Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 014

Tuesday, April 9 2002

• one vs two witnesses
• Re: shabbat clocks
• Re: shabbat clocks
• Tal uMotor
• milchemet mitzvah
• Re: Kitniyot
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Fwd: Re: Molad of the First Nissan
• Re: Some Pesach Yom Kippur Parallels
• early removal of tefillin on rosh chodesh and chol haMoed (?)
• Re: Hallel on Pesach
• Re: shir hayichud
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Re: omer and haircuts
• Re: one vs two witnesses
• Re: Hallel on Pesach
• Re: mi-sherebach
• Re: shabbat clocks
• Re: Tal uMotor
• Re: segulos

Can anyone explain if there is a general underlying principle for when
there is only one witness required instead of the more general case where
two witnesses are required?

-- Sholom

RCS wrote:
> Why wouldn't it be an issue of shema yechateh (you might be tempted to
> turn the pot back on to heat up the cholent a little more now that you
> are going to eat it and there's an uncovered control)?

RAK was of the opinion that controls are like the fire in the gemara. However, 
this is a minority opinion, since the gezeirah was pronounced about open 
fires and not about electrical dial switches. (RRW will probably disagree... 
;-)). Rav Mordechai Willig is my source for saying that AK's shittah here is 
not widely accepted. Thus, those who worry that a crock pot neds a blekh will 
put it on the heating element rather then on the button. The ma'himirim will 
put it also on the button, but will not rely of RAK lekulla (and I guess RAK 
would not have suggested to be meikil  by covering the button only, either).

Arie Folger
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

 RET wrote:
> > I was recently asked a question about the use of a shabat clock for a
> > stove....

RRW
> Accoring to RHS {I heard this form him one-on-one} and Rabbi E, Kanarfogel
> you may ONLY use a clock to turn OFF a stove NEVER on.
>
> I used to have a cholent pot go off for one hour Friday evening and back
> on so as to sneak a bit while the electricity was off. I was told this was
> a a no-no. Once off it MUST remain off. RHS told me it is like a candle,
> you can light a long burning one or a short burning one but once out it
> remains out.
>
> I'm not sure why. The kli rishon in question was still plenty hot for
> a full hour,but there are apparently other issues.

There is a problem of me'hzei kimevashel. However, I don't remember the 
relevant teshuvot, so I can't tell whether there is a difference between food 
that is fully cooked and food that is not. Ostensibly, the me'hzei kimevashel 
should apply in both cases, as prohibition of ha'hzarah applies in both 
cases. However, remember that the whole issur of timers is a 'hiddush, as you 
contrast 
it to your previous impression, and as timers are 'hiddushim themselves. 
Also, the prohibition on timers may not apply to slow cookers (ma'hloket 
whether they are like hotplates, and also depends on their design) and hot 
plates, insofar as we do not hold that there is an issue of MkM with them.

Arie Folger

The following is from MailJewish (with permision):
(email address: mljewish@shamash.org  web: www.mail-jewish.org).

From: Abe Brot <abrot@inter.net.il> Subject: Tal Umatar

Michael J Savitz correctly states that, in Israel, Tal Umatar begins to be
said two weeks after Shmeeni Atzeret in order to give the Pilgrims time to
return home in dry weather. He asks, by this logic, why don't we stop saying
tal umatar two weeks before Pessach?

The answer is that in the beginning of the rainy season we are willing to
forgo two weeks of rain, with the belief that G-d will make up the loss
throughout the rainy season.  At the end of the rainy season, we are not
willing to lose two more weeks of potential rain, (since we always need the
water). As such, stopping saying Tal Umatar early would not be sincere, and
it is said until the first day of Pessach, which is the end of the rainy
season.

==============

The original question: "why don't we stop saying tal umotor two weeks before
Pessach?" seems so logical that I surprised that no rishon or acharon (at
least those that I have looked up) brings it.

Maybe someone on this list has seen it somewhere.

Whilst 'researching' this over YT, I noticed that the Shiltei Hagiborim says
that since the Churban and us no longer having Aliyah Leregel, those in EY
should start saying Tal uMotor immediately after Sukkos. But the OH clearly
says that there is not change.

SBA



Avi Feldblum mail-jewish Moderator mljewish@shamash.org

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

I believe we have discussed this before but don't remember.
According to Rambam, hilchot melachim 5th perek a mitzvah
includes 1) 7 nations 2) amalek 3) any nation attacking the Jews 
(which I assume includes the present situation).
Are there other opinions?

The implications of this is a different matter. Now I am just asking 
for the formal definition of milchemet mitzvah
-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 04/08/2002

In a message dated 3/21/02 7:59:17pm EDT, atwood@netvision.net.il writes:
> > 2. if someone is machmer not to eat kitniyot on Pesach, and visits
> > a close family member who does not have a no-kitniyout tradition
> > (ashkenazi rabbi who visits sister who married a sephardi rabbi), how
> > machmer should he be in eating off dishes that had kitniyout served on
> > them , or food cooked in pots that also had kitniyot cooked
> > in them etc.

> I've heard the complete range of opinions, from "no problem" (heard
> from R' Shlesinger at Shaalvim) to "you can't eat there" from various
> Rabbanim in Meah Shearim.

the machlokes might be 
Is kitniyot a Chumra or a Minhag.
IMHO it is NOW a Minhag and NOT a Chumra.  Of course The Minhag originally 
stemmed from a Chumra perhaps...

It is clear according to Chayei Adam that Kitniyot is a Minhag {al Titosh 
Toras Imecha}  IMHO it is not Halachically required for an Asheknazi to be 
machmir as a guest of a Sphardi IF/WHEN as a guest he generally defers to the 
Minhag of his hos/Ba'al Habyhis. That said, I myself as would feel very 
awkward eating kitniyos mamash, but if they were not b'ein - IOW in some kind 
of Ta'aroves so that there not nikkar - I probably wouldn't mind 

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

To add to the postings on the origins of aveilut during sefirat 
ha-omer, I refer to a posting I sent to Avodah on a previous round on 
the subject.  In it I pointed out that I an early reference to the 
subject is from R' Natronai Gaon who stated that one does not marry 
between Pesach and Atzeret, that is the full 49 days.  The reason he 
gives is minhag aveilut for R' Akiva's talmidim who died during that 
entire period.

R' Hai Gaon added another minhag. From Pesah to Shavuot (49 days) one 
does not do any m'lakha from sunset until Shacharit.  Same R' Akiva 
reason. They died at night. 

Interesting that despite all the additional signs of aveilut added 
since then, somewhere the no-work-at-night custom got lost. (To 
misquote R' Pinchas Vardi again:  R' Hai knew Hebrew very well and knew 
what he was saying when he said until dawn If he had wanted to say 
"until one counts the 'omer" he would have said just that.)

Perhaps more interesting is that not working at night is not exactly a 
sign of mourning.

Further, while Ashkenaz added mourning customs after the crusaders 
murdered their way through France and Germany during Iyyar and Sivan, 
others found an "ancient book from S'farad"  (see Sefer Hamanhig)  that 
said p'ros ha'atzeret which gave them the opportunity to lower the 
mourning period from 49 to 33 days. 

I believe I also recommended in my previous posting R' D. Sperber's 
Minhagei Yisrael (Vol. 1,IIRC) for much more on the subject.

Just to add to the confusion: IIRC,  Be'er Heiteiv  quotes a source who 
says that while marriage during Nissan is okay, marriage after that 
(until Shavuot) is classified as chamira sakanata and zivug lo ya'aleh 
yafeh.  And what does that have to do with eivel? Punishment for not 
mourning?

K"T,
David 

 From expert analysis:

>From: Remy Landau <remylandau@yahoo.com>
>Dear YGB,
>
>--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
><sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> > The Shem mi'Shmuel says the molad of the first Nisan, i.e., that
> > discussed in Parashas Bo, was midnight, so that it
> > would not have been seen until, earliest, the following sunset, which
> > required G-d to show it to Moshe and Aharon in a miraculous fashion in
> > order for that day to be fixed as Rosch Chodesh. Is it possible to
> > confirm or deny that?
> >
>It would not be possible to confirm the statement using the fixed Hebrew
>calendar rules, for quite a number of cogent reasons.
>
>However, using astronomical calculations that theorize the phases of the
>moon going as far back as the Exodus, and making some allowances for the
>UTC, we find a couple of new moons that appear to occur at about
>midnight, Cairo time. The closest seem to be 27 Feb -1311j at 2:10 UTC,
>and 18 Mar -1310j at 2:03 UTC.
>
>However, these times would have to be treated as speculative and
>inconclusive of the statements governing Rosh Hodesh at the Exodus,
>especially since the date of the Exodus is another bit of data that is
>heavily speculative.
>
>As for denying anything that is stated... I much prefer confirming
>facts.
>
>Hodesh Tov!
>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>Regards  from  Remy Landau
>Downsview, Ontario, Canada
>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

----------
 From additional expert analysis:

----------
> >BTW, I have an essay in said volume of Yeshurun, on the RSG/RABM
> >issue. Which leads me to a question for those of you with advanced
> >computation skills. The Shem mi'Shmuel says the molad of the first Nisan,
> >that of Parashas Bo, was at midnight Mitzrayim time, and therefore
> >would not have been seen until sheki'ah the next day, if not b'derech
> >nes. Anyone know anyway to confirm or deny that?
>OK. I am showing my math, so others can check my work:
>My reference is <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/moladot1.html>
>The time of the molad for any month is exactly 29d 12h 793p more than the
>time of the molad of the immediately preceding month. (p = part = 1/18 of a
>minute, or 1/1080 of an hour).
>The times of the moladot form an arithmetic progression in which one of the
>terms of that progression is given as BaHaRaD (2d 5h 204p), corresponding
>to the molad of Tishrei 1H (1H means year 1 in the Hebrew calendar -- i.e.,
>creation).
>It should be noted also that "hour 0" is 18:00, or 6pm.
>Nisan in 2448, presuming that Nisan 15 is after the vernal equinox ought to
>be 30,271 (or 30272) months after creation (assuming creation to be in
>Tishrei -- or, more specifically, 30271 (or 30272) molads after the molad
>of Tishrei 1H).
>Therefore molad for Nissan would be (2d 5h 204p) + [30271 * (29d 12h 793p)]
>This should be, if I calculated it correctly, 893922d, 19h, 1027p, which
>makes the molad approx 2:17pm.
>If Nisan was the next month, it'd be 893952d, 8h, 740p, which makes the
>molad approx 3:12 am.
>The _fourth_ month of that year would have been close to midnight, but
>there's no way that Nisan could have occurred at that time, I don't think.
>Warning: someone should check my math!
>-- Sholom
>+-------------------------------------------------------+
>| Sholom Simon | sholom@aishdas.org

----------

Me, the non-expert:

Somewhat confused. Don't we assume that the Exodus was in 2448 post 
creation, so can't we work it out more or less precisely? Why the 
significant divergence between the two expert opinions?

Kol Tuv,
YGB

 > >The Brisker Rav felt strongly that "hab'nuyah" should not be said,
> >as quoted in the Hagadah MiBeis Levi (Brisk).
 
> What reason is given for this?
 
        Because (1) no such nusach is found anywhere and (2) it is an
addition of the "mischadshim," as though half the geulah has already
taken place.

Elazar M. Teitz

From domo@aishdas.org Mon Apr  8 22:30:48 2002
Received: from heras.host4u.net (heras.host4u.net [209.150.128.13])
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g393Ukx31477
	for <avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:30:46 -0500
Received: from casbah.it.northwestern.edu (casbah.it.northwestern.edu [129.105.16.52])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g393Ujw28034;
	Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:30:45 -0500
Received: (from mailnull@localhost)
	by casbah.it.northwestern.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA26185;
	Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:29:41 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sbechhof.casbah.acns.nwu.edu (quandong-21-186041.nuts.nwu.edu [129.105.186.41]) by casbah.acns.nwu.edu via smap (V2.0)
	id xmaa25732; Mon, 8 Apr 02 22:29:08 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020408223929.00a413b0@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
X-Sender: sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
To: avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Molad of the First Nissan
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Remy Landau <remylandau@yahoo.com>

Sholom Simon has very simply used the fixed Hebrew calendar rules on a
*FORMAL* basis. That is, the rules are assumed as having always been in
place regardless of the time period being examined.

This is a calculation convention that is adopted by the reference used
by Sholom. Sholom's results, as calculated by means of this convention,
are in fact very, very correct.

However, since there is no particular certainty as to the calendar rules
actually used 3500 years ago, nor is there any particular certainty as to
the actual date of the Exodus, such computations do not necessarily lead
to numbers that actually reflect the times of any particular astronomical
event at the Exodus.

I would not know how to prove or disprove the results.

With regards to the UTC times shown, these were
taken from Fred Espenak's Lunar Tables found at
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/phase/phasecat.html <p>

The times shown in FE's tables are calculated using slightly more
sophisticated lunar mechanics than the fixed Hebrew calendar's rules.
However, in spite of that, it is not necessarily the actual time of the
lunar astronomy at the time of the Exodus. Again, the calculations made
by FE are *FORMAL* and do not necessarily produce the times of the
astronomical events at the Exodus.

The best that can be said for anyu one of the formal calculations made
is *the results would hold but only if the assumptions made in the
calculations also hold*. In my opinion, it is not really possible to
prove that the assumptions made would and do in fact hold as far back
as the Exodus.


So there you have it... two different assumptions... two different
results.

I'm reminded of the rabbi, who upon deciding that both parties in a
dispute were right, answered a challenger, "you're also right!".

Hodesh Tov!

From:   gil_student@hotmail.com (Gil Student)
> I'm pretty sure that the Levush writes that one should take tefillin off 
> before Mussaf on Rosh Chodesh.  ...

> R' Dovid Lifschitz used to do this, but I thought it had more to do with his 
> being old and not having enough time to take the tefillin off.  Maybe I was 
> mistaken about his reason.

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> IIRC, RDL would not take off his tefillin unless he had time to put them
> away bechavod. Similarly, in Nefesh haRav, RHS says that RYBS holds that
> one should wear tefillin through Rosh Chodesh mussaf rather than taking
> them off and leaving them out. (Although RYBS notes that saying "Keser"
> in nusach Sfard (and Sepharad) while wearing tefillin is a tarta disasrei.

If there was a real problem with wearing tefillin during musaf, I don't
think they would have been worn then by RDL or RYBS as above - vaizt ois,
there is no real problem........Perhaps RDL and RYBS were also aware of
the fact that the old/real minhag Ashkenaz is to not to remove tefillin
early on the above occasions to which they were mitzaref the sevoro of
not having time to put them away bikivod.....

For more on the fact that the old minhag Ashkenaz was not to remove
them early, see 'gedolei hadoros al mishmar minhag Ashkenaz' by Rav
Binyomin Shelomo Hamburger, p. 102-3, al pi 'Mekor Chaim' and 'Minhogos
Vermayza'. He states that the migrants from Poland after gezeiras Ta"ch
(1648 limisporom) brought with them the *Sepharadic* minhag to remove
them before musaf.

Perhaps the Sepharadim had such a minhag because of a problem due
to kedushas keser (which requires explanation in and of itself - as
R. Gershon Dubin mentioned in the past) - but Ashkenazim don't have such
a problem. Perhaps people didn't realize that the problem didn't apply
to them and accepted the minhag without sufficient reason?

re R. GS's words "I'm pretty sure that the Levush writes that one should
take tefillin off before Mussaf on Rosh Chodesh. I think he explains
that regarding mussaf Rosh Chodesh is a Yom Tov." - Can someone elaborate?

[Email #2. -mi]

This inyan has been discussed here earlier.

For more perotim, see e.g. volume 07 : Number 023 and elsewhere.

Mordechai

In a message dated 4/8/2002 6:09:55pm EDT, zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
> expectations of the practice of Israel during Pesach and Succot reveals 
> a clear difference in these two pilgrimage festivals.  In Emor ...
>                  We see here that the Succot festival was meant to be 
> celebrated joyously at the Mikdash for the full seven festival days.   
> In constrast, in Re'ay (Deut. 16: 7) ...
>      we see that permission is given to returning from the pilgrimage to 
> the Mikdash on the second day of the festival.   Why such a distinction? 
>   It is tempting to see this as an accomodation to the agricultural 
> needs of the people who are involved in bringing in the barley harvest 
> at the time of Pesach ...
> While the above solution seems almost obvious, it is not brought 
> anywhere in Chazal or commentators  - to my knowledge.   Why not?

Lan"d it is because Lhalacha the requirement of "Lina" is equal by
Pessach and Sukkos, and on the contrary Pessach is the Primary source
(even for 7 days), see Tos. D"H Lina Sukkah 47a, and Tos. D"H Mah Chag
Rosh Hashana 5a, and a different view in Tos D"H Dchsiv Chagiga 17b (also
the previous Tos. on 17a), while the Rashash in Rosh Hashana says that
the Rambam doesn't bring the Halacha of Lina at all, the Ohr Someiach
at the end of Hil. Korban Pessach says it is covered by the Rambam in
Hil. Bikurim 4:3, even WRT Simcha the difference between Sukkos and
other Yomim Tovim is not defined as such, see Rambam end of Hil. Lulov.

In addition even on Sukkos there was agricultural needs, as then was
"Osif" which is how we know that a Davar Hoveid is permitted on Chal
Hamoeid, see Rosh Hashana 13a (and Rashi Sanhedrin 13a), furthermore
see Tos. D"H Kinas Es Tvuosoi Bava Basra 21a.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

>Does anyone say it daily these days?
>All I recall seeing over the years is people saying it (the segments for all
>the various days of the week - eg. yom sheini, shelishi, etc.) on Yom Kippur
>night.

The Yekkes in Strasbourg, France (K.K. Etz Chaim) say the appropriate one on Shabbes & Yom Tov before An'Im Zemiros.

And a ditto for YK.

- Danny

hevra.
outside waht is written in Yore De'a Siman 181, what is the etymology and
etiology of upsharin?
chaim

On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:08:00AM +0200, c h a i m wrote:
: outside waht is written in Yore De'a Siman 181, what is the etymology and
: etiology of upsharin?

Isn't it cognate to the English "shearing"?

-mi

On 7 Apr 2002 at 20:40, Sholom Simon wrote:
> Can anyone explain if there is a general underlying principle for when
> there is only one witness required instead of the more general case where
> two witnesses are required?

AFAIK any eidus for which a woman is accepted (e.g. eidus that a man 
has died to allow his wife to remarry provided that the woman bearing 
witness is not one of the five women specified in the mishna as being 
invalid for that eidus), and to cause a shvu'a in dinei mamonos. 

-- Carl

At 01:40 AM 4/7/02 -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
> The reasons given by Chazal for not saying (the complete) Hallel after the
> first day(s) of Pesach, as contrasted with Succot, seem problematic. ...
(deleted)

> Perhaps barley was a less important crop in those days compared to
> biblical times. Any real knowledge of demographics and agricultural
> practices in Judea in Roman times would be appreciated.   In any event, it
> would seem that  Chazal  were not aware of Temple attendance distinctions
> between Pesach and Succot,  and therefore sought other bases for the
> ancient distinction in the saying of Hallel during the two festivals.

WADR, meant most sincerely, for our chaver RYZ, I am deeply distressed
by this post on Avodah.

To whit, briefly:

1. Chazal are responsible (a mitzva me'divrei kabbala) for Hallel, they
institute Hallel as they please according to their own rationales. It is
halachically unsound to question the basis cited by Chazal for halachos
instituted and ordained by Chazal.

2. To second guess Chazal's insights into the significance of changing
or unchanging korbonos, and the ramifications of shiras ha'malochim,
is to question Chazal's understanding of theology, and whence is our
theology derived if not from Chazal?! If you think something naively,
it is exactly that, naive thought, and time to conform and develop your
thought in line with Chazal.

3. To say Chazal were not aware of RYZ's insight, nor of the patterns
of aliyah la'regel b'zman she.Beis ha'Mikdosh hayah kayam, falls very
short of the mark in the area of Emunas Chchomim.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 7 Apr 2002 at 23:41, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Does anyone know the history of the misheberach's that we add
> in the dacening (sick, childbirth etc). When and by whom
> were they introduced,
> What nonstandard ones exist? I am aware of the one for those
> who don't speak in shul (I believe by Tosaphot Yom Tov).
> What other ones exist?

There's one for people who fast BaHaV which is said before returning 
the Sefer Torah to the aron the Shabbos morning before BaHaV starts. 

-- 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.

In a message dated 4/8/02 6:15:33pm EDT, Arie Folger <afolger@ymail.yu.edu>
writes:
> RAK was of the opinion that controls are like the fire in the gemara. However,
> this is a minority opinion, since the gezeirah was pronounced about open 
> fires and not about electrical dial switches. (RRW will probably 
> disagree... 
> ;-)). Rav Mordechai Willig is my source for saying that AK's shittah here is 
> not widely accepted. Thus, those who worry that a crock pot neds a blekh will 
> put it on the heating element rather then on the button. The ma'himirim will 
> put it also on the button, but will not rely of RAK lekulla (and I guess RAK 
> would not have suggested to be meikil  by covering the button only, either).

I would ask:
What do most Poskim say
AND
what do most Poskim and Kehillos DO?

AIUI, adding a blech to a crockpot seems to me a bit of chidush, {and
I confess I am no expert in the area of bishul, Hazara and Hatmanah.}

It seems pashut that covering the controls make sense, but I don't see
many people doing this on their stoves, ovens etc. 't

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Abe Brot <abrot@inter.net.il>
>> Michael J Savitz correctly states that, in Israel, Tal Umatar begins to be
>> said two weeks after Shmeeni Atzeret in order to give the Pilgrims time to
>> return home in dry weather. He asks, by this logic, why don't we stop saying
>> tal umatar two weeks before Pessach?

In a message dated 4/8/2002 6:15:30pm EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> The original question: "why don't we stop saying tal umotor two weeks before
> Pessach?" seems so logical that I surprised that no rishon or acharon (at
> least those that I have looked up) brings it.

The simple answer is that the time of rain fall doesn't come yet,
see Taanis 6a, even according to the earliest opinion all we would be
missing is the time of "Mvakeres" and Lhalacha we rule like R' Yossi see
Rambam Hil. Ndorim 10:11, whereas in Nison it is the time for rain as
in the Mishana in Taanis and Ndorim, so there is no reason not to ask,
especially taking in consideration that the Kohein Godol is Mispaleil
that the prayers of Holchei Drochim not be heeded, however OTOH the rains
are taken in consideration for Olei Rgolim as this is one of the things
why they are Mabeir a year, see Rambam Hil. Kidush Hachodesh 4:5.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 12:30:42PM -0500, Arie Folger wrote:
: There is no need to create a spectrum, and indeed, those who believe
: in segulot do not question whether there is a need for such a
: continuum...

Actually, as RDR pointed out, there is a machloqes as to whether
atzilus, beri'ah, yetzirah and asiyah refer to four distinct olamos,
or to four ranges within a wider spectrum.

I defined "segulah" to be that which has a causal stream that involves
olamos other than asiyah. However, if it's a spectrum, a dimension,
rather than four distinct places, than various causes can be more
or less outside the realm of olam ha'asiyah. So, a teva - "segulah"
(as per my idiosyncratic definition) would be implied.

: What the authors you allude to in this thread were writing about,
: is, given the - by their contemporaries - well accepted notion of the
: paranormal, how did the paranormal interact with the normal...

And my question is that given our emunas chachamim, if we want to support
those that believed in segulos and sheidim (for sheidim there is a clear
and overwhelming rov, not that rules of pesaq apply), we need to find
meaning to the concept in the language spoken by today's science.

:                            To quote RAS, "sheidim ... are germs".

But saying that the Rambam's da'as yachid is certainly emes -- given what
scientific knowledge we now have -- is a very uncomfortable place to be.

: A final point, RDR claims that Rambam has a continuum based cosmogony:
: RDR: <<(for example, early on I suggested that segulos are related to
: the mechanism that the Ramban suggested for kishuf)>>

Ramban, not Rambam.

In the neoPlatonic notion of emanation, such as that Averroes published
mistakingly besheim Aristotle in the translation the Rambam probably had,
there are various homeostasis each of which cause the other. Very much
discrete. I'd be surprised if the Rambam held otherwise.

:                          That passage, of which I left out part, also
: gives the impression that for Rambam, ness was neither spectacular, nor
: important, and that he wouldn't mind a convincing argument that places
: them firmly within teva'...

According to the Rambam, teva is an antonym to hashgachah peratis (Moreh
3:17). In which case, neis certainly is not teva. But then, the Rambam's
position may not be relevent as you're trying to fit it to a Ramban.


On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 11:55:06AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:   I suggested an anology with transistors which you dismissed without (I
: suspect) considering it: transistors are consistent with the laws of
: nature, but they are not found in nature and can be produced only
: through human intervention...

I already wrote in reply to this.

As you write, transistors are consistant with the laws of nature. Those
same laws necessary for effects that /do/ occur in nature. Therefore,
the possibility for us to create transistors is a necessary consequence
of having the laws around for other reasons.

:                              For the Ramban kishuf is not a violation of
: the laws of nature, it is a misuse of them which can be produced only
: with human intervention.  It nonetheless fits your definition of teva.

Only because you presume your answer in your first sentence, when you
call the relevent laws those of "nature". It does not fit my definition
of teva, and the lack of other uses of the same laws is the basis of
one of my questions about why it would exist.

:> To get back to my point, these things aren't merely "popular
:> concepts". They appear in the gemara. Advice about pregnant women and
:> cracks or donkey urine. Our example. Vechulu.

: But a naive reading of the gemara indicates that it believes all of
: these to be natural phenomena.  It is you who are divorcing them from teva.

Most definitions of teva would not include sheidim.

:   If you are introducing your definition of segulos as a means of
: addressing this problem I believe you have already failed.  Maybe you
: should try again with a different approach.

No, I'm introducing the term as a way of framing the problem. Remember, I
started this thread with a question: Why have segulos? What role to they
serve that isn't better served by teva? I didn't have an answer.

:> It's a consequence of (3), and of the assumption that bechirah includes
:> choosing whether or not one believes one is more than merely a bright
:> mammal. This model of bechirah is found pretty far back, though.

: Sources? As I said the bechira-as-knowledge paradigm is Socratic, but I
: don't know any Jewish sources.

I don't understand how your comment addresses what I wrote.

Free will (using the English to be more general than a specifically Jewish
formulation) involves choosing: be it action or thought. To choose,
one must have multiple options. Most models of the mind present these
options in dialectic terms: id vs superego, Child vs Parent, yeitzer
hara vs yeitzer hatov, nefesh beheimis vs neshamah E-lokis.

I'm referring to the formermost. If I have greater reason to believe in
neshamos, I am more likely to act on motivations produced by my neshamah.

:> BTW, since one does name 4 olamos or groups of olamos, I presume the Ramban
:> have these be fuzzy sets (using the phrase non-technically).

: I don't recall the Ramban ever naming them.  There are allusions in the
: Zohar, but it is basically a Lurianic doctrine.

Again, I don't see how this is in reply. (Unless you thought my parenthetic
was about using the term olamos non-technically, rather than using the
term fuzzy sets in that way.)

: The gemara, very simply, is discussing whether sheidim exist, not
: whether they are unnatural.

Current physical theory says they're unnatural. Those who follow M's
definition of mal'ach as a "seichel hanivdal" and believe the same of
sheidim would say so as well.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 12th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment
Fax: (413) 403-9905                       forces the "judge" into submission

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


[ 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         ]