Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 127

Wednesday, July 14 1999

• Yona ben Amitai
• Science and the Mabul
• Divrei kheshek = love stories?
• science & mesorah
• Re: Divrei kheshek = love stories?
• love stries
• Re[2]: Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
• On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Jewish Reactions to Copernicus
• Mabbul and Chazal
• Re: Mabbul and Chazal
• Re: literalism
• Re: Science and the Mabul
• Re: On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Re: Re[2]: Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
• Re: Science and the Mabul
• Re: Divrei kheshek = love stories?
• Re: Divrei kheshek = love stories?
• Re: love stries

This is a request for information.  Several years ago, I was at Congr. Bnai
Yeshurun in Teaneck, NJ (well before its recent physical reconstruction) and
came across an article in Hebrew concerning Yona and the residents of
Ninveh.  I think that, in particular, the article adrressed the
then-contemporary relationship of the kingdom of Ashur with Israel.  It
seems that someone had photocopied the article and just left it around.
Oddly (maybe not), no page of the article contained the journal it came
from. Any suggestions?

Esteemed listowner Micha:>>
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)

Yitzchok Zirkind asks:
: My question is not wether the Nvuoh is real, but is the Pi Ho'oson real, one 
: that needed to have a (special) creation? is the Sir Nofuach real?

According to the Rambam -- yes, both the sir nafuach and the pi ha'ason are
real. I tried to address this question when I mentioned that the Rambam was
forced to his explanation because of the question of how to see mal'achim,
which are real yet non-physical. And his answer is that they are seen through
nevu'ah. To the Rambam, nevu'ah is less like a dream, and more like another
sense. Things seen in nevu'ah are real, but non-physical.

LAD, the Rambam was bothered by something much like the mind-body problem. The
question there is how an intangible mind can cause activity in the physical
body. How does a non-physical entity interfere with the laws of physics?
Aristotle (and therefore the Rambam) don't really have that problem, because
their physics is based on impetus, not force and momentum.

Here, the Rambam is wondering how a non-physical angel can interact with the
physical sense of sight. He therefore places the "seeing" of angels into the
realm of non-physical sight.

I'm not sure why it's a problem, since mal'achim cause the physical effect they
are sent to do. (In fact, the Rambam defines a mal'ach as the intellect behind
the impetus of some event.) If they can interact with the physical in one way,
why not visually as well? Yet the Rambam sees this as a severe enough problem
to force a new interpretation on numerous events in Tanach.

I could use some help.

- -mi<<


Ok folks,
Question: Would Steven Spielberg or Cecil B. Demille have any problem showing us
the pi ho'asson speaking without violating physical science as we know it?  
Would it be real?

IF you subscribe to the advanced technology thesis, bepashtus the nevi'im were 
watching REAL projecttions.  Were they video tape ceulloid? Aniomations?  I 
don't know. This is only a model.  The point is that Hashem could project full 
3-D holograms, etc. etc.

I hope this helps.

Rich Wolpoe  

>BTW another form of forbidden Literature is love stories, (Divrei Cheshek).

Could you explain how you translate "divrei kheshek" as "love stories"?  Wouldn't one render "kheshek" as "desire" or "lust"?  Plus it seems difficult to know what to place into that category unless one figures out how wide it is first: "Romeo and Juliet"? "Rememberance of Things Past"?  "Bridges of Madison County"?  "Hakhnoses Kale" [Agnon]?

"Paradise Lost" could be called a love story, but I remember Milton being listed among Rav Lichtenstein's favorite authors.  So what gives?

Sholem Berger

> 
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Shlomo Yaffe wrote:
> 
> > 1. Sooner or later science does and will recognize the truth of all our
> > Torah as understood by the Chazal in the framework of our traditional
> > Mesorah.
> > 
> > 2. Any and all "questions" from Scientific theory against these accepted
> > norms of Torah , however seemingly strong, are products of the still
> > infantile state of the sciences and will be resolved by science moving
> > close to Torah as it learns more.
> > 
> > 3.If G-d is "kol Yachol" there is no reason to take any event in the
> > Torah dealing with creation, floods etc. out of it's Plain Meaning. The
> > need to do so is indicative of a -Lo Aleinu- a fundamental lack of belief
> > in the Torah as being a Divinely narrated document in it's entirety.
> > 

I still have trouble with this. Backing off from the flood and going again
to the age of creation I would venture that the vast majority of religious
scientists accept the scientific notion that the world is billions of
years old. Without going into details there are many answers to the
apprarent contradictions. I again highly recommend "The Science of G-d"
by Shroeder to those interested. The evidence is too overwehlming to
simply answer that science will recognize the truth of the literal Torah.

I have spoken with Schroder about the flood and he admits that this is the
one area that he has not yet found an answer. Thus, he admits that it
is hard to justify a flood around the entire world just 5000 years ago.
In the other hand he does not like to explain the Torah allegorically
(his explanation for the 5700 vs billions based on relativity).

Another, major problem is Joshua making the sun stand still. Taken
literally with modern science that would require stopping the earth from
rotating which would cause untold havoc on the world. On the other hand
there is no historical records of other nations seeing such a
phenomenon. The easiest way out is to explain that the sun looked like
it stood still due to some reflections but not to take the verse literally.

In summary, I would agree that most religious Jews do like the idea of
simply saying that parts of the Torah are allegories or dreams. They
prefer answers of the type of previous worlds, that the phrase day or year
is not literal, relativity etc.

In any case, I strongly disagree with the statement that accepting the
modern theory of the age of the earth and universe indicates a
fundamental lack of belief in the Torah. Certainly to accept such a thesis
would turn most religious physicists into apikorsim.

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 7/14/99 1:47:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
bergez01@med.nyu.edu writes:

<< 
 >BTW another form of forbidden Literature is love stories, (Divrei Cheshek).
 
 Could you explain how you translate "divrei kheshek" as "love stories"?  
Wouldn't one render "kheshek" as "desire" or "lust"?  Plus it seems difficult 
to know what to place into that category unless one figures out how wide it 
is first: "Romeo and Juliet"? "Rememberance of Things Past"?  "Bridges of 
Madison County"?  "Hakhnoses Kale" [Agnon]?
  >>

While we're at it, I dont think you can cite the Rambam AZ 2:2-3 for this 
one. Where would one find a source for this? In the 3rd halacha, he does 
specifically mention S'farim that would lead one to uproot a fundamental of 
the Torah, even if its not A"Z per se, but that's about as far as he goes.

Jordan 

> 
> BTW another form of forbidden Literature is love stories, (Divrei Cheshek).
> 
However, many rishonim including Ibn Ezra, Yehuda haLevi, Ibn Givirol
wrote love poems.

Eli Turkel

--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

with regard to Rav Bechhofer replied to my post of rav Kook.
> 
> Notes relevant to our discussion.  1) The torah does not really care
> about historical events.  2) He advocates extending the use of allegory

>>This is one of the documents that make up R' Kook's well known shitta on
>>evolution. It is really not relevant to our discussion on several
>>accounts:

>>1. He is advocating not opposing new interpretations on pragmatic, not
theological grounds.

I beg to differ.  He is saying that the truth is not yet fully known, and will
eventually be revealed after all the opposing shitot are explored (part of his
dialectical approach).  He allows  and even advocates the use of allegorical
explanations for reconciling current science with hazal, recognizing that we do
not yet have the complete truth, neither the complete scientific truth nor the
complete Torah truth 

Note that he specifically allows for extending allegory without a specific makor
from hazal or even the rishonim.  Even if you think that it is only a pragmatic
rather than a dogmatic heter, it is still a heter.  The pragmatic issues have
remained.

>>2. He, of course, does not allow for dismissing Gan Eden. He allows for
>>the re-interpretation of the events of Ma'aseh Bereishis. The Ramban did
>>this, the Malbim did this, Prof. Gerald Schroeder does this: There is a
>>difference between re-intrepretation and allegorization. 

He says that there is no difference whether or not there was a Gan Eden (golden
age), only the realization that man can be at the height and lose it all. While
it would be preferable if Gan Eden was real, it is not me'akev. This is not
dismmissing Gan Eden??  The Ramban and the Malbim clearly disagree.

Note that Rav Kook realizes that evolution poses two problems:  One is the
creation of man.  The second is that Gan Eden presupposes that man started off
high and fell.  While others have dealt with the issue of creation through
evolution, Rav Kook also deals with the Gan Eden issue.  

This is not just a reinterptation of maaseh breshit. As Rav Berger pointed out,
most understandings of maaseh breshit end at vayechulu.  Furthermore, the text
of Rav Kook's letter does not rely on ma'aseh breshit being a separate category
where allegory is acceptable. The scientific issue being discussed was creation
and gan eden, but there is nothing to suggest that the approach would be
different for other issues.

>>3. Both of these aspects to his approach are well elucidated and elegantly
>>explained by R' Kook here as based in a critical difference between R'
>>Kook and current allegorizers: R' Kook finds, it seems, little or no value
>>in parshanut. His entire focus is on the neshomo or penimiyus haTorah - an
>>approach I admire and attempt to emulate. Current allegorizers bear far
>>more similarity to, say, Shadal, the commentators who actually had little
>>use for the neshomo or penimiyus haTorah (inseparable, let's face it, from
>>Kabbalah and mystical understandings).

The question we are faced with is what to do with the fact that current science
seems to contradict simple pshat.  Rav Kook says that we are only concerned
witht the penimiut hatora, and therefore can allegorize, recognizing that we do
not yet have the complete truth.  We therefore eliminate the (apparent)
contradiction between Torah and science and can focus on more important matters,
using the apparent contradiction to raise our avodat hashem.  Your position was
that we are bound to the literal historical understanding of these events unless
there is a specific makor in hazal.  While not all who allegorically interprete
may share Rav Kook's lofty vision, I would think that his appraoch gives them
license.  We all, I hope, focus on the penimiyut hatorah, just may find it in
different aspects.

Meir Shinnar


YGB

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








--simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"

Received: from casbah.acns.nwu.edu by smtplink.mssm.edu (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.00.00)
	; Wed, 14 Jul 99 09:26:17 -0500
Return-Path: <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Received: from localhost (sbechhof@localhost)
	by casbah.acns.nwu.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA23846;
	Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:30:20 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:30:20 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Reply-To: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: avodah@aishdas.org
cc: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
Subject: Re: Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
In-Reply-To: <9907149319.AA931954816@smtplink.mssm.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.93.990714082059.20055A-100000@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


--simple boundary--

I had written:

>> But, in fact, this argument depends on two assumptions: 1) there is a
>> part of the mesorah of Hazal with which we are not permitted to disagree
>> (following R. Meir Shinnar, let us call it the "normative mesorah"), and

RYGB responds:

>I am not sure that "not permitted" is the accurate term here. For example,
>if a person believes that the Torah was given at Har Sinai and through the
>forty years to Moshe word for word, but is kol kulo allegory and metaphor,
>you probably could still drink his wine. But his (or her)  version of
>Judaism would only remotely resemble ours, and would be a preposterous
>religion. Thus, to allegorize the Flood etc. is but a short hop skip or
>jump (in practice - in theory it is the same principle completely and
>totally) from allegorizing Avrohom, Yitzchok, Yaakov et al (r"l), and
>things simply start falling apart.

If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that allegorizing
the flood, by itself, would not necessarily create a version of Judaism
that is unrecognizable to the rest of us.  However, we must be aware of
the dangers of the slippery slope, and stop the creep of allegory before
 it (halilah) touches on the Avot.  Have I got it right?

>> 2) Hazal's literal understanding of a parashah in the Torah is ipso
>> facto a portion of the normative mesorah.

>Not their *understanding*. Their *transmission*.

I suppose what is unclear to me is where, in your view, their
transmission ends and their understanding begins.  (Of course, we are
both familiar with Reuven Shimon's article which, inter alia, discusses
the textual transmission as well.  But let us leave that to another
time.)

>> If the issue is the one I have formulated, then the issue of aggadah and
>> Rambam's parshanut are relevant, notwithstanding RYGB's fine
>> distinctions between visions and allegory.

>No, because these are matters of *understanding*. - that which is now
>called "parshanut". Chazal, as keepers of the Mesorah - which includes the
>text of Kisvei Ha'Kodesh - transmitted them to us faithfully, and if with
>it the explicit understanding that unless otherwise indicated by a mesorah
>such as "ayin tachas ayin - mammon", the text is literal. If we deviate
>from that Mesorah in one area, then the whole concept is undermined, as
>above.

Now I'm confused again.  We agree that Mesorah (capital "m") includes
kitvei kodesh.  You seem to be saying that Mesorah also includes the
"understanding" that everything is literal unless indicated otherwise.
Leaving aside for now the question of a source for this position, I am
trying to understand why this issue of literal "understanding," is not a
parshanut issue, but a "transmission" issue.  (Query: if one receives
the mesorah from a book, is that considered "manual transmission" :) ?)

For the record, I agree that Rambam's reinterpretation of various
prophetic events are not "allegorical interpretations.  However, as I
alluded in an earlier post, I think (and so did Ralbag) that Rambam's
discussion in the Moreh of the het of Adam ha-Rishon is genuinely
allegorical, as he relates to it as the paradigm for human sin rather
than as a historical event.

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,

Eli Clark

R. Moshe Feldman asks:

>I would be interested in the tenor of the expression of those
>rejections.  Did those achronim express themselves similar to
>RYGB--"these new ideas are against Mesorah?"

I don't have full access to the literature, but R. Toviah Katz presents
a number of scientific arguments against Copernicus.  He also refers to
him as "bekhoro shel Satan" and calls followers of the Copernican theory
koferim.

R. David Nieto uses the term "pigul" to describe Copernican theory.

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,

Eli Clark
 

>>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Stokar, Saul (MED) wrote:

> Regarding Rav Bechhofer's post of the mail-jewish correspondence on the
> allegorical interpretation of the Biblical account of the Flood (the
> original m-j posting is in V16 no 36), I'd like to ask one question
> which didn't seem to be addressed therein. Granting Rav Bechhofers's
> claim that the overwhelming majority of ancient and medieval
> commentators understood the Biblical accounts of the Flood and Gan Eden
> literally, why is that relevant? 

Because Judaism rises and falls on the concept of Mesorah.

YGB

<<

Hmmm,this Mesorah thing has a very familiar ring <smile>...

Question: is Mesorah re: history/machshovo less subject to revision than wrt 
Minhag?  

Rich Wolpoe

Rich Wolpoe asks:
: Question: is Mesorah re: history/machshovo less subject to revision than wrt 
: Minhag?

No. In a parallel case where all of mesorah indicates the halachah should
be X in situation Y, we'd also be unable to overthrow the halachah. However,
the cases in the past were where either 1- we had multiple traditions as to
the halachah; or 2- we were able to show the situation wasn't really Y.

So, if you could perhaps show that the reasoning for taking the mabul literal
was conditional on a given situation Y and that Y doesn't hold, you can begin
to apply your implied comparison.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

In v3n126, Chaim Brown <C1A1Brown@aol.com> writes:
: In the Ancient  world it was assumed that women have one less rib
:  than man because they followed the plain meaning that a rib was
:  taken from Adam to build Chava.   

AND they assumed that "tzela" means "rib". That's not how Chazal translated the
term.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

In a message dated 7/14/99 11:58:05 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> According to the Rambam -- yes, both the sir nafuach and the pi ha'ason are
>  real.

And what's Pshat in Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 2:3, that it is a "Mashal"?

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> If I understand you correctly, then, you are saying that allegorizing
> the flood, by itself, would not necessarily create a version of Judaism
> that is unrecognizable to the rest of us.  However, we must be aware of
> the dangers of the slippery slope, and stop the creep of allegory before
>  it (halilah) touches on the Avot.  Have I got it right?
> 

No, not yet!

Even if one were to believe that Avrohom, Yitzchok and Yaakov were
allegories - as I mentioned, not a notch any lower, qualitatively, down
the slope than allegorizing the Mabul - which, in essence, already
allegorizes Noach et al - and that one is davening to "Elokei Allegory 1,
Elokei Allegory 2 v'Elokei Allegory 3" we could not, I think, technically
brand this person a heretic - as long as he held this was all given from
Sinai. This kind of thing, however, makes the Torah farcical and Judaism
ludicrous, and worse.

> I suppose what is unclear to me is where, in your view, their
> transmission ends and their understanding begins.  (Of course, we are
> both familiar with Reuven Shimon's article which, inter alia, discusses
> the textual transmission as well.  But let us leave that to another
> time.) 
> 

Actually I am not familiar with Reuven Shimon's article, and would be
interested in knowing more about it.

It is hard for me to determine the line precisely. Perhaps a Brisker could
do it neatly, but for me it is fuzzy. Who was the Supreme Court Justice
that defined pornography as: "I know it when I see it"? If you venture a
definition, perhaps I can respond to your formulation.

> Now I'm confused again.  We agree that Mesorah (capital "m") includes
> kitvei kodesh.  You seem to be saying that Mesorah also includes the
> "understanding" that everything is literal unless indicated otherwise. 
> Leaving aside for now the question of a source for this position, I am
> trying to understand why this issue of literal "understanding," is not a
> parshanut issue, but a "transmission" issue.  (Query: if one receives
> the mesorah from a book, is that considered "manual transmission" :) ?) 
> 

Let us give na example.

Shadal says the reason that Yosef didn't contact his father for all those
years in Egypt is because he thought his father was in on the plot.
Chazal, of course, do not seem to take this tack, and likely disagree with
it. But, they are not arguing (Shadal and Chazal) whether the text is
literl or not, nor to Chazal note that they have a Mesorah on their
approach to the issue. This is parshanut, and Shivim Panim la'Torah gives
Shadal license to propose his approach. Were:

1. Chazal to have cited a Mesorah on their approach (unlikely in an
Aggadic area), then Shadal's lips perforce need have been sealed.

2. Shadal to have argued that the Mechira was just an allegory and Yosef
went down to Mitzrayim as a result of a tiff that was just allegorized
into a sale (an approach very much in line with the allegorization of the
Mabul), then I would have had the identical discomfiture with Shadal as
with R' Spero and Reuven Shimon.

YGB

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

I hope a greater expert on R' Kook than myself way in, but I stand firm: 
The word allegory does not appear in R' Kook's letter; R' Kook would
himself never have countenanced personally the interpretations to which he
refers, he was pragmatically rejecting the utility of protesting them;
this is due to his perspetive that this apsect is the tafel and the
pnimiyus the ikkar anyway.

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:

> The question we are faced with is what to do with the fact that current
> science seems to contradict simple pshat.  Rav Kook says that we are
> only concerned witht the penimiut hatora, and therefore can allegorize,
> recognizing that we do not yet have the complete truth.  We therefore
> eliminate the (apparent)  contradiction between Torah and science and
> can focus on more important matters, using the apparent contradiction to
> raise our avodat hashem.  Your position was that we are bound to the
> literal historical understanding of these events unless there is a
> specific makor in hazal.  While not all who allegorically interprete may
> share Rav Kook's lofty vision, I would think that his appraoch gives
> them license.  We all, I hope, focus on the penimiyut hatorah, just may
> find it in different aspects. 
> 
> Meir Shinnar
> 
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

YGB

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

Yitzchok Zirkind quotes me and asks:
:> According to the Rambam -- yes, both the sir nafuach and the pi ha'ason are
:> real.

:>  And what's Pshat in Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 2:3, that it is a "Mashal"?

As I said in my earlier post (via a comparison to tephillin) real and mashal
aren't mutually exclusive. These visions include mal'achim which are real, so
they must be visualizations of real things. However, these real things could
be meshalim for other real things. To reiterate the comparison. The chiyuv to
put on tephillin could very well be a mashal to keeping yir'as shamayim in
one's head and heart. The mashal is stronger because it's implemented in
real boxes as opposed to being just a story.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

In a message dated 7/14/99 12:47:39 PM EST, bergez01@med.nyu.edu writes:

> Could you explain how you translate "divrei kheshek" as "love stories"?  
> Wouldn't one render "kheshek" as "desire" or "lust"?  Plus it seems 
difficult 
> to know what to place into that category unless one figures out how wide it 
> is first: "Romeo and Juliet"? "Rememberance of Things Past"?  "Bridges of 
> Madison County"?  "Hakhnoses Kale" [Agnon]?
>  
Since this is brought in S"A O"C Simon 307, one could look there for exact 
interpertation, in addition to the source in the Rambam AZ 2:2 which deals 
with both Divrei Minus and Divrei Znus (and see the very broad interpertation 
to this, in his Sefer Hamitzvojs), (there is also a different Loshon Divrei 
Agavos).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/14/99 12:53:34 PM EST, TROMBAEDU@aol.com writes:

> While we're at it, I dont think you can cite the Rambam AZ 2:2-3 for this 
>  one. Where would one find a source for this? In the 3rd halacha, he does 
>  specifically mention S'farim that would lead one to uproot a fundamental 
of 
>  the Torah, even if its not A"Z per se, but that's about as far as he goes.
>  
Hil. Shabbos 307:16, in the Rambam AZ end of 2:3 "Acharei Aineichem Zu Znus", 
and see how he interperts this in Sefer Hamitzvohs Lo Saseh # 47.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/14/99 12:56:43 PM EST, turkel@icase.edu writes:

> However, many rishonim including Ibn Ezra, Yehuda haLevi, Ibn Givirol
>  wrote love poems.
>  
Shir Hashirim = Kodesh Kodoshim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]