Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 028

Thursday, November 2 2000

• Rashbam: Migdal Bavel wasn't a sin -- and an open market
• Which animals were on the teiva?
• RE: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• RE: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: medical knowledge
• Re: medical knowledge
• RE: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?INn
• Re: Avodah V6 #27
• RE: Which animals were on the teiva?n

From Machon Zomet's parashah email for this week. Written by R' Uri Dasberg.
I thought it enough of a chiddush to interest the chevrah.

: Only a very small part of the Rashbam's commentary on this week's portion has
: reached us. This is a discussion of the sin of the generation of the Tower of
: Babel. If it were a sin to build such a high tower, how could Moshe describe
: the fortified cities, high in the sky, in the Land of Canaan, in a positive
: light (see Devarim 1:28)?

: In fact, according to the Rashbam, this is not a sin but an extension of the
: Divine blessing. The Almighty's command was also a blessing: "Be fruitful and
: multiply, and fill the land" [Bereishit 1:28]. Concentrating the population
: at one site, in high-rise buildings, is the opposite of this blessing. Thus,
: the Almighty was being kind to humanity when He mixed up their language,
: forcing them to spread out over the entire surface of the earth.

: Dividing humanity into groups and subgroups increases both the populated area
: and the possibility of competition: "Jealousy of writers leads to increased
: wisdom." The Rashbam greatly approves of competition. He gives this as the
: reason for the ruling in Bava Battra 89a that prices should not be
: regulated: "This is based on logic. If one person wants to sell for a high
: price, another who is in need of money will sell for less, and the customers
: will patronize him. And the first one will also be forced to sell for a
: lower price."

It would seem that the Rashbam supports laissez faire economy. What
then does he do with the power given to ziknei ha'ir to fix prices? And
of course, what about hasagas gevul -- a di'Oraisa aimed at minimizing
market competition?

-mi

Also from Machon Zomet, from a d'var Torah by R' Yehuda Shaviv.

: G-d commanded Noach: "From all the pure animals, take seven pairs, man
: and wife, and from the animals which are not pure, take two, man and wife"
: [Bereishit 7:2]. And the Talmud asks, "What animals can be considered man
: and wife?" [Sanhedrin 108a]. The answer is that Noach only took into the ark
: animals which are loyal to their partners. Thus, the Torah uses a metaphor
: in referring to male and female, as is clear from the commentaries of Onkeles
: and Rabbi Sa'adia Gaon.

Does this mean that Noach didn't save all animals, only those that form
mating bonds? The rest were saved by neis nigleh (or actually, by a lack
of neis nigleh destroying them)? This would go a long way to explaining
the lack of physical evidence left behind by the mabul.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

-mi:
> Does this mean that Noach didn't save all animals, only those that form
> mating bonds? The rest were saved by neis nigleh (or actually, by a lack
> of neis nigleh destroying them)? This would go a long way to explaining
> the lack of physical evidence left behind by the mabul.

IOW a Selective destrction like Makkos Bechoros? Or a Selective Rescue?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  
 

> Does this mean that Noach didn't save all animals, only those that form 
> mating bonds?

The gemara means he saved those which were not bred with species other
than their own b'issur, as the gemara says that 'hirbiyu behaima al
chaya v'chaya al bheima'. The Netziv has a novel idea that dinosaur
bones are the remains of those animals which resulted from this strange
crossbreeding and were killed off during the mabul (7:23 - worth seeing
for the Netziv's criticism of those who take the Midrash of 'borei olamos
u'machrivam' as support for the remnants of prior destroyed worlds
being left around, an idea I think the Tif. Yisreal raises somewhere,
but that's another story)

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:26:47PM -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com quoted me
and wrote:
:> Does this mean that Noach didn't save all animals, only those that form 
:> mating bonds?

: The gemara means he saved those which were not bred with species other
: than their own b'issur, as the gemara says that 'hirbiyu behaima al
: chaya v'chaya al bheima'.

The gemara seems to say that Noach took 2 from each species that was
loyal. IOW, it's a per-species thing, still leaving you with some species
that didn't pass muster for the teiva. Did those species just die, or
were they saved some other way?

/Are/ you actually saying that "hirbiyu behaimah al chayah" was a property
of certain species of beheimah and not others?

:                           The Netziv has a novel idea that dinosaur
: bones are the remains of those animals which resulted from this strange
: crossbreeding and were killed off during the mabul...

This would certainly be "nishtaneh hateva". Members of different
species usually can't crossbreed at all, and if they are similar
enough to repoduce, it would only be one generation of "dinosaur bones"
(e.g. donkeys) left behind. And the results would show their genetic
parentage, IOW, be something like the two similar parent species. Not
to mention dating issues.

If the species that were affected by this immorality didn't survive
the mabul, then perhaps they were the ones that left the skeletons --
not just their hybrid offspring.

:     the Netziv's criticism of those who take the Midrash of 'borei olamos
: u'machrivam' as support for the remnants of prior destroyed worlds
: being left around, an idea I think the Tif. Yisreal raises somewhere,
: but that's another story)

The TY is in an appendix to his peirush on Nezikin.

My problem with the TY (mentioned here in the past) is that it implies
that "umacharivam" still allows for the possibility of relics persisting
to the olam. In which case, how is the mabul *not* a case in point?
Why doesn't ma'aseh bereishis skip from Breishis 1:1 to Noach?


On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 11:42:33AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard asked about
my next sentence:
:>               The rest were saved by neis nigleh (or actually, by a lack
:> of neis nigleh destroying them)? 

: IOW a Selective destrction like Makkos Bechoros? Or a Selective Rescue?

I was thinking of the Maharal's hakdamah to Gevuros Hashem. It's possible
for two contradictory perspectives to co-exist, one in which a neis
occured, and one in which it didn't. E.g. Makas dam; or, "vehamayim
*lahem* chomah, miy'minam umis'molam" -- for them it was a wall, for
the Mitzriyim it never split.

In which case it's possible that for humanity and the right group
of animals experienced the mabul, but others did not. IOW, they
weren't saved from the mabul because in their universe there never
was a mabul.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 11/1/00 1:39:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> > Does this mean that Noach didn't save all animals, only those that form 
>  > mating bonds?
>  
>  The gemara means he saved those which were not bred with species other
>  than their own b'issur, as the gemara says that 'hirbiyu behaima al
>  chaya v'chaya al bheima'.

Exactly, this is also Pshat in Rashi D"H M'ho'oif L'mineihu (6:20).

> The Netziv has a novel idea that dinosaur
>  bones are the remains of those animals which resulted from this strange
>  crossbreeding and were killed off during the mabul (7:23 - worth seeing
>  for the Netziv's criticism of those who take the Midrash of 'borei olamos
>  u'machrivam' as support for the remnants of prior destroyed worlds
>  being left around, an idea I think the Tif. Yisreal raises somewhere,
>  but that's another story)
>  
See also the RaDaL on Pirkei DR"E chapter 23 Ois 10, (it is a beautiful 
piece, Ayin Bfnim)

Kol Tuv, 

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/1/00 1:55:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> The gemara seems to say that Noach took 2 from each species that was
>  loyal. IOW, it's a per-species thing, still leaving you with some species
>  that didn't pass muster for the teiva. Did those species just die, or
>  were they saved some other way?
>  
>  /Are/ you actually saying that "hirbiyu behaimah al chayah" was a property
>  of certain species of beheimah and not others?

See Rashi D"H Ki Hishchis Kol Basar (6:12)

Kol Tuv, 

Yitzchok Zirkind

-Chaim Brown
>                           The Netziv has a novel idea that dinosaur
> bones are the remains of those animals which resulted from this strange
> crossbreeding and were killed off during the mabul...

I have always assumed that the Taninim Gedolim (Breishis 1:21) is not
the fish of Rashi but great lizards - i.e dinosaurs that indeed did
not survive a churban such as the mabbul. And it is also possible that
since some of those lizards dwelt in swamps and were therefore aquatic
in a sense.

Rich Wolpoe 

> /Are/ you actually saying that "hirbiyu behaimah al chayah" was a
> property of certain species of beheimah and not others?

No, I'm saying the gemara means on a per-animal, not per species basis.

> My problem with the TY (mentioned here in the past) is that it
> implies that "umacharivam" still allows for the possibility of relics
> persisting

That is the Netziv's point. MAchrivam implies total destruction.

> Why doesn't ma'aseh bereishis skip from Breishis 1:1 to Noach?

Not sure what you mean. Braishis is the story of our world's creation -
we only know about other one's through the Midrash/Zohar.

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 03:53:35PM -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
:> My problem with the TY (mentioned here in the past) is that it
:> implies that "umacharivam" still allows for the possibility of relics
:> persisting ...
:> Why doesn't ma'aseh bereishis skip from Breishis 1:1 to Noach?

: Not sure what you mean. Braishis is the story of our world's creation -
: we only know about other one's through the Midrash/Zohar.

If the interworld churban can be incomplete, as the Tif'eres Yisrael
seems to imply, then what makes the churban immediately before Bereishis
1:2 different than the desctruction caused by the mabul?

IOW, by this perspective, from Adam until Noach ought to be definable as a
different olam, which should have been skipped between 1:1 and 1:2 like the
rest of them. Our world started when Noach walked off the teivah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 10:37:09PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I would like to know where in the Talmud he could have learned details
: about the inner part of the brain. As far as I know the gemara always
: refers to thinking by the heart not the brain.

Well, the gemara does describe a labotomy pretty accurately. I am pretty
convinced it's not trepanning, as they aim you bedavka at the frontal lobe.
But in either case, they knew the relationship between the brain and thought.

I think "leiv" is a homonym -- heart and core. Thoughts are at the core of
the person the "heart of the matter", not that muscle that pumps blood. And
Chazal apparantly knew the difference.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 11/1/00 4:31:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> I think "leiv" is a homonym -- heart and core. Thoughts are at the core of
>  the person the "heart of the matter", not that muscle that pumps blood. And
>  Chazal apparantly knew the difference.
>  
See Breishis 6 5-6 (and Rashi D"H El Liboi, and See S"A O"C 25 WRT Kavanas 
Hanachas Tfilin. (also Yodua Shita HoRambam regarding Nshama).

Kol Tuv, 

Yitzchok Zirkind

MSB:
> If the interworld churban can be incomplete, as the Tif'eres Yisrael
> seems to imply, then what makes the churban immediately before Bereishis
> 1:2 different than the desctruction caused by the mabul?

Speculation #1:

Other previous worlds did NOT have humans as the main specie.  This world
started with Adam and there were two takes, before the Mabbul and after.

Speculation #2:

Olam habo might be populated by some new form even more evolved than humans.
Something spiritual but not exaclty mal'achim.  Olam Hazeh may actually be
the penultimate stage.  Chevlei Moshiach will then bring about a new birth.
And the resurrection, while bringing back humanoid form, may bring us back
as superhuman or human+ etc.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

In a message dated 11/1/00 4:53:24pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> If the interworld churban can be incomplete, as the Tif'eres Yisrael
> seems to imply, then what makes the churban immediately before Bereishis
> 1:2 different than the desctruction caused by the mabul?

Compare with the Sugia in Sanhedrin 97a Chad Charuv (and see Rashi D"H Voison 
Shonim Sanhedrin 92b, which implies that the Chad Charuv is not that it 
becomes nil, Yet it is called Shomayim Chadoshim Veretz Chadasha, Al Derech 
by Noach "Olom Chodosh Ro'oh") also see Ramban on the Teitch of Bri'ah 
(Breishis Bara).  In any case it is Yodua Shitas HoArizal that Borei Olomois 
was in Ruchnius not in Gashmius.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

RDF:

>BP might be a blessing for the religious, a mechanism that unclutters
>their thought and makes it easier for them to concentrate on Torah without
>such distractions as whether to play basketball on Shabbos. But they
>still have the free will to do so. The Bostoner Rebbe had the free will
>to suit up with Larry Bird and do his stuff at the Garden on a Friday
>night. Despite BP, the rebbe's decision to stay at home or walk to shul
>instead is a voluntary act. The fact that it would not cross his mind
>to do so (or so we think) is immaterial to the mitzvah.

The MME's position is that a person's BP is constantly moving up the ladder
and becoming more refined. Take, for example, the example I gave about a
frie guy who loves basketball and becomes frum. Once he reaches the point
where to play or not to play is no longer an issue, that is no longer where
his BP is; it has moved up a notch. However, as I noted, and this fits with
what you say, just because he no longer has the choice doesn't mean he's
not rewarded for it - in other words, he is not "punished" by losing out on
the schar that he otherwise would have had if he had to continually
confront this issue. There are other details to it as well. I vivedly
remember a story my Rebbe, alav hashalom, Rav Gerson Goodman. told me: when
he was a young man, he was offered a position playing major league
baseball. He declined. Now, if, at age 60, he was suddenly given the coach
and abilities of himself at 20, but with his same 60 year old mind, it
still wouldn't be a question to him, because it is no longer an issue.
However, he doesn't lose the schar just because he made the decision. In
Strive For Truth, Rav Aryeh Carmel's english adapatation of MME, you can
read Rav Dessler's whole essay. I think you'll find it fascinating reading.



Me:

>: I believe that there are those who understand the Gemara's statement
>: literally - that is, even your want for something is programmed in - free
>: will comes into play about what you will do with that which you want. This
>: is sort of like the idea of thoughts popping into your head during Shemonah
>: Esrei: you couldn't keep it from popping in, but it's your choice whether
>: to dwell on it or not...

RRW:

>So would this be a fair re-statement:
>Hakol bidey shamayim  is wrt the physical aspects of free choice
>BUT
>the spiritual aspects are up to us?

Dear Rich,
	First of all, except for the Gemara's statement about heat and cold,
possibly, if I understand you correctly. However, note that I stated
earlier that if you trace the chain carefully and far enough along, you'll
find that many seemingly trivial choices do, in fact involve yiras Shemayim
questions. Also, my chevrusa maintains that EVERY choice is in this category.

RMB:

>Are you then saying that some decisions don't involve yir'as Shamayim
>issues whatsoever? When these decisions come up, would you argue that
>one need not bother consulting da'as Torah?

See above. Also, perhaps yes - after all, we aren't robots. For an example
ad absurdium, let's say I have four pairs of black pants that are all
basically similar, all clean and hanging in the closet. I don't have to
consult the Gadol on which one to choose! Obviously, there's a difference
between important and trivial decisions, and also, we, who may not be
Gedolim, are at a stage where we have enough of a Torah kup that we can
make some decisions on our own.

Eli

Yzkd@aol.com, Yitzchok Zirkind
>  In any case it is Yodua Shitas HoArizal that Borei Olomois 
> was in Ruchnius not in Gashmius.

Several months ago we discussed how R. Aryeh Kaplan brought down a
technique for reconciling the 15 billion year old universe with divrei
Kabbalah (Zohar) perhaps.

Since I am not familiar wit hthe original passage, perhaps RYGB or RYZKD can
popint it out.  

My follow up question is, if RA Kpaln's explanation is rooted in Kabbalah
did the Ari or his school deal with this?

Now on a tangent.

Bekitzur, Adam Harishon's birth is observed on RH and that is the Olam Hazeh
that was created 5760+ years ago. Our history begins with Adam as a Tzelem
Elokim. 

And there were in effect TWO creations (to wax Brisker <smile>):
Perek 1  ex nihilo, yesh mei'ayin, or perhaps big bang
Perek 2  Adam Harishon, Tzelem Elokim created beyom hashishi yesh mei'yesh

AISI what happened during the 5+ days before Adam Harishon can be construed
many ways from many perspectives.  None of which have a direct bearing on
our mission in this world. 

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

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


[ 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         ]