Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 042

Wednesday, November 15 2000

• Re: Kriyas Shema recitation/escorting sefer torah
• Re: BS"D
• Re:
• Hoshei'a 1:1
• Re: Ayin Tachas Ayin redux II
• Malbusham
• Re: birthdays
• RE: Kriyas Shema recitation/escorting sefer torah
• Names; Posuk fragments
• Re: karbanot
• Science is not pure fact
• Re: Science and Torah
• Re: Avodah V6 #41
• RE: Science and Torah
• faith
• Re: 85 letters
• RE:
• Re: karbanot

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> Rabbi Gold, my fifth grade rebbe, told us to kiss our tzitzis after we had
> said the phrase "al tzitzis hakanaf" rather than at the word tzitzis, so as
> not to divide the phrase.  Anyone else do that?

RSZA  (Halichos Shlomo p. 89) also did that (sometimes he would kiss the
tzizis after "hakanaf" and sometimes after "p'sil techeiles.")

Also, RSZA taught his sons to use either the retzuah or the tzizis when
touching the tefilin shel yad and shel rosh (during shema), and to kiss the
retzuah/tzizis rather than their own hand.  (also by hagba and mezuza: RSZA
held it wasn't correct ("nachon") to kiss one's own hand).

Finally, RSZA only held the front two sets of tzizis in his hands (not all
four), and he did not hold them between his fourth and fifth fingers.

A while ago, we discussed why in most (ashkenazic) shuls no one escorts the
sefer torah to and from the aron (as prescribed in OC: 149).  According to
RSZA (HS p. 146-147), we are "noheig" that only the person taking the torah
out of the aron is melaveh the torah to the bimah (because of the disruption
to the decorum in shul), while "sha'ar hatzibur melavin rak m'aat." (I don't
really know what is considered "rak m'aat.")  

KT
Aryeh

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:10:59 S. Goldstein wrote
> I quoted your 1st letter that "Rambam clearly rules".  Now you say R' 
> Chaim ruled.  Such a retraction is acceptable.

I am sorry my original message was not clear enough. But I have not
retracted anything. Following is what I said then; it is still correct. I
never said the Rambam talks about bs'd.

<RYBS said that R. Hayyim felt that it was more than just that; there was
also the issue that HQB'H's name should not be invoked shelo letzorekh.
(Providing, of course, a springboard to discuss the mitzva of yir'as haShem;
as defined by the Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos it clearly rules against saying
things like "My G-d" when upset or surprised, and similarly any mention of
His name unless necessary in the context of the letter.) RYBS and R. Hayyim
never saw what is the necessity of invoking the name of HQB'H to begin a
letter.>

Kol tuv,
Seth

From: Wolpoe, Richard <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
>I mean that Acharonim have changed the nusach of Rishonim in several places,
>and don't seem to say that "after all the rishonim did it this way how can
>we change it?"

Reb Moshe says so when he rules one can switch back to Nusach Ashkenaz.  I
think that Achronim either view that their nusach was always used or that
there is mre than one minhag.  I don't think they disregard the words of
Rishonim.

Shlomo Goldstein

[Of course, RMMS said the same of switching to Ari, and ROY said the
same about Sepharadi. And not merely switching *back*.  -mi]

As noted in the subject line, we only covered one pasuk of Hoshei'a this
week, the rishonim on 1:1. I won't give the same full teaser as last week,
and focus instead on a single problematic Rashi.

Rashi wonders why the pasuk lists 4 malchei Yehudah: Uziah, Yosam, Achaz
and Chizkiyahu, but only one melech Yisrael: Yir'avam ben Yo'ash (of
the house of Yeihu). Either all the malchei Yisrael for the same time
period should have been named, to fully describe who Hoshei'a gave
nevu'ah to; or none, since the duration was already given by listing
the malchei Yisrael.

First, to point out Rashi's conclusion, which gives a nice mussar haskeil:
"[Yir'avam] was caused to have merit to be counted with these tzadikim
because he didn't accept lashon hara [techinically, motzi sheim ra] about
Iyov" (see Pesachim 87a). Not accepting LH is enough to get you counted
amongst tzadikim.

Now, to the problem.

Rashi writes "vi'af hu malach im Uziyah viYosam". Some research in a secondary
source, confirmed when we looked in Melachim II, shows that Yir'avam was
melech when Uziyah assumed the throne. Uziah ruled for 52 years. Yir'avam
only ruled for 41 years. Yir'avam's meluchah therefore ended during Uziah's.
So how can Rashi say that "malach im ... Yosam"?

-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

We discussed "ayin tachas ayin" and how "tachas = payment" is considered
a d'rashah when one can just as easily consider it a valid translation
of the word, IOW, p'shat.

(See v02n057, v02n060 - 62, v04n430, v04n431, v04n433, v04n438, v04n439,
v04n450, v05n042 - 47.)

This week's parashah, at the end of the Akeidah, reads "vaya'aleihu
li'olah tachas bino". Unkelus renders the last two words "chalaf b'reih".

Rashi wonders why we need this phrase, the pasuk wouldn't be missing
anything without it -- it already says that Avraham offered the ayil
instead. Rashi concludes that it teaches us that with each step, Avraham
offered a Yehi Ratzon: Yehi ratzon shetihei zu ke'ilu hi asuyah bivni.

So in this case, tachas clearly means replacement, not payment.

OTOH, in "ayin tachas ayin" the money is more of a replacement than a
literal ayin would have been. The money is the best we can do to restore
the life the person would have had.

I think a key to understanding the idiomatic usage of "tachas" is
to figure out how it relates to the concept of "under", the literal
meaning. (Is this story related to why Avraham insisted, that for marrying
off the same son, "sim na yadcha tachas yereichi"?)

LAD, it is far simpler to understand the mishnaic idiom -- "bimkom".
It resembles the English "rePLACEment". The new object is in the same
conceptual "place" as the original. But "under"? How does being "under"
something mean to assume its role? Ready to assume, perhaps -- much like
not-yet-emerged adult teeth or an apprentice. Is it related to the name
"Ya'akov", meaning both "ankle" and "he who will replace"?

-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

We've discussed a few times the midrash about lo shinu es malbusham...  Here are
the exact references.

Torah Sheleimah vol. 8 p. 239
Lekach Tov, Shemos 6:6
Lekach Tov, Ki Savo 26:5

See also:
Tzefaniah 1:8
Yalkut Shimoni, Balak 768

Gil Student

From: "Daniel Schiffman"
> In Chabad, they always quoted from the Ben Ish Chai to explain why
> they emphasized the Rebbe's birthday.  I can't remember th eexact
> reference.

At 08:39 AM 11/13/00 +1100, SBA wrote:
> Would I be correct in saying that celebrating
> birthdays was only introduced (at least publicly) in
> Chabad, the last 10-12 years of the late rebbe's life?

On 13 Nov 2000, at 5:16, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
> I have no idea, but the Ben Ish Chai (I think it is at the end of
> Parashas Shoftim) preceded the Rebbe by many decades.

There's actually a reference to a Yerushalmi (I think in Chagiga) in 
the Tefillas Kol Peh siddur in the Shabbos morning davening where 
they list birthdays as one of the priorities for receiving aliyos. A 
birthday is in brackets, because it is one of the items not 
contained in the Biur Halacha where the priorities for aliyos are 
listed. The siddur also mentions an Arizal about how birthdays are 
supposed to be like re-celebrations of one's Bar Mitzva, and I think 
there is one other makor which I do not recall. If no one else has a 
Tefillas Kol Peh handy, I will bli neder look it up when I get home 
tonight and post to the list.

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Stein, Aryeh E:
> Finally, RSZA only held the front two sets of tzizis in his hands (not all
> four),

AIUI this is al pi the Gra who held that since the 4 corners should remain
in the 4 corners, therefore one should not gather up the 4 corners and place
thme in front.

And aiui the Gra is correct wrt to the begged needing to have the 4
corners in 4 corners to really be mechuyav in tzitzis. However aiui
the temporary gathering during krias shma does not undo the general
configuration, and I don't understand the chshash or the hakpada of
the Gra that requires that the 4 corners remain in place all the time.
The phrase vaha'avieinu ma'arbo canfos ha'aretz is the signal to gather
up these 4 corners and they are restored follwoing the shma...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

From: Ovadiah Dubin <ovad@juno.com>
> Nedarim 28b Do you think Bar Pahdah was his real name?  Maybe he was" the
> one who holds podon chozros ookdooshos"

> The sidurim of taimonim, R.Yosef Chaim, Lubavitch, do not start tov
> l'hodos, but just Mizmor Shir liyom HaShabbos

"Rich, Joel" <JRich@segalco.com>:
>                                          He was bemoaning the fact that many
> don't say karbanot (especially Yeshiva students of all stripes) because they
> think that the only reason karbanot are there is to make sure that the
> birchat hatora are not lvatala.

RSZA (HS p. 78) similarly bemoaned the fact that many people don't say
karbonos, and suggested that at least one should try to say karbonos,
b'kvius on certain days, such as Mondays and Thursdays.  He also held that
children in schools should be taught to say at least part of the karbonos.

KT
Aryeh

> The difference between science and religion, it seems to me is
> exactly the same. Science deals in "Fact", more or less observable
> data presented in the laboratory, proven, and replicable, through the
> scientific method

Mordechai,

At least this is what the secularists what you to think they believe.

Of course it isn't true. No one I know of have ever replicated evolution in 
the laboratory, yet it is considered science.

I can't seem to remember reading about the experiment where a scientist 
created life from non life.  A few amino acids yes, but a one celled 
organism no.

Physical Science is very much subjective.  While it may have a better 
theoretical grounding than Social Science, much of its research is based on 
the scientists reasoning and not simple proven facts.  Biology use the 
assumption that if a whale has physical features, such as bone structure, 
similar to that of land creatures they must share a common ancestor.  
Evolutionary scientists assume that if they don't have evidence of 
transitory creatures between known animals then we must be dealing with 
punctuated equilibrium with fast periods of evolution surrounded by longer 
periods of slow or no change.

On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 01:00:01PM -0500, R' Yitzchok Zlochower wrote:
: In sum, you can insist on the miraculous nature of events in the Torah
: to justify adherence to traditional views. You can even insist that
: miracles leave no physical traces.  But it is unproductive to attempt to
: find valid scientific rationales for the traditional understandings of
: these events.

Agreed. But I would go even further. Once one accepts the Torah's
statement that the event occured, I see no inherent reason to impose a
teva explanation over one constructed from ideas within mesorah. Teva
is no more rational, it's more skeptical. And one isn't supposed to
be skeptical about mesorah.

I offered in the past two reasons why little to no record ought be found
of nissim. As the comments were made in a slightly different context, I
will spell them out here.

1- Teva requires seamlessness. I said this WRT the shitah that insists that
Bereishis 1 is literal history. The effects of a non-teva event can't ripple
outward across space over the rest of history -- if so, there would be no
teva. Everything would be shaped by the effects of non-teva.

The exception is b'nei Adam. Nissim exist to shape mankind, they would be
pointless without leaving a permanent human record. It is for this reason
that I think that the universality of the flood legend is a greater ra'ayah
that the historical kernel, the mabul, occcured. That is the human record.
I wouldn't want to assume that the natural record is nearly as useful of
a tool for studying neis as historiography is.

2- According to the huge chiddush in the Maharal's 2nd intro to Gevuros
Hashem, not everyone expreiences the same reality. IOW, it is possible
for Re'uvein to be zocheh to live through a neis and Shim'on to live
through the same event but experience teva. Or for some Mitzri to deserve
experiencing dam while a Jew experiences the same liquid as water.

In which case, we who live in the days of hester panim, don't live in
the plane where the can be experienced. A tzaddik doing the same experiment
might find different results.

-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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>                Science is a methodology and a set of conclusions reached
> through that methodology. Ideas are not "desperate" for anything. I assumed
> RYGB was speaking of the "scientific community", the community of people
> who do science for a living and/or do it better than the rest of us.

That is one of the problems when discussing Torah & Science.  People
mix up science and people and don't differentiate.  We should realize
that there are _people_ who _believe_ in Darwinism (as he postulated
it), despite the newer theories.  Such belief has nothing to do with
the pure issue of Torah & Science.

> And yes, if they want to presuppose that there couldn't possibly have been
> a miraculous mabul, or k'ri'as Yam Suf or the nissim and nevu'os at Har
> Sinai, then they do desire to sweep G-d under the rug. The assumption that
> the question is one for science is the very assumption we're questioning.

These are not questions for science at all -- and therefore there
cannot be any contradiction between science and Torah in these
spheres.  When you have 2 issues which are based on different premises
and axioms -- you can't compare them at all!

Torah assumes the existance of Nes (whether as Rambam explains it or
as others do).  Science assumes that only what can be measured --
exists.  These two do not even meet when discussing such issues.

[del]

> : I've always liked Prof. Aviezer (a religious physicist and Talmid
> : Chacham's) explanation for Rashi 1:  How in the 1960s a type of light
> : was discovered that has existed since the creation of the world but
> : was hidden till now (microwave background radiation).  For those who
> : are not scientists -- radiation is another word for light.

> You are assuming that light is radiation. In hilchos Shabbos, light
> is visible light, only radiation with a wavelength around 380 - 700
> nanometers. I have not seen a teshuvah that assurs radio waves, for
> example, because of "lo siva'aru eish".

That is not the only source of "light".  The light of the sun is also
light -- and it includes both visible and invisible light.

> Second, the big bang happened before the creation of space. The original
> radiation therefore precedes "vichoshech al p'nei sehom". "Vayhi or", and
> the light place in genizah for tzadikim is too late to be the background
> radiation caused by the big bang.

This is not totally accurate.  The issue is too complex for an e-mail.
I would recommend reading the 3 relevant pages in Prof. Aviezer's book
"In The Beginning" and the references therein.  In short (and not
accurately) "when matter was initially formed ...it did not exist in
the form of atoms... matter existed in .. form called a "plasma"...
the properties of ... are such that a plasma "traps" light and
prevents its free passage.  For this reason, a plasma always appears
dark to an outside observer"  so that if someone had had a camera at
that time --  the universe would have appeared dark.  "....therefore
when the plasma was suddenly transformed into .... the light of the
fireball was no longer trapped by the plasma.  Instead the light began
to "shine" visibly.... as it still does to this very day".

Shoshana L. Boublil

From: "Shalom Carmy" <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
> In a significant footnote to The Halakhic Mind, he implies that too much
> energy has been expended on some of these issues and that it would be
> better if people worked harder on understanding what religion is all
> about.

Daniel Eidensohn
> "...the problem of evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer
> does not miss philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied
> with any cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian
> knot of many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have
> achieved more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting
> concrete reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a
> religious world perspective" [page 118 note 58]

> On the same topic the Chofetz Chaim is quoted by Rav Elchonon Wasserman,
> "Without faith there are no answers and with faith there are no questions."

If you see my earlier post re: the distinction between RECONCILING and
JSUTIFYING you will notice that the above deals with JUSTIFYING, IOW
EVIDENCE.  And in that sense it is true, our limited scientific knowledge
will not impel us to find religion.

OTOH, reconciling is about harmonizing.  And if you believe as I do that
teva and torah are both Creatures of the ONE Living G-d, then they can be
harmonized, albeit we have limited da'as at times to do this.

Reishis chachma is Yir'as Hashem.  But given this Yir'ah, then we are given
the "u'rdu" authority to master teva as best we can.  Truly to learn science
first to become a Yerei Shamayim is backwards, but given that one DOES have
yir'as Shamayim, it is imho unnecessary  to avoid dealing with science.  And
if science can help to ILLUSTRATE Torah, so what?  Rishonim used foreign
languages to illustrate Torah. Science is one of the languages of our age.

It is clear that the Gra, the Rema, the Maharal, the Rambam expanded their
UNDERSTANDING of Torah via science. Not their knowledge of the etzem Torah,
but their depth of making sense out of it.  I thinkg R. Dr. Aharon
Licthenstein has made the same point wrt to Eglish Lit.

Science cannot teach us Torah, it just makes the Teaching of Torah better
(apologies to BASF <smile>)


MSB:
> Second, the big bang happened before the creation of space. The original
> radiation therefore precedes "vichoshech al p'nei sehom". "Vayhi or", and
> the light place in genizah for tzadikim is too late to be the background
> radiation caused by the big bang.

The Big Bang to me is not necessarily the final solution.  Rather it is a
CLOSER SUCCESSIVE APPROXIMATION of a Torah POV.  It hints at yeish mei'ayin.
And as the shakla v'tarya or dialectic or dialog continues, the Torah's Yehi
Or will shed light on the scientific model and perhaps the scientific model
will provide us a big bang as to how to better understand what Hashem meant
by "Yehi Or" <several puns intended>  

Just because the two POV's are not YET in perfect harmony doesn't mean that
the process is not working or that we should give up on it. 

IOW is fair to say we have not definitively reconciled the two perspectives
and it is also fair to say they are approaching Creation from different
paradigms.  However, imho it is unfair to say that they cannot be reconciled
or should not be reconciled.  


> You are assuming that light is radiation. In hilchos Shabbos, light
> is visible light, only radiation with a wavelength around 380 - 700
> nanometers. I have not seen a teshuvah that assurs radio waves, for
> example, because of "lo siva'aru eish".

iirc the halachic univserse deals with the visible and the measuarable with
the naked eye (well except maybe for tum'ah and taharo)

Saying that invisible waves are not light because of inyonei Shabbos is WADR
not relevant.  shabbos deals with the here and now and the visible.   

This does not prove from a HASHKAFA level that they are not related.

What if I say that the Shabbos of the Invisible G-d is not relevant to us
because G-d is invisible?  The halachah is a pragmatic way of implementing a
spiritual concept, but it does not man there IS NO SPIRITUAL invisible
concept behind the halachah...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

> On the same topic the Chofetz Chaim is quoted by Rav Elchonon Wasserman,
> "Without faith there are no answers and with faith there are no questions."

My understanding is that RYBS would disagree with this.
He stressed many times that relgion was a struggle and was not meant to
make life easy without any questions.

Eli Turkel

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:00:09PM +0200, Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
:: It seems to me that Vayhi Binsoa is a makor.  Why think it is merely a
:: proof?

Me:
:>                           R' Yonasan was talking about the significance
:> of Vayhi Binso'a -- for all we know, he held a shi'ur of some number
:> less than 85.

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:41:20PM +0200, S. Goldstein wrote:
: Lo matzinu is a good enough reason for me to refrain from such conjecture.
: See Shabbos 115b that brings this number concerning what size sefer to save
: from a fire.

I wasn't clear. The difference between makor and ra'ayah is slight. A
makor is the first citation of an idea. A ra'ayah is proof to the idea
that isn't the first citation, perhaps another idea that only makes sense
given what we're trying to prove.

R' Yonasan was cited by someone who wanted to claim the minimium size of
a seifer was 85 letters. As a ra'ayah, his statement works. Vayhi
binso'ah couldn't be a seifer if a seifer needed to be larger than 85
letters. (But what about smaller?)

However, as a makor, we would have to have the earliest known quote
in which someone makes this statement or a statement that forces this
conclusion. Not just something that is consistant with the conclusion. My
point was that R' Yonasan doesn't actually say anything about the minimum
size for a seifer.

-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

Shlomo Goldstein:
> I don't think they disregard the words of Rishonim.

I think they often disregard what the rishonim DID NOT SAY.

The models for tefillah, nusach and minhagim have changed  -with some
justifications no doubt. But with the exception of a Kehilla like KAJ, I
don't know anyone who asked, how can we do this when this changes the way
it's been done?  (the Aruch Hashulcahn is a sometime exception.)

I can't give you a definitve list but here goes one anyway
+ zmanei yom/layla kriaas shema
+ Placement of akdamus
+ 2 vs 3 matzos
+ Tefillin on chol hamoed
+ morid hatal
+ Baruch Hashem L'olam at maariv
+ elimination of yotzros
+ Re-structure of kedushah 
+ Perhaps a re-structure of Hallel (IOW afaik the khal NEVER said the yomar na
  and yomru na's)

There's more but that's enough for now

KT
RW 

> RSZA (HS p. 78) similarly bemoaned the fact that many people don't say 
> karbonos, and suggested that at least one should try to say karbonos, 
> b'kvius on certain days, such as Mondays and Thursdays....

Mondays and Thursdays are probably the worst days because davening is
longer on those days. I try to say a longer korbanos on Sunday when I
am in less of a rush.

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]