Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 228

Tue, 08 Nov 2011

• 1. Subject: Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the kishus planted in an otsits sh???aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz- (hankman)
• 2. Re: The daf yomi in Chulin 128a Tanaim hold the kishus planted in an otsits sh'aino nakuf is yonaik min ha'aretz- (Micha Berger)
• 3. hasehm?? (Harvey Benton)
• 4. Re: hasehm?? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 5. other inyanim (like buddhism)-nirvana?? (Harvey Benton)
• 6. Maarit Ayin - Sources? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 7. Rav Gedalia Eisman - Chesed, Avrohom Style (Prof. Levine)
• 8. the physics of giants (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: the physics of giants (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: the physics of giants (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: the physics of giants (Zev Sero)
• 12. What was AA Hetter to Engage in War thereby Endangering his People? (Meir Rabi)
• 13. Re: What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people (Micha Berger)

RMB wrote:
Things we know are true but
could never experience might be "factual truth", but do nothing to shape
people, to accomplish halakhah's goals. Maggot eggs and microscopic
crustacians have no mamashus.

Birkhas haChamah is set to 365-1/4 day years, even though we knew tekufas
R' Adda was a more accurate estimate of the solar year. There are
numerous examples of chazal knowingly ignoring scientific accuracy in
facor of commonsensical notions of reality.

CM responds:
I think there is a fundamental difference between accepting a close value
as reasonably close enough for practical use (as in your example of tekufas
R' Adda, or the values of Pi, or the length of the hypotenuse of a right
angled isosceles triangle etc) versus something where the fundamental idea
is totally incorrect.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manastrer


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/aa5df78f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 02:04:18PM -0500, hankman wrote:
: I think there is a fundamental difference between accepting a close
: value as reasonably close enough for practical use (as in your example
: of tekufas R' Adda...

Tequfas Shemuel is 11 min / year too long; tequfas R' Adda, more like 6
min 40 sec. Let's pretend they thought tequfas R' Adda was more accurate
than it actually is. They still would have been aware of an error of 3
min 20 sec.

Which sounds tiny, and thus tequfas Shmuel sounds like a good estimate.

However, in Rebbe's day, circa 4,000, those 3 min 20 sec really added
up. They were aware of being at least 18 days 12 hours off -- well over
half a month. And yet, they set the berakhah for that Wednesday anyway.

It feels "close enough", people think in terms of tequfas Shemuel or
the Julian Year, and apparently that's enough.


But we're focusing on an example, rather than the principle...

You insist that halakhah must fit the facts. As do I.

The difference is that you're looking at the facts of physics, chemistry,
biology, etc... I'm looking at the facts of the human condition.

I am saying that in order for halakhah to work, it much fit the workers
of people. And since people are moved by what they experience firsthand,
we care more about the experiences the universe offers than by the
details of the working by which it does so.

By saying that that in order for halakhah to work, it must fit the
workings of the universe, in effect you are implying that halakhah's
goals are to move the universe, to effect cosmic changes. That's actually
pretty mystical.

But the details of how people work, how to hone minds and souls, is no
less Truth or "fact" than the topics of the harder sciences.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

does Hashem have feelings??
(eg, i am with you in your tzar?? {mekor??)

?
hmz
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/bd90a1c9/attachment-0001.htm>

In general, "feelings" imply to me a distinction. I am happy and therefore
not sad. I am calm and therefore not angry etc.

If Hashem is One in the fullest sense, then having "feelings" as we
understand them is impossible. Therefore saying that "Hashem is angry" is
the same thing as saying "Hashem has fingers".

Kol Tuv,
Liron

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> does Hashem have feelings??
> (eg, i am with you in your tzar?? {mekor??)
>
> hmz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/cf59db4e/attachment-0001.htm>

they hold we have gilgulim (and we do as well) perhaps thier exact numbers 
of gilgwhat does buddism expound and is it azara??
do other cultures (???) have the same name(s)
as we do for shamayim (or olam haba?) or karma
[like midah k'neged midah? that are posibly valid expressions of the same thing??
eg (if gilgulim (in thier opinion(s)are not the same as ours, but if they
have the same basic inyanim and outlook, do we and/or should we have a problem with tehm?????
eg; avrahams' gift to yishmael to the east??? (any relation??
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111106/ca9c8b1a/attachment-0001.htm>

An email I received today:

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Question - any idea where the sources are for Maarit Eyin?

I'm specifically trying to figure out its limits - say, if you're doing
something halachically allowed but socially unaccepted (or just something
most people are ignorant about) would Maarit Eyin apply? Is it a question
of halacha or the way you will then be viewed by the klal, regardless of
it's actual halachic status...

Any ideas?

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


Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111107/01c9c926/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=5155

Avrohom Avinu was the greatest Ba'al Chesed to ever live. His life 
was a continuous song of Chesed to others. Yet in the Torah we find 
one event singled out as the epitome of his Chesed, that of serving 
the three guests on the third day after his Mila. The Baalei Mussar 
all try to find the single factor in this event that made it so 
monumental that it was recorded so famously above all the others.

Rav Gedalia Eisman (see U'Lisitcha Elyon) the Mashgiach of Kol Torah 
says that after the old and weak Avrohom came to greet the "guests" 
and made his generous offer, they brazenly answered (Vayeira 18:5) 
"Kein Taaseh Ka'asher Dibarta". They didn't graciously accept the 
offer, but rather commanded Avrohom to do exactly as he promised.

Everyone gets a geshmack out of helping others from the goodness of 
his own heart. But if instead of appreciation and recognition for his 
good deed, the recipient turns around and demands to be served, the 
bubble is burst and all excitement over performing the chesed 
dissipates and even turns sour. Pangs of anger well up inside of us 
as a natural response to the insolence of the person we wanted to help.

Not so Avrohom Avinu whose response to this arrogant answer was 
"Vayimaher Avrohom HaOhela El Sarah". Avrohom did not care about the 
attitude of the recipient, only about helping him with his needs. It 
made no difference if the recipient was gracious or obnoxious. On the 
contrary if the recipient demanded of Avrohom, that was a clear sign 
to him that the recipient was in dire need and should be helped 
faster and harder.

Avrohom, the symbol of Chesed's response to the Malachim's demand, 
was to run to fulfill this demand. That is the path Avrohom set forth 
for us, and that is the ideal we should each strive for when it comes 
to Chesed.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111107/ab842b9c/attachment-0001.htm>

http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2011/11/could-avraham-avin
u-have-been-as-tall.html 
 for those who take medrash  literally, the second nes was the 
supernatural strength of his skeleton....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111108/264b10f9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/11/2011 11:00 AM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2011/11/coul
> d-avraham-avinu-have-been-as-tall.html_for those who take medrash
> literally, the second nes was the supernatural strength of his
> skeleton....

Indeed.  However I don't see what choice we have but to accept that Moshe
Rabbenu was literally ten amot tall, because the maamar chazal about that
is in a practical context, that this was why he erected the mishkan on his
own.  Ten amot is not that much by comparison with some of these midrashim,
but it's surely much more than any person could naturally support.  Even
the tallest man on modern record, who was a mere 6 amot or so, was a near-
cripple.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 11/8/2011 10:41 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 11:00 AM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>>
>> _http://jewishworker.blogspot.com/2011
>> /11/could-avraham-avinu-have-been-as-tall.html_for 
>> those who take medrash literally, the second nes was the supernatural 
>> strength of his skeleton....
>
> Indeed.  However I don't see what choice we have but to accept that Moshe
> Rabbenu was literally ten amot tall, because the maamar chazal about that
> is in a practical context, that this was why he erected the mishkan on 
> his
> own.  Ten amot is not that much by comparison with some of these 
> midrashim,
> but it's surely much more than any person could naturally support.  Even
> the tallest man on modern record, who was a mere 6 amot or so, was a 
> near-
> cripple.

I think that means you misunderstand how Chazal deal with midrashim.  
There's no way in the world that Moshe Rabbenu was 10 amot tall, and 
taking something like that literally is part of the 
de-intellectualization of Judaism that's causing so many Jews to go off 
the derekh.

Are you telling me you honestly can't think of another way to read the 
midrash in that context?  In the first place, his erecting the mishkan 
on his own is midrash itself.  But even if you take it literally, you 
aren't forced to imagine Moshe Rabbenu being some 18 feet tall.

Lisa

On 8/11/2011 11:53 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:

> Are you telling me you honestly can't think of another way to read
> the midrash in that context?

Are you telling me you can?  Why don't you suggest another way of reading
that maamar chazal?  (Why do you call it a midrash?)


> In the first place, his erecting the mishkan on his own is midrash itself.

What are you talking about?  It's an explicit pasuk.


> But even if you take it literally, you aren't forced to imagine Moshe
> Rabbenu being some 18 feet tall.

No, one could imagine him using a ladder instead, but if we're smart
enough to think of that don't you think Chazal were too?  And yet they
didn't even consider this possibility.  When it comes to the weight of
the boards, Rashi says he needed Divine help, because they were too
heavy for any one person to lift.  But when it comes to the height of
the roof, the Torah says he spread the roof, and the gemara derives
from this that he must therefore have been at least as tall as that
roof.  No ladders.

And what will you do with the hava amina that the gemara seriously
entertains that all the leviyim were that tall?  Indeed RMF takes
seriously and literally the gemara that the entire generation of
Bnei Yisrael who were present at Matan Torah were ten amot tall.
(IM YD 3:66)


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

R Zev S suggests that the Halacha permits Milchemet Reshut and that this is
legitimate even where it annihilates up to one sixth of the world?s
population.

But these observations do not address our issue, which is: Under what
circumstances is the army permitted to engage in life threatening
activities? Does R Zev think that Milchemet Reshut is a war that is
prompted by any whim of the king, the BD or the people?



Further, R Zev asserts that a Milchemes Reshus may be fought just for
financial advantage. And I think he means, irrespective of the magnitude of
the risk to the lives of Yidden. I don?t think he has established proof for
this though. He suggests that since "Milchemes horeshus is a war that is
waged with other nations to expand Israel's border and to increase its
greatness and
fame" this satisfactorily proves that any risk is acceptable in order to
pursue whatever ambitions justify war. I don?t think this is a sound
argument.



Clearly the army must train and there is no argument that even training
sustains a greater than civilian average for injury and death. However, may
the army engage for example, in life threatening manoeuvres in order to
trial a new method for paratroopers where it is estimated that for minimal
strategic gains there is an 80% projected risk to life and limb?  I would
imagine not.

So, the original question was and remains: What Hetter did AA employ to
undertake the mission of saving Lot, when it appears that the risk was
unacceptably high, excessive?



R Micha observes that David haMelekh attacks and conquers Suria, and that
was not simply about money. R Zev rejects this with a remarkably thin
counter-argument: ?Then what was it about??

As R Zev says, "Milchemes horeshus is a war that he wages with other nations
to expand Israel's border and to increase his greatness and fame."

It is obvious that expanding borders and increasing greatness and fame are
strategies of reinforcing and guaranteeing the safety of EY. Of course
there is also a financial gain but I don?t believe we can prove that
financial gain alone is a Halachically sound Hetter to go to war and
endanger Yiddishe lives.



As far as the sixth of the world?s population; I wonder if that refers to
the entire world population or the population of that vicinity which has
reach and influence over EY?

Theses days of course the world is a tiny village and every superpower has
reach to every corner of the globe. Would anyone suggest that it is
Halachically permitted to attack France, China or Russia? I think they are
within one sixth of the world?s population and are exercising negative
influences over EY.

This of course is nonsense. EY stands to be, within the course of the
natural order, irreparably harmed by such foolish attacks, even if it
believes it could destroy the entire France (or even just Sarcozy, MHSRIG
or obama MHSRIG) via ICBMs, even if we could make tremendous financial
gains. May a Posek ignore such considerations? I do not think that R Zev?s
contention that "Lechu pishtu yedchem bigdud"; justifies a Pesak entitling
us to make war exclusively for financially beneficial reasons, even though
soldiers will inevitably be lost. The Gemara is correctly understood as I
explained earlier, these were nations or clans that were already worthy of
being the objects of attack due to safety concerns, but were not urgently
so and thus were on the back burner so to speak.



-- 

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111109/1a19b7e1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 12:23:17PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> A milchemes reshus isn't just for finances, though.

> Sure it is.  "Milchemes horeshus is a war that he wages with other
> nations to expand Israel's border and to increase his greatness and
> fame."  A war fought when there's an actual invasion from an enemy is
> milchemes mitzvah.

Where do you see mention of finances there?

A war fought against the 7 ammim or Amaleiq is a milchemes mitzvah.

A defensive war against anyone else is either a milchemes mitzvah,
or a milchamah that is a reshus midinei milchamah but compelled by
"haba lehargekha..." As I already wrote, this is a machloqes between
the Chakhamim and R' Yehudah. The only nafqa mina lehalakhah is that
R' Yehudah wouldn't allow drafting chasanim and kallos for such wars.

Since the war is a chiyuv in either of these cases, the melekh doesn't
have to ask Sanhedrin permission.

A pure milchemes reshus is one waged for security, but without an
immediate danger. E.g. the conquest of Suria, or not letting neighboring
nations violate the border (and steal straw). Here Sanhedrin has to
give permission. (Sanhedrin 20b)

There is also Rashi's shitah in "Ki Seitzei" that a milchemes reshus is
one outside the boarders of Israel, and a milchemes mitzvah is one inside
the borders. Which is why "ki *seitzei* lemilchamah" is used to introduce
laws that only apply to a milchemes reshus. And thus he categorizes
the war against Midian a milkhemes reshus! See the Minchas Chinukh.

LAD, the essential difference is that a milkhemes mitzvah (according to
Chakhamim) is one that defends existing borders, and a milkhemes reshus
expands borders. The Rambam then takes this to mean asserting power to
avoid future danger, whereas Rashi takes this to mean a war on EY's soil
vs one outside the borders.

But notice that even in the examples you raised, a milchemes reshus
asserts sovereignty, showing our might vs other nations and thus insuring
long-term survival. It's not about money.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 228
***************************************

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..."