Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 043

Thursday, November 16 2000

• RE: Kriyas Shema recitation/escorting sefer torah
• [none]
• Re: Avodah V6 #41
• Re: Science and Torah
• RE: Science is not pure fact
• Re: faith
• science and Torah
• Re: Hoshei'a 1:1
• RE: Kriyas Shema recitation/escorting sefer torah
• Keri'as Shema and Tzitzis
• re: Hoshea 1:1
• Navi Notes
• RE: karbanot
• RYBS on Shemitah
• 85 letters
• Achronim ignoring Rishonim
• RE: science and Torah
• Re: faith
• Re: Keri'as Shema and Tzitzis
• Re: Kriyas Shema recitation/escorting sefer torah
• Re: 85 letters

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> 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. ...
 
Precisely during kerias shema, when we are trying to make sure that we are 
mekayem the mitzvah, it seems very sensible to have tzitzis surround us.  
Especially since we are concentrating on the meaning of the pesukim which 
include the kavanos of the mitzvah of tzitzis.

Gil Student

On  Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:49:06 GMT, <sethm37@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Saying of "the yom" as a reenactment of what they Leviyim said every
>day began in the 17th and 18th centuries. Since saying "the yom" was
>recognized by all at that time as a hiddush, it was put at the end of
>the whole davening by Ashkenazim

What about minhag Frankfurt and minhag sefaradi to say the yom on
Shabbos after shacharis?  Is that only from the 17th-18th centuries?

-Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

For an excellent analysis of all the issues raised by Eli Turkel and
Akiva Atwood concerning shmitta issues especially as it relates to the
positions of the MaBiT and R. Yosef Karo see this year's (5761) Shanah
b'Shanah (Heichal Shlomo) pp. 219 ff. in which Yehudah Eisenberg does
a superb job of indicating that this is a machloket of centuries between
poskim from the earliest of times.

Chaim Wasserman 

On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:03:03PM +0000, michael horowitz wrote:
: Of course it isn't true. No one I know of have ever replicated evolution in 
: the laboratory, yet it is considered science.

Actually, evolution has been replicated. Why do you think they
constantly need to divise new forms of antibiotics? Numerous
examples of the origins of new species can be found at
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>.

That doesn't mean that the origin of the species was necessarily via
evolution, however. Most statistical studies would require G-d to
have used loaded dice in order for evolution to account for the present
reality.


On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 07:32:24PM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: 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.

Same idea as mine, but phrased differently. I said that since science
casts every problem into that which can be repeatedly measured, it
presupposes the non-existance of neis. It therefore can't be used
to explain or to disprove neis.

:> 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.

But that's the light of day 4. You're the one who identified the 3deg K
background radiation normally attibuted to the big bang with the or
of day one. Given that, we are only discussing background radiation.

:> 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.

WADR, and with danger of sounding conceited, but it's quite likely I know
the physics at least as well as the level presented in a popularization.
(I was required to take numerous physics courses as a pre-Engineering and
then Engineering major at YU and Columbia Univ.)

: "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"...

Actually, background radiation preceeds the concept of atom. The
first radiation was at a time when energy levels were so high that
the distinction between kinds of particles, did not exist. Even those
particles we tend to associate with energy (bosons like the photon) vs
those we tend to associate with material (fermions including electrons,
quarks, and others).

The energy then cooled to the current 3deg K level. But it didn't leave
state of singularity (the precise moment of time = 0) that way.

Plasma is therefore a more recent "invention" than radiation.

In any case, if we are to believe big bang theory, it accounts for
the origin of spacetime. There was no "empty space", no "choshech"
before the thing you're identifying with the light of day 1.


All that said, my greater point should be that we're a bunch of
ignoramuses (even with my Engineering background) when it comes to the
latest in science, and really shouldn't be trying to argue the subject.
Since we have no way of sorting between science and being blinded by
realistic pseudoscience; between theories that will be around vs those
that will be overthrown next week; it's a very flimsy basis on which to
place religion. Or on which to deny it.

-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

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

Yes -- it IS science. Evolution is a hypothesis to explain the development
of life. It is an explaination that fits the facts as we know them.

AIUI:

Facts are things which have been observed and measured. (i.e. the fossil
records)

A hypothesis tries to explain those facts.

When proven to be true, it becomes a theory.

> 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.

Stanley Miller created amino acids.

There was an article in a journal about a year ago laying out the planned
attempt to duplicate a simple bacterium (I believe)using genetic engineering
techniques. Their goal was to determine the smallest (and therefore
simplest) genetic code.

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

From: "Eli Turkel" <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
>> 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.

I would like to explain why I think there is no disagreement between them
and that this perhaps answers apparently conflicting statements of Rav Chaim
Brisker about the desirability of asking questions that we discussed awhile
ago. A question is a contradiction which bothers you and therefore you feel
a need to answer it. Anything which doesn't arouse a need to answer is not a
question. Similarly an answer is that which removes the urge to ask a
further question [Spinoza].

First of all I found the context of the Chofetz Chaim in R' Yosher's
biography (page 256 Hebrew edition). "The Chofetz Chaim cautioned his
students not to get involved in debates with apikorsim and the Chofetz Chaim
would note, 'It is a mistake to believe that you will have a positive
influence on them and furthermore there is a possibility that they will
weaken you - there are no questions to the believers and no answers to
apikorisim' ". Questions are asked within the system itself. Anything
outside the closed Torah system does not need to be justified or reconciled.
The only reason to answer the apikorus is to help them - a religious person
is not bothered by apparent contradictions which arise from systems of
thought outside the closed system of Torah.

The questions that neither the Chofetz Chaim or Rav Soleveitchik entertained
were attacks on the validity of Yiddishkeit. Thus question from biblical
criticism, science, archeology were not entertained either to defend
Yiddishkeit or to reconcile the two areas.

Pardon my "reach exceeding my grasp" but it would seem that they both viewed
Torah as a closed system. Not only are Science and Torah different systems
but Torah is closed in the sense that the only source of validity and
meaning comes from Torah itself. Thus if we find that science rejects
spontaneous generation but Chazal seem to hold by it - neither would have
felt the need to reconcile these two systems. If sociology indicates that
women today don't feel the need for marriage while Chazal assert they do -
neither would entertain that the halacha has changed [Rav Soleveitchik
indicated it was apikorsus to entertain such an idea].

Kolitz (Confrontation: The Existential Thought of R' J.B. Soloveitchik page
73 "...Unlike the abstract Hegelian dialectic, the dialectic of Judaism is
'irreconcilable and hence interminable'. What is meant by this is that
Judaism accepted a dialectic consisting only of thesis and antithesis. The
third Hegelian state, the Rav avers, that of synthesis, or reconciliation is
missing. 'The conflict is final and almost absolute. Only G-d knows how to
reconcile; we don't. Complete reconciliation is an eschatological -
messianic - vision. To Hegel, man and his history were just abstract ideas,
synthesis is possible. To Judaism, "the Rav concludes, in words which are
existentialist to the hilt, "man has always been and still is, a living
reality or , may I say, a tragic living reality. In the world of realities
the harmony of opposites is an impossibility."

The dialectics Rav Soleveitchik dealt with were issues within a closed
system. G-d is transcendent but He is also immanent. Din exists but so does
Rachamim. The tzadik does what G-d asks but nevertheless suffers. Man is in
the image of G-d but he is an animal etc etc.
Issues outside the Torah system are of interest but not something which
needed to be justified or reconciled with Torah. Science can provide useful
information that might be of value in fulfilling certain halachos. However
Torah provides its own justification and validity and needs no supporting
evidence from any other system.

The conflicting Reb Chaim's 1) you can not ask a question unless there is an
answer [Ma'atiki HaShemua] 2) Moshe Rabbeinu got the job because he asked
questions [Rav Tendler citing RYBS in the name of Reb Chaim]. They can be
reconciled by - . The questions are desirable and encouraged within the
system. G-d is challenged not to be refuted but to be understood. Rav Chaim
Volozhner encouraged students to question their teachers not to
institutionalize skepticism and independence from authority but to the
contrary.

                   Daniel Eidensohn

I never said that the truth of Torah and the truth to be found in
science are irreconcilable.  Whatever is authored by G-D, whether it be
torah or the physical universe, can not involve real contradictions.  I
was only asserting that some traditional understandings of torah may not
be compatible with a scientific approach or established scientific data,
and that the quest for such compatibility may be futile.  In addition,
as Akiva pointed out, in many cases it is not a question of
contradiction but of dealing with different realms.

The Torah is primarily a guide book not a history or book of science.
It deals mostly with moral lessons and laws, and less with facts.  Of
course, there are narratives that deal with events and the lives of
people.  These, too, are real, but the reality may not always be the
simple sense of the text.  For example, Chazal have said regarding
Creation, "It is impossible to relate the full force (or reality) of His
deeds to those of flesh and blood, therefore the Torah says opaquely,
'In the beginning G-D created the heaven and the earth'".  If the first
verse is a general introduction giving the desired lesson that
everything that exists was brought into being by an omnipotent Creator,
the second verse is rather mysterious.  What is 'tohu' and 'bohu', and
why are there 'things' prior to the first announced creation?  I have
expressed my own preference for a viewpoint similar to that of the
Tiferet Yisrael that this verse alludes to the destruction of a prior
world on this planet.  However, it is possible to see in this verse an
allusion to the very early state of the universe - as has been done by
Schroeder and Aviezer.  The darkness in this verse would then allude to
the confinement of the initial radiation (photons) to the body of that
opaque "fireball" due to gravity and the high density of charged matter
that it contained.  Once the "fireball" expanded sufficiently and cooled
to temperatures allowing for the combination of electrons and protons to
form hydrogen, then radiation could escape (verse 3).  This radiation
would have been partly in the form of visible light with much
ultraviolet radiation, as well.  I don't understand Micah's objection to
this hypothesis from a standpoint of physics.  The subsequent great
expansion of the universe and its continued cooling has lead to a
background radiation of cool matter (at 3.5 degrees Kelvin) in the
microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

You may gather that I am not averse to scientific type speculations
concerning the reality behind some verses.  I object only to attempting
to find a scientific rationale behind aggadic pronouncements concerning
the early part of Genesis.  At the very least, the scientific data and
theory should be sound.

Yitzchok Zlochower

On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 10:37:03AM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: "[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)...

I crossed wires. I meant to say "about Amos".

-mi

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
>                    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...

Also, if this is the hakpada, I don't understand how RSZA solved it.
Holding the two front tzitzis together leaves you with 3 kanfos (one in
front, two in back).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:02:10PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Also, if this is the hakpada, I don't understand how RSZA solved it.
: Holding the two front tzitzis together leaves you with 3 kanfos (one in
: front, two in back).

I was taught that the reason for taking only two tzitzis is so that
one is holding 10 knots kineged the 10 sefiros.

There is also a problem of hefsek. It's pragmatically more distracting to
hunt for the back two corners. For that matter, I was under the impression
(until this discussion) that the Gaon didn't hold tzitzis at all during
Shema so that one doesn't have to be mafsik to gather them.

-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

What Rashi writes in his peirush on Hoshea is similar to what he indicates
in his peirush on the gemara in Megilla 14a d'h she'hutzricha l'dorot,
where he mentions Hoshea only with the reign of Yeravam ben Yoash.

One has to keep in mind that the Anshei Knesset Hag'dola were the ones
who edited the Trei Asar (see: Rashi Bava Batra 15a  d"h katvu Yechezkel.
So what we're reading is NOT a history text but a message for us to
learn.

Josh

[Chaim sent me the following. However, as I already made his first two
points in my summary of our chaburah, I'm snipping much of them. -mi]

1) Rashi says that Yir'avam the melech of Yisroel shared a reign with ...

2) There is a nice mussar vort in Rashi. ...

3) Machlokes between IBN Ezra and Rashi who Hoshea was. Was he the same
Hoshea who was last king of Malchus Yisroel or someone else? Rahsi seems to
learn he was the last king of Malchus Yisroel. according to Rashi you have
to say that marrying the zonah was literal and this caused him to go off the
derech.

cmarkowitz@scor.com
212-390-5297

> From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>

> 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.


My problem is that I am not a morning person so that I invariably come a
little late to davening.  That causes me to omit almost all the karbanos.
Is there any reason not to say korbanos *after* davening?

Also, "u'nshalma parim s'faseinu" may be a good technical reason to say
korbanos but is not a very convincing one philosophically.  When I daven, I
feel that I'm getting closer to Hashem.  When I say korbanos, I don't really
feel that (unless I think of the Ramban about the purpose of korbanos)--it's
just a description of the dishun hamizbeach, etc.  I think that's why many
people feel that korbanos are expendable and try to say the absolute
minimum.  

While one could make the same argument in the context of real korbanos in
the Bais Hamikdash, there is a big difference: in the bais hamikdash you saw
the animal die in front of you and thought to yourself "I rebelled against
HKBH; that should have been me being killed."  You don't get that feeling
from saying aizehu mekoman.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> Enclosed is a quote from Aryeh Frimer in mail-jewish 7 years ago
>    "Several Shmittahs ago, my brother Dov asked the Rav Zatsal whether he
> could rely on the Heter Mechira to which the Rav Responded: "If you rely
> on the Heter Mechirat Chametz which is a Biblical and Punishable by
> karet, you certainly can rely on the Heter Mechira for shmitta which
> according to most authorities is only rabbinic."..."  

The Beis HaLevi (III 1:4) quotes his son, R. Chaim Soloveitchik, as holding that
the heter mechirah would not work because even if the obligation of shevi'is is 
only derabbanan, the kedushas ha'aretz is de'oraisa and kinyan nochri can only 
be mafkia a kedushah derabbanan.  However, RCS later wrote a sevara in his 
chiddushim on the Rambam (hilchos shemitah 12:16) that the kedushas ha'aretz for
shevi'is is only derabbanan.  Therefore, kinyan nochri (i.e. heter mechirah) 
should work.

R. Menachem Genack (in his Gan Shoshanim) quotes RYBS as dealing with this 
issue.  RYBS adds another concept of shem Eretz Yisrael.  Even if the kedushas 
ha'aretz for shevi'is is derabbanan, the shem Eretz Yisrael is still de'oraisa 
which precludes kinyan nochri and therefore heter mechirah.

Perhaps Dov Frimer spoke to RYBS before he had formulated the opinion above.

Gil Student

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
>: 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. ...

> 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. ...
> However, as a makor...
>                R' Yonasan doesn't actually say anything about the minimum
> size for a seifer.

Why is the special halacha of saving a sefer kodesh on Shabbos set at 85
letters if really the minimal sefer is smaller?  It's a m'kor!  Why is there
room to question this point?

Shlomo Goldstein

Wolpoe, Richard <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>:
> I think they[Acharonim] often disregard what the rishonim DID NOT SAY.

> 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
...

I think most of these issues reflect a machlokes Acharonim in how to relate
to minhagim.  I still don't think the words of Rishonim are ignored.
However, I think there are 2 camps regarding the inviolable correctness of
minhagim,  1 camp holds that minhagim are always right,  This group includes
the Rema, Noda B'Yehuda, Aishel Avrohom Butchach, AH, RMF

A second group sees minhag as a viable option but prefers the safe path of
many Rishonim.  This group includes the Bais Yosef, the GRA, the MB, Brisk
and CI.  When current Poskim follow this second group minhag plays a
secondary role.

I think these 2 approaches can be found inside the Rishonim as well.  I
think this issue is what causes dissonance with minhagim.  But truly no one
is ignoring entirely Rishonim.

Shlomo Goldstein

Yitzchok Zlochower
> You may gather that I am not averse to scientific type speculations
> concerning the reality behind some verses.  I object only to attempting
> to find a scientific rationale behind Haggadic pronouncements concerning
> the early part of Genesis.  At the very least, the scientific data and
> theory should be sound.

Points well taken in a way

OTOH, speculations can sometimes lead to a process by which the emes is
eventually discerned. And I fear that some good frum people will be bullied
into intimidation and leave all of the good hypotheses emanating from
outside the frum chevra.

IMO You've got to allow for havo aminos, even some shaky one's, before the
more solid one's emerge fro the shakla v'tarya.

If you hold Torah is a product, then everything said must be emes l'amito.
If you hold Torah is a PROCESS - (as in LA'ASOK b'divrei Sorah) then every
step Towards emes has value.

Illustration: it took Edison about 10,000 tries/failures to invent something
he intuitively knew COULD be invented. If you are cynical enough, you can
say that Edison failed 9,999 times for every successful step, so he is
99.99% a failure, etc.  But Edison will tell you that he merely proved 9,999
ways that do not work.  

Conclusion: If you abandon things like Science to those w/o Torah w/o
menorah then you will get a G-dless Science.  So, I advocate instead of
giving up on speculation, let's get better at it <smile>.

Micha:
> All that said, my greater point should be that we're a bunch of
> ignoramuses (even with my Engineering background) when it comes to the
> latest in science, and really shouldn't be trying to argue the subject.
> Since we have no way of sorting between science and being blinded by
> realistic pseudoscience; between theories that will be around vs those
> that will be overthrown next week; it's a very flimsy basis on which to
> place religion. Or on which to deny it.

True. I agree that these speculations should be seen in the spirit of
explaining and reconciling, not in the spirit of proving or justifying.  In
that sense, I agree with the sentiment that science cannot PROVE Torah and
vice versa.

But science can ILLUSTRATE sometimes what Torah means.

The picture of Sodom as "kitor hakvisahn" is easy to understand if one has
seen a film of an atomic mushroom cloud. This is NOT to PROVE that Sdom' was
nuked, this is merely to illustrate in a modern metaphor what it must have
looked like.

If you look at illustrated Haggados shel Pesach, you will see that pictures
vary from generation to generation of what their impressions are wrt to
Par'oh,  the 4 sons etc. Science is merely one of the most important
languages of our times. It makes sense to be able to relate Torah concepts
in modern language, just like Artscroll does for the Gmoro.

I grew up hearing such things as "there is nothing that compares to learning
a blatt gmoro in Yiddish".  Well nostalgia aside, there is a bit of nonsense
conveyed in that meta-message, as if the Gmoro were written by
Yiddish-speakers!       

Maybe instead of fighting the inevitable, we can get with the program.
"Nothing will stand in the way of an idea whose time has come."  This
skepticism wrt to reconciling Science and Torah is reminiscent of the
skepticism of finally getting a Gmoro into English.  They said it couldn't
be done.  <smile>

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

In a message dated 11/15/2000 1:49:38pm EST, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
> If sociology indicates that
> women today don't feel the need for marriage while Chazal assert they do -
> neither would entertain that the halacha has changed [Rav Soleveitchik
> indicated it was apikorsus to entertain such an idea].

I thoroughly enjoyed your post. Would not however the same result be reached 
by saying that tora is the ultimate system with which science will eventually 
reconcile, any differences are either "bad" understanding of torah or lhavdil 
science.

Also on the tape I heard where the RYBS discussed the above, it was pretty 
clear that he felt that the woman's needs were inherent in the bria and that 
"sociology" in this case was "bad."  I think this is a much differnet thrust

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Micha Berger wrote:

: There is also a problem of hefsek. It's pragmatically more distracting to 
: hunt for the back two corners. For that matter, I was under the 
: impression (until this discussion) that the Gaon didn't hold tzitzis at 
: all during Shema so that one doesn't have to be mafsik to gather them.
     
He held the front two but did not kiss them during Shema.
     
Gil Student

On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 09:12:23AM -0500, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: RSZA  (Halichos Shlomo p. 89) also did that (sometimes he would kiss the
: tzizis after "hakanaf" and sometimes after "p'sil techeiles.")

I had to rethink this when I switched to wearing probably-techeiles. What
I came up with was separating the strings by color (see below). Then
I kiss only the white strings for "tzitzis hakanaf", since they alone
are the "sprouts of the corner", but kissing the blue strings after
"p'sil techeiles".

: 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.

I didn't tamper with the family minhag to kiss all four, lacking a
motivation to. I understand a sevara for either side.

However, the reason for holding them between your fourth and fifth
fingers is because the meaning of tzitzis lies in separating the
ru'ach from following "acharei livavchem vi'acharei einechem" of the
nefesh. Nefesh is the fifth and lowest aspect of the soul, ru'ach the
fourth. We therefore represent this separation by putting the tzitzis
between the fifth and fourth fingers.

Techeiles, however, is about raising the ru'ach to the levels of shamayim,
of the "tiles" "under" the "Kisei" haKavod -- IOW, the interation between
the ru'ach and the neshamah. I therefore place those strings between
the third and fourth fingers.

-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 15, 2000 at 09:59:33PM +0200, S. Goldstein wrote:
:> 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. ...
:> However, as a makor...
:>                R' Yonasan doesn't actually say anything about the minimum
:> size for a seifer.

: Why is the special halacha of saving a sefer kodesh on Shabbos set at 85
: letters if really the minimal sefer is smaller?  It's a m'kor!  Why is there
: room to question this point?

Simply because unless R' Yonasan says anything about the smallest possible
seifer, his words aren't a makor for the idea. They are consistant, because
both are 85 words. It's unlikely that there is another reason for both
having the number 85 -- thus it's a ra'ayah. But he didn't say anything
about the size of a seifer. He's not a makor.

For example, it's possible that a tanna later than R' Yonasan was the first
person who needed to pasken about the size of the minimal seifer. This
hypothetical tanna could have relied on R' Yonasan, but since the halachah
comes from his p'sak, he would be its the makor.

I think at this point the rest of the chevrah consider this a dead horse.

-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

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


[ 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         ]