Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 140

Wednesday, February 28 2001

• FW: Ketz Katzuv
• RE: Ketz Katzuv
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk? #2: MC vol. 1 p. 102
• Re: Who can be a dayan?
• Rt, Mincha/Maariv
• Re: minor fasts
• 'chelek Elokah mimaal' (piece of G-d above)
• RE: 'chelek Elokah mimaal' (piece of G-d above)
• Re: 'chelek Elokah mimaal' (piece of G-d above)
• RE: Rt, Mincha/Maariv
• Re: 72 minutes (Rabbenu Tam's twilight)
• Re: 'chelek Elokah mimaal' (piece of G-d above)
• Making songs out of psukim
• Re: Making songs out of psukim
• Re: Making songs out of psukim
• Re: Making songs out of psukim
• Re: Problems w/ Z'man Hadlokos Neiros al pi RT and Magen Avrohom
• Re: Rt, Mincha/Maariv
• Gra and Ba'al Hatanya (was RE: 72 minutes)
• Leka Midi delo Remiza B'Oyreisa
• Pi and Melachim Alef 7:23
• Mal'achim and Teva (was: minimising the sakono)
• Re: Mal'achim and Teva (was: minimising the sakono)
• Re: Mal'achim and Teva (was: minimising the sakono)
• Re: Mal'achim and Teva (was: minimising the sakono)

From: Feldman, Mark [mailto:MFeldman@CM-P.COM]
>>                     I came across a letter from the Rambam where he is
>>asked, "is there a Ketz Katzuv to a person's life?". He responds as I did
>>that of course there isn't and that's why the Torah tells us to protect
>>ourselves such as by building a Maakeh.

> I am not all surprised at this Ramban...

The letter I mentioned was by the Rambam, but nu, if we can get confused 
between Haman and Mordechai, I guess we can get confused between Rambam and 
Ramban! Perhaps Jerusalemites would prefer to call him Ben Maimon...

Adar Sameach!
Moshe

From: moshe rudner [mailto:mosherudner@hotmail.com]
> The letter I mentioned was by the Rambam, but nu, if we can get confused 
> between Haman and Mordechai, I guess we can get confused between Rambam and 
> Ramban! Perhaps Jerusalemites would prefer to call him Ben Maimon...

As I mentioned to Moshe Rudner before he sent this email, I did in fact
misread his email (guess that small print on the Blackberry isn't that great
after all!)

In his article, David Berger did mention Rambam as well.  There is less of a
chiddush when it comes to Rambam--everyone expects him to be rationalist and
give credence to nature.  The chiddush of the article is that Ramban takes
Rambam's cue on this--Berger quotes sections from the the Ramban which
clearly indicate that he was influences by the Rambam.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 10:30:51PM -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: On Micha's second teirutz - what difference does it make if the B"D is a 
: tzibbur-like corporate entity?  Bottom line the chiyuv devolves onto all of 
: the members involved...

I'm arguing that the chiyuv devolves onto beis din. The division of that
chiyuv onto the beis din's members is different in kind than the division
of a chilyuv amongst gormim. For example, if beis din were one of two
causes that combined to cause a hezek, I would say that the dayanim are
responsible for 1/3 each of the portion that devolves to the beis din.

This is something similar to RYZKD's harkavah mizgis, however I'm
suggesting that perhaps in the case of beis din this is even more so
than otherwise. Now that I was his post, this might be overkill. Without
the concept of kedushas beis din, your are basically left with my first
teirutz (they combine to make one goreim).

-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>
:> That was an explanation for how someone can pasken, not how a beis 
:> din can operate.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2001 at 11:19:41AM -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: I'm afraid you lost me. As we say around here, voss is der chiluk?

A beis din's ruling is different than an LOR's p'sak. Particularly since
the gemara at hand says that only a musmach can do the former, but doesn't
similarly limit the latter.

-mi

Even the views of the Vilna Gaon and Baal HaTanyo vis-a-vis erev and
Motzoi Shabbos are based on reasoning similar to RT -- just the zemanim
come out differently.  At least in NY, the majority of litvishe yeshivos
and Lubavitch shuls daven Maariv Erev Shabbos well after sunset even if
they daven Mincha before shkia.  This does not mean that those who daven
later don't mekabel Shabbos upon themselves upon shkia (which is what
most folks do).  As for davenning Mincha during bein hashomoshes erev
shabbos, in a world where many are maikel (b'shogeg) to say kiddush
without saying Krias Shema over or without counting Sefirah during
sefirah, is it better to (a) daven Mincha bein hashomoshes and daven
Maariv b'zman or (b) daven Mincha before shkia and daven Maariv bein
hashomoshes.   (c) Davenning Mincha before shkia and davenning Maariv
b'zman would be the best option but most shuls, especially outside of NY,
don't have such luxuries.
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

>> I heard from R' Shlomo Lezer, the baal koreh at Emunas Yisroel, that
>> the Satmarar rov, z'l, said that it is the time added to Shabbos at
>> the _end of it_ that shows whether or not it was lishmoh...

> Please note that during the summer Emunas Yisroel davens mincha at
> 7:15 on Erev Shabbos.

But isn't summertime basically a different hill of beans in that (a) many
people daven Mincha before shkia and even plag haMincha the entire week
during the summer;  and (b) many people are more likely to daven Maariv
earlier in the summer?

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Pashut: That the confusion between Nacht_1 and Nacht_2 may lead to
: chillul Shabbos by the less sophisticated.

David Glasner:
> Not so sure. Who say's it's hilul Shabbat? Because someone doesn't follow
> your humra doesn't make him a m'halel Shabbat. ...

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: And if you are not choseish for the Gra's shita {lkula or lechumra} how
: can you not be mechallel shabbos?

I am chosheish for the Gra's opinion, because there is safeik.
That doesn't mean that one who waits a shorter time has violated the
Sabbath. Let me try to make the point in another way. Usually lo plug
is applied when there is some basis for fearing that confusion will
lead to a violation of Shabbat or Yom Tov because people will fail to
distinguish between what is permissible in one situation with what
is not permissible in a different situation. In our case, confusion
would not lead to clear violation of Shabbat, because after 30 minutes,
there is still a strong halakhic basis for saying that Shabbat is over.
Even the G'ra's opinion, though we think of it as a kula, is really a
chumra. (It is a fine chumra, by the way, and I am proud to say that
I observe it religiously!) Moreover, and here I sense that I may be
on shakier ground, but I will offer the opinion for discussion, we are
already in the bein ha-sh'mashot period, so there is an inherent safeik
about whether a violation has occurred. That's why to cite lo plug as a
basis for saying that one should prolong a minor fast for the sake of
consistency seems to me an excellent illustration of Emerson's saying
about consistency and hobgoblins.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> Can anyone shed some light on the matter? Comments?

        I believe that the Nefesh Hachaim expresses thoughts to this
effect.
IIRC, the Zohar's comment of man denafach midilei nafach is either the
source or the same idea.  If it makes it easier to absorb,  the Nefesh
Hachaim (again, IIRC) discusses this in connection with the neshama,
as opposed to the ruach and nefesh. 

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Mordechai, Phyllostac@aol.com
> One sometimes hears it said by some that every Jew is a 'chelek Elokah 
> mimaal'...
> My question is - How can such a teaching be reconciled with standard Jewish 
> teaching that G-d and man are separate...

How do you explain the following

Elokai nehsama sehnastao be tehora hi?

Isn't it pashut to understand that the neshama is a pure gift from
Hashem to be returned to Him.
What kind of gift does G-d need back?  Does G-d have a bank account or
an inventory in a supply room of Neshamos?  Or does the Nehsama
represent a chelek Elokim mimaal?

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

Mordechai, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
> One sometimes hears it said by some that every Jew is a 'chelek Elokah
> mimaal'...

> My question is - How can such a teaching be reconciled with standard Jewish
> teaching that G-d and man are separate and that Hashem is not incarnated in
> humans...

The authorotative text on this subject is called Nishmath Shabthai HaLevi
by R. Shabthai (you guessed it) HaLevi Horowitz, author of Shefa Tal
and cousin of the author of the Shlah. I own a copy but have not (yet)
read it, soo I can't summarize it.

One of the many quotations from the Zohar that are not actually in the
Zohar is relevant here. The pasuk says "vayipach bapav nishmath chaim",
and [not-the-Zohar] remarks "man d'nafach min dilai nafach."

David Riceman

From: Alan Davidson [mailto:perzvi@juno.com]
> (c) Davenning Mincha before shkia and davenning Maariv
> b'zman would be the best option but most shuls, especially outside of NY,
> don't have such luxuries.
> earlier in the summer?

Take away the Gra and shkia is really irrelevant.
For example the KSA describes the 2 lechatchilas as mincha pre-plag and
maariv post-tzeis,  shkia is not factored in.

Note: that the Plag of the alter RT can come pretty close to shkia
making them practically co-incide even if their lamdus is different.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
>Of the various statements that I have read attempting to justify the
>minhag of following Rabbenu Tam's shita with regard to bain hashemoshot
>on erev shabbat...            Only the Litvaks and Litvish yeshivot,
>apparently - according to his little tale,  insisted on following the
>views of the Vilna Gaon and rejecting the shita of Rabbenu Tam.  He
>further opines that in such matters the talmud says, "zeh v'zeh divrei
>elokim chaim..".  In fact, the relevant Gemara (T.B. Shabbat 35a)
>decides that we apply the more stringent view in the dispute on bain
>hashemoshot between the Tana'im, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi (following
>R' Yehuda in forbidding work from sunset on Friday, and R' Yosi in
>ending Shabbat with the appearance of 3 smaller stars).

As was pointed out one of the first tosephus on Brochos seems to indicate 
that a late dovenign time was not a problem. I would also point out that 
the Chasam Sofer  is reported to have done malachos up to 50+ minutes after 
techilas shkiah.  (BTW as to rules of poskening, I seem to recall one about 
psokening from the talmud, while ignoring the Rishonim and Achronim.)

>The entire essay can be found near the end of the Tehillot Hashem siddur
>(Nusach Ari) that was written by that Chassidic master and halachist,
>Harav Shneur Zalman of Liady (also known as the Ba'al Ha'Tanya and
>founder of Lubavitch chassidut).  His shita on bain hashemoshot is
>ostensibly identical to the views of that great opponent of chassidism,
>the Gaon.   The shared and emphatically stated views of these two

It is quite interesting to note how close the Baal HaTanya was to the Gra 
in many of his halachic decisions. He was a gadol and was well within his 
rights to make such rulings. As were the many chassidic and non-chassidic 
gadolim who did not agree.

>world and of many chassidic groups in addition to Lubavitch.  In

Maybe you can name them? (I am only interested in those who in Europe also 
followed the Gra.)

>addition to making the halacha follow the reality of a sky filled with
>stars (in the absence of light pollution in the cities) less than an
>hour after sunset, when it is still day according to Rabbenu Tam, they
>succeeded in understanding the basic sugya on bain hashemoshot (T.B.
>Shabbat 34b) according to its evident meaning (no "artificial" sof

So I can assume that you are a greeater talmud chocham then the many 
Rishonim and Achronim who agreed to the view of RT?

>and some subsequent Rishonim and early Achronim, as well.  To cavalierly
>dismiss such considerations as "amusing" when we're talking about
>transgressing Torah prohibitions against chilul shabbat seems to me to
>be the height of irresponsibility.

I am aware that a large amount of non-chassidic shuls ignore RT as to the 
time when Shabbos ends. Are you equally as bothered by that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman@NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur:                  chassidus-subscribe@chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@egroups.com
Outreach Judaism                  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254    Yahoo/MSN Messaging: mosheshulman

In a message dated 2/27/01 3:14:49pm PST, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> The authorotative text on this subject is called Nishmath Shabthai HaLevi
> by R. Shabthai (you guessed it) HaLevi Horowitz, author of Shefa Tal
> and cousin of the author of the Shlah. I own a copy but have not (yet)
> read it, soo I can't summarize it.

> One of the many quotations from the Zohar that are not actually in the
> Zohar is relevant here. The pasuk says "vayipach bapav nishmath chaim",

Chelek E-lokah Mimal is from the Possuk in Iyuv 31:2, for the rest see Tanya 
Perek 2.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

	See Igros Moshe YD 2:142 regarding listening to tapes containing
p'sukim sung to a tune other than their proper trope (based on
Sanhedrin 101a).  He concludes that "tzarich iyun b'ta'am hamakilim"
and "ba'al nefesh yachmir."
	-Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

From: Herschel A Ainspan/Watson/IBM [mailto:ainspan@watson.ibm.com]
> 	See Igros Moshe YD 2:142 regarding listening to tapes containing
> p'sukim sung to a tune other than their proper trope (based on
> Sanhedrin 101a).  He concludes that "tzarich iyun b'ta'am hamakilim"
> and "ba'al nefesh yachmir."

I guess this is one area (the issue of Shabbos timers being another) where
klal yisrael collectively has chosen not to pasken like Rav Moshe.

Could you imagine a kumsitz with everyone laining the psukim?  Or
alternatively, people being machmir not to sing psukim, just Grateful Dead
songs.  (No, I don't know the group and can't identify their songs.  But
it's a great name for a group!)

Kol tuv,
Moshe


_______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain information that is
protected by law as privileged and confidential, and is transmitted for
the sole use of the intended recipient.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying
or retention of this e-mail or the information contained herein is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail, and
permanently delete this e-mail from your computer system.  Thank you.

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>I guess this is one area (the issue of Shabbos timers being another) where
>klal yisrael collectively has chosen not to pasken like Rav Moshe.

Then see Mishna B'rura (560:3(14)).

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

From: Herschel A Ainspan/Watson/IBM [mailto:ainspan@watson.ibm.com]
>> I guess this is one area (the issue of Shabbos timers being another) where
>> klal yisrael collectively has chosen not to pasken like Rav Moshe.

> Then see Mishna B'rura (560:3(14)).

This issur derives from the Mahril, who believes that it denigrates the
Torah to be recited that way.  Perhaps people nowadays do not view it as
denigrating the Torah.  Issues of what constitutes denigration might
possibly be specific to a given society.

By way of comparison, look at the entire siman 560, which deals with takanos
zecher l'churban.  It seems that very few of these halachos are kept.  To be
melamed z'chus (compare to certain Tosfos which justify nihugim which are
contrary to the gemara): perhaps the point of these halachos was to forbid
excessive simcha--similar to the excessive simcha practiced by kings (see
se'if 3).  As luxuries (such as taped music) have filtered down to the lower
classes, such luxuries no longer constitute excessive simcha.  In fact,
se'if 3 quotes the original issur of saying shira al ha'yayin, and then
notes "u'chvar nahagu kol yisrael lomar . . . shir shel ho'da'os. . . al
ha'yayin;" (w/o real research into the iyan:) might it be that the original
issur included even these songs?

Kol tuv,
Moshe (enjoying background music while perusing my Bar Ilan CD Rom)

From: "Noah S. Rothstein" <noahrothstein@mindspring.com>
>It is said that when the Satmarar Rov, z'l, first came to America he
>wanted hadlokos neiros to be just a few minutes before sunset but he
>was machnia to the rabbonim who were already here and who objected.
>Furthermore, I have heard that in many parts of Europe they held like
>RT l'kula completely, even for doing melacha.

Correct on both accounts. What is interesting is that plag haminchah will 
be AFTER the zman of hadlokos neiros in the middle of winter. (I once heard 
the teretz for doing that was a Bach.) It seems that to the chassidic 
Rabanim making a machlokus is worse then using a heter to light Friday 
night early.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman@NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur:                  chassidus-subscribe@chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe@egroups.com
Outreach Judaism                  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254    Yahoo/MSN Messaging: mosheshulman

On 27 Feb 01, at 9:37, Alan Davidson wrote:
> But isn't summertime basically a different hill of beans in that (a) many
> people daven Mincha before shkia and even plag haMincha the entire week
> during the summer;  and (b) many people are more likely to daven Maariv
> earlier in the summer?

AIUI, if you are going to daven Maariv early in the summer, you 
should daven Mincha before Plag - otherwise it's a tartei d'sasrei. 
See the first Rosh in Brachos.

-- Carl

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

mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Moshe Shulman:
> It is quite interesting to note how close the Baal HaTanya was to the Gra 
> in many of his halachic decisions. He was a gadol and was well within his 
> rights to make such rulings. As were the many chassidic and non-chassidic 
> gadolim who did not agree.

The Vilna Gaon would cringe but:
Let's face it, both were Litvaks who were immensely influenced by
Kabbalah and were willing to revise traditional Ashkenazi practice so
as to conform to the Zohar.

If I said that they were the tweedledee and tweddledum of late 18th
century I would be quite disrespectful to two of the greatest gedolim
of their time and two incredibly talented geniuses of all time.

So I won't say that. <smile>

I will just point out that they have more in common than just the old
80-20 rule - it's more like the 98-2 rule. IOW they really concured
about 98% of the time in face of a lot of standard minhaggim and hashkafa.

Shalom 
Rich Wolpoe

A nice one on the Parsha I saw b'shem the Chasam Sofer z'l showing us
that Leka Midi delo Remiza B'Oyreisa

The words Zohov Kesef (u)Nechoses are Roshei Teives of all the times we
have when there is Krias Hatorah.

ZoHoV =
Z (zayin=gematria 7) = Shabbos
H (hey=gematria 5) = Thursday
V (veis=gematria 2) = Monday

KeSePh = 
K (kof) = (Yom) Kippurim
S (samech) = Sukkos
P (pey) = Pesach & Purim

NeCHoSHeT =
N (nun) = Neiros (ie Chanukah)
CH (ches) = (Rosh) Chodesh - includes Rosh Hashono, 
                     which is also on Rosh Chodesh
SH (shin) = Shovuos, Shmini Atzeres, Simchas Torah
T (tov) = Taanis

SHLOMO B ABELES

R' Shalom Berger wrote:
> My recollection is that the problem of determining Pi in the description
> of the Yam in Melachim Alef 7:23 (where the radius of the Yam is 5 and
> the circumference is 30) is solved by the Gra based on the relationship
> between the Keri and the Ketiv in the Pasuk. Is anyone familiar with
> that Gra, where it can be found, and what the equation was?

I'm don't think the answer was posted recently, so perhaps this will be
ok:

I do not know if the source for this is the Gra, but I did once hear a
gematria based on this Kri/Ksiv, so maybe it is what you are looking for:

Actual Circumference of the Yam = 10*pi
Stated Circumference of the Yam = 30
10*pi/30 = 1.04720 (approx.)

In other words, the Actual differs from the Stated by a factor of 1.04720

Kuf Vav Heh = 111
Kuf Vav = 106
111/106 = 1.04717 (approx.)

The K'siv differs from the K'ri by almost the exact same factor.

For those who are bothered by the need for the word "almost" in the
previous line, please note the following:

If we use the common expression "22/7" for the value of pi, "10*pi/30"
[henceforth to be referred to as "pi/3"] comes out to be 22/21, which is
about 1.04762, a far less accurate figure than the Kri/Ksiv provide. "22"
and "21" are comparatively small numbers, giving a very rough estimate of
pi/3. As the numbers increase in magnitude, it is not surprising that
dividing them would yield closer and closer approximations of pi/3. The
surprising thing is that 111/106 is pretty on-target, considering how
large the numbers have to be to get any closer. I think the numerator and
denominator need to be over 500 or so to get a fraction closer to pi/3
than 111/106 is.

[333/106 is an approximation for pi given by adding the first few terms
in Shank's series. 355/103 is the next convergant, and is more accurate.
But, since 355 isn't divisible by three, you can't use it for pi/3. I don't
know the next convergant whose numerator is divisible by 3. However, the
one after 355/3 is 103993/33102 -- well past the range of gematrios. The
next one divisible by three, if any, would take an entire pasuk or
parashah to encode. -mi]

Akiva Miller

R' Micha Berger writes:
> The Rambam in the Moreh proves that mal'achim exist by defining a
> mal'ach as the seichel that imparts the impetus that performs some task
> for HKBH. An example he gives is the mal'ach that tells each blade of
> grass to grow. The Rambam explains that this is why each mal'ach has only
> one tafkid. Imparting two impetuses (impeti?) would be definitionally
> two mal'achim.

According to this, perhaps we can translate "mal'ach" as "force of
nature" or "law of nature". There is a mal'ach whose job is to insure
that objects in motion stay in motion, discounting other mal'achim acting
on that object. There's another mal'ach whose job is to make sure that
the effects of light diminish according to the square of the distance
from the light source. Whether gravity and acceleration are run by one
mal'ach or two is not yet clear. And so on.

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 01:24:06AM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
:> The Rambam in the Moreh proves that mal'achim exist by defining a
:> mal'ach as the seichel that imparts the impetus that performs some task
:> for HKBH. An example he gives is the mal'ach that tells each blade of
:> grass to grow....

: According to this, perhaps we can translate "mal'ach" as "force of
: nature" or "law of nature".

Unless the Rambam is maskim like the Ran (see my earlier repost [v6n136]
of R' Ezra Bick's devar Torah) that forces of meta-nature are also mal'achim.
In fact, it's hard to say otherwise, given the mal'achim that show up in
nevu'ah.

Which brings me to the second problem, in modern physics forces of nature
do not have seichel. The Rambam's idea doesn't map to anything in physics
since Newton's day. And the idea that mal'achim have seichel is necessary,
since people actually do see and have dialogues with mal'achim, even if
"only" binevu'ah.

:                        Whether gravity and acceleration are run by one
: mal'ach or two is not yet clear.

Given the Rambam's approach, each instance of gravity making an object fall,
like each blade of grass, is its own mal'ach. The laws of nature are the
laws that a mal'ach follows instead of having bechirah -- not the mal'ach
itself.

-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

Micha Berger wrote:
> Which brings me to the second problem, in modern physics forces of nature
> do not have seichel. The Rambam's idea doesn't map to anything in physics
> since Newton's day. And the idea that mal'achim have seichel is necessary,
> since people actually do see and have dialogues with mal'achim, even if
> "only" binevu'ah.

The Rambam says that "malach" is a Biblical term with multiple meanings.
I'm away from my books, but I suspect that the Rambam used a word like
"cause" (or possibly "form") where R. Miller has "seichel". The Rambam
does say clearly that the malachim whom one sees in prophetic vision
are different from the malachim who are forces of nature (e.g. "oseh
malachav ruchoth").

David Riceman

P.S. Every time I read your signature I'm reminded of the famous
[mis]quote: "It is better to curse the darkness than to light a
candle." Who was it who said that?

DR

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 10:07:13AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: The Rambam says that "malach" is a Biblical term with multiple meanings.

Do you recall where?

: I'm away from my books, but I suspect that the Rambam used a word like
: "cause" (or possibly "form") where R. Miller has "seichel".

The Rambam in Hil Yesodei haTorah 2:4 calls a mal'ach "tzurah b'lo
golem bichlal". (R' Mandel, is there a difference between "golem" and
"chomer", or is the difference between the Rambam and ibn Tibbon and
they both refer to hyle?)

The bit I said about "sichlim nivdalim" is from ibn Tibbon's translation
of the Moreh.

LAD, speaking as an IT professional, there is no s'tirah. The seichel has
ideas, IOW, forms that have no substance. Compare this to the information
theory definition of the information inherent in a signal: the minimum
number of bits necessary to describe the pattern it follows.

The notion of da'as as having the form of something else copied in your
head appears in other sifrei machshavah. I can't find it in Derech
haChaim, but I recall seeing it there. From this notion arises the
very kabbalistic idea of yichud hayodeia vihayadua (from which we can
understand the two meanings of "yada'", knowledge and marital intimacy).

In the past I linked that yichud to the Rambam's shitah on chiyus in
olam haba. Da'as of HKBH means having the tzurah of the d'mus of HKBH,
which includes nitzchiyus.

: P.S. Every time I read your signature I'm reminded of the famous
: [mis]quote: "It is better to curse the darkness than to light a
: candle." Who was it who said that?

"She would rather light a solitary candle than curse the darkness."
					- Adlai Stevenson
The "she" was Eleanor Roosevelt. It was said in 1962 during her funeral.
Apparantly it was the motto of the Christopher Society.

-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         ]