Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 081

Sunday, September 18 2005

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:56:29 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Torah & Evolution


On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:05:15AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Despite my confident tone, I must confess that Micha's criticism continued
: to gnaw at the back of my mind. Was it actually possible that R' Dessler
: believed that the world was millions or even billions of years old?...

Except that I didn't say that, and -- more importantly -- neither is that
RACarmell's explanation of REED's position. As we read the relevent essay
in MmE, REED's position is that time before the eitz hada'as is simply an
incomprehensible. While we know that "in a way" the process of creation
took a literal week, in truth we don't know what we're talking about. That
pre-eitz time was simply something that we can't comprehend today.

Not that REED says the universe is 12 - 15 billion years old, the
big bang, the solar system coalesced from a cloud, evolution and
the rest. Rather, that the question of the age of the universe is
largely meaningless as the answer requires a perception of time that we
entirely lack.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:06:31 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
Subject:
RE: Torah and Evolution


On September 15, 2005 Meir Shinnar wrote:
> Reading this letter of REED is painful on several grounds. First,
> the science that he attempts to refute is old

True. But unfortunately, some biology books still continue to use
Haeckel's embryos as a representation of evolution at work despite the
fact that Haeckel's drawings were revealed to be fraudulent (see Jonathan
Well's book Icons of Evolution for a current list of transgressors). Thus,
refuting embryology as a proof for evolution still has relevance,
even today.

> and the refutation
> (on presumedly scientific grounds) are highly problematic.

Sounds like a good debate. Kindly illustrate your assertion and let's
see where it leads.

> However, the understanding that RSC gave to the letter - that REED rejects
> both evolution and vast periods of time - seems unwarranted by the text...

> To put in terminology that is part of more current
> discussions - REED rejects the view that evolution is a purely natural
> phenomenon, occuring over millions of years - because "woe to that
> wisdom [i.e. the study of nature] if it does not lead one to be aware of
> the handiwork of Hashem"...

You have chosen one comment that he makes, all the way at the end of
the letter, and insist that this is the reason for his rejection of
evolution but apparently you seem to be ignoring the body of the letter
itself. A close examination of the text will reveal that R' Dessler does
not reject the "facts" of evolution as presented by the scientists. The
only thing he refutes is the evolutionist's *interpretation* of the facts.

For instance, he does not claim that there are not various sedimentary
layers comprising several geological columns. The only real thing that
bothers him in the letter is the amount of *time* evolutionists ascribe
to the evolution of these layers. Thus when R' Dessler states that the
layering of the geological columns can be compared to a pressure cooker,
he is obviously expressing displeasure with the *time* evolutionists
claim that this layering occurred in, not *that* it occurred.

The same applies to the refutation of embryology. He does not refuse
to accept as evidence the embryological homology amongst various
invertebrates in their early stages and their subsequent divergence in
their respective species as represented by Haeckels drawings. What he
claims is that this ontogenic process did not have to develop over vast
periods of time via gradual random mutations. Rather, the embryo passes
though these stages quickly from one stage to the next. Thus, as R'
Dessler openly states, the metamorphosis of the embryo from one type
species to the next has no connection to calculations of periods of time.

Although R' Dessler is perfectly clear here, he is even clearer in his
letter to another student brought down in Michtav Chelek dalet pg. 357. I
provide a translation of the pertinent parts below. Please note: I have
added absolutely nothing to the text. Any brackets appear in the body
of the Hebrew text too.

Translation: "And regarding that which you wrote to me about evolutionary
theory I wish to comment: behold, the development of the embryo coincides,
[at least superficially] with the theory of the development of animal
life all the way up to man etc. [and from this they wish to obtain
support to their theories]. And I strongly wonder...since we see a rapid
development from one form to another in the embryo itself, if so, why not
say that this is the way it was in the beginning, that there were some
that developed all of the way until they reached the species of man, and
some developed only until the form of a fish, bird, animal etc. and so too
there were those that developed to be the species that eventually became
extinct. Why must we invent a radical theory that this development had to
occur solely over many protracted generations, very very long generations,
for according to this, the question is enormous...and this is a tremendous
refutation to their empty nonsense (hevleyhem), in my opinion.

So according to R' Dessler, anyone who claims that the species here on
earth developed over vast periods of time is espousing hevel. Nothing
could be clearer.

> but does not reject either millions of years

He rejects it openly. In Chelek dalet pg. 113 he states (end of first
paragraph) "and therefore it looks to scientists *as if* the world
developed over millions of years".

In the final chapter, he states (pg. 114) "And according to what we have
stated, that which the universe looks to scientists *as if* it existed
for millions of years...

There's that term again; "as if". Once again, nothing could be
clearer. The fact that RNS attempts to use the Michtav as support for
his reinterpretation of maaseh bereishis is IMO, a grave injustice to R'
Dessler's memory.

> Millions of years is not addressed separately,

True. You know why? Because it *is* the subject of the letter, not some
ancillary and inconsequential point.

> nor in relation to understanding the biblical text

Well, true, but let's assume for a second that I am right as I hope
I've proved to you by now. Let's assume that R' Dessler is perturbed by
millions of years etc. Where would you imagine he would get the notion
that the universe is recent? Obviously from the first perek of sefer
Bereishis. Thus, using R' Dessler to support a reinterpretation of masseh
bereishis based on a gross misrepresentation of his views, as RNS does,
is obviously tenuous to say the least.

> but only as it may
> be associated with a view of nature that leads one to reject yad hashem,
> and views everything as controlled by randomness or physical law.

Yes, but randomness and well ordered physical laws goes hand in hand with
vast amounts of time. Even the savants are not crazy enough to maintain
that the random mutations responsible for evolution can occur in 6000
years. Thus, anyone who sees the beriah in terms of an evolution over
vast periods of time simply doesn't see Hashem through the beriah and
thus, a priori, is effectively rejecting the awareness of the yad Hashem.

Simcha Coffer


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:05:25 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel


On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:37:42PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:                      According to the Rambam the main initial effort of
: Talmud Torah is to know the naive meaning of Tanach (H. Talmud Torah 1:7)
: and to know halachah l'maaseh (see, e.g., H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:13, Igroth
: HaRambam ed. Sheilat pp. 257-259 and ibid. pp. 311-313). Advanced Talmud
: Torah is understanding the sources in Tanach and in logic of the above
: (H. TT 1:11-12 and HYhT 4:13).

: We are the heirs in this regard, not of the Rambam, but of the baalei
: haTosafoth. Rashi, for example, understands "Talmud" in that gemara in
: Kiddushin (30a) not to mean the Biblical sources of the halacha but to
: mean the general principles underlying the law....

Doesn't that match the Rambam's definition of "talmud" in Hil TT 1:11,
"yavin veyaskil acharis davar meireishiso ... vehei'akh yotzi ha'asur
vehamutar ukheyotzei bahen midevarim shalamid mipi hashemu'ah..."

For that matter, he seems to conclude by saying that TT for establishing
the groundwork is 1/3 miqra, 1/3 mishnah, 1/3 talmud (as per the mishnah),
but afterward, the primary duty is talmud (1:12). Explicitly saying
"kesheyagdil bechokhmah velo hayah tzarikh lo lilmod TSBK, velo la'asoq
tamid beTSBP, yiqewh be'itim mezumanim ... veyifneh kol yom betalmud
bilvad..."

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Torat EY (Going How Far)


Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
>> Is ther anyone outside of the talmidei R. Kook who went as far as RAS
>> in damning anyone who particpted in the evacuation.

> Rav Moshe Tzuriel has paskened publicly that anyone who participated
> actively in the Expulsion of Jews from their homes cannot be called to
> the Torah and that girls should seek shidduchim among other men.

What can I tell you. He's wrong.

The latest issue of the JO has an article by R. Jonathan Rosenblum
with which I completely agree. He basically states the Charedi view
of the disegagement and cites R. Schach's long held Halachic postion
on settlements B'Chlal. I have much that I disagreed with R. Shach on
(specificly his position if not allowing secular studies to be introduced
into the Charedi schools system). But on this issue I totally agree
with him. He believed (as I do) that we are not in an era of Aschalta
D'Geula. As such, he was against sending Jews to areas of mass Arab
poulations. He believed, as I do, that this did nothing but exacerbate
Arab hatred of us and aroused animosity towards us from the rest of the
world. I think history has vindicated R. Schach's position and not Rav
Moshe Tzuriel's.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:49:35 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Ways to pasken


On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 01:59:21PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: The way a Brisker paskens a she'eilah is to start with the theory,
: clarify it, and only then proceed to the specific question. Truth be told,
: I'm not sure of any other reasonable way to pasken.

What about starting with precedent, pasqening, and then building
theory to fit? Or to look more mimetically?

And even within "theory", Brisker theory is about drawing categories
and overriding legal principles, Telzher theory would have more discussion
of finding common underlying motivation, etc...

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 00:49:29 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Subject:
Re: Human Flesh


"myb@yeshivanet.com" <myb@ksimail.com> wrote:
> The Rema in YD 79.1 paskens that human flesh is assur min hatorah,
> as opposed to shitas tosfos and other rishonim that it is assur only
> midrabanan.

I mentioned blood, not flesh.  Flesh is assur mid'oraita, though only
as an asei, not a lav.  But blood is only assur because of mar'it
ha'ayin.

> The Shach adds that the Rema's din is in regards to flesh from a living
> human, but a dead person is ossur be'hano'oh min hatorah le'kule alma.

But see the reference he gives, and the commentaries there.  Which
bring us right back to the areivim thread that spawned this halachic
digression, and any further discussion down that path should go back
to areivim, veda"l.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:30:04 +0200
From: "Joseph Tabory" <taborj@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject:
re: hizhir


The book is apparently the one known as sefer vehizhir and is found in
shem hagedolim s.v. vehizhir. It is a sheiltot type book composed in
Eretz yisrael in the time of the geonim.

Joseph Tabory


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:49:59 +0200
From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
Subject:
Re: Can a Jewish man have as many wives as they want?


> I don't see how this is relevant today. Isn't there a takkanah of the  
> Rabbanut HaRashit to forbid polygamy even among Sefaradim in Israel?

But are said crown rabbinate's takones binding? (This is a serious
question, which doesn't want to touch politics more than halachically
relevant.)

Lipman Phillip Minden


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:03:04 +0200
From: Mishpachat Freedenberg <free@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Can a Jewish man have as many wives as they want?


>I don't see how this is relevant today. Isn't there a takkanah of the 
>Rabbanut HaRashit to forbid polygamy even among Sefaradim in Israel? 

Yes, as far as I know there is. I sent this in because I thought the
guy who wrote it is a nut; I can't believe anyone would even take him
seriously!

I still wonder if he is married and if he is what his wife would say if
she found out how her nutty spouse is spending his time....

 --Rena


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:39:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
Subject:
origins of the Zohar


From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
> We've discussed the origins of the Zohar, You can go to <www.yutorah.org>
> and listen to R' Brill's introductory Kabbalah shiur where he discusses
> the origins. It's fascinating stuff.

Where? I went to the site, did a search for Brill, and all I got was
last term's Chassidut and Mod-O courses.

Which are fascinating in their own right, having listened to most of
both of them.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 08:49:30 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
Subject:
RE: origins of the Zohar


From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich@Segalco.com>
> We've discussed the origins of the Zohar, You can go to 
> <www.yutorah.org> and listen to R' Brill's introductory Kabbalah shiur 
> where he discusses the origins. It's fascinating stuff.

[R Jon Baker:]
> Where? I went to the site, did a search for Brill, and all I got was
> last term's Chassidut and Mod-O courses.
> Which are fascinating in their own right, having listened to most of
> both of them.

They seem to have taken it down. I emailed the administrator last night,
I'll keep you posted on the response. I agree his classes are well worth
listening to.

Kt
Joel rich


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:44:33 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Subject:
Re: Sefer Hazahir


From: "Gershon Dubin" <>
> Our expert Rav Shimon Opman says it is mentioned in the Shem Hagedolim
> and sefer HoEshkol.

I looked in Sh"Hg first, but didn't see it there.

Look under Maareches Seforim. 
The 1st entry for the letter vov ["Vehazohir"].

Also the edition that has the addition PLeitas Sofrim
mentions  Mar Aluf Chefetz - who is the mechaber.

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:12:24 -0700
From: Yeshivat Har Etzion Office <office@etzion.org.il>
Subject:
HaRav Lichtenstein's correspondence with HaRav Shapira


As we promised, we are posting a link to the continued correspondence 
between HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein and HaRav Avraham Shapira regarding 
the halakhic ramifications of hitnatkut and seiruv pekuda.

http://www.etzion.org.il/hitnatkut/hitnatkut.htm

B'virkat haTorah ve-ha-mitzva,
the VBM staff


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:51:02 -0400
From: "myb@yeshivamail.com" <myb@kewmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Sefer Hazohir


R' Gershon Dubin Wrote:
>"SBA" <sba@sba2.com> wrote:
>> Our expert Rav Shimon Opman says it is mentioned in the Shem Hagedolim
>> and sefer HoEshkol.

>I looked in Sh"Hg first, but didn't see it there.

See Sh"Hg Chelek Seforim Mareches Vov Os Aleph. The Sh"Hg quotes differing
opinions whether it's Hazohir or Vehazohir.

- Avigdor Feldstein


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:06:16 -0400
From: "Jonathan Ostroff" <jonathan@yorku.ca>
Subject:
RE: Torah & Evolution


 [RMB]
> Except that I didn't say that, and -- more importantly -- 
> neither is that RACarmell's explanation of REED's position. 
> As we read the relevent essay in MmE, REED's position is that 
> time before the eitz hada'as is simply an incomprehensible. 

I don't know any place where Rabbi Dessler zt"l says that **time**
before the etz hadaas is incomprehesible. So perhaps you can quote the
precise statement you have in mind.

In (Vol II, page150) Rav Dessler speaks specifically about Adam
Ha'rishon's **perception** of time (not the actual flow of real
time). This follows Rav Dessler's shita that time has no real meaning
in our pereception without hischadshus. Since Adam Harishon's bechira
was concentrated on one area alone, his feeling of hischadshus was
dramatically reduced consequently making his awareness of time "weaker"
than ours. Adam Harishon basically lived in near absolute dveikus to
the emes and therefore his havchana of time differed from ours. This
does not mean that time stopped working (when I day-dream time does not
stop working, it is rather my perception of time that changes). That is
why he quotes the Ramban to the effect that each "yom" was an actual day
of real time, but **in addition** the word "yom" also connotes a deeper
understanding (the sefiros).

In summary, each "yom" of creation was an actual day of 24 hours of flow
of real time which is quite understandable even to a child. The deeper
understanding like all "sod" is less comprehensible. Both meanings are
simultaneously true.

[As an aside, Rav. Dessler very much wants to convey the deeper purpose
of each second that we are living through now. Each moment is precious
and pregnant with meaning, i.e. each moment is quite understandable as a
unit of actual time measured by our clocks, but it also contains a deeper
reality in the unfolding of the plan and pupose of creation and waiting
for us to actualize its potential. Thus each second of time is both
actual flow of time as well as a potential gilui of a deeper reality].

> Not that REED says the universe is 12 - 15 billion years old, 
> the big bang, the solar system coalesced from a cloud, 
> evolution and the rest. Rather, that the question of the age 
> of the universe is largely meaningless as the answer requires 
> a perception of time that we entirely lack.

There are some who try to say that Rav. Dessler would **allow for** (or be
consistent with) the billions of years hypothesized by evolutionists. So
my question to you is are the billions of evolutionary years consistent
with Rav Dessler?

To my mind Rav Dessler explicitly and clearly rejects the millions (or
billions) of years as the "perikas ol" of "tipshim" (see page 13 of the
following URL for a translation of Rabbi Dessler newly published letter
on this point: http://toriah.org/people/R-Dessler/Rav-Dessler-2.pdf).

In (Vol. 4, pg. 113) Rav Dessler states (end of first paragraph)
"and therefore it looks to scientists *as if* the world developed over
millions of years".

In the final chapter of the above, he states (pg. 114): "And according to
what we have stated, that which the universe looks to scientists *as if*
it existed for millions of years...

On page 358 of volume 4 he refers to the opinions of those who impute
evolutionary development as happening over vast numbers of genererations
("doros harbei") as "lehevleihem".

So, we see from these many sources that Rabbi Dessler actually rejects
the billions of years of evolution (both the part about thye billions of
years as well as the evolution over the billions of years), not because
time is incomprehensible, but because as he argues (see URL above) that
creation was recent and processes speeded up like food that is rapidly
cooked in a pressure cooker as compared to food cooked in a conventional
oven (rav Dessler's mashal).

Rav Dessler states that the evolutionists are ignoring Hashem's handiwork:
"if it does not lead one to be aware of the handiwork of Hashem for
behold [there is no wisdom here, rather] there is just folly animated
by the desire to throw off the yoke of heaven ..".

The vast complexity of the created world should inspires us to see the
absolute wisdom and power of Hashem.

A gutte voch to all.

JSO


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:13:49 -0400
From: "Jonathan Ostroff" <jonathan@yorku.ca>
Subject:
RE: Torah and Evolution


[R.  Meir Shinnar]
> Reading this letter of REED is painful on several grounds. 
> First, the science that he attempts to refute is old ....

Not only was Rav Dessler zt"l quite correct to have doubts about Haeckel's
embryos, but there are now many further doubs about the viability of
evolutionary theories as Berlinki's humorous portrayal indicates:

====

All Those Darwinian Doubts
By: David Berlinski
Wichita Eagle
March 9, 2005

NOTE: The article below is the full version by Dr. Berlinski. The Wichita
Eagle opted to shorten the piece to only 400 words.

The defense of Darwin's theory of evolution has now fallen into the hands
of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and
ignoring it when not. It is not a strategy calculated in induce confidence
in the scientific method. A paper published recently in the Proceedings
of the Biological Society of Washington concluded that the events taking
place during the Cambrian era could best be understood in terms of an
intelligent design - hardly a position unknown in the history of western
science. The paper was, of course, peer-reviewed by three prominent
evolutionary biologists. Wise men attend to the publication of every
one of the Proceeding's papers, but in the case of Steven Meyer's "The
origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,"
the Board of Editors was at once given to understand that they had done
a bad thing. Their indecent capitulation followed at once.

Publication of the paper, they confessed, was a mistake. It would never
happen again. It had barely happened at all. And peer review?

The hell with it.

"If scientists do not oppose antievolutionism," Eugenie Scott, the
Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, remarked,
"it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is
scientifically weak." Scott's understanding of 'opposition' had nothing
to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at
all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her
colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."

Everyone else had better shut up.

In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so
since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality.

Look - The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like
theories in the serious sciences - quantum electrodynamics, say - is
grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen unyielding
decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions
at all.

Look - Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably
report weak to non-existent selection effects.

Look - Darwin's theory is open at one end since there are no plausible
account for the origins of life.

Look - The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular
structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.

Look - A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious
ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendents.

Look - Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer
have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles,
and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.

Look - Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory
experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the
end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.

Look - The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms
suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then
to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and
their near relatives - differences that remain obvious to anyone who
has visited a zoo?

But look again - If the differences between organisms are scientifically
more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's
theory since it's otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic
variations? These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen
others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view
that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many
recent editorials have suggested.

Serious biologists quite understand all this. They rather regard Darwin's
theory as an elderly uncle invited to a family dinner. The old boy has
no hair, he has no teeth, he is hard of hearing, and he often drools.
Addressing even senior members at table as Sonny, he is inordinately
eager to tell the same story over and over again.

But he's family. What can you do?


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:28:29 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel


From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>: <me> Rashi, for example, understands "Talmud" in that gemara in
>: Kiddushin (30a) not to mean the Biblical sources of the halacha but to
>: mean the general principles underlying the law....

> <RMB> Doesn't that match the Rambam's definition of "talmud" in Hil TT 1:11,
> "yavin veyaskil acharis davar meireishiso ... vehei'akh yotzi ha'asur
> vehamutar ukheyotzei bahen midevarim shalamid mipi hashemu'ah..."

No. Rashi is asking us to deduce general principles from specific laws,
especially mishnaic laws (e.g., rubo k'kulo from shahat rov ehad b'of
...). The Rambam is asking us to find Biblical sources of specific laws,
and to deduce specific laws from Biblical texts via the 13 middos.

Incidentally there are aharonim who want to say that Rashi and the Rambam
are supplementing each other rather than disagreeing with each other
(I can't recall where I saw that). I'm not convinced.

David Riceman 


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:45:38 +1000
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Subject:
Torat EY (Going How Far)


From: Eli Turkel <>
> Is ther anyone outside of the talmidei R. Kook who went as far as RAS
> in damning anyone who particpted in the evacuation.

From: Yisrael Medad <>
> Rav Moshe Tzuriel has paskened publicly that anyone who participated
> actively in the Expulsion of Jews from their homes cannot be called to
> the Torah and that girls should seek shidduchim among other men.

Can these men still marry a shifcho or maybe a giyores? 
Or are they now unable to mekayem/potur of piryeh verivyeh?

[Is this another proof that in some RZ circles the mitzva of Yishuv EY
means more that all the other 612 combined?]

SBA


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:50:39 GMT
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Subject:
re: Sefer Hazahir


It does appear in Shem Hag'dolim -- it's the first entry under the
letter vav. I believe it's not Hazahir, but rather Hizhir.

EMT


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 16:47:22 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
Subject:
RE: Can a Jewish man have as many wives as they want?


On September 16, 2005 Moshe Feldman wrote:
> The Vilna Gaon...said (Ma'aseh Rav Hashalem page 276) "If I would be
> successful, in accomplishing two things I would be idle from Torah
> and T'fillah and go from city to city [to get them accepted]. One is to
> eliminate the prohibition of Rabbeinu Gershom against taking two wives for
> with this the G'ulah (final redemption) will become closer, and the second
> that they should have bircas Cohanim (the priestly blessing) every day."

Well, I never heard about the Gra desiring to eliminate the issur of
shtei nashim. In fact, come to think of it, I never heard of the Gra
trying to eliminate any takkanos made by the Gaonim. However, the birkas
kohanim is true.

The reason Ashkenazim do not say birkas kohanim (BK) in golus is because
the bracha is "lvarech ess amo yisroel bi'ahava" and for most of the
past 2000 years of golus, Ashkenazim have been living under the shadow
of the cross. The Ashkenazi Jews in the European middle-ages were often
beset by pogroms, poverty and other hardships. Thus, it was difficult to
constantly maintain a frame of mind that resulted in "ahava". Accordingly,
the Ashkenazim only said BK ON the regalim which were happy times. On
the other hand, the Sfardim lived a much easier life and thus, the minhag
of discontinuing BK was not nispashet amongst them.

R' Dov Eliach in his sefer Avi haYeshivos about R' Chaim Volozhin says
that the Gra tried to re-establish BK amongst the Ashkenazim but was
foiled in his attempt. On the very day that BK was to be introduced in
Vilna, the Gra was arrested on trumped up charges. After his death, R'
Chaim tried to follow in his Rebbi's footsteps but on the night before
the day that BK was to be introduced in Volozhin, a fire broke out in the
beis hamedrash. R' Chaim took these two episodes as a sign that Hashem did
not want this practice to be re-introduced and discontinued his attempt.

Simcha Coffer 


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 >