate of being a nation of slaves and
the Moshe's generation that was low on boys. I think 6 kids per couple
(avg), which could be what the medrash means, would be enough to cover
it.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:41:01 -0400
From: "David Glasner" <dglasner@ftc.gov>
Subject:
Re: Dor Revi'i's Essay on Zionism (Part I)


ZIONISM IN THE LIGHT OF FAITH

I. 	Nationality and Religion

Since the appearance of Herzl's movement, which aroused Jewry from its
slumber with its call to self-help, many have dealt with the question
whether it is appropriate to view Jewry in its dispersion among the
nations and its association with them as a nationality unto itself.

For the Gentile the question does not exist at all. To the cobbler
who utters the epithet Yid as a matter of course and to the enlightened
Christian who imposes social and economic ostracism upon the Jew in a
polite fashion, or treats him, at any rate, as one without equal rights,
it is clear that the Jew, because of his special inherited traits,
his manners and traditions, is perceived and endured as a pin in the
raw flesh of the nations.

It is appropriate to note that in discussing this question, the two
opposite extremes in Judaism * the assimilationists on one side and those
called "Hareidim" on the other * come together to oppose, each for its own
reasons and motives, the awakened national feeling. The assimilationists
do not believe in the future of Judaism and they are tied to it only
by a cultural connection: this connection is satisfied with a visit
to the temple during the High Holy Days and the memorial days, while in
all areas of life they do not differ fundamentally from the Chrisitans.
They therefore do not understand what offense the Gentile society has
found in them and why they do not treat them as equal citizens.

With the assimilationists there is nothing to discuss, for they have
become estranged from Judaism and have become very far removed from it.
In an outward way, as in their inward aspiration, they see themselves
as part of the governing nationality. It is therefore regrettable that
Christian society does not honor their ways and identifies in them foreign
characteristics whose existence they deny completely. This situation
often results in baptism. We are witness to this outcome in a shocking
way especially now at the moment of the reawakening of the national
feeling of Israel and the strengthening of its aspiration for national
independence. In this circumstance, our assimilationists are confused
and they see apostasy as their only alternative. We do, indeed, regret
that the birth of the national idea in Israel is hastening the pace of
separation from the people. However, ultimately there is in this no loss
for the revival of Judaism, for in the assimilationist principle within us
always posed a danger to the survival of the Jewish community. And though
we were witnesses over fifty years ago to a similar process of separation
between the Orthodox and the Neologs, it was really the aspiration for
assimilation that was the hidden impetus for the separation.

Those who were somewhat Hareidi and those who were not Hareidi at all were
confused by the onset of Emancipation and believed that they discerned in
it the complete redemption, the redemption of Israel for which they had
been hoping and praying. They thought that, with the formal removal of
the walls of the ghetto, the spiritual walls between Jews and Gentiles
had also been destroyed. The spirit of Israel would be able to work
successfully in all areas of life: in the arts, in science and literature.
The end of the Diaspora had come. Within this view lay a serious
danger to the survival of faithful Judaism or of Judaism of any kind.
There was no way to confront this danger but that of separation.

But here a serious mistake was made. The separation was based on a
religious distinction. They tried to prove that between the Orthodox
and the Neologs there were dogmatic differences that did not allow them
to coexist. But they hid the true reason for the separation that was
contained in the assimilationist tendency of the reformist movement,
Neologism, and that the survival of the Jewish nation required the most
determined opposition to this movement.

Loyal Jews did not have the courage to announce and declare the
simple truth that the Judaism that survived the two thousand year
diaspora undergoing the most difficult trials through the strength
of the unqualified faith in the true redemption that would bring to
full realization the national life of the Jewish nation on the holy
land of Israel was not prepared to abandon its hope in exchange for an
emancipation on paper that had not, in fact, been realized at all or
in part. Orthodoxy was too timid not to agree that the emancipation *
on the assumption that its intention was to disperse the nation among
the host countries * was not useful or desirable inasmuch as we had
not abandoned the hope for a full national life in the Holy Land.
Thus, Orthodoxy clothed itself in the cloak of patriotism and stood in
competition with Neologism in a contest of chauvinism.

The final achievement of the national association of Orthodoxy in
Budapest is typical of the conduct of the Orthodox leadership. With the
collapse of the Great Powers in October 1918 it was announced that it was
necessary to call a national assembly for the sake of a demonstration to
support the demand for a unified Hungarian state. The Neolog leaders,
Ferenc Szekely and Vilmos Vazsonyi, gathered the Jewish communities,
without any partisan distinction, to a convention in Budapest, so that
Hungarian Jews, Hungarians of the Mosaic faith, would express their
opinion in favor of a unified state. The leadership of the Orthodox
announced in an official message, that it viewed the proclamation as
redundant, even dangerous. The proclamation could be interpreted to mean
that there was some special necessity for the Jews of Hungary to declare
that they were full Hungarians, whereas for members of other faiths the
matter was self- evident. In a critical period, in a period in which
the great powers of the world recognized the right of every nation and,
in particular, of the Jewish nation, to national independence, the
official Orthodox leadership continued to maintain this shameful lie,
as if the Jews were only a separate religious community (Hungarians of
the Mosaic faith), but, as a people, were complete Hungarians, like the
Catholics or the Protestants.

And what happened a few months later when upper Hungary joined
Czechoslovakia? Here the Orthodox organized itself in the spirit
of the old Hungarian Orthodoxy. It proclaimed itself a separate
religious community and it allowed its national status to be
decided by the government. The same people that took a key position
in Hungarian Orthodoxy and issued in its name the above proclamation,
now announced to the President of Czechoslovakia that they were seeking
only protection for the autonomy of the religious Jewish community,
awaiting the future determination of their nationality, while bhetto,
the spiritual walls b being indifferent about whether they would be
classified as Czechoslovaks or Hungarians. The President of the state,
of course, denied their request decisively, as we read in the Israelit
(July 1919, p. 27). What will the Czechoslovak government say and what
will the Hungarian government say concerning this playing with the most
sacred feelings of national thinking?

In light of what has been said it would be unnecessary to prove
that those who are called Hareidim deny their Jewish nationality
for political reasons, as it were, and in so doing they cooperate
with the assimilationists. The truth is that the Jewish people is a
nation that, like all other nations, has national aspirations. It is
therefore necessary to seek the origins of the falsehood that we are
just a religious community. It will not be redundant then if I say here
a few words on the subject "faith" or "nation" from a religious and
philosophical point of view.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:41:22 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Chag haBikurim


Bechorah is a major theme in the Torah from Qayin and Hevel to Aaron and
Mosheh. In between is the interplay between benei Noach and a parallel
in benei Terach, Yitchaq vs Yishma'el, Yaaqov and Eisav, Rachel and Lei'ah,
Yosef and his brothers, Efraim and Menashah.

Why?

Perhaps because we are "beni bechori Yisra'el". Without knowing what a
bechor is, we can't know what being Yisra'el is.

Sorry for just giving rashei peraqim. I'm having a hard enough time
finding when to write this much before Shavu'os. Look into each family,
and you'll see real lessons about the role of the older brother, and
therefore about our role as Yisra'el.

This thought hit me when it was pointed out to me how off the relationship
between Qayin and Hevel was. Note that Adam and Chavah considered Hevel
an appendage of Qayin! "Vatosef laledes es achiv as Hevel" (Ber' 4:2). No
wonder Qayin wasn't ready to be surpassed by his helper.


Shavu'os is the time in which we assume the responsibilities of the
bechor. Zeman Matan Toraseinu is when we become a mamleches kohanim,
priest-teachers to the other ummos.

And therefore it's precisely at Chag haBikurim, when the farmer
expresses his joy with the first of the crop. That joy of bikurim
is the joy of bechorah. The qedushah of the grain being brought
is the qedushah of the "goy qadosh".

And, like grain, it's but a seed. Planted to mature over the course of
history, until the final messianic "Ki mitziyon teitzei Torah, udvar
Hashem miYrushalayim!" BB"A!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   unity-how does it draw out one's soul?


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Belief


Gil Student <gil_student@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Harry Maryles wrote:
>> That's fascinating. R. Wasserman then belives that belief must be rational 
>> and that and that any previously held beleif must be discarded if 
>> rationality disproves it. It also seems obvious that his own belief was 
>> based on rationality.

> Yes and no.  REW believes that proper rational thought leads directly to the 
> Torah.  In this, he is following (perhaps unwittingly) Ralbag and AIUI Moses 
> Mendlessohn.

> If rational thought leads you to any place except for Torah then the 
> rationality of your thougts is suspect.  Thus, you should not reject Torah 
> if rationality disproves it because your "rationality" is then, by 
> definition, irrational due to circumstances that are ultimately under your 
> control.

I can't accept this argument. I admit that personal bias affects rational
thought. But rational thinking is a process which is independant of Torah
and is not enough to get you there. One must also use intuition and a
certian degree of faith. Otherwise Bechira Chafshis is lost. By your
definition, if a man is born and grows up on an island paradise with no
external influences and is able to provide for his existence then his
rational thought should lead him to belief in G-d and His Torah. Do you
think it would?

HM


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:50:36 -0400
From: "yosef stern" <avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com>
Subject:
People didn't wear undergarments at the time of the CC !?


SBA writes:
>Please, rabosay! People didn't wear undergarments at the time of the CC !?
> She'al ovicho veyagedcho - zekenecho veyomru loch...

I don't have the sources in front of me at the moment but the Rema in
Hilchos Tisha B'av writes concerning the Kesones one may wear on Shabbos
Chazzon ( and in Hilchos Aveilus RL that an Oveil RL does not tear Kriah
the) Kesones because its only a Begged Shel Ze'a. Now doesn't that come
under the category of an under garment?

And how about the Michnosayim that the Kohanim wore were they not
undergarments?

And above all see Ralbag on Shmuel2, 10:4 on the word Madveihem.

kol tuv
yosef stern


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:06:04 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
Subject:
Hallel on Rosh Chodesh


This week, whilst saying Hallel, I began thinking about something
which maybe I should have asked decades ago...Why do we say Hallel on
Rosh Chodesh?

Pesach, Sh'vuos, Sukkos, Chanukah all have excellent reasons for Hallel
veHodo'eh...but RC? What are we specially thankful and grateful for?

I admit that, lekatchileh, I was embarassed to asked anyone - as I was
sure that the answer must be so obvious than every cheder yingel would
know it. So I quitely pulled out the Taamei Haminhogim - expecting at
least half a dozen reasons [kedarkoy bakoydesh]. However, I was surprised
to see that he only brings one - from the Tanya Rabosi - that the kapitl
Tehillim Hallelukah Hallelu has Hallel 12 times...one for each RC.

My question wasn't really resolved by this drush and I kept looking -
but with not much success.

The Oruch Hashulchan says that Hallel on RC is a minhag and not din -
unlike the other times when it is said, when 'shenaasu nisim veyeshu'os'.
The minhag however - he writes - is from the times of Chazal. (The OH
also mentions the remez of 12 x Hallel - b'shem Hagaonim.)

Finally he says 'ikkar hataam nireh remez lematzovenu k'mo she'omrim
bebirchas halevono, lochen choshvinen zeh l'ktzas yeshu'oh vehinhigu
behallel'.

I'd be happy to hear some elucidation on that.

I, meanwhile, thought that maybe we say it to show that we are thankful
that we have survived another month, Hashem having fulfilled our request
the previous Shabbos Mevorchin when we asked for 'Chaim shel..basically
everything' - and he indeed gave us 'Chaim'...

Whilst I waited almost half a century to ask this question, I am sure that
others didn't. So can anyone point me to a sefer which discusses this.

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:58:38 +0200
From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
RT vs science


RHM>than we are forced into a postion where the quantitative
disproof of long held views in Judaism forces us to abadon logic and
reason completely. For example: Rabbenu Tam's(RT) concepts of the
cosmos which he holds to be truth. IIRC he holds that the sun travels
from east to west during the daytime slipping just below the horizen
past a dome which covers the earth and the sun then travels back west
to east over the dome until morning where it slips past the dome back
under it to travel once again east to west. And we base Halacha on his
Shitah. But are we supposed to beleive that this is reality when we now
clearly know that it this not what happens? And how do we know that it
doesn't? We know it through scientific inquiry and ultimately through
observation which of course was not possible during the life time of
RT. >

See Tos Pesachim 94b and Tos Shabbos 35a. Rabbeinu Tam is not really
mechadesh any astronomy. All he does is a resolve a contradiction
between two Gemaras regarding whether the din of night happens 13 or 72
minutes after sunset. Rabbeinu Tam merely borrows the terminology of
the Gemara in Pesachim. Really your complaints can be levelled against
the Gemara there. Surely even the halacic concept shkia is an astronomic
error because the sun doesn't set, only the Earth moves.

Perhaps it is possible to say that Chazal merely spoke in a metaphor of
the sun circling the Earth. Perhaps the Gemara in Pesachim is not to
be understood literally. But even if we don't understand the Gemara in
Pesachim it is not a question against the halacha. Rabbeinu Tam merely
derives information regarding the din nightfall even though this was
NOT the subject of the Gemara. Therefore RT can stand independent of
one's understanding of basic astronomy.

Shlomo Goldstein


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:50:52 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: RT vs science


On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:58:38AM +0200, S Goldstein wrote:
: Perhaps it is possible to say that Chazal merely spoke in a metaphor of
: the sun circling the Earth. Perhaps the Gemara in Pesachim is not to
: be understood literally. But even if we don't understand the Gemara in
: Pesachim it is not a question against the halacha...

I would have given a different answer, although I'm not disagreeing with
the possibility of it being metaphor.

Chazal had a mesorah for the din, and were looking for justification.
Even if their sevarah was off, it's a post facto explanation rather than
a cause for the din.

But it is informative in another way. It's an explanation of the din
suggested by people who knew the din better than we do. Therefore, we
know that it's consistant with the halachah in some cases that aren't
directly addressed by chazal. Not a proof of what the halachah ought
to be, but certainly some weight in favor of one tzad over the other.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 48th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Yesod sheb'Malchus: What binds different
Fax: (413) 403-9905                 people together into one cohesive whole?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 06:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: RT vs science


S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> See Tos Pesachim 94b and Tos Shabbos 35a. Rabbeinu Tam is not really
> mechadesh any astronomy. All he does is a resolve a contradiction
> between two Gemaras regarding whether the din of night happens 13 or 72
> minutes after sunset. Rabbeinu Tam merely borrows the terminology of
> the Gemara in Pesachim....

> Perhaps it is possible to say that Chazal merely spoke in a metaphor of
> the sun circling the Earth. Perhaps the Gemara in Pesachim is not to
> be understood literally. But even if we don't understand the Gemara in
> Pesachim it is not a question against the halacha. Rabbeinu Tam merely
> derives information regarding the din nightfall even though this was
> NOT the subject of the Gemara. Therefore RT can stand independent of
> one's understanding of basic astronomy.

Perhaps. I don't know if we can ever know exactly what RT beleived about
the facts of nature but it is reasonable to assume that he believed
in what was the best available scientific knowledge of that time. The
Gemmarah itself is replete with statements about reality which have now
been unequivically disproven in some cases those beleifs actually effect
Halacha. So the question stands. Does beleif preceed rationality or does
rationality preceed beleif?

HM


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:17:54 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: Belief


Harry Maryles wrote:
> By your
> definition, if a man is born and grows up on an island paradise with no
> external influences and is able to provide for his existence then his
> rational thought should lead him to belief in G-d and His Torah. Do you
> think it would?

See Hay Ibn Yaktzan by Ibn Tufayl (not the books of the same title by
Ibn Sinna or Avraham Ibn Ezra).

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:20:21 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Belief


Harry Maryles wrote:
>By your definition, if a man is born and grows up on an island
>paradise with no external influences and is able to provide
>for his existence then his rational thought should lead him
>to belief in G-d and His Torah. Do you think it would?

Do I believe this?  No.  But there are rishonim who do.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:20:19 GMT
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Shabou'ot, Yom Tob, Meat or Dairy


From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au> (Forwarded from Areivim)
: Must there be bosor at every meal?

Or, if I may rephrase: There is a mitzva of seudas Yom Tov and a mitzva
of simchas Yom Tov. Must they be coincidental i.e. can I have a seudah
without meat, and eat meat at some other point in the day.

If the latter, must that meat be part of a(nother) meal or can it be
eaten outside of a meal?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:56:11 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
RE: Hallel on Rosh Chodesh


From: SBA
> This week, whilst saying Hallel, I began thinking about something
> which maybe I should have asked decades ago...Why do we say Hallel on
> Rosh Chodesh?

See Reb Tzadok Resisei Lyla siman 8.

YGB


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:01:38 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: Hallel on Rosh Chodesh


SBA wrote:
> The Oruch Hashulchan says that Hallel on RC is a minhag and not din -
> unlike the other times when it is said, when 'shenaasu nisim veyeshu'os'.
> The minhag however - he writes - is from the times of Chazal. (The OH
> also mentions the remez of 12 x Hallel - b'shem Hagaonim.)

> Finally he says 'ikkar hataam nireh remez lematzovenu k'mo she'omrim
> bebirchas halevono, lochen choshvinen zeh l'ktzas yeshu'oh vehinhigu
> behallel'.

Yisrael domeh l'lvana.  At Rosh Chodesh the moon has just passed its least
desirable state (totally invisible) and is beginning to wax.  "matzoveinu" is
also not desireable (considering all the flattering things the AH says about
the Czar I imagine it would have been dangerous to be more explicit), so we
say hallel at even the symbolic hint that things are getting better.

David Riceman


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 >