Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 043

Tuesday, May 16 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:16:46 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Fiscal Law in Shabbat Beshabbato

Redistributed on line by Machon Zomet.

If these columns continue in future issues, it may be a useful resource to
launch Shabbos table discussions of ethics and integrity.


Machon Zomet

Workers in Manpower Companies
Rabbi Uri Dasberg

For various reasons many employers, both in government and public or
private institutions, hire workers who receive their pay from manpower
agencies. Such companies have the status of outside contractors who
perform the work. Often the expansion of this phenomenon stems from
exaggerated demands that the workers have requested from the real
employers. Contractors offer the workers inferior conditions, and at
first glance the ultimate employers are not involved in the specific
work terms. But is this really true? Does the prohibition "Let no man
deceive his colleague" [Vayikra 25:17] apply only to the institution that
gives the formal salary slip? Is the command "Do not make him perform
hard labor" [25:43] only relevant to the company that directly signs a
contract and not the one that pays the bills?

It is true that such items as land have been excluded from the laws
of fraud, but as the Ramban explained, "certainly one who deceives his
friend on purpose has committed a sin... But our sages made the novel
ruling that one must pay restitution up to a fraction of one-sixth of
the value and that the sale is cancelled for a larger fraction. And this
is the law which is not valid for purchase of land." [Vayikra 25:16].
However, this does not mean that it is permitted to deceive when there
is no financial liability. Fraud is forbidden, and that is the law!

The sages in the Talmud discussed the concept of manpower agencies,
as is written, "If one says to his colleague, Go out and hire workers
for me, neither one is in violation of the sin of withholding pay when
it is due: the first because he did not hire the workers and the second
because they did not work for him." [Bava Metzia 110b]. In this way,
both men manage to avoid the halachic responsibility for withholding a
worker's salary. But the Talmud states that this law is valid only in
the case where the messenger (the manpower agency) told the workers that
the owner would pay their salary. If, however, he said that he would pay
them, he is held responsible. Thus, the manpower agency that sets the work
terms and pays the salary is legally obligated with respect to the worker.

But all of this does not remove any obligation from the institution
that is paying the contract agency. It is still responsible for causing
the agency to sin, violating the prohibition, "Do not place a stumbling
block in front of a blind man" [19:14]. The institution also has the same
responsibility as one who buys an object from a thief, about whom the
Rambam wrote that "his sin is great, since he is giving encouragement to
a sinner, and he causes him to steal other items. If he would not find
any buyers, he would not steal. And this is what the verse is referring
to when it says, 'One who divides the spoils with a thief hates his own
soul.' [Mishlei 29:24]." [Hilchot Geneiva 5:1].

Reference: Rabbi Uri Sadan, Techumin, volume 26, page 394


Torah Law
Did You Break It? Pay for It!
Rabbi Yosef Carmel, Head of Eretz Hemdah Institute, Jerusalem

Reuven wanted to buy a car from Shimon, and as is common practice he
took the car to a testing center to have it checked. On the trip to
the center, one of the tires developed a flat, and the tire was damaged
beyond repair. Who should pay for replacing the tire?

Claims of the sides:

Testing center: We are not required to pay, and there is no insurance
for this type of event. This is in accordance with the agreement signed
by the one who asked for the test. (This really is written in the fine
print of the contract -- it always pays to read the fine print!)

Shimon, the seller: The buyer requested the test and paid for it, as is
common practice. Therefore he is responsible for the tire.

Reuven, the buyer: The car belongs to the seller. What happened is not
my fault.

Court decision: Since the damage did not occur through the fault of the
buyer, the seller (the original owner) must absorb the cost of replacing
the tire.

Explanation: It is written in the Shulchan Aruch, "If one takes an item
from the house of the manufacturer in order to test it: if the price was
set in advance and it broke while in his possession, he must pay for it.
Since the price was fixed, it came into his possession from the moment
that he picked it up, and the seller cannot change his mind about the
sale. But this is only true if he picked it up with the intention of
taking possession of the item, and that the buyer truly likes the item.
However, if the seller does not want the item and is in a hurry to
sell it, it remains in his possession until the price is fixed and
only when the buyer picks it up after the price was fixed." [Choshen
Mishpat 200:11].

In our case, the buyer took the car for a test and had not yet decided
to buy it. He certainly was not sure he would buy it before he received
the results of the test. In addition, the buyer did not perform any act
of taking possession of the car. Even according to the rabbis who rule
that a specific act of taking possession is not required in order to
become responsible, the current case is not like that in the Shulchan
Aruch (where the buyer is held responsible). In the current situation,
the seller is just as anxious to sell as the buyer wants to buy. In
addition, the condition that "the price has been fixed" that appears
in the Shulchan Aruch does not exist, since the final price of the car
was not settled. The financial negotiations end only after the results
of the test are received. In view of these points, the tire belonged to
the seller and he must replace it.

(Note: Do not try to derive practical halachic rulings from this column.
Every individual case must be decided on its own merits by a competent
financial court.)

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:38:11 -0400
From: "Klahr, Phillip" <klahrpd@upmc.edu>
Shavuos Miderabanan?

Last year, I saw Rav Nevenzal ask an interesting question: Since the
Torah defines Shavuos as following the 49 days of Sefirah, and according
to many (most?) Rishonim, Sefirah is nowadays only Miderabanan, it
should follow that nowadays there is no Chag HaShavuos Mideoraisa,
only Miderabanan. Any answers? Thanks

Pinchus Klahr

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Levin <mlevinmd@verizon.net>
Al Naharos Bavel: Authorship and Ibn Ezra's shitta

As for the Ibn Ezra, the only issue is whether Sefer Tehillim was written
b'ruach haKodesh. In his introduction the Ibn Ezra mentions unnamed
"commentators" (Karaim, perhaps?) who write that Al Naharos Bavel and
other psalms were first composed after Dovid HaMelech's time, based on
the premise that Tehillim is not a book of prophecy. However, he writes,
"daati noteh im divrei kadmonaynu z"l ki zeh hasefer kulo ne'emar b'ruach
hakodesh." Following Chazal, and showing that the evidence for the other
position is wanting, the Ibn Ezra holds that all Sefer Tehillim (including
Al Naharos Bavel) was compiled by Dovid HaMelech b'ruach hakodesh. And
since it was written b'ruach hakodesh, the Ibn Ezra maintains, he finds
no reason to deny that Dovid HaMelech wrote about events in his future.

> ...in his comments on the beginning of Tehillim 137, he seems to take
> it at its word, as if it were written by Leviim in golus Bavel.

This was the view of R. Moshe Ibn Gikatilla, a commentator from
Sefarad who held that Tehillim were not composed by Ruach Hakodesh. This
commmentary is now lost. See Uriah Simon, Four approaches to teh book of
Psalms, where he discusses this commentator and this view at length. From

    " Uriel Simon describes the fascinating controversy that raged
    from the tenth to the twelfth centuries regarding the theological
    status and literary genre of the Psalms. Saadiah Gaon, who initiated
    the controversy, claimed that the Psalter was a second Torah--the
    Lord's word to David--and by no means man's prayer to God. Salmon
    ben Yerucham and Yefet ben Ali insisted on the Karaite view that the
    Book of Psalms was the prophetic common prayerbook of Israel. Totally
    opposing both of these concepts, Rabbi Moses Ibn Giqatilah regarded
    the Psalms as non-prophetic prayers authored by different poets,
    beginning with David and ending with the captive Levites in the
    Babylonian exile. Finally, Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra reverted to the
    belief held by the Talmudic sages--that the Psalms were Israel's
    divinely inspired and most sacred poetry.

The book also includes the full text of a previously unknown introduction
to Ibn Ezra's lost commentary on the Psalms, which is much more elaborate
and revealing than the introduction to his familiar classical commentary.


M. Levin

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 18:02:41 -0400
From: "Glasner, David" <DGLASNER@ftc.gov>
RE: Shevuos - Matan Torah

My grandfather R. Akiva Glasner discusses this question at length in
his Iqvei ha-Tzon. b'qitzur nimratz, he holds that the day in the
Jewish calendar that is the primary commemoration of matan torah is not
Shavuot, but Shabbat, based on the statement in masechet Shabbat "hakol
modim she'beshabbat nitnah torah." Based on this idea he interprets,
"va-y'khal eloqim ba-yom ha-shevi'i et melakhto asher asah" to refer
to matan torah which completed and stabilized the creation, which could
not otherwise have continued. That is why it is correct to say that God
completed the creation on the seventh day when from the story in Bereshit
he completed the creation on the sixth day, which seems to me a much
better answer than the familiar answers of Rashi and other mephorshim
to that famous question. Since Shabbat is the day that commemorates
matan torah, the Torah never explicitly identifies the the festival of
Shavuot with the giving of the Torah. Moreover since the exodus from
Egypt was on a Thursday and since the Torah was given on Shabbat, Matan
Torah was on the 51st day of the Omer, not the 50th. The count this year
replicates the count of year of the exodus, and Shavuot falls on Friday.
It was only after the destruction of the Temple, when the agricultural
aspect of Shavuot was nullified, that Chazal identified Shavuot with
Matan Torah so that it would retain meaning after the primary mitzvah
of the holiday could no longer be fulfilled.

David Glasner

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 01:40:34 +0200
From: Ari Kahn <ari@biu.013.net.il>
RE: Shevuos - Matan Torah

From: Glasner, David [mailto:DGLASNER@ftc.gov] 
> My grandfather R. Akiva Glasner discusses this question at length ...
> his Iqvei ha-Tzon. b'qitzur nimratz, he holds that the day in the
> Jewish calendar that is the primary commemoration of matan torah is not
> Shavuot, but Shabbat, based on the statement in masechet Shabbat "hakol
> modim she'beshabbat nitnah torah." ...

Destruction of which temple first or second? The tefilot certainly
go back to Anshie Kenneset Hagdolah - the beginning of the second.

The truth is that the famous question of the Magen Avraham which really
starts off the entire discussion is remarkable - because he is mistaken
(I say this with all due respect) he asks how can we say "Yom Matan
Torosanu) when the torah was really given on the next day. The answer
is we donít say "Yom" we say "Zman" this was already pointed out by
Rishonim (Drashot Ibn Shu'ib- R. Joshua ibn Shu'ib was a student of R.
Shlomo ibn Aderet (Rashba), a colleague of R. Yom Tov ibn Abraham Ishbili
(Ritva), and the teacher of R. Menachem ben Zerach. R. Joshua lived in
Spain ca. 1280-1340. His homilies (Derashot) were arranged according to
the weekly Torah portions and the Torah readings for the Jewish holidays,
and were first published in Constantinople in 1523. Bal Ilan Shut)
Zman is general not specific. I have no explanation how the Magen Avraham
missed this.
Both Rav Kook and the Gerrer Rebbe explain that HKBH said the torah
would be given on the third day - Moshe added a day which created the
51st day problem - but from a Divine perspective the torah was ready to
be given on the 3rd day - which was the 50th day. We were only ready to
accept it on the 51st day - so in subsequent years should we celebrate
when we received it or when HKBH was ready to give it. Zman Matan Torah.

Ari Kahn

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 19:32:38 -0400
From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>
Re: Shavuos - Matan Torah?

"kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that even when Shavuos falls on the 5th or 7th of Sivan,
> there still IS a link between it and Matan Torah, by virtue of the fifty
> days between Pesach and Shavuos.

But there were not necessarily 50 days between yetziat mitzrayim and
matan torah. Everyone holds that matan torah was on a Shabbat. If we
hold that yetziat mitzrayim was on a Thursday, rather than a Friday
(see the gemara in Shabbat), then matan torah was on the 51st day of the

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:18:47 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Shevuos- Matan Torah

On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 09:07:47PM -0700, velvel gurkow wrote:
: What about the Gemara in Shabbos (86:2) which deals with the argument
: between Chachomim and Rav Yossi whether Matan Torah was on 6-7 Sivan?

The Shu"t Oneg Yom Tov suggests the following reason why Moshe moved
maamad Har Sinai from the 6th to the 7th. Matan Torah is defined by
the progression of 50 days (tisperu chamishim yom). During the actual
yetzi'as Mitzrayim, day 0, the uncounted day before the omer, wasn't
shaleim -- it started at midnight when we started leaving the 49th
sha'ar tum'ah. Therefore, the end of the same progression was on the 7th,
not the 6th.

So, why don't we start counting a day earlier? Because the pasuq
"mimacharas hashabas tisperu" (Vayiqra 23:9-16) doesn't require saying
anything; it's counting in the same sense as 7 yemei taharah. And that's
where it says "tisperu chamishim yom" (23:16). The chiyuv to actually
number each day and week is from "meihacheil charmeish" (Devarim 16:9),
where the expression is "tacheil lispor". And there, there is no mention
of 50 days.

Thus, matan Toraseinu isn't fixed on the calendar, it's fixed to the
completion of the process of the omer. Ad kan Shu"t Oneg Y"T.

In Tanakhi Hebrew, "zeman" would refer to a date on the calendar, as
opposed to eis (Hirschian-ly related to the word "ad") which is a point in
a progression. Such as the one suggested above. Thus, the Torah wouldn't
call it zeman matan toraseinu, but eis matan toraseinu, if anything.


Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 00:52:49 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
RE: lag baomer and Rshbi

On May 15, 2006, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The author found an original copy in a museum and it says that Lag
> Baomer was "yom simchato shel Rashbi" not "yom mitato" and the copier
> made a mistake.
> That explains wht there is a celebration on a day that a tzaddik died.

The standard explanation is that the students of R' Akiva did not die
on this day. As such, the museum copy could easily be describing a state
of affairs rather than depicting events relating to Rashbi's life.

Simcha Coffer

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 23:06:30 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
RE: Al Naharos Bavel: Authorship and Ibn Ezra's shitta (Was: Spilling drops of wine at the Seder)

On May 14, 2006, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> What he says is, "At the beginning of the sefer I mentioned the opinion
> of 'the commentators' concerning this psalm. This psalm was said /al
> leshone/ haLeviim she-hame haMeshor'rim b'galusam al Bavel." -- I.e.,
> this mizmor was said not /by/ the Leviim of the galus, but poetically
> placed in their mouths by Dovid who foresaw the ultimate conquest by
> Bavel. 

The obvious issue this thread is addressing is how Dovid was able to
compose a mizmor which portrayed events which had not yet occurred. I
accept (and am grateful for the clarification of) RZL's explanation
but I have a kasha. How can Dovid, or anyone for that matter, describe
events which occur in the future when said events are ostensibly taluy
on bechira? I have two distinct approaches which address this issue but
I'd love to hear the olam's response.

Incidentally, the Rambam's approach (Hilchos Teshuva) to resolve the
contradiction between yedia and bechira does not work for human beings.
Despite the fact that humans are able to receive information which
transcends the boundaries of nature (e.g. Nevuah), this phenomenon, by
necessity, must be understood to be in concordance with the facility of
free will. Accordingly, hadra kushya l'duchta.

Simcha Coffer  

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:05:53 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Avraham recognizing Hashem

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:55:32AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: *Medrash****(Bereishis Rabbah 30:8)* Reish Lakish says Avraham was 3
: years old when he recognized G-d. Rav Yochanon said he was 48 years...

In other contexts, RL and RY seem to take sides that reflect their
own experience.

For example, RL, who reached greatness quickly, holds that the Torah was
given all at once. RY, who worked his way from childhood, holds that it
was given peice by peice over 40 years.

Here too, it would seem that RL feels that Avraham could reach the
madreigah of ma'amin in a short time, and RY holds it took another
45 years.


Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:38:11 +0200
From: "Akiva Blum" <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>
RE: lag baomer and Rashbi

"Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>One of the local papers had an article claiming that the notion that
>Rashbi died on Lag Baomer is a mistake....
>The author found an original copy in a museum and it says that Lag
>Baomer was "yom simchato shel Rashbi" not "yom mitato" and the copier
>made a mistake.

This can be found explicitly in 'maris ayin' from the Chido.

In addition, a new sefer by Rav Yaakov Hillel on Lag Beomer (I don't
remember it's name) says that this Chido is undoubtedly correct.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 12:41:29 +0100
From: joshua.kay@addleshawgoddard.com
Re: Challah on the Table

> I responded to him that never having learned Tosfos or Gemara, I did
> not know that people used to eat Friday night supper in the waning light
> of the sun.

I believe it is the Terumas HaDeshen (1) who mentions the common practice
of people to get home from shul, make kiddush, eat their meal, and then
go for stroll by the river before it got dark! There is a Tosfos which
states that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehudah, who holds that the zman
arvis commences at plag hamincha), and this was the mainstream custom
in Ashkenaz. There is a Yaaros Devash in which R. Y Eibeschuetz (of
Prague, later Hamburg) also supports this view.

The current "chumra" of waiting to bring in Shabbos bizman originates
with the Gra (now minhag Yerushayalim), as he held that maariv should
alway be prayed after nightfall, even on Shabbos (what he does with
the Gemara about Rav, who davened his Shabbos maariv on erev Shabbos,
I don't know). I assume that the Baal HaTanya also held this way,
as Lubavitchers also seem to be particular on this point.

Here in Manchester, tzeis hakochavim is currently around 10:00pm and will
soon get to 11:00pm (or slightly earlier, according to the Baal HaTanya).
Therefore, the Lubavitchers I know go to shul for mincha and kabbolas
Shabbos, make kiddush and eat the meal by daylight, and then go to shul
for maariv after nacht. Given that the Gaon lived in far-north Vilna,
I wonder how many joined him for his late night maariv on Shabbos night?

By the way, the Aroch HaShulchan gets very upset about those who insisted
on always bringing in Shabbos bizman, as he observed that it led to
chillul haShabbos. I have always wondered if this was a reference to
the minhag Lubavitch, with which he was certainly familiar, given the
time he spent with the Tzemach Tzedek.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 20:28:25 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Malachim (was Spilling drops of wine at the Seder)

On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:26:57AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: I'm going to play devil's advocate here (I'm not calling you a devil
: R' Zvi)...

The "devil's advocate" is the person appointed by the Vatican to argue
against the beatification of someone. They figure the devil doesn't
want saints, and therefore his advocate would argue against. The idiom
therefore means someone who argues against something just for the point
of providing an argument and thereby reveal more of the facts.

I would have thought the idiom is therefore asur, in that Catholics
seem to see the world poised as a battle between their god and the
devil. Wouldn't this make the devil a demigod, an AZ? And yet, this
attitude was more prevalent amongst Catholics in Tosafos's period than
in ours, and Tosafos only considers the trinity as shituf -- and does not
raise the issue of this kind of dualism.

: BTY, since Hashem maintains a connection to this world, the same question
: can be asked about Him but the famous kabbalistic answer is that there are
: two distinct elements which manifest themselves in any discussion relating
: to Hashem; one is referred to as 'Or' (Shechina) and one is referred to
: as 'Ma'or' (Atzmus)...

Except according to the Tanya, which described Hashem as both the Or
and the Ma'or of the atzilus. Which is part of his shitah that Ein od
milvado means that everything is of Him, tzimtzum is an illusion, what
RJB called Lubavitch acosmism. See
(Don't let the URL fool you.)

Leshitas Einstein, in science which has become lemaaseh in the design of GPS,
the difference between time and space depends on your velocity. The amount of
separation between two events that's attributable to space vs that attributable
to time is a function of your motion relative to the events. So, it would
seem that we've experimentally proven that what we call time is inseparable
from space, and can't alone.

I've discussed in the past, on more than one occasion, the position
of the Kotzker that there is no time in shamayim, that niftarim do not
experience time. This is also presumed by the reason given in SA haRav for
YT sheini shel goliyos, as recently discussed. Qedushas YT on YT shein
shel galiyos is just as real as that of YT rishon. There is a supernal
"Pesach" (lemashal) "up" in shamayim, but it is not associated with any
point in shamayim, since it is lema'alah min hazeman. HQBH created a
link between the 15th day after qidush hachodesh and Chazal created a
link on the 16th. While the nature of the link is different, the thing
they link to is identical.

I asked about saying Qaddish for 11 months, and the whole notion of how
long one is in gehennom. But as pointed out, this would only prove that
in gehenom has time.

According to the Rambam's proof, only HQBH would qualify as being
lemaalah min hazeman. Since only he is Perfectly One, and therefore
does not involve an interaction of parts. Mal'achim have tzuros,
therefore they can change and thus experience time. Not that too many
contemporaries accept much of the hashqafah in the Moreh, but the proof
I think stands on its own. (Regardless of whether one speaks in terms
of tzurah vechomer.) Just the fact that they didn't exist on day 1
but do now should be sufficient. Whcih is how we get to the Ikkarim II:29
(cited by RZL).

If we were to go further into his hashqafah, the Rambam's very definition
of mal'ach is that it's the seichel which provides the impetus behind
natural event. (An Aristotilian concept similar to our "energy" or
"momentum", but created by minds and imparted to objects, and most
significantly, only lasts for a short time.) It would seem therefore
that he defines a mal'ach as the interface between the Timeless and time.

On the Qabbalistic front, RMLevin already distinguished between olamos,
ascribing mal'achim to beri'ah and yetzirah which in turn experience time.

Then there's the subject of mal'achim and bechirah. One can't have
bechirah without a concept of time distinguishing before the choice
from after, ratzon from ta'anug. The Rambam and Or Samei'ach prove that
malachim have no bechirah the Rambam because they lack it bekoach,
the OS because they have no opportunity to use it bepo'al. But there
are plenty of aggados that presume they do.

RYGB once suggested that leshitas haOS, they lack bechirah because in
Shamayim, good vs evil is obvious, not a choice. Which would mean that
when sent down here, where tov is occluded, perhaps they do. This would
answer the timing of mal'achim when down on earth, eg saying shirah at
qeri'as Yam Suf. Since they obtain bechitah, time follows suit.

I still need to be meyasheiv all this to the physics. If there is time
in even some levels of Shamayim, it can not be the stuff being studied
in physics class.

I suggest to RSC he simply skip to the next post at this point. The
rest of this post is a combination of every statement I've expressed
about the MmE that he has debated.

REED writes in his essay on olamos (cheileq I) that Adam qodem hacheit
inhabited olam hayetzirah, whereas we are in olam ha'asiyah, and that the
difference of which olam your in depends on the stature and perspective
of the individual. A taylor ses everyone's suits, a shoemaker their shoes,
and so each person sees the world they're atuned to see.

And in the conclusion of REED's maamar (cheileq II) on time, we learn that
this qodem hacheit existence is time experience min haqatzeh el haqatzeh.

I would therefore conclude that in olam hayetzirah, time exists, but not
as the flow we experience. And thus similarly olam haberi'ah, since it's
below olam ha'atzilus it must have time, but it's above yetzirah which
already does not experience time as a flow.

This would satisfy the Rambam's proof -- since they have parts, they must
experience time. And yet, since they usually do not have bechirah bein
tov vara (and not even emes vasheqer) they do not experience it as a
flowing thing.

This would mean that mal'achim have time, but in a way so alien to the
way we do, it is still possible to speak of the difference between our
immediacy at Yam Suf and theirs. For them, except perhaps when working
in lower olamos, nothing receeds into the past.


Micha Berger             Today is the 32nd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Hod: What type of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 really results in dominating others?

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 >