Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 194

Wednesday, March 17 1999

• Re: Talmud Torah (Acharonim)
• Hazal, the Rishonim and Us
• Yeridas HaDoros and Common Sense
• R. Lichtenstein on Edah and the Rav
• Humor Alert - Crossing the Thread Boundaries
• abbreviations
• Re: Chazal vs. Rishonim
• Re: Hazal, the Rishonim and Us
• R' Menashe Klein
• Infallibilty
• Changing Minhoggim
• Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom
• pi
• magen david
• Infallibility

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 raffyd@juno.com wrote:

> Rambam, Hilchos TT 1:11 et al.  Even most Avodah digests are clearly
> Talmud Torah.  This is clearly what the Rambam calls Gemara!  In the

Did not see that there. It says there explicitly "b'middos she'ha'Torah
nidreshes bahem." When do we do this on Avodah?

> Rambam's system, Torah is not divided in to two parts, it's divided in to
> three:  Mikra (the words of Tanach) , Mishna (meaning Halacha) and
> Gemara, everything else connected to learning , including Talmud Bavli,
> Pardes, two chevrusas arguing about a Ktzos etc...
> 

I am still not sure about this. Do not misundertand. It is very imporant
(and holy :-) ) to learn Ktzos. Put pure Ktzos, lu yetzuyar, without
rreference to a Pasuk or Gemara. I am not sure this is strictly TT -
although I believ it falls into the category of "V'higeisa." This is
similar to the pursuit of Mussar. While I believe the CC includes it in
the shlish b'mishna, I do not think he means it is literally TT.

Truth be told, I am not only sure about Rishonim "Libi omer li" that they
are a cheftza of Torah, but I wish I had ra'ayos.


YGB

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

RYGB writes:

>It's always nice when we agree. I am glad we agree that while of lesser
>status then Chazal the pronouncements of the Rishonim have the same kind
>of binding effect on us.

Binding, yes.  Same kind, no.

>Uh, I don't think so. I am not sure that shittos acharonim in and of
>themselves are TT. Do you have any proofs? L'ma'aseh there is little
>difference, of course, since whether it is TT or not, we must engage in
>it.

Hmmm.  Maybe I have a more expansive definition of talmud Torah than
you.  (In fact I seem to recall that R. Soloveitchik  suggested that
kiyyum mitzvat talmud Torah does not require an objective heftza of
Torah, but I would have to check that shiur again.)  Speaking for
myself, I would definitely think it necessary to recite birkot ha-Torah
before reading, say the Iggerot Moshe or Hokhmat Shelomoh.  If you
disagree, then I suggest you ask a posek you respect which of us he
agrees with.  I also invite this learned list to express their views.

>Well then, please tell us the difference - from our perspective.

Well, you know, sometimes a distinction seems so obvious to one that one
never finds it necessary to articulate it.  Indeed, if I understand you
correctly, what we do based on Hazal is no different from what we do
based on Rishonim.   To apply this principle, you seem to be saying that
there is no qualittative distinction between our obligation to recite
shemoneh esreh (based on the shitah that ke-neged temidim tiknum)  and
our obligation to recite Av ha-Rahamim.  Am I understanding you
correctly?

>The process is the same: It so happens that all of Chazal is nispashta
>while not all shittos rishonim are.

Your second sentence is indisputable.  Your first statement highly
debatable.  Sources?

>Kind of wise-alecky. Hashem yechaper.

Sorry if I implied that one of your icons is dispensable.  But remember,
the Rema got by pretty well without Maharal, and I think so can some of
us.

>B"H it is still Adar! We are not impressed...

We are able to survive our disappointment. . .
Chaim keeps pointing out that in Hazal the fact of ru'ah ha-kodesh is
not connected anywhere to their authority of pesak.  To the contrary,
all of the evidence suggests the opposite.  The evidence includes tanur
shel Akhnai, of course, as well as Baba Batra 12 "divrei neviut" being
used as an insult.  I would add as well the the Gemara in Baba Metzia
86a, regarding Rabbah b. Nahmani ("yahid ani be-nega'im!").  This is
getting very repetitive, and we may just want to call a cease fire.

>I know you asserted this, but I need independent proof...

You need independent proof that there is a difference between my telling
you that Rishonim had ru'ah ha-kodesh (not that I am equating myself to
Hazon Ish, but we have equal abilities of independent verification), and
the Rishonim saying it themselves???

By the way, there is one article you definitely should read.  A.J.
Heschel published a Hebrew article in the Alexander Marx festschrift
which compiles all of the statements and anecdotes ascribing various
level of ru'ah ha-kodesh and visions to Rishonim.  There is a great one
in the hakdamah of the Semag (to mitzvot aseh, I believe), regarding how
he left out a mitzvah and was told in a dream to include it.  The
article was recently translated into English and published as a separate
volume (together with an article on nevu'ah and Rambam).

>Undoubtedly. So do I.

Hooray! Another point of agreement!

>But could you please find the first and/or last word
>elsewhere for us? :-)

Not this morning.  But I'll tell you what I will do.  Last night Rabbi
Blau reminded me of the hakdamah of the Ketzot.  I commend it to one and
all.  The Ketzot entertains the possibility that Hazal's halakhic
conclusions are not true.  Ru'ah ha-kodesh does not enter into his
analysis.  For the lazy and hard of Hebrew, I translate a brief excerpt
below:

[After quoting BM 86a, he writes:]Now that the determination of halakhah
has been handed over to them, bounded though they are by their mortality
and their intellect, they are required to rule unclean.  Because that is
the conclusion of human intellect.  And any other conclusion, though it
be true, is not an appropriate basis for halakhic behavior.  Similarly,
those who argued with R. Eliezer did not accede to his view even after a
Heavenly Voice declared that the halakhah was in accord with his view.
They did not doubt that the voice indeed came from God, but
nevertheless, "It is not in Heaven...."

And they say in the Gemara (Gittin 60b): "The Holy One, blessed be He,
entered into a covenant with Israel solely for the oral Torah, as it is
written: 'For in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with
you, and with Israel' (Ex. 34:27)."  In other words, the covenant which
God made was His loving endowment of the oral Torah to us as an
unrestricted gift, to be the province of the sages.
And they say in the Gemara (Gittin 60b): "The majority of Torah is oral,
and the minority is written...."  After all, the human intellect cannot
comprehend the Torah of the Divine, but the oral Torah belongs to us....
 And that is the import of "She opens her mouth with wisdom, and Torat
Hesed is on her tongue" (Prov. 31:26).  For the oral Torah is given over
to determination by the sages, even if their conclusion is not the
truth.  Therefore it is called Torat Hesed, as the Gemara says: That
which is hesed is not emet.

>B'yedidus as ever,
>YGB

Ditto,

Eli Clark

It seems to me that the entire thread about whether our generation can 
contradict previous generations or whether we can even contradict 
present day Gedolim should be nothing more than an issue of common 
sense.  There are several factors that one must consider.  One is the 
concept of Yeridas Hadoros, which tells us in effect that previous 
generations were: 
(A)closer to Maimad Har Sinai, and, therefore,
(B)more knowledgeable about the Emes of the Torah, 
(C) smarter than us, 
(D)had less transmission of mesorah (by this I mean that each time one 
generation transmits mesorah to the next generation there is a factor of 
error introduced)and, consequently
(E) less confused by millenia of debate on what original halacha was. 

These 5 factors alone (I'm sure there are others that I can't think of 
off hand) explain why we shouldn't be allowed to argue with previouos 
generations.  This should apply to the entire history of the generations 
of Klal Israel.  Therefore, Rishonim can't argue on Amoroim, and Amoroim 
can't argue on Tanaaim etc.

For purposes of this discussion we should define Doros. Over the 
millenia, historical eras developed that were considered level in terms 
of the ability of members of that era to disagree with eachother, even 
if they were a few generations apart. Later generations within a 
particular era, are considered equal in status vis-a-vis  disagreement 
with previous generations and within those categories (e.g. the period 
of the Rishonim, for example) debate and disagreement 
flourished.(witness the Rambam and the Raavid).

Fast forward to today.  Our generation is not on a level of Chazal or 
Rishonim and even the greatest Gedolim of our time would not dare to 
argue with a Rishon. (The GRA is an exception which seems to contradict 
the entire theory of Yeridos HaDoros and although many explanations are 
given as to why he is an exception I have yet to hear a satisfying one.) 
The best we can do now if we want to argue on a Rishon is to find a bar 
plugta to hang our hats on. This will allow our comparitively feeble 
knowledge and svaros to have standing but will not allow us to 
contradict Halacha as paskined in the Shulchan Aruch as our generation 
is greatly inferior to the generation of Rabenu Yosef Caro or the Rama. 

What about the question of arguing with a certifiable Gadol like R. 
Moshe Finestien? He, of course is in the era of Achronim which we are 
still a part of and theoretically we can argue with him.  However,  one 
has to consider the depth and breath of his Torah knowledge vis-a-vis 
our own. As another poster has written about R. Moshe, he encourged 
srutiny and debate of his works as long as it was done with proofs and 
fear of G-d... the mark of a true gadol.

Parenthetcally, it has been postulated by some that the period of 
Achronim was ended by the Holocaust.  The Gedoliom of pre-war Europe, 
such as R. Moshe, or the Rav has passed on and our scholorship will 
never even come close to theirs.  If we look on the horizen, there seems 
to be a dearth of Tamidei Chachamim that come anywhere near  the Calibre 
of the previous generations. To be sure we still have a few left of that 
generation, R. Elyashiv comes to mind, but they are all elderly. I am 
wondering if others agree with this assesment.

Finally I think the crux of the argument on this list is whether we can 
disagree with previous generations on matters not pertaining to Halacha, 
such as history or science. I believe the answer is, yes. If we have 
unequivical proof contradicting Chazal, we have two choices. (1)We can 
reject reality and say Chazal was right or (2) we can say that chazal 
were knoweledgeable of the science of their day and if they had the 
information avilable to them that we now have they would have come to 
the same conclusions we have and agreed with reality. How all of this 
relates to then original debate about contradictions between Chazal's 
version of history and historian's version of history is directly 
related to being able to prove history of several thousand years ago.  I 
don't think you can prove to any degree of certainty who is right about 
those time frames and therefore why not believe chazal's version of 
history since they were closer to it historically.  But I would be first 
to say that Chazal made a mistake historically if it could be proven 
they were wrong. 

There is a lot more to say but this post is way too long.

Sorry about that, but I had a lot to say and I'm not even sure if I 
communicated it well.

HM

Steve Katz asks:

>Could some kind person post this letter and/or is there a place where a
>interested citizen could find this on the net?

It is not on the internet.  I will provide a brief summary.
[Disclaimer: the letter is beautifully written, restrained and
respectful in tone, yet sharp and firm in its formulations.  I have
captured none of this. If someone will scan the text and post it, I will
fax it to them.]

A Forward article asserted that R. Soloveitchik (the Rav) was the
"quintessential Modern Orthodox figure" and therefore Edah-affiliated
rabbis can view the Rav as founder of their movement.  R. Lichtenstein's
response is, yes and no.

If MO is defined purely as engagement with culture, yes.
Philosophically the Rav was committed to cultiral, social and political
engagement.

But to the degree MO -- and Edah -- has an agenda, the Rav cannot be
associated with some of that agenda.  Beyond his philosophical
positions, the Rav was committed to a rigorous halakhic discipline
rooted in Brisk.  As such, he was very conservative regarding the "text
and context" of tefillah, rejected historicist analysis of Halakhah,
emphasized the centrality of lamdut and the authority of Hazal.  One who
claims the legacy of the Rav must ask himself whether he shares these
positions.

The Rav often criticized the shallowness he found in MO, which, while
not unique to that community, he saw as afflicting MO more than the
anti-modernists.

Finally, the Rav was unique and cannot be fit conveniently into a label,
MO or otherwise.  He transcended many of the communal divisions within
Orthodoxy and did so by choice.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

A Friendly Poseik of had a vision beruach hakodesh in which he saw Einstein 
discussing the 420/585 year controversy. AE explained that the time relative to 
Chazal was indeed only 420 years while the time relative to the Greeks was 585 
years.

Rich Wolpoe

Can some one provide a dictionary for all the abbreviations being
used here. I am getting lost fast.

Eli Turkel

RYGB:
>And how is that different in substance than Rabbanan permitting demai
for
>a poor person, wayfarer, soldier etc.? 

To quote you: 
>I see I am being misunderstood. No matter, I will patiently explain
again.

I believe that was my point.  The Chasam Sofer was matir this Rishonic
Minhag.  I have serious difficulties believing he could pull that off
with a real d'Rabbanan.  And in reference to the body analogy, my point
was that Rishonic Minhagim are a level below d'Rabbanans, halachically
speaking.

And as for Demai, again, it's Chazal's enactment.  They can legislate
whatever they want.  Had they allowed Demai for all people under 4'6"
that would be fine by me.  
___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Binding, yes.  Same kind, no.
>

Alright! I think we can agree on this! Exciting!
 
> Hmmm.  Maybe I have a more expansive definition of talmud Torah than
> you.  (In fact I seem to recall that R. Soloveitchik suggested that
> kiyyum mitzvat talmud Torah does not require an objective heftza of
> Torah, but I would have to check that shiur again.)  Speaking for
> myself, I would definitely think it necessary to recite birkot ha-Torah
> before reading, say the Iggerot Moshe or Hokhmat Shelomoh.  If you
> disagree, then I suggest you ask a posek you respect which of us he
> agrees with.  I also invite this learned list to express their views. 
> 

Me too. I am eager to have the Bigdei Shesh and The Contemporary Eruv
calssified as TT.

> Well, you know, sometimes a distinction seems so obvious to one that one
> never finds it necessary to articulate it.  Indeed, if I understand you
> correctly, what we do based on Hazal is no different from what we do
> based on Rishonim.  To apply this principle, you seem to be saying that
> there is no qualittative distinction between our obligation to recite
> shemoneh esreh (based on the shitah that ke-neged temidim tiknum)  and
> our obligation to recite Av ha-Rahamim.  Am I understanding you
> correctly? 
> 

No, you are not. Av HaRachamim is not an enactment. Were a Rishon, indeed,
to have enacted the saying of AhR, and his takkana was nispashta, Yes.

> Sorry if I implied that one of your icons is dispensable.  But remember,
> the Rema got by pretty well without Maharal, and I think so can some of
> us. 
> 

Wrong religion. The *Greek* Orthodox have icons, not the *Jewish*
Orthodox. We do, however, have Torah Sages of epic stature and piety...

> Chaim keeps pointing out that in Hazal the fact of ru'ah ha-kodesh is
> not connected anywhere to their authority of pesak.  To the contrary,
> all of the evidence suggests the opposite.  The evidence includes tanur
> shel Akhnai, of course, as well as Baba Batra 12 "divrei neviut" being
> used as an insult.  I would add as well the the Gemara in Baba Metzia
> 86a, regarding Rabbah b. Nahmani ("yahid ani be-nega'im!").  This is
> getting very repetitive, and we may just want to call a cease fire. 
> 

OK, but I would like, here, the last word. I have agreed with my dear
brother in law and continue to do so, that acceptance is the basis of
Chazalic - and Rishonic authority. He keeps bringing the concept of BD in,
and I still don't understand why. Be that as it may, however, since
luminaries of the stature of R' Moshe Feinstein hold such acceptance must
be ongoing and continuous, we need to undertsand why we continue this
acceptance. R' Harry Maryles expressed the idea nicely in his post from a
yeridas ha'doros perspective, and I added the component of the divine,
which I then supported from the CI, R' Tzadok and Nefesh HaChaim, among
others, as one - if not the primary reason - for our ongoing acceptance of
takkanos Chazal, and, qualitatively lower, but with little practical
difference, the takkanos of the Rishonim.

> You need independent proof that there is a difference between my telling
> you that Rishonim had ru'ah ha-kodesh (not that I am equating myself to
> Hazon Ish, but we have equal abilities of independent verification), and
> the Rishonim saying it themselves??? 
> 

That wasn't what I meant, but, in fact, yes, I do!

> By the way, there is one article you definitely should read.  A.J. 
> Heschel published a Hebrew article in the Alexander Marx festschrift
> which compiles all of the statements and anecdotes ascribing various
> level of ru'ah ha-kodesh and visions to Rishonim.  There is a great one
> in the hakdamah of the Semag (to mitzvot aseh, I believe), regarding how
> he left out a mitzvah and was told in a dream to include it.  The
> article was recently translated into English and published as a separate
> volume (together with an article on nevu'ah and Rambam). 
> 

c/o Cong. Bais Tefila
3555 W. Peterson Ave.
Chicago IL 60659.

Thanks in advance!

> 
> >But could you please find the first and/or last word >elsewhere for us?
> :-) 
> 
> Not this morning.  But I'll tell you what I will do.  Last night Rabbi
> Blau reminded me of the hakdamah of the Ketzot.  I commend it to one and
> all.  The Ketzot entertains the possibility that Hazal's halakhic
> conclusions are not true.  Ru'ah ha-kodesh does not enter into his
> analysis.  For the lazy and hard of Hebrew, I translate a brief excerpt
> below: 
> 

OK, so not this morning. But when you get a chance, please?

YGB

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

Since R' Beilin and I have had ongoing off-group correspondence and
personal conversation concerning R' Menashe Klein's sanction of the
practice of granting Heter Me'ah Rabbonim's (HMR) (he himself does not
sign the heterim - he is the posek upon which Battei Din that engage in
this practice rely) to a husband whose wife has refused to come to BD
and/or has gone to secular courts, at the same time not allowing the wife
to collect a get until such time as she renounces all claims, I have done
some research on the topic, particularly reading the Teshuvos Maharsham
7:211 upon which R' Klein bases his ruling. 

Let me then state, unequivocally, that in my opinion R' Klein is at the
very least wrong and in direct dispute with many contemporary poskim. 

Briefly, R' Klein holds that any woman that demands alimony or any other
compensation other than her kesuva - as R' Beilin noted, a paltry sum in
our day and age - is a "moredes" (perhaps even a "moser"), and therefore
has no rights or priveleges, and is subject to the aforementioned
procedures.

There is no basis for this position in the Maharsham. The Maharsham is
discussing a woman who refuses to accept a get (and, he writes, were the
husband to leave a get in court for her his very life would be endangered)
while she is, in the meantime, living "derech ishus" with a non-Jew. It is
this case that the Maharsham reasons is likely in the category of moredes,
and may permit the husband (who was very poor and lacked means) to remarry
even without a HMR, and, in any event, without endangering his life by
having the accompanying get written. Nevertheless, the Maharsham did not
want to permit this on his own, and required the sho'el to find three
rabbonim to join in the heter.

The poskim with whom R' Klein is in direct contradiction include the
Seridei Eish 3:6, who says that a mesareves l'din is not to be considered
a moredes, and no HMR may be issued; the Igros Moshe CM 2:9 who says a HMR
cannot be issued based on monetary considerations, even if she refuses to
come to the BD that the husband has chosen if she claims it is biased; and
also the Igros Moshe YD 4:15 where he says that even if she is completely
recalcitrant, and a HMR is issued, it must be accompanied by a get and a
significant sum of money (beyond the kesuva).

The Minchas Yitzchok 5:71 and 8:129 seems clearly to be of the same
opinion. 

I should add, personally, that it is my belief that dina d'malchusa dina
is binding on a couple, especially if they have signed a secular marriage
contract, and that it logically follows that a woman cannot be compelled
to go to a BD where they wil not take dina d'malchusa into account.

(To R' Beilin: The other Tzitz Eliezer I referred to is 6:42:3.)

Kol tuv,
YGB

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

REDT >>Unless you assume that all these people are infallible, I could argue 
maybe they simply forgot that point.<<
Excellent point.
Question: what happened to Yennem Gadol's contemporaries - does their silence 
indicate anything one way or the other?!  Was theirs a collective 
absent-mindedness?  Must we until a juvenile propsective son-in-law brings 
contrary rayos <smile>?

Lemoshol.  If R. Moshe F. said cholov stam is ok, did everyone forget Toras 
Cholov akkum?  I don't think so!.

However, if when alll of Klal Yisroel accept something, or even if all of 
Ashkenaz accept something, and it goes on gfor generations, it gains the status 
of Minhog Avoseinu beyodeinu.  IMHO this is the answer to keitzad naaaseh 
binding?

OTOH, when only yechidim accepted it in the first place, it's NOT too late.  
That was R. E. Kanarfogel's point to me wrt to zmanei RT, that this had NOT 
pervaded all of Ashkenaz; implying if it had pervaed ALL of Ashkezna, it coudn't
be legitimately overthrown.

Rich Wolpoe

Eli Turkel:>>I was confused by the comparison of a takanah with a pshat in in 
the gemara. Kitniyot was a gezerah to prevent confusion with chametz and this 
custom was accepted, over time, by ashkenazi communities.<<


I'll confess to a lack of precision.  My point is this: regardless of whether it
is a re-interpretatoin of a TB or a new minhag/takkono, what makes it binding is
its widespread acceptance.  Contrast this with  Takknos Ezra which could not 
gain widepsread accpetance.

Consider our threads re: Sheitel and re: trimming beards in which R. Moshe F. 
declined to force chumros following widespread accpetance of a more kula'dik 
shitos - as illustrations of what I mean.

Rich wolpoe

RYGB writes:

>If you would like to see in all starkness how a Rishon's pronouncements
>are afforded the same dignity in Halacha as that of an Amora, take a look
>at the ET entry on CDRG!

It seems to me that another misunderstanding has crept into the
discussion

I didn't think dignity was the issue.  I thought the issue was systemic
authority.  As I understood your argument, you seemed to be saying that
we are bound by takkanot rishonim in exactly the same way we are bound
by takkanot Hazal.  On its face, this sounds like arguing that if you
obey the speed limit and you obey your wife, we can conclude that wives
have the same authority as the civil government (of course we know that
wives have much more. :))

Does this mean there is no difference between the issur of hametz
nuksheh and kitniyot (!), unless you are a  Sefaradi?

Indeed, not having read the entry you refer to, I would think that the
HDRG utterly undermines your argument.  After all, Rabbenu Gershom's
takkanot required a herem to make them "binding."  To my knowledge,
takkanot Hazal did not.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Micha Berger wrote: I'm sure someone from Chazal must have noticed this, but
Sir Isaac Newton points out an interesting Gematria WRT the value for pi
given in Milachim I 7:23. The word for diameter "qav" is written "qvh". The
gematria of the two words are 106 and 111. 3 * 111 / 106 = 3.14150943396226
which is actually the fractional approximation of pi possible with 3 digits.
I have heard this several times in the name of many gedolim including the Gra.

And Eli Turkel asked: Does anyone know the origin of the derasha with sources?

Personally I first heard this amazing gematria from my father, Norman Davis,
and at my request he sent me this e-mail today:
"The gematria of pi that you refer to was, as far as I know, discovered by
Mr. Max Munk who was a mathematics teacher in pre-war Germany and my teacher
in cheder in Golders Green [London, England]. Mr Max Munk had three sons of
whom at least some I think are still alive and there are descendants living
now in Israel. The gematria was not discovered by Sir Isaac Newton or to the
best of my knowledge even the Vilna Gaon."

Saul Stokar confirmed that my father's cheder teacher first this discovered
the gematria. And he wrote:
"A thorough analysis of this exegesis can be found in an article entitled
"On The Rabbinical Analysis of an Enhanced Biblical Value of PI", by Shlomo
Edward G. Belaga. A postscript version of this paper can be found at the
mail-jewish site (entitled pi.ps). The paper states that the "discovery" is
quite modern, being made by Rabbi Matityahu [Max = Mattiyahu] Hakohen Munk".
I am not aware of any evidence that Newton was aware of this proof, despite
his (Newton's) "obsession with the temple's plans and dimensions" [R.S.
Westfall, "Never at Rest", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987 p. 346-348]. Last
year I heard this exegesis repeated on Israeli radio (Arutz 7) in the name
of the GR"A. Again, as far as  know, there is no evidence for such an
attribution."

I cannot help fully explaining this amazing gematria: The posuk says that
the diameter of the "sea" (the washing basin in the miqdash) was 10 amoth
and the circumference is 30 amoth, this is not mathematically possible. C =
pi D so the circumference should be 31.415 amoth or the diameter should be
9.549 amoth. The gematria provides the difference between the mathematical
calculation and the dimensions given in the posuk and accurate to the 4th
decimal point. I am no expert on the history of science but I do not believe
that a calculation of pi so accurate existed before the 20th century. 

Saul Davis
Beer-Sheva, Israel

There is a really good web site called symbols at http://www.SYMBOLS.com
which explains just about every symbol you could possibly imagine. 

Here is what is said about the magen david sign:
During antiquity the hexagram was a symbol for the Jewish kingdom. When this
kingdom was conquered in A.D. 70, and, in fact, already some 100 years
before that, the Jewish people began to spread throughout the world, as did
the symbol. The hexagram is sometimes known as the shield of David or the
Magen David. The Jews in Europe used the hexagram during the Middle Ages on
their banners and prayer shawls. When they were repressed by the Church and
the princes, however, a pointed hat, and later a yellow ring, were used to
identify them as Jews, thus facilitating their segregation, not the
hexagram. The hexagram became more popular during the nineteenth century and
was used to decorate newly built synagogues. The founders of the Zionist
movement adopted the hexagram as a rallying symbol in their attempts to
create a Jewish national state in Palestine. On November 9, 1938, at the
orders of Heydrich, the hexagram combined with the colour yellow, earlier
used to symbolize the Jews, was introduced to mark all those of Jewish
birth. In blue the hexagram appears on the flag of Israel since 1948.

The web site also mentions many other traditions and cultures which use the
hexagram and what it symbolizes.

Saul Davis
Beer-Sheva, Israel

REDT: >>Unless you assume that all these people are infallible, I could argue 
maybe they simply forgot that point. <<
Question: What was R. chaim Brisker's point in being Meyasheiv the Rambam?  
Could he have not said, based on Gemoro X, that Rambam?  Forgot?  Misunderstood?
Overlooked? a Gemoro?  Is there perhaps a presumptive "infallibility" of sorts 
at work here? 

Rich Wolpoe

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


[ 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         ]