Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 28

Thu, 04 Jan 2007

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "A & C Walters" <acwalters@bluebottle.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:57:37 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Changing Havarah


> On the contrary, from the quote you provided it seems that they were
> pronounced exactly the same, and the difference was only in writing.
>
You misread. I wrote, bishmoy: "even though it seems that there is no 
difference between a kometz and a pasach, this is not so, in that the kometz 
is a higher sound and the pasach is lower"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to protect your business! Compare business insurance rates
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJewX4PHsVGRKkfianMMPehmMBw/




Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:47:47 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Changing Havarah


A & C Walters wrote:
>> On the contrary, from the quote you provided it seems that they were
>> pronounced exactly the same, and the difference was only in writing.
>>
> You misread. I wrote, bishmoy: "even though it seems that there is no 
> difference between a kometz and a pasach, this is not so, in that the 
> kometz is a higher sound and the pasach is lower"

What are the Hebrew words you're translating as "a higher sound"
and "a lower sound".  I very much suspect you're misunderstanding them.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:58:31 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] lighting a chanukiya


That lights were lighted is certain-- the
yerushalmi talks about spears holding lights.>>
That does not becessarily mean a chanukiya. There are
opinions that lighting a chanukiya began only at the end of the
second Temple days. Until then they relied on the Menorah in
the Temple. That explains why Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel can
argue about the order of lighting. It still was not settled almost
22 years after Chanukah.
Josephus does not seem to be aware of lighting chanukiyot.
Since it was meant to be done outside to publicize the miracle it
seems strange than a historian of the times looking into reasons
was not aware of the custom. However if the custom
just began at the time of the destruction it would explain why
it still was not widespread and why the details were being argued.

-- 
Eli Turkel



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:11:12 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] The GRA


Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:17:05 +0200, R Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>   
>> One of the goals of the Mishna Berura was to introduce the Gra's rulings
>> into the mainstream
>>     
>
> I didn't notice that in the haqdamah. The haqdamah did say the CC was trying to
> capture the shitos that emerged since the standardization of the page of SA. Given
> the number of unique pesaqim of the Gra, a significant minority of those shitos are
> the Gra's. But that's not the same as dedavka aiming to introduce the Gra's pesaqim
> in particular to the mainstream.
>   
If you read further in the introduction he says, "In places where I saw 
disputes between two achronim in a particular issue I was not too lazy  
to investigate amongst the works of other achronim to see towards which 
of these kedoshim were their views inclined l'maasseh. In particular the 
commentary of the Gra who is the Light of Israel and the foundation that 
everything else is built upon and his view is appropriate to decide the 
matter."

Daniel Eidensohn



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:30:57 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Changing Havara


Gershon Dubin wrote:
> From: "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>
> 
> <<Thank you for the correction.  (And for a good response to any
> Israelis who make a fuss about this.)>>
> 
> So the world is NOT destroyed, only endangered (Lesaken olam bemalchus Sh')

But according to Litvak chazzonim, Hashem's got a goat (eiz beyodcho
ugvuro biyminecho).


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "A & C Walters" <acwalters@bluebottle.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 23:44:03 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Changing Havarah




>
> What are the Hebrew words you're translating as "a higher sound"
> and "a lower sound".  I very much suspect you're misunderstanding them.
>

... ???"? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? 
?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Click for free info on discount teaching degrees programs
http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJqEWa5Ohk8yp8W6skDl7bnSkJG/




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:08:25 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Changing Havarah


A & C Walters wrote:

>> What are the Hebrew words you're translating as "a higher sound"
>> and "a lower sound".  I very much suspect you're misunderstanding them.

> ... ???"? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? 
> ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ...

Assuming that the ellipsis is correct, so that the phrase amounts
to "??? ???? ?????? ?????", then I withdraw my comment.  I had
suspected that he was speaking of their significance, and saying that
even though they sound exactly the same, one must not confuse them
because they mean different things.  In other words, he would be
forestalling the sort of confusion that one sees so often among
Israelis when they write nekudot, who have no clue when to use a
komatz and when a patoch.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:11:37 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Changing Havarah


On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:47:47PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: What are the Hebrew words you're translating as "a higher sound"
: and "a lower sound".  I very much suspect you're misunderstanding them.

To get the conversation back to the point... The two sounds were different
in the Ashkenazi havarah of the period. BUT,

In what havarah is the qamatz gevoha va'elyonah compared to the patach?
The qamatz is qemutzah, and thus rounder than the patach patuach. It
would be a atypical metaphor to describe a sound made by closing the
lips more as "higher" - "aw", "o" and "oo" are elyonim?

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 19:20:21 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Shitas R"T


On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 11:26:22AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: I have heard (but not seen inside) that R M Kasher wrote an essay
: showing that Chachmei EY knew the earth was a globe, while Chachmei
: Bavel did not.

I do not understand how. Even I was able to dig up evidence that the
Ptolmeic model was accepted by Chazal in Rebbe's day. The only evidence I
found for a flat earth were R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua, two generations
before, and R Chiya, a talmid of Rebbe's (who still believed in orbits,
just around a flat earth).

None of these three tannaim were Babylonian.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
micha@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 20:14:40 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Bchirah chofshit


On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:53:35AM -0500, Rich, R Joel sent us a link
to a NYTimes.com Science column for 1-Jan-2007 by Dennis Overby
<http://tinyurl.com/ygcfrd>.

Commenting on that column:
: I was a free man until they brought the dessert menu around. There was one
: of those molten chocolate cakes, and I was suddenly being dragged into a
: vortex, swirling helplessly toward caloric doom, sucked toward the edge
: of a black (chocolate) hole. Visions of my fathers heart attack danced
: before my glazed eyes. My wife, Nancy, had a resigned look on her face.
: The outcome, endlessly replayed whenever we go out, is never in doubt,
...

Doesn't this compare to REED's notion of bechirah point? He simply
pushed his bechirah point to the extent where this particular decision
is a foregone conclusion.

: That is hardly a new thought. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer
: said, as Einstein paraphrased it, that a human can very well do what he
: wants, but cannot will what he wants.

He can not will what he wants besha'as ma'aseh. But he can decide to
become a difference person and want something else. He can also spend a
relatively short time reconciliating himself with a decision. Someone
really wants that chocolate cake, but also wants to spare himself his
father's heart attack. He could choose to forgo the cake, and also talk
himself into be conciled with not getting it -- thereby changing the
losing desire.

This is how we can have mitzvos likfe "ve'ahavta es H' E-lokekha",
"lo sisna", "lo sachmod", "es imo ve'aviv tira'u", etc... 

: At that point, anything is possible. Whatever choice you make is unforced
: and could have been otherwise, but it is not random. You are responsible
: for any damage to your pocketbook and your arteries.

: That strikes many people as incoherent, said Dr. Silberstein, who noted
: that every physical system that has been investigated has turned out
: to be either deterministic or random. Both are bad news for free will,
: he said. So if human actions cant be caused and arent random, he said,
: It must be what some weird magical power?

"Weird magical power" shows the author's bias; he is prejudicing the
reader away from accepting the notion of soul through loaded
terminology.

I only know of one model that actually defines a middle ground
between algorithmic and random. The following is based on R' Dr
Moshe Koppel's Metahalakhah.

A random sequence is one whose next element is not predictable given
the sequence's history so far.

A sequence that can be reduced to a shorted one is the product of
algorithm. For example:
    10101010101....
Need not have every bit listed in order to reproduct the sequence. One
need only have a set of bits that mean "10, repeat" in some programming
language.

For example:
    1010...
Looks like it's the old "10, repeat". Until we get to:
    101000101...
Now it looks like
    if not a multiple of 5
        if odd  1
        if even 0
    if a multiple of 5 - 0

But then we get some more items:
    10100010111010...
So we theorize:
    if not a multiple of 5
        if odd  1
        if even 0
    if a multiple of 5
        if odd  0
        if even 1

But later on we learn:
    101000101110100010111010101011...
IOW, that the 25th item didn't obey this rule... and so on.

Sequences exist that are reducable to shorter programs, but those programs
are themselves not finite and therefore not algorithms.

: That is especially true when it comes to quantum mechanics, the
: strange paradoxical theory that ascribes a microscopic randomness to
: the foundation of reality. Anton Zeilinger, a quantum physicist at the
: University of Vienna, said recently that quantum randomness was not a
: proof, just a hint, telling us we have free will.

... since the probability curve resolves randomly to a single value as
a result of observation.

...
: In the 1970s, Benjamin Libet, a physiologist at the University of
: California, San Francisco, wired up the brains of volunteers to an
: electroencephalogram and told the volunteers to make random motions,
: like pressing a button or flicking a finger, while he noted the time on
: a clock.
: Dr. Libet found that brain signals associated with these actions occurred
: half a second before the subject was conscious of deciding to make them.

He found that the impulse to move, the readiness potential, would ashow
up 800ms before the motion. However, the conscious decision was typically
registered 500ms (1/2sec) before the motion.

Libet (a religious man) therefore concluded that man didn't have free
will as much as free won't -- the decision could stop the readiness
potential from causing actual motion.

Others proposed a simpler solution. Being self-aware means that someone
is aware of the workings of their mind. Conscious decisions are decisions
that are watched in this way. But that watching also takes time. IOW,
the people decided with free will to move their hand 800ms before the
motion, but the step of being aware of that fact took 500ms.

In any case, the notion that people convince themselves that they made
a decision ater the fact is not compelled by this experiment.

: Other philosophers disagree on the degree and nature of such freedom.
: Their arguments partly turn on the extent to which collections of things,
: whether electrons or people, can transcend their origins and produce
: novel phenomena.

IOW, the key isn't physivs vs soul, it's even defining what we mean by
something being neither algorithm nor random.

I recently proposed on my blog the controversial idea that the brain's
pattern is simply a lower world's shadow of the same tzurah as the
soul. See <http://tinyurl.com/y3lbsk> and <http://tinyurl.com/yxwr7h>.

I therefore embraced physicalism without denying the soul. The soul,
being that which the brain implements, determines what the brain does. By
making the spirtual as tzurah beli chomer, and the physical as chojmer
that can have elements of the same tzurah, the link between tzurah and
physical effect doesn't require defining a mechanism.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
micha@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 01:50:35 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Maakeh


On 1/3/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 07:30:05 -0500, "Michael Kopinsky" <mkopinsky@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > But in any case, as I said before, it seems that the only thing that is
> > objectively chayav in ma'akeh regardless of danger is the roof of a
> > residential building....
>
> 1- I thought it was any privately owned building. As long as there is a
> gavra to be the mechuyav.

It's a machlokes Rishonim.  The SA is soseim like the Rambam, who says
cattle-houses are patur.  The Sma I believe says that even according to
the Rishonim who are mechayev a cattle-house, nevertheless shuls will be
patur since there's no gavra to be mechayev.

> 2- I also thought it includes any platform or staircase in a residential
> building with a > 10 tefachim drop.

That could be, but it is not mentioned in Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, nosei
keilim, or Chinuch.  I have not seen the sugyas in Shas.

> Thus, if it were a yachid's store rather than a shul that had the platform,
> it would require a maakah. Even if people didn't normally walk on that
> platform.
>
> > Other things, such as scary dogs and deep pits,
> > necessitate preventative measures (not necessarily a 10 tefachim fence),
> > only when they are subjectively considered dangerous.
>
> Midin maakah, or midin bor bereshus harabbim?

Midin maakeh.  The continuation of the pasuk says, "v'lo Sasim Damim
b'veisecha ki yipol hanofeil mimenu."  The chinuch there also lists there
all the halachos of shmiras haguf (mayim megulim, etc.). From my
understanding, Bor birshus harabim is not an issur, but rather a Choshen
Mishpat-dikke chiyuv to pay damages.  (In general, hilchos nezikin is
monetary chiyuvim not prohibitions to damage your friend's property.  I
believe there's piece in Kehillos Yaakov (maybe Baba Kama siman 1) where
he says the issur of damaging your friend's stuff is lo sigzol.)

It also seemed from the chinuch that he understands that the things we
generally include in "venishmartem me'od lenafshoseichem" are actually
assur mishum ma'akeh.  I actually prefer this, since it doesn't need
taking the pasuk entirely out of context.

> I argued on Avodah a while back that maakah isn't directly about safety. If
> it were, it would be a chiyuv on the cheftzah. However, the chiyuv is on the
> gavra, which is why I phrased #1 (above) the way I did. So, I suggested that
> maakah is an exercise in learning the importance of safety, rather than an
> exercise in safety itself.

See what I wrote above about the machlokes rishonim.

> Tir'u baTov!
Shepherd well?  (Just to tie this in with the havara discussion... :-) )
> -mi



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 19:51:15 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Changing Havarah


Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:47:47PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : What are the Hebrew words you're translating as "a higher sound"
> : and "a lower sound".  I very much suspect you're misunderstanding them.
> 
> To get the conversation back to the point... The two sounds were different
> in the Ashkenazi havarah of the period.

Were they?  When did Ashkenazim begin distinguishing them?


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 00:14:57 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] zman hadloko erev Shabbos and motzoei Shabbos


Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> RZS writes:
>>  
>>>> So it remains theoretically *possible* that the stars visible  before
>> 4 millin are all what Chazal called "gedolim", and only the ones  that
>> become visible then are "beinonim", and perhaps the "kochavim  ketanim"
>> are ones that are too small or distant for us *ever* to see with  the
>> naked eye <<
> 
> Another point for you New Yorkers (or other big city people) to keep in 
> mind, is that stars come out a lot earlier, and a lot more of them are 
> visible, outside the city.  As someone who has done a lot of camping, I 
> can assure that by  72 minutes after shkia, there are MANY MANY stars out, 
> and there's no way you can say that every thing that's out by then is 
> medium.

I keep having to make this point, though I don't think I was at all
unclear: I am *not* trying to convince anyone that this *is* what
Chazal meant by "kochavim benonim".  "Shitat RT" is clearly "neged
hachush", for many reasons, and therefore is no longer followed by
many/most people.  But the question was how it could ever have been
accepted by anyone.  Many rishonim did accept it, and the question
was raised how they could possibly have understood the 3-stars rule,
when anyone can see that at "laila deRT" there are many more than
3 stars.

To this I suggest that they may have thought that perhaps by
"benonim" Chazal meant those stars that only become visible at
that time, and by "ketanim" they meant stars that are too faint to
see even then, while all the myriad stars that are visible earlier
were considered by Chazal to be "gedolim".  The rishonim need not
have found this the most obvious interpretation, they need merely
have found it plausible enough to accept it bedochek, because
that was the only way it *could* be reconciled with what they
believed the gemara to be saying about 4 millin.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                      	                          - Clarence Thomas




Go to top.

Message: 14
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:57:31 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] URL re: Do You Know What Your Daughters




Resending what was originally sent 02 Jan@2007 EST, in case it entered a
"black hole"...thanks. ...
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager

    ----- Original Message -----

    From:  Michael Poppers
    Sent: 01/02/2007 08:07 PM
    To: "avodah aishdas list" <avodah@lists.aishdas.org>
    Subject: Re: URL re: Do You Know What Your Daughters AreReading?

In Areivim Digest V6#12, RAS noted:
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6817 <
...and the author quoted OC 307:16's "divrei cheisheq" towards his point.
That phrase seems to come from RAsh quoting HaR'R'Yonah.  Perhaps I'm
missing something, but the primary reason it's mentioned re the BT Shabbos
149 sugya in question is that many writings which have no Shabbos purpose
should not be read on Shabbos, a fortiori writings which may have no
weekday purpose and fall into the "moshav leitzim" category.  I don't see
"divrei cheisheq" questioned ad loc. as Shabbos (or weekday) reading
because of their sexual content, and the opening to read them seems to be
present if one can reasonably argue that they have some legitimate purpose
and no longer fall into the "moshav leitzim" category.  One might conclude
that this paragraph misses the forest while examining the tree, but I'm
just trying to understand whether HaR'R'Yonah (and, l'halachah, the SA) is
really saying what the author is inferring.  (As I'm way behind on my
Avodah-digest reading, please cc: me on any replies to the list.)  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070104/794e82eb/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070104/794e82eb/attachment.gif 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 22, Issue 28
************************************

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

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

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

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


< Previous Next >