Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 020

Thursday, August 13 1998

• Re: Rogatchover
• Re: hotels and boats
• Re: Zera L'vatala
• Rambam & determinism
• Zera L'vatala - B - Shelo K'darkah
• Mitzvas Onah
• Zera L'vatala - A - k'darkah
• [none]
• Administrivia
• RE: Mitzvas Onah
• Analysis of Pagination in tablets (With corrections of former errors)

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> Interestingly different response then shraga and shaul.  Two thoughts
> concerning which I 'd appreciate input
> 1) With the greatest of respect- Do the schools of thought quoted by shraga
> and shaul represent an example of our previous thread concerning rewriting
> history to suit our needs/desires? Does this illustrate a danger that an
> incorrect conclusion may be drawn from such rewrites?

Obvivously not, as they were justifying the Rogatchover's conduct based on
an inaccurate version of the story - at least according to Rav Zevin in
the name of a R' Rabiner. But, even more - they were grounding their
statements in legitimate sources in Chazal in attempting to *understand*
the Rogatchover's conduct, not change any stories.

> 2)What are the boundaries of avira lshma?Is it up to each individual to decide
> if this 'heter' applies to him? How does this interface with the issue of
> marit ayin(to the extent people see action and assume its always ok)?
> 

This is a. A difficult question; and b. whatever "global" answers we might
attempt will not necessarily apply to the Rogatchover, who lived with a
set of rules that may well be - as is is mastery of Torah's breadth and
depth - beyond our comprhension.

Having said that, you might look up my discussion of "aveira lishma" in my
sefer on Bava Basra, Bigdei Shesh :-).


Kol Tuv,
YGB

> Kol tuv
> Joel
> 
> In a message dated 98-08-12 09:09:57 EDT, you write:
> 
> << "'Certainly, this is an avira, and when I get punished on my other sins
>  they will punish me on this sin as well. But I will accept the punishment
>  on this sin with love and will, and the Torah is worth being punished over
>  it..'"
>  
>  This is  a classic example of "aveira lishma."
>  
>  YGB >>
> 
> The reason that I have heard  behind the story of the Ragotchover is that  we
> find that by avelut and also by Yom Kippur that Chazal only prohibited washing
> for tanug (pleasure) but to remove suffering it is permitted. (Look in Yorah
> Deah 381)  So to by the Ragotchover for him not to learn Torah would of given
> him tremendous suffering - so therefore he was allowed to learn not for
> pleasure - simcha, but to remove his suffering.
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Shraga My father (Rav Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Baltimore, MD) tells this story
> > of the Rogatchover Gaon with an added explanation. He quotes a yerushalmi,
> > and bli neder I will ask him where it is, that if a Talmid Chochom
> > is "lahut Acharei Toraso" that it is mutar for him to learn even bavailus.
> > He used to respond that the Rogatchover apparently paskened like the
> > yerushalmi for there is no indication that the Bavli disagrees with this
> > heter.  His comment about having the olam habba... is not really even a
> > joke if you look into it deeper.  I certainly would not mind having the
> > olam habba of one who is "lahut acharei Toraso"
> > Shaul Weinreb
> [ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
> [ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
> [ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

We must note that "avodah" - nor any e-mail list - should serve as a
source of halacha l'ma'aseh. Having said that, however, I will note that
it is generally understood that hotel rooms do not require sechiras reshus
- because of tefisas yad, or alternately, the right they have to change
your room assigment at will, and, that the source of those discussions is
the Rashba in Avodas HaKodesh's discussion of boats and how to make an
eruv on one.

YGB

P.S. These matters are discussed in the final chapter of "The
Contemporary Eruv." :-)

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Pechman, Abraham wrote:

> 1. Is there a need to make an eruv when staying in a hotel for shabbos (in
> order to carry from your room into the halls)? Or are the room furnishings
> (which are there even if you don't want them to be and are heavy (e.g. bed)
> or muktza (e.g. tv set)) sufficient to give the hotel owner/management
> tfisas yad? Would it matter if the owner/manager were not Jewish?
> 
> 2. Is there any reason why an eruv cannot be made on a cruise ship (to
> enable you to carry from your cabin to the common areas on the boat). Or, is
> an eruv even necessary on such a boat (see question 1).
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> Avi Pechman
> [ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
> [ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
> [ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

>Suffice it to say, I take exception to the implication that we pasken >that
>bi'ah shelo k'darca is mutar. I would further like to exhort those >posting
>on this and any other topic that, since we don't know who's reading >these
>exchanges, certain declarations may be relied upon l'mayseh (even >though
>that's not the purpose of this forum), and extreme caution should be >used so
>as not to give the impression of a psak (especially in an area where >people
>might be looking for a heter).

>Avi Pechman

Hi,

I haven't taken the time to refute the analysis that you brought down,
and I don't know if I can, however, I would not have posted that comment
without first talking to a Rav.  In my younger, perhaps less reverent
days, I approached a Rav who was also an accepted posek and asked him
the shayla straight out.  He responded and said that biah shelo k'darcha
was mutar once in awhile.  If you'd like me to refer you to the rav, I'd
be glad to.  (Since I had not looked at the sources, I specifically said
that I didn't know if this was l'chol hadeos in my original post).

Take care,

Joel

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

In response to Micha Berger:

I am not a scholar of ancient and medieval science. Hence I am
hesitant to make positive pronouncements, and prefer the risk of
unclarity to the danger of error.

For the past 200 years-- that much I know from philosophy of
science-- rigid determinism (which I like to call "Laplacean")
was popular. Rabbi Berger and I are in sympathy with many in
believing that quantum mechanics is different, and that much of
the attraction of Laplacean determinism has evaporated.

It is common, however, for thinkers to project present views (or
those of the recent past) on the past, and to govern our reading
of the remote past by the light of what we think we know about
it. Thus we tend to view Laplacean views as the rule. I would not
have given much thought to Aristotle were it not for Sorabji. In
fact, if you look at Sorabji's book on Aristotle, which is the
work of a historian of philosophy who is also a philosopher, you
will see that his analysis of Aristotle is inspired in part by
modern developments.

If the Rambam has his Sorabji, I have neither read him oe been him. I care
a great deal about Rambam's view of Hashgaha because it has a major effect
on how I live. I know enough of his discussion of teva' to understand that
Rambam firmly believed in the operation of natural law and that he scorned
occasionalists who denied natural law. It is not at all obvious to me that
innate natural regularities must be rigidly deterministic (this is
Sorabji's understanding of Aristotle as a non-determinist). It would not
be foolish of the Rambam to take such a position. It makes sense to me.

Did the Rambam indeed take this position? The idea is attractive to me,
because I would not want to saddle him with an inclination to
rigid determinism. But I really don't know. And given the
distance between the medieval world view and ours and the
anachronistic views to which we are prone on this matter, I would
only be convinced by a very careful line-by-line examination of
the Rambam's every utterance on the subject. Extrapolating from
what we think we know about him or about his age, is not good
enough. I have not done that work.

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

Does anyone have any sources for WHY any posek would forbid hotzaas zera
in a biah shelo k'darkah situation where the wife does enjoy it?

From the perspective of Bal Tashchis, how is this any worse than biah
k'darkah while she is pregnant? I just don't understand.

Avi Pechman mentioned two views in Tosafos, one of which was to allow
hotzaas zera "periodically", but not on a regular basis. Can anyone
suggest any other prohibition which is allowed, as long as you don't do
it too often? 
Offhand, I can think of two: (A) I recall certain heterim to use
non-kosher utensils for *cold* kosher food on an occassional basis; but
one could argue that this was not really forbidden, and that we are
generally careful to avoid it. (B) Many acts are inherently muttar, but
they make one a "menuval b'r'shus haTorah" if he engages in it too often.
Eating is a clear example of that, and I suspect that this is the
operative principle behind allowing biahj shelo k'darka on an occasional
basis.

Similarly, those who forbid biah shelo k'darka even without hotzaas zera,
surely the prohibition is either "bal t'shaktzu", or "menuval b'r'shus
haTorah", or something like that. Any other ideas?

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

A new question, but it is from the same se'if as we've been discussing.
The Mechaber writes (O.C. 240:1): <<< Similarly, if she is nursing, and
he realizes that she is trying to please him, and dresses up so that he
will notice her, then he is chayav to 'visit' her." >>>

The Mishna Brurah (11) brings the Pri Megadim on this halacha, and writes
<<< This is even *not* at the time of her onah. The same applies when he
goes on a trip, but there she can be mochel. [sham m'hanay mechilah
didah] >>>

I understand this to mean that if the husband is going on a trip, then he
would normally be chayav to have relations with his wife prior to the
trip. However, if she wants to, she can decline, and release her husband
from that obligation.

If so, what is meant by the phrase "BUT THERE she can be mochel"? This
seems to say that there are other situations where she CANNOT be mochel.
From context, that other situation would be "at the time of her onah",
which usually means the night of her tevilah. Does this mean that at her
onah, she cannot decline to have relations with her husband? How can we
reconcile this with the prohibition against rape?

(This question has been bugging me for several years. I did not post it
until now, only because I was unable to find this quote, of "*there* she
can be mochel".)

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

I am gratified that there has been enough interest in my question that it
has grown to include a side-topic, that of biah shelo k'darcah, which I
will discuss in my next post. This one will continue to center on my
original question.

Elie Ginsparg wrote:

<<< ... when one has relations with ones wife regardless of his intent
(whether they be lofty kabbalistic intents of chibur hanashamos or just
to avoid sin) the wife's benefit is the same. this is to the point where
the gemara by yael says (yevamos) that she wasn't neheneh because good
for the bad is bad for the good (or something like that), but stam the
act is pleasurable for the wife even if the mans intent is to avoid sin,
this obviously is different then when the man acts alone. ... >>>

This is very difficult for me to understand. Does this mean to imply that
women always enjoy relations? Even when they claim not to be in the mood?
Halacha clearly forbids the husband to force himself on her. It is
reasonable to me, therefore, that we must presume that in such
circumstances she would *not* enjoy the act. It also seems reasonable to
say that there could also be other circumstances where she does not enjoy
it.

Envision this scenario, please, which seems to me to be the one described
by Orach Chaim 240:1 --- The husband, for whatever reason, finds that
"his yetzer is getting strong and lusting for 'that thing'", and he
wishes to avoid "lusting for sin". His pregnant wife, for whatever
reason, is not in the mood and really has no desire for relations at all.
If she did desire relations the husband would be obligated to satisfy
her, but in this scenario, she really has no desire at all. On the other
hand, she is a loving and devoted wife who wants to help her husband in
his goal not to "lust for sin", and therefore she consents to have
relations with him, even though she will not get even a mah-shehu of
hana'ah from it.

Please note that I am not trying to say that the relations are forbidden
here. I am just trying to figure out why they aren't.

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

                                                                            
                                                                     ---
B"H
RE: Avera Lishma: a classic example.

    This mushel is mamash classic of the Jew's ability to reach Bittul
Hashem, as Rabbi Akiva laughed at the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash - it
shows Ahavas Hashem in the wake of what only appears to be derived from
kelipah - only to carve, into the ikar of what a Jew is - a chelek Eloka
mimaal mamosh!  A Yid is higher than Torah!  He has reached the state of
Bittul, and in true mesirus nefesh, has received, in a sense a heter from
his inner arousal, his essence which only knows Torah, under which anything
and everything is G-d's will.  Torah is only expressed, will be expressed,
G-d willing soon, in the Beis Hamikdash.  It is only then that "natural"
miracles are seen - i.e. that which is assumed natural, sequential,
probable.  Not an overt miracle - but the true manifestation of G-dliness
within the physical.  A mushel as such  is a revelation of the true shaichus
of the fact that the Temple is  "And I will dwell in Them."  This study of
Torah is an aveira, but so is murder, in the face of the Akeida -
transcending  "religion" and attaching oneself to His Creator, blessed is
his Name, and accepting the deeper acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, for a
Jew's love for His Creator cannot be suppressed by recalling sins als they
are but leaching, as it were, on avodaseinu, everything that happens is
dependent on maaseinu.  If a Jew is to create a "dirah bitachtonim", he must
draw down the very essence of G-d, which is even a task that is loftier than
the aspirations and accomplishments of the G-dly soul!  Moreover, the manner
in which Tzaddikim refine the sparks enclosed within the three impure
kelipos is through such a "paradoxical" "challenge"  - by way of real
mesirus nefesh.  This state of bittul cannot see the aveira, but only the
G-dliness that it {the sin} has become dependant upon.  This case relates
to, among all else, Kalev, who when confronted with materiality, i.e. "the
land" and it's good - in itself, inherently, or even the "zealous" report of
Yehoshua.  But Kalev "had a different spirit" says Rashi.   He saw goodness
in materiality, not limited to the "wilderness of exile"  - not limited to
an ascent - but going beyond and seeing that the land is good.  The Third
Beis Hamikdash, may it be rebuilt soon!, will far outweigh any G-dly
revelaion, including Matan Torah - and the inability NOT NEGLECT to see the
destruction is a facet and realization that the Jew is bound to G-d at all
times, in Ahavas Hashem, which is the path of the Tzaddikim.

    This is another example, but more chutzpah than anything: The Tzemach
Tzedek, related about the holy Ruzhiner - " The holy Ruzhiner would not
brook any melancholy nor even bitterness - with the result that his
chassidim became playful.  Once, on Tisha BeAv....his chassidim went on top
of the beis medrash, and lowered a noose over the entrance.  Whoever entered
was lassoed and promptly hoisted to the roof.  The prank succeeded until,
sure enough, who should walk in but - their Rebbe, the Ruzhiner.  From up
there it was hard to tell one hat from another, and only when the tzaddik
was halfway up did they identify him.  When they had lowered him to the
ground, he exclaimed 'Riboynoy-shel-oylam! If Your children do not observe
Your Yom-Tov, then take it away from them!'"  This may cause one to
ponder...

[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

The Avodah list has a particular niche. Over time, the body of beistefila's
readership and our readers have honed it based on common understanding, their
inclinations, preferences, level of background, and a concern for the list's
future.

We recently received a posting on the subject of "Avierah Lishmah" that was
inappropriate for this list. This list is closed, in that I can choose who is
on the list, but individual posts are not moderated. That means that once in a
while these things can happen. This should happen less and less often as I get
better at screening people who try to join (advice is welcome, but send it to
me, not the list!) Discretion warranted barring the individual from the list.
I didn't find excluding someone easy.

I hope no one was turned off too much by the post. I'm trying my best to
keep things on track. (If I may mix metaphors.)


On a happier note, I have a couple of favors to ask, that I waited for a more
urgent need to interject an administrative email before presenting.

I'd prefer it if people who are reading this in digest mode to take a moment
when they reply to adjust the "Subject:" line and the attribution in the body
of their email. A subject of "Re: Avodah Volume 1, #17" isn't overly helpful.
Similarly, seeing "On Jul 31, 1998 you wrote: ..." doesn't help someone know
who did the actual writing.

Second, and I'm ashamed to bring this up as I'm among the offenders, please
trim your quotes! We needn't waste bandwidth resending text unless it helps
clarify your point.

Thank you.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5892 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 13-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

If so, what is meant by the phrase "BUT THERE she can be mochel"? This
seems to say that there are other situations where she CANNOT be mochel.
From context, that other situation would be "at the time of her onah",
which usually means the night of her tevilah. Does this mean that at her
onah, she cannot decline to have relations with her husband? How can we
reconcile this with the prohibition against rape?

(This question has been bugging me for several years. I did not post it
until now, only because I was unable to find this quote, of "*there* she
can be mochel".)

Akiva Miller


There's a difference between a wife being mochel (in which case the husband
isn't obligated from the onah requirement, but may still be obligated from a
pru urvu or being goder his yetzer requirement), and the wife protesting
(e.g. she's sick), in which case, relations would be tantamount to rape,
even if there are other mitzvos outstanding.

Avi Pechman
[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

I thank the many posters--[Miller, Ominsky, Ginsparg]--for their
comments on the Lucoth. As per request I am giving the entire
derivation again with assumptions (and answers to questions).
I will try and show the naturalness of this idea. It appears that
some posters are correct...that it isn't necessary to assume any
particular division (5 &5 vs 2 & 8). Thus this analysis will
defend many views. Again I thank the posters for encouraging me
to more fully review my ideas.

[I will check the references given by [Ginsparg..Midbar rabbah 14,
Shir Hashirim Rabbah (but where) and Yalkut 825...Thanx alot]

STEP 1 of 5
STATISTICAL FACTS:
==================
        Number of letters in the Lucoth ~ 600 (613)
        Number of words in the lucoth ~ 200 (170-200)
        Number of SPACES from indentations ~ 100 (can vary widely)

        TOTAL characters in Lucoth ~ 1000 (900- 1200)

        FOOTNOTES:
        ---------
        - Each letter is counted as one character
        - Each word gives a SPACE which is one character
        - Paragraph indentations are between 9 spaces to a whole line
        - Commandments 6-9 however only have about 30 spaces(besides letters)
        - It is a convenient approximation to assume all characters equal
        - However if e.g. a shin is considered thrice the space of a vav
        then we can make adjustments BUT WE STILL GET 900-1200 characters.
        (In other words if we assume VAV is the standard unit of
        character then SHIN would occupy 3 characters and e.g. SPACE
        might occupy 1/2 or 3/4).
        - The numbers MUST be approximate since e.g. the exact text
        of the 10 commandments differs in certain letters.(Ex vs Dt)
        -I do assume that the sizes were not totally chaotic...in other
        words most vavs occupied one character and most shins occupied
        3 .. I don't care if some letters were big (though in the
        Biblical text they aren't)


STEP 2
STANDARDS OF FONT SIZE
======================
Even if we assume that ALL SORTS OF MIRACLES WERE GOING ON WITH
THE LUCOTH (I have no objection to this) it is still prudent to
assume that the LUCOTH WERE READABLE. In other words if you placed
them on a table in a room people could actually read them.

Both the mathematical association of america and the Society of
actuaries recommend that in public displays (as in poster sessions)
each letter should sit in a square with sides between 1/2 to 1 inch.
This enables readability to people in the room.

        In summary EVEN if you take into account
                different character sizes,
                different amounts of letters
                different indentation size
       nevertheless the total number of characters comes out to ABOUT 1000.

STEP 3
TOTAL DIMENTSIONS OF THE LUCOTH
===============================
I see I have to do some more work here. But the basic idea is that
in Exodus 25 it explicitly says that the ark was
                2.5 x 1.5 x 1
A verse (In Joshua) says
        ONLY THE TABLETS WERE IN THE ARK
        (according to one approach this includes the fragments of
        the 1st tablets also).

There are various approaches to the thickness of the wood in the ark.

HOWEVER as a basic rule of thumb we can easily see that each TABLET
was a CUBIC CUBIT so that the two tablets were 2x1x1 which then
fit into the ark which was 2.5x1.5x1.

I am NOT committing myself to any particular approach (e.g. the measurements
were outer/inner---inside of ark/outside of ark----with negligible
thickness (miracle) or not. I am simply saying that NO MATTER what
assumptions you make each tablet was ABOUT a CUBIC CUBIT.

I am not even assuming the tablets were each the same size.

The total surface area on the tablets available for writing was therefore
2 cubits by 1 cubit (give or take a half a cubit).

Since each cubit is between 18 to 24 inches we have that the total
surface area available is between 600 to 1200 square inches (Or
assuming both tablets had the same size between 300 and 600)


STEP 4:
READABILITY OF  TABLETS
-----------------------------------
All I assume is the  assumption that
        *the tablets were readable           

We have                 600-1200 sq inches @ 2 tablet
                        ------------------------       = sq in @ char
                         900-1200 characters


Example: 600 sq inc/ 1000 char = .6 sq in @ char
Example: 1200 sq in/ 1200 char = 1 sq in @ char.

Taking square roots (to find the side of the square) we see that
each character would fit in a square whose sides are between .5 to 1 inch.

In other words the above observations are consistent with the
standards of Public readability set down by the SOA and MAA


STEP 5:
PAGINATION OF THE TABLETS
-------------------------
Let us briefly review:
        Each tablet would be one CUBIC CUBIT (assuming the
        tablets were the same size..this is much more reasonable
        than assuming that characters were of the same size which
        I have not assumed)

        Thus we have between 18x18 to 24x24 = 300 to 600 square inches.


We can now look for reasonable breaking points for possible paginations
of the lucoth:
        If we use the 5 & 5 theory we see that the first tablet had
        about 900 characters and the second had 130

        If we use the 2 and 8 theory we see that the first tablet
        had about 300 characters and the second 700.

In each case we can divide total square inches (300 to 600) by
total characters to get square inches per character and then take
the square root to get side of each square.

In all cases the letters come out as being inclosed in a square
between .5 in to 2 inches.

If we use the 2 and 8 theory then the LETTERS on each tablet LOOKED
about the SAME.  If we use the 5 & 5 theory then the letters on the
second tablet would have been noticeably bigger than on the first
tablet.(But I guess those who believe in the 5&5 can live with this)

I don't have an explicit source that suggests the 2 x 8 but there
is a source that says that God spoke these himself which is supported
by the use of the first person (the other 8 were spoken by God to
Moses to the nation).


NOTE: My posting in HebLang erred in that it assumed that ALL 10
commandments were on each tablet. I here assume the 10 were on
both tablets. The above analysis can give us further insights but
the above should suffice for now

Russell Jay Hendel; PHD ASA RHEndel @ mcs drexel edu




[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list.                             ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]