Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 004

Friday, October 14 2005

• RE: Torah & Evolution
• statistics
• Re: Shofar on Shabbos
• RE: Torah & Evolution
• Re: Hashkofa learned from prayer?
• Re: Shofar on Shabbos
• Re: statistics
• Subject: How Detached Are We?
• Yom Kippur: Two thoughts
• sugya correctly
• RE: Yom Kippur: Two thoughts
• Re: Shofar on Shabbos

On October 9, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
>: While we're on the subject of RSG and the Rambam, both hold that time is
>: purely physical, is associated purely with our physical universe, and
>: has an end just like our physical universe unlike your idea that time
>: exists in a different form in the higher worlds... Just an observation...

> First, it is only relevent what REED says.

Hence my comment "Just an observation" although now that you've brought
it up, in view of the fact that I am contesting your interpretation of
Rav Dessler coupled with the fact that all of the above sources seem to
support my approach, your position would seem somewhat tenuous. After
all, I highly doubt Rav Dessler would have developed a pshat in the
Ramban that is contested by virtually every Rishon who comes to mind.

> Second, I do not say it's different in other worlds. I understand the
> MmE as saying that the "all there at once" view of things is what's
> real in this world. As opposed to how we percieve this world.

Reality is established based on perception. Lo tihay shemeeya gidola
meyri'eeya. If our "view of things" in this world is in a seder of
zeh achar zeh (i.e. linear flow), than that is the reality of this
world no less than the nose on your face. The reason there is an
"all there at once" view to be had is because it exists in an entirely
different dimension with an entirely new set of laws that govern this
dimension. Laws of physics are laws of this universe whereas laws of
spirit are laws of the next world and the twain shall never meet.

>: Rav Dessler never says
>: that the flow of time is a perception. He states "hazman murgash l'adam
>: biyachas l'hischadshus harishmim shehu mikabel" Time is felt to man in
>: relation to the frequency of new impressions that he experiences. The
>: pashut peshat in this sentence is: Time - i.e. what we normally understand
>: time to be - is felt by man etc. According to you, we must insert a
>: whole new concept that we must suppose Rav Dessler held *in advance*
>: of this sentence as follows: Time - e.g. the essentially unknowable
>: entity that exists simultaneously in higher and lower worlds but in
>: the lower worlds is really only a perception - is felt by man etc....

> Huh? Where does this difficulty come from?

It arises from the fact that you are 1) introducing a concept not
stated in Rav Dessler 2) pre-supposing that he maintains it, and then 3)
reading it into his words.

Lets just suppose for a moment that you were convinced that Rav
Dessler did not hold that time exists in some fashion in the next
world; you would still not have any problem reading the above passage
(hazman murgash...). Thus, you are begging the question by automatically
pre-supposing that Rav Dessler holds this shita (instead of proving it
from a less ambiguous passage in the maamar) and thus reading the above
passage to mean that Rav Dessler is stating that the flow of time is
dependant solely on human perception.

In other words, the only way you can read the above passage your way is if
you maintain that 1) the real essence of time is ethereal and has no flow
and thus 2) what we experience here is just perceptual. But you haven't
illustrated assertion #1 and thus statement #2 remains unsupported.

(BTY, I am aware that later in your email you do make an attempt to
illustrate your assertion but I am responding to your email point
by point.)

>: once again, I challenge you to come up with a sentence anywhere in this
>: maamar that would indicate that Rav Dessler is associating the essence of
>: physical time purely with our perception...

> He defines the flow of time as murgash in your very quote!

Of course he does! All physical things are murgash. Since Rav Dessler
wants to impart the idea that physical things can sometimes be perceived
differently by people due to circumstances, he uses the term "murgash",
a past participle. If he wanted to say that corporeal time itself is
entirely contingent on our perception, he would have had to use the
shoresh "ReGeSh" in its noun form as follows: Hazman ein lo mahus gashmi
kol ikkar ela nittfas hu rak bisoch rigshshoseinu (regesh here being a
noun rather than a verb) or some such statement. In fact, if Rav Dessler
meant what you say he does, the word regesh is entirely out of place
and should be substituted with the word havchana (perception). The fact
that it isn't illustrates that Rav Dessler was only discussing how time
is felt by us, not that time itself is only a feeling.

> But why do you think that the flow of time is "the essence of physical
> time"? That is neither in the MmE nor in Special Relativity (which
> predates the maamar in question, BTW).

I never said that the flow of time is the essence of time. It is a
*quality* of time, just like other characteristics of time such as its
linear quality. What I did say was that if you are claiming that the
flow of time is *fundamentally* subjective (i.e. it actually changes
with perception) than you are no longer describing the phenomenon of
time. Once you eliminate an essential property of any physical entity, it
is no longer that entity. For instance, no one would say that a chair *is*
its legs, however, if you saw off its legs, it is no longer a chair right?

My proof that Rav Dessler understood the element of "linear flow" as an
essential component of time is that when a boy, or anyone else for that
matter, subjectively views time as longer or shorter, the clock still
ticks at the same rate. Thus, flow is an absolute whereas perception is
variable thereby conclusively proving that the flow of time is one of
times' immutable characteristics (in circumstances where other physical
qualities that relate to time such as speed [Special Theory] and gravity
[General Theory] are not altered) . Since you say that time in the next
world doesn't flow, it follows that whatever entity you are discussing
is not time.

You know, it occurs to me that if you altered your verbiage, just
slightly, you could make this whole argument disappear. If you were to say
that the next world is *timeless* rather than time-but-not-as-we-know-it,
my allegation of incoherency would instantly disappear (although I still
don't think you can use timelessness to reconcile 15 billion years with
six days from a fundamentally ontological standpoint).

> Again, it's clear from R' Dessler that time doesn't really flow, that
> the flow of time can be experienced as two very different durations,
> and that the same strip of time can be traversed multiple times and
> experienced as different durations each traversal.

And once again, I ask you for proof. Translate some passages in the
maamar that you feel reflect your point of view.

> The part of the ma'amar you're focusing on is still in a ma'amar about
> the zeman of bereishis and the zeman of history. If it were the maskanah,
> rather than a simple proof that flow is perception, how would establishing
> that different people experience time differently set the stage for his
> peshat in the Ramban? And, why is it the beginning of the ma'amar rather
> than the last section of it?

You ask two questions 1) how does establishing that different people
experience time differently lead into the Ramban and 2) why is it at the
beginning as opposed to the end. Question #1 is an excellent question
however question #2 is answered automatically when question #1 is put
into proper perspective. Unfortunately, a synopsis of the entire maamar
would have to appear here in order to do your question justice which
I don't have time for right now. However, if you keep in mind that the
primary purpose of this maamar, despite its heading, is not to discuss
the age of the universe but rather to illustrate the immense importance of
time, than the maamar, which can actually be broken up into three parts,
feed perfectly into each other like a musical segue.

>: Michtav MeEliyahu Chelek Beis pg. 152
>: "And it is noteworthy that sometimes the Ramban writes... 
>: That is, sometimes he writes
>: [using terminology that corresponds] with our [physical] perception, 
>: as we've mentioned before...

> "Yeish letzayein" means "noteworthy" rather than denoting a problem
> that needs further explanation?

Six in one hand half a dozen in the other. Something can be noteworthy
for many reasons. What's your point?

> You're making your point in your insertions:
> The original has nothing about "[physical] perception". REED doesn't say
> "bechinah" or "murgash", he says "hasagah".

I'm sure you and I don't have different nuschaos. Quote - "haynu, yesh
shekosev lefi *havachanaseinu* uchn'l shehatorah kasva lefi hasagaseinu
uvilshoneinu" which means that Rav Dessler is using bechina and hasaga
interchangeably. Don't believe me. Look it up.

As far as your [physical] issue, occasionally I insert words to clarify
Rav Dessler's meaning although for the most part, I just translate. If you
don't like the insertion, simply skip it. I personally believe that I have
made my point quite well without having to resort to any of my insertions.

> Second, it has nothing about spiritual revelations. "Giluyei" refers to
> what unfolds over the course of history. Not about spiritual revelations,
> but about the experience of time. In the case of achar hacheit, how the
> hole passes over the map.

You claim that Giluy here has nothing to do with spiritual revelations
however a simple perusal of the Ramban reveals your error. Every one
of the sheshes yimey breishis hints at the spiritual qualities of its
corresponding 1000 year period. For instance, the first day of yehi or
corresponds to Adam Harishon who lived 1000 years and was oro shel olam
and recognised his creator, the second day was kineged noach and his
sons who were tzadikim the third was kineged Avraham avinu etc. Just
read the Ramban!

> My translation:
> "That is, something he (the Rambam) writes according to our perception,
> like we saw above... 
> According to comprehension, we can only understand them as signs or
> allusions. Ontologically, they are identical...

When I first translated a few paragraphs in chelek dalet, almost a year
ago, you criticized me for introducing my own ideas and presenting them
as Rav Dessler's maamar rather than just translating the maamar. I
have accepted your criticism and adjusted my subsequent translations
accordingly however it seems that now you require the same advice. Your
above "translation" is nothing more than your stated opinions in Rav
Dessler, not a translation.

> And he then writes:
> "AQnd this is the language of the Gra ..., "Three times: reishis, acharis
> vehoveh' -- (meaning that they are three bechinos of time) -- "by ma'aseh
> bereishis it says bereieshis, that the six first days included all six
> thousand years.'"

> First, note that REED uses the word "bechinah" in his interruption of
> the quote from the Gra.

So? All Rav Dessler means to say is that the Gra says "gimmel zmanim"
which would seem to indicate three distinct times but what he really
means is that there are three distinct aspects to the concept of time. I'm
not sure what you mean to illustrate from this.

> But to the point, REED identifies the Ramban's position with the Gra's
> and accepts it as his own. We perceive time as past present and future,
> but the first six days literally included all of history.

> At the end of this portion of the ma'amar, he continues quoting the Gra
> (leaving jargon intact):

What you should have left intact is Rav Dessler's lengthy explanation
on the first part of the Gra which makes it perfectly clear that Rav
Dessler was not referring to the ontological sameness of the two periods
in terms of time (6 days = 6 millennia literally) which is entirely
incoherent. Rather he says "and the explanation is that the aspect of
'all inclusiveness' [stated in the Gra] is that all of the revelations
of the six thousand year period are included in the first six days. The
souls of all of those who arrive here in this world were [originally]
included in the soul of Adam haRishon...however when he sinned all of
the souls that were included within him branched out to many souls and
the [one] free-will [opportunity] to many free-will [opportunities]
and the six days to six thousand years..."

Clearly what Rav Dessler is saying is that the revelations that are being
accomplished now over a six thousand year period had the potential to
be accomplished by one man in a short period of time but due to his sin
were now spread out over 6 thousand years. Nothing here says that time
is only a perception in this world or that time continues to exist in
the next world without a flow.

> "'And acharis haymim, which is le'asifd lavo, when everything will return
> to their source (Source?). As it says thart HQBH will be metaheir the
> whole world in acharis hayamim, which is why it's called "teshuvah" for
> they return to their sources. THE PRESENT IS THE CURRENT TIME WHICH IS
> THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.' (emphasis REED's) Until here his [the
> Gra's] language. And it is as we saw above, the 6 days of bereishis are
> themselves the 6 thousand years mamash. That their tochen and giluyim
> are one.

Please note: He says that their giluy and tochen, i.e. their spiritual
substance is identical, not their time periods.

> However, how we understand them is different in the way that
> bechirah is different after the sin of Adam haRishon. Now the musag
> hagilui is in a differentiated manner, and spread out over 6 thousand
> years 

Once again note that he says that the musag of *Giluy* is in a
differentiated manner, not the musag of time. What he means is that
since the musag of giluy is now differentiated we must add another six
thousand years of time to accommodate it.

> for it is the time of bechirah -- of da'as tov vara. The geder
> of acharis hayamim is that then everything will return to the bechinah
> of re'iyas gan eiden, which is gilui in a manner of full deveiqus
> like before the sin, and there can not be in this any change or chiluf
> zeman, for it is all one gilui...."

> Can I pause here for a moment and ask you to reread that line? Achareis
> hayamim, like qodem hacheit, is a state without shinui or chiluf zeman.

No sir! Acharis hayamim is a similar state to kodem hachet in the sense
that giluy was essentially unified except for one important difference:
the ability of chiluf hazman vis-א-vis the chet of eitz hadaas. That
is why Rav Dessler doesn't say "shelo yachol"... which would imply that
chiluf zman didn't apply in pre eitz hadaas time. He says "vilo yachol" --
"and" there will not be any change (as you correctly translated) by which
he means to contrast the six thousand year period that time did play a
role. He cannot be comparing it to the six day period in terms of time
because the perception of time *did* play a role then as he openly says
in the beginning of the maamar. He states that Adam had a "weak and thin"
perception of time. Weak and thin does not equal non-existent. And he
openly states that there *was* chiluf vis-א-vis the bechira of the eitz
hadaas. So when you say

> My thesis, stated outright. Not "could only mean", not "all he says"
> without quoting the entire ma'amar. Not words inserted in brackets.

I have to respectfully disagree.

>:       You even quote the words "And when the concealment of time is
>: finally nullified," yet seem to ignore the fact that this passage is
>: in direct contradiction to your idea that time is never nullified and
>: continues to exist in its ethereal form.

> Concealment of time is nullified -- acharis hayamim.

> Time, sans human perception, does exist in its true form -- as the map.

You are misrepresenting the term "of" in the sentence "Concealment of
time is nullified". The word "of" over here means "represented by" just
as the next statement "viyasiru ess michseh olam hazeh" means that the
limitations of olam hazeh will be entirely removed, not that they will
be sublimated or represented in their true ethereal form.

> I get the impression that you still don't "chap" my understanding of the
> MmE's shitah. Please don't put strawmen in my mouth.

Sorry Micha but disagreement doesn't equal misunderstanding.

Simcha Coffer

>Still, a statistic that n% of people would die doesn't determine mi
>yichyeh... But it does constrain how many can merit it -- until the end
>of hesteir panim.

The question of Portney of the gains in medicine has bothered me for a
long time. Another question in the same vein.

Assuming 20 people quit (or join) a kollel and get jobs working. It is
fairly obvious that their incomes will go up (or down) even though their
income was supposedly fixed at Rosh Hashana/YK. The answer that I heard
was that something else would have happened to that individual to change
his income. However, that answer only applies to single people. Once
we talk about larger numbers statistics again tells us what to expect
when changing from/to a Kollel job from a (say) hi-tech job.

Also I have no statistics on life expectancy in the charedi community.
However, speaking to doctors in Israel that treat these people they
dont personally see any major differences between them and the general
population that cannot be explained by standard reasoning (eg smoking,
better eating habits etc). Thus, it does not seem (again with absolute
proof) that leading a religious life leads to a longer life span except
through the venue that it may hopefully lead to better habits.

gmar chatima tova
Eli Turkel

ps
One of the benefits of Israel is that everyone including most chilonim
wish each other a gmar chatima tova

"Cantor Wolberg" <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:
> Another reason given is what if the shofar breaks and then has to be
> repaired?  That was another reason why there is an issur for blowing
> the shofar on Shabbos.

A shofar can be repaired?

> Also, it should be pointed out that in the
> Beis Hamikdash in Yerushalaym the shofar WAS sounded on Shabbos (but not
> outside of the area). Perhaps carrying wasn't an issue then, but the risk
> of repair would have been the same. So why didn't it bother them then?

Ein shevut bamikdash.

> I have always found it fascination that shofar does not require a minyan.
> The mitzvah is fulfilled even if you blow shofar yourself in your house.
> You would think that such a major mitzvah of R"H would require a
> minyan.

Why? What other mitzvot, of similar or greater significance, require
a minyan? Lulav, Succah, Matzah, Tefillin, Kiddush, Birkat Hamazon
(just picking at random)...

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On October 9, 2005 Micha Berger wrote:

(My translation)
> : Michtav MeEliyahu Chelek Beis pg. 152
> ...
> : "And it is noteworthy that sometimes the Ramban writes there [in his
> : pirush] that this and this particular day [of creation] "alludes"
> : to this and this particular 1000 year period (of our six thousand year
> : world) or that it "corresponds" to it, and sometimes he writes utilizing
> : ontological terminology, that this and this particular day *is* this
> : and this particular thousand year period. That is, sometimes he writes
> : [using terminology that corresponds] with our [physical] perception, and
> : as we've mentioned before, that the Torah documents events as we perceive
> : them utilizing our terminology and thus, they (the days) of creation only
> : "allude" to the six thousand year period; and sometimes he (the Ramban)
> : writes according to their fundamental essence [in which case] the inner
> : essence of the six days of creation, and the spiritual revelations of
> : the six thousand years are really one and the same."

(Micha)
> Second, it has nothing about spiritual revelations. "Giluyei" refers to
> what unfolds over the course of history. Not about spiritual revelations,
> but about the experience of time. In the case of achar hacheit, how the
> hole passes over the map.

On October 11, 2005, I responded
"You claim that Giluy here has nothing to do with spiritual revelations
however a simple perusal of the Ramban reveals your error. Every one
of the sheshes yimey breishis hints at the spiritual qualities of its
corresponding 1000 year period. For instance, the first day of yehi or
corresponds to Adam Harishon who lived 1000 years and was oro shel olam
and recognised his creator, the second day was kineged noach and his
sons who were tzadikim the third was kineged Avraham avinu etc. Just
read the Ramban!"

And on October 9, 2005 Micha wrote:
> My translation:
> "That is, something he (the Rambam) writes according to our 
> perception, like we saw above...
> According to comprehension, we can only understand them as signs or 
> allusions. Ontologically, they are identical...

To which I responded (on the 11th)

"Your above "translation" is nothing more than your stated opinions in
Rav Dessler, not a translation."

I had occasion to visit a Jewish bookstore today and lo and behold I
came upon R' Aryeh Carmel's English translation of Michtav MeEliyahu
called Strive for Truth. I quickly flipped to the part regarding Rav
Dessler's assessment of the Ramban (as this is basically the crux of
our disagreement) and wrote down R' Carmel's translation. (I informed
the store owner regarding my intentions. Also, there are no copyright
laws when it comes to quotations) Here it is.

"If one reads his words carefully, one will see that sometimes the
Ramban writes that such & such a day "corresponds to" or "alludes to"
such & such a thousand year era, yet sometimes he writes that the day IS
(emphasis by RAC) the thousand year era. The first form corresponds to
our limited mode of comprehension, while the second form, which identifies
the "day" with the "era", is based on the inner truth, that is, that the
spiritual content of those days and the spiritual revelations contained
in those eras are identical"

As you can see, 1) what you wrote above ""Giluyei" refers to what unfolds
over the course of history. Not about spiritual revelations, but about
the experience of time" is incorrect 2) Rav Dessler is identifying the
"spiritual" similarities as identical between the days and eras as opposed
to ontologically, unlike what you wrote above "According to comprehension,
we can only understand them as signs or allusions. Ontologically, they
are identical..." 3) your understanding is not that of the Mevi Laor
(sound familiar?).

Simcha Coffer

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
<<I frankly think you're being overly pedantic about these sources. I
know of no one who pasqened, for example, that one shouldn't daven for
a shechiv mairah because his judgement already was set.>>

"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The Gemara says "keman matzlinan ha'idna aketziri vea'meri'i" and
> concludes that it is only appropriate if adam nidon bechol yom;
> otherwise, it's already been "paskened".

I grant that our conception of din leMaalah is childish, but this Gemara
apparently continues the analogy.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I asked <<< "What is the risk that someone is going to carry a shofar,
on Shabbos Rosh Hashana?" >>>

Several posters offered explanations that this was a very real concern,
and I thank them.

Cantor Wolberg's point was <<< it should be pointed out that in the
Beis Hamikdash in Yerushalaym the shofar WAS sounded on Shabbos (but
not outside of the area). Perhaps carrying wasn't an issue then, but
the risk of repair would have been the same. So why didn't it bother
them then? This would indicate that the reason may be more complex. >>>

As I recall (sorry that I can't find the source right now) the general
rule was that *none* of the rabbinic "fences" around Shabbos applied in
the Beis HaMikdash, and this is certainly in that category. (I think the
reasoning was that because of the intense holiness of the place, people
were much more aware of what they were doing, so the chance of accidental
errors was low enough that they didn't legislate to protect against it.)

He continued <<< ... B'midbar says: yom teruah yehiye lachem, you are to
have a day of Shofar sounding. Vayikra says: Shabbaton zichron teruah,
you are to have a day of rest, commemorated with the sounding of the
Shofar. Both verses mention Rosh HaShanah as a time of sounding the
Shofar; neither verse mentions Shabbat at all. But the Rabbis interpreted
the first text to refer to a regular weekday Rosh HaShanah, and the second
text to refer to Rosh HaShanah that falls on Shabbat, "a commemoration
of blowing the Shofar." Hence the prohibition is really mid'rabbanan. >>>

Was this a typo? Perhaps you meant to write that this prohibition is
really d'Oraisa?

I suggest that because that's how this logic has always played out in *my* mind. I mean, seriously, we have a pasuk in the Torah which has been interpreted as referring to a Rosh Hashana on which the shofar is NOT blown, right? And this word "zichron" is superfluous, not needed by the context, so isn't it a case of the Torah *instructing* us not to blow it on that day?

Hmmm... With this logic, I suppose that one could call Purim a d'Oraisa as well, since the extra word in "haster astir" is also superfluous... What's the deal with that?

So I guess my question is this: If a superfluous word in the Torah is used as support for a d'Rabanan, then how was that word explained as non-superfluous prior to when they thought up that d'Rabanan?

Akiva Miller

R' Leonid Portnoy asked about the increased lifespan which we are blessed
with nowadays: <<< Assumption #1: The proportion of reshoim to non-reshoim
has remained almost the same throughout the past 100 years. Assumption
#2: If one is found to be a rasha on Rosh Hashanah, he is decreed to
die within the year. The logical conclusion from these assumptions is
that there should be the same number of people dying now as there were
one hundred years ago. However, this is not the case. Therefore, one
(or both) of the assumptions must be wrong. >>>

I have no answers to this very troubling problem.

But to help towards a solution, let me point out that it is merely a
restatement of its reverse: When an unusually large number of people die
in some sort of tragedy, is it because on the previous Rosh Hashana they
were found to be reshaim?

Akiva Miller

> Verse 6 (ch.32) of Ha'azinu begins  with a "hay" which is detached from
> the word that follows. This "hay" is the  end of Moses' signature. If
> one takes the first letters of verses 1-6  (hay,yud,chof,hay,shin,hay),
> they add up to 345 by way of gematria which  represents the value of
> the letters in Moses' name (mem,shin,hay). In this  way Moses affixed
> his name to the book, ending his "signature" with the  detached "hay."
> (Tanch. Ha'azinu 5.)

I just mention for sake of completeness that Minchas Shai discusses this
issue in length.

M. Levin

1- I heard two people discussing kaparos this morning. One made a point
of mentioning doing kisui hadam before Yom Kippur as he was describing
his plans. It's an interesting point, and perhaps a useful kavanah. (For
those of you who use chickens. Me, I'm chosheish for the mechabeir's
shitah and stick to money like we did when I was a kid.)

2- We have divrei Torah about Shavuos discussing why the Torah never
tells you it's zeman matan Toraseinu. Why are there no parallel divrei
Torah about Yom Kippur? You can do the math for the luchos sheniyos no
less than for matan Torah to know it's the anniversary of a significant
kapparah. What are we to learn from it? (And you can't say that teshuvah
is for every day, because so is zechiras yatzi'as mitzrayim, but the
pasuq ties Pesach to it.)

Rosh Hashanah, at least, we have a machloqes as to whether it really is
haras olam, and if so, what does the expression mean.

Along these lines:

In Sha'arei Teshuvah sha'ar 4, Rabbeinu Yonah makes a point of telling
you that the mitzvah of teshuvah on Yom Kippur is a distinct mitzvah from
that of the entire year. However, looking at the Rambam, teshuvah isn't
mentioned in Hil' Tzom haAsiri; rather, Yom Kippur is mentioned in Hil'
Teshuvah. Implying a machloqes.

Just pieces of ideas, hoping someone can assemble them.

GCT!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter

[R Steve Brizel wrote on Areivim:]
> ... [T]he main derech halimud in Lakewood is via Chaburos without a rebbe
> and that issues of psak and horaah are not considered the bailiwick of
> lomdus. How anyone can learn without a rebbe to show him the ins and
> outs of a sugya and which views of Rishonim are mainstream and rejected
> especially and even at such a high level in Lakewood has always struck me
> IMO as highly problematic. IOW, without a rebbe, how does anyone in such
> a situation known whether he is learning pshat in any sugya correctly?

On a related note, I think the use of the word correctly must be understood
as consistent with the halachik mesorah not necessarily as the original
intent of each of the participants (Tanaaim etc.) in the debate may have
intended their original statements.

GCT
Joel Rich

On October 12, 2005 Micha Berger wrote:
> 2- We have divrei Torah about Shavuos discussing why the Torah never
> tells you it's zeman matan Toraseinu. Why are there no parallel divrei
> Torah about Yom Kippur? You can do the math for the luchos sheniyos no
> less than for matan Torah to know it's the anniversary of a significant
> kapparah. 

To compound Micha's question, Rav Hutner holds that the kapara on Yom
Kippur is intrinsically tied with the luchos shenios in the sense that we
reacquired our status as the am hanivchar on Yom Kippur as is attested to
by the giving of the luchos shenios (Rav Dessler has a similar approach).

Perhaps the answer is that fundamentally, the day is a day of kapara
and this item *is* mentioned in the Torah whereas matan Torah is not
mentioned at all in the Torah in relation to Shavuos thus engendering
the shtiklach Torah for Shavuos.

GCT to the entire Avodah chevra - May HKBH grant everyone a year of
happiness and health, a year which will produce "hatzlachah muflaga sy
in gashmius and sy in Ruchnius" AVKY"R.

Simcha Coffer

> So I guess my question is this: If a superfluous word in the Torah
> is used as support for a d'Rabanan, then how was that word explained as
> non-superfluous prior to when they thought up that d'Rabanan?

See <http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/nidah/backgrnd/ni-in-28.htm>,
paragraph beginning "11) [line 30] ". Especially relevant perhaps is
the shita of the Ritba:
: The RITVA (to Rosh Hashanah 16a, see Be'er ha'Golah of the MAHARAL,
: Be'er #1) states that when Chazal present an Asmachta, it means that the
: Torah meant to suggest that it is fitting to implement such a Halachah,
: but that it did not choose to make it obligatory. The Torah empowered
: the Chachamim to enact it should the need for it arise..

TK and GHT!

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


[ 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         ]