Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 025

Tuesday, May 7 2002

• Creation: Guided or Controlled
• Re: Creation: Guided or Controlled
• Re: Night before day, or after day?
• Re: Night before day, or after day?
• Re: gerut and names
• Re: Creation: Guided or controlled
• Night before day, or after day?
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• re:New Israeli Stamps
• Re: Eisav sonei le'Yaaqov
• Re: Brooklyn eruvim
• Re: Brooklyn eruvim
• Re: rav Steinberg's shiur
• Re: Israeli Postage Stamp
• Re: Israeli Postage Stamp
• Re: Night before day, or after day?
• Re: Eisav sonei le'Yaaqov
• Re: Eisav sonei le'Yaaqov
• Parasha question
• Re: Creation: Guided or controlled
• Creation: Guidance or Control

Micah had some strong commentary on  a statement of mine in a recent 
Avodah posting (9:22)

YZ
: I, personally, am comfortable with
: the notion that the Creator does not have a total foreknowledge of how
: living systems will behave. ...

Mod
: This is out and out kefirah. (I give myself a DNA for it, but I have
: no emotional ability to put it any more mildly.) Check out the first of
: the Rambam's ikkarim, or the first of R' Albo's.

Let's, indeed, "check out the first of the Rambam's ikkarim".

In his peirush ha'mishnayot in perek "Cheilek", the first principle deals
with G-D's existence. I assume that Micah is not questioning whether
or not I believe in G-D's existence. The answer should be obvious
to anyone who has read anything that I have posted here or elsewhere,
or who knows me at all.

Perhaps its the version of the credo published in the siddurim (the
"ani ma'amins" after shachrit)? The first principle there speaks
of a belief that G-D is the creator and guide for all of creation.
Does our moderator not think that I believe in that? Perhaps not,
if he allows himself the liberty to define what "manhig" means. It is
now clear that he considers Divine supervision to be total control.
Natural law, he cites approvingly, is merely a disguise for such control.
It would follow, then, that our perception of the universe is false.
Instead of objective reality, there is really - according to this view,
only a virtual reality under strict programmed control (or manipulated by
divine joysticks). There is, then, no such thing as chance or accident
to man or beast or plant or inorganic matter. It is true that I don't
believe that, but neither does the author of those ikkarim. Of course,
the Rambam acknowledges the existence of detailed supervision (hashgacha
pratit) - how could he or anyone who believes in the Torah not recognize
such instances? The issue is only whether such practice is the general
rule or the exception; whether it applies only to some individuals or
to all of creation. The Rambam's view in the Moreh, part III, chap. 17,
p. 75 in Friedlander's translation is characterized by the following:

"...nor is it by the direct will of G-D that a certain fish catches and
swallows a certain worm on the surface of the water. In all these cases
(involving creatures other than man - YZ) the action is, according to
my opinion, entirely due to chance, as taught by Aristotle. Divine
Providence is connected with Divine intellectual influence, and the same
beings which are benefited by the latter so as to become intellectual,
and to comprehend things that are comprehensible to rational beings,
are also under the control of Divine Providence.."

If I am not in violation of the Rambam's first principle, perhaps Micah
really meant the tenth principle - that G-D knows all the deeds of mankind
and all their thoughts. Where in my post (Avodah 9:22) did I indicate a
lack of belief in such Divine knowledge? This, after all, is knowledge
of actual - as opposed to potential - thoughts and deeds. Indeed, if
G-D doesn't possess such knowledge, how can we maintain faith in the
ultimate correctness of Divine reward and punishment? I only questioned
"the nature and totality of G-D's foreknowledge of events". It's true
that the Rambam believes that G-D does have such total foreknowledge, but
that idea didn't make it into his 13 principles of faith. Moreover, the
Ralbag disputes the idea of total Divine foreknowledge and specifically
excludes events which can be categorized as happenstance - whether the
subject is man or beast.

In any case, I was not declaring a personal credo, just opening a question
for discussion. When I said, " I, personally, am comfortable with
the notion that the Creator does not have a total foreknowledge of how
living systems will behave", I was also alluding to a discomfort about
the notion of total foreknowledge. The latter discomfort is occasioned
by considering the pain, suffering, or untimely death which is the lot
of most of G-D's creatures - now as well as in the past. Nor is the
"law of the jungle" something that can be attributed to the sins of man.
Carnivorous beasts and raptors have had specialized weapons for killing
and tearing flesh long before man appeared on the scene. We have the
"luxury" of simply not thinking about such unpleasant matters. What way
out do we leave, however, for a caring, omnicient Creator? I will admit
that the current natural methods of population control and ecological
balance may be necessary to avoid even greater calamities and prolonged
suffering such as mass starvation. It is, however, far from an ideal
system, and should serve as a goad for mankind to attempt some greater
measure of control of the destinies of man and beast. I believe that
the prophesy of Isaiah and others that the carnivores will live in peace
with man and their animal prey will be literally fulfilled in Messianic
times - at least in the Holy Land.

In sum, I can see how others might consider my attitude wrong. I fail
to see, however, how it can be labelled as "out and out kefira".

Yitzchok

On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:30:42PM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:: I, personally, am comfortable with
:: the notion that the Creator does not have a total foreknowledge of how
:: living systems will behave. ...

: Mod

Actually, I wrote as a list member, not moderator. I even got pschyzoid
enough to have the moderator give me a DNA for it.

:: This is out and out kefirah. ... Check out the first of
:: the Rambam's ikkarim, or the first of R' Albo's.

: Let's, indeed, "check out the first of the Rambam's ikkarim".

: In his peirush ha'mishnayot in perek "Cheilek", the first principle deals
: with G-D's existence. I assume that Micah is not questioning whether
: or not I believe in G-D's existence. The answer should be obvious
: to anyone who has read anything that I have posted here or elsewhere,
: or who knows me at all.

Actually, it's not "Ani Ma'amin" that starts with G-d as manhig. Yes,
the first ikkar in the original is about existance -- but existance
of What/Who?

    The First Foundation is to believe in the existence of the Creator,
    blessed be He. This means that there exists a Being that is complete
    in all ways and He is the cause of all else that exists. He
    is what sustains their existence and the existence of all that
    sustains them.... Independence and mastery is to Him alone, HaShem,
    blessed be His Name, for He needs nothing else and is sufficient
    unto himself. He does not need the existence of anything else. All
    that exists apart from Him, the angels, the universe and all that is
    within it, all these things are dependent on Him for their existence.

    This first foundation is taught to us in the statement, "I am HaShem
    your God..." (Shemos [Exodus] 20:2, Devarim [Deuteronomy] 5:6).

: Does our moderator not think that I believe in that? Perhaps not,
: if he allows himself the liberty to define what "manhig" means. It is
: now clear that he considers Divine supervision to be total control.

No. I consider Divine supervision to be absolute. I believe that it's
total control of effect -- but that's a second question. I reacted to
your limititation of Omniscience, not any reduction of Providence. I
realize when other opinions exist.

: Natural law, he cites approvingly, is merely a disguise for such control.
: It would follow, then, that our perception of the universe is false.

No. It would follow then that our perception of the universe yeilds but
one explanation among many. That G-d can simulanously follow the rules
of teva, allow for bechirah, and customize each of our life-stories to
best fit our needs.

There are advantages to living in a post-Newtonian universe. As you
yourself pointed out -- teva is non-deterministic. The problem is
that you then have to break with the scientist who calls these things
"random" and instead say it's non-random, but still complying to the
law of averages. As I put it in my previous post: Yes, 50% of all coin
tosses are heads, but whose tosses are in those 50%?

:                         Rambam's view in the Moreh, part III, chap. 17,
: p. 75 in Friedlander's translation is characterized by the following:

The Rambam's view in 3:17 is that hashgachah minis applies to all "people".
But in 3:18 he actually breaks with Aristotle in acknowledging that the
concept of "min" is a fuzzy one and one can be more or less a member. Therefore,
he explains, while all "people" get hashgachah peratis, an actual homosapien
is more or less a "person" based on his yedi'ah of HKBH.

A position that he explains in entirely different terms in 3:51. There he
ewxplains that it's that yedi'ah which creates the connection between the
individual and HQBH through which he gets hashgachah. (Tangent: Sounds
amazingly Kabbalistic for the Moreh, no?) So, people with less connection
get less hashgachah.

So, even leshitaso, a lack of hashgachah peraris is an onesh, and part of
HQBH's hanhagah. Not a universal limitation on how He runs the show.

: In any case, I was not declaring a personal credo, just opening a question
: for discussion...

Which is why I said it was pur apikursus. Not that ch"v you were an
apiqoreis.

:                              I was also alluding to a discomfort about
: the notion of total foreknowledge...

As I said, see the Or Samei'ach on Hilchos Teshuvah, a large section titled:
Hakol Tzafui veHarshus Nesunah.

I also proposed a more Einsteinian resolution, that "foreknowledge" is
a meaningless concept here.

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              reliable person?

On 6 May 2002 at 7:07, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> My recollection is that originally, our calendar placed the night
> *after* the day, and it was at Matan Torah that we switched to a
> "night *before* day" calendar.

> Thus, for example, that the first Korban Pesach was shechted on the
> afternoon of 14 Nisan, eaten that night, still the *14th* of Nisan,
> and Yetzias Mitzrayim was on the following morning, 15 Nisan.

For Kodshim (only) night follows the day. Thus for Kodshim purposes, 
the night of Leil HaSeder might still be referred to as the 14th of 
Nissan. 

-- Carl

Akiva Miller wrote:
>My recollection is that originally, our calendar placed the night *after* 
>the day, and it was at Matan Torah that we switched to a "night *before* 
>day" calendar.

Even from the time of Creation the day followed the night.  See Berachos 26a 
that learns this from "Vayehi erev vayehi boker yom echad".

By korbanos, however, the day always follows the night.

Gil Student

Yisrael Dubitsky wrote:
>Common minhag (or is it halakhah? if so, whats the cite?) is that a ger 
>change his first name to a shem yisrael for purposes of aliyot la-Torah 
>etc.

I had once thought that Rus was an example of someone who did not change
her name when she converted. If so, can there be a better example?
However, I found a midrash that she had a different name originally and
changed it before she got married (apparently anticipating converting).
I can't find the midrash now but I'm pretty sure it is quoted in Ishei
HaTanach.

Gil Student

Micha wrote:
>There is actually a strong qushya on the Rambam from Chullin 7b. "No
>person bruises his finger down below unless they decree it about him
>up above." This wasn't an idea the Ba'al Shem Tov introduced to the mesorah 
>ex nihilo.

In Rabbi Carmy's book on Suffering, R. Yaakov Ellman has an essay on
this topic in which he tries to demonstrate (among other things) that
the Rambam's shitah has no basis in Chazal. It isn't a particularly
hard to thesis to prove, although I'm not a big fan of RYE's methodology.
The above gemara is one of many examples that Chazal, particularly Rava,
held by the Besht's (and Gra's) version of universal hashgachah pratis.

As an aside, RYE and others tend to quote Dr. Charles B. Raffel's phd
dissertation as the authoritative work on the Rambam. Does anyone know
how one can obtain a copy of this? IIRC, Dr. Raffel is teaching at
YU now.

Gil Student

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
:My recollection is that originally, our calendar placed the night *after*
:the day, and it was at Matan Torah that we switched to a "night *before*
:day" calendar.

Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky in his sefer Emes Le'Yaakov on Chumash says this
(I believe it's in Bo, but don't have sefarim in the office)

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 07:07:57 -0400
> My recollection is that originally, our calendar placed the night *after*
> the day, and it was at Matan Torah that we switched to a "night *before*
> day" calendar.

it's a Haflaah and Hasam Sofer al haTorah

RYGB wrote:
>  if you need a magnifying glass to read the
> text, I am not sure that is really considered text

What, then, would be the status of the parshios from the tefillin that
were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls, their writing being so tiny that
they can only be read with a magnifying glass?

See figure 7 in http://iwhome.com/handwriting/deadsea.htm and note the
actual size of the fragment.

Is this "text" or is it not? If not, then they are also not "tefillin".

Kol Tuv,
Dovid Hojda

RSS wrote on Areivim:
> Naive question: just as we don't know who Amelek is, etc., since
> Sannechrev's 'ethnic mixing', is it possible that we don't know who Eisav
> is today?

The whole idea of identifying Europe with Eisav is questionable. Europeans
are to be regarded as descendants of Yefet (=yavan, etc.).. The
identification of Eisav and Rome which we find in 'Hazal is undoubtedly
a result of Herod who was associated with the Romans and who was himself
an Idumean. I have no sefarim handy now, can anybody post a comprehensive
list of maamarei 'Hazal that mention Eisav and Rome within 10 words of
each other?

If I am right, even a broad interpretation of Eisav sonei le'Yaaqov
would not include modern Europeans (and hence other Caucasians). Better
candidates for Eisav's descendants would be ... surprise ... Arafat's
henchmen (although he is apparently an Egyptian).

[In a 2nd email. -mi]

I asked for occurences in 'Hazal of Eisav and Rome within 10 words of each 
other. Please search for Edom and Rome as well.

Arie

Reb Jon Baker wrote:
> Hmm. I picked up a pamphlet by a Rabbi Shia T. Director from Boro Park,
<snip>
> 2) that RMF didn't actually forbid building eruvs in Brooklyn;

RHS and rav Mordechai Tendler both claim otherwise. RMF didnt want to
be involved (see below), but having heard that the KGH residents were
succesful in forcing (by rav Reuven Feinstein's account to me) RMF to
pasken, Flatbushites followed suit. Problem was that RMF didn't feel
Brooklyn was an eruv place.

> 3) that RMF's reasoning why eruvs shouldn't be built in Brooklyn was
> based on his own chiddush, unprecedented in halachic literature, and
> see IM OH 4:87,88.

Absolutely correct, which is an important reason why RMF didn't want to
get involved in the first place.

<snip>
> Everyone else understands 60 ribu
> in the street *at one time*,

IIRC, not so. Everyone else holds that 60ribu is inhabitants of the eruv 
surrounded locality. See Ran's shittah, where he tries to use that to mellow 
the Ramban's shittah that all intercity roads are reshut harabim deoraita.

> where RMF's chidush is that 60 ribu is *over
> the course of a day*. 
This is a kulla of RMF.

<snip>
> in an area a bit more than 12x12 mil, it would be assur.

THAT is RMF's 'hiddush-'humra.

<snip>
> Interestingly, 4:89 is RMF's letter to R' Leo Jung, rabbi at the Jewish
> Center, where he essentially says, "you know my reasons for not allowing
> one to build an eruv in Manhattan, but you have the people you rely on
> (al ma lismoch), so I can't tell you not to permit using the eruv."
> It's not too far a jump to assume that the same went for Brooklyn.

Not entirely correct. RHS thinks that RMF held that Manhattan is a reshut 
haya'hid, while Brooklyn _was_ (see my earlier post on this) a reshut 
harabim. RRF (RMF's son) disagees and thinks that in both cases RMF 
considered them reshuyot harabim. R. Mordechai Tendler concurs with RRF and 
thinks that RMF still didn't want to get involved because even though he 
_knew_ (as RMT puts it) that Manhattan is a RhR deoraita, he felt that there 
was no point to fight over this, mutav sheyihyu shogegim and rely on rabbanim 
that didnt understand the _real halakhah_ (again, RMT parlance).

<snip>
> IIRC, the main reason Flatbush Avenue cannot be crossed with an eruv is
> that it is "mefulash", that is, it runs straight through the borough,
> in one side (Manhattan Bridge) and out the other (Gil Hodges Bridge).
> Ocean Parkway is not

Interesting and true comment re: Ocean Parkway. 

<snip>
> And in fact, neither the Park Slope nor the Flatbush eruvs cross Flatbush
> Avenue. They both run along the west side of the street for part of their
> distance.

I don't understand (this was also RAS's rant against the 'eruv in YU). If FA 
is a RhR, what's the difference between crossing it and occupying some of the 
sidewalk (ignoring, for a minute, RMK's idea that parked cars split the 
street into three streets and some or all of them may be disqualified from 
being a RhR).

<snip>
> b) some kook yelled at me for being "mechallel shabbat" in Hebrew on
> Shabbat, then ran into me on Sunday and started yelling at me again,
> despite responses of "yesh eruv beshchunah hazot, ein atah yode'a
> hahalacha", and when he didn't shut up, "atah meshuga, tishtok et hapeh",
> and running off. I don't think tochachah includes yelling at random
> strangers in the street.

Maybe you should calm him down, take him to BhM, learn a little with him 
(claim you want 'hizzuk from him and you want to see why it is assur), and 
then gently give him tokha'hah. The guy needs some help;-).

Arie Folger

On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:49:13PM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
: Hmm. I picked up a pamphlet by a Rabbi Shia T. Director from Boro Park,
: distributed in the Viznitz shtibl on East 13th St. In it he reprints
: a bunch of letters he sent to various people & publications, basically
: saying that Reb Moshe Feinstein did not forbid an eruv in Brooklyn,
: at least not on any sound basis...

I was zocheh to be able to learn with R' Dovid Cohen back when I went
to Camp Munk. This was not long after the Flatbush eiruv issue. Here
was his take, as I recall it decades later.

RMF reluctantly answered them. He wanted to say out of it because RMF
acknowledged that his definition of 60ribo is a da'as yachid. However,
when pushed he did answer it and any other eiruv in Brooklyn would be
pasul -- but he noted that this was because of his unique shitah.

This fits RJJB's post:
: In fact, he admits that his understanding of 60 ribu is his own chidush.
: Apparently, SA OH 435:7 says that one needs a) an area 12 mil x 12 mil,
: in which b) 60 ribu are in the street. Everyone else understands 60 ribu
: in the street *at one time*, where RMF's chidush is that 60 ribu is *over
: the course of a day*....

(Okay, I think he misidentified what part the chiddush was. But it's
been a while, and I can't be sure of that kind of detail.)

Some took that pronouncement WRT Flatbush as a hechsher; after all,
RMF said that rov would matir. However, that wasn't what RMF said
his own pesaq was.

RDC felt that while he himself might be machshir, he would not explore
the issue lema'aseh once RMF did. That if you ask for a pesaq it's
chutzpah not to follow it. (He might have said it's assur not to, I do
not recall. But he certainly called it "chutzpadik".)

Note that RDC left open the possibility that similar eiruvim, because
they didn't happen to ask RMF, would be kosher.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (413) 403-9905                              reliable person?

RSM wrote:
> R. Steinberg also does not apparently recognize the other streams in
> Jewish mysticism, such as chasidei Ashk'naz, which have nothing to do
> with the Ari's mysticism.

Or with Zohar.

Arie Folger

Reb Yosef Lichter wrote on Areivim:
>after R' Kaye's shiur I asked him about this and this is what he said:
>"Look at the Shut. Even Yekara from the Rav of Chernozwitz, Mahadura 
>tinyana 33 where he discusses the issue of a Tanach that was prinited and 
>bound so small that to read it required a magnifying glass.

RGS wrote:
> The Maharsham's teshuvah is fascinating.  His main discussion is whether
> printing and photography can create something with kedushas kesav.  He
> concludes that regarding bizyon kisvei kodesh one should be machmir not to
> enter a bathroom unless the printed/photographed work is covered.  This
> would imply that there is a problem with the printed stamps, assuming that
> microscopic writing is writing (he does not go into that).

Interesting tshuvah (I didn't read it, just your account thereof). This may 
relate to the thread we had a while back about a certain rav from Lakewood 
who came up with a new system for cheaply manufacturing sifrei Torah, using 
silk screens. If it's writing le'humra only, it wouldn't suffice for writing 
a glatt kosher (to use a misnomer) sefer Torah.

Arie Folger

In a message dated 5/6/02 5:19:08pm EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> RGS wrote:
>> The Maharsham's teshuvah is fascinating.  His main discussion is whether
>> printing and photography can create something with kedushas kesav.  He
>> concludes that regarding bizyon kisvei kodesh one should be machmir not to
>> enter a bathroom unless the printed/photographed work is covered.  This
>> would imply that there is a problem with the printed stamps, assuming that
>> microscopic writing is writing (he does not go into that).

> Interesting tshuvah (I didn't read it, just your account thereof). This may 
> relate to the thread we had a while back about a certain rav from Lakewood 
> who came up with a new system for cheaply manufacturing sifrei Torah, using 
> silk screens. If it's writing le'humra only, it wouldn't suffice for 
> writing a glatt kosher (to use a misnomer) sefer Torah.

1) the Maharsham also holds that Seforim may not be recycled in other 
Seforim, see discussion at length in the Sdei Chemed Kllolim Mareches haMem.

2) with the silk screening the point AIUI is, that he holds that it is not a 
Maseh D'fus rather Maseh Ksiva.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> My recollection is that originally, our calendar placed the night *after*
> the day, and it was at Matan Torah that we switched to a "night *before*
> day" calendar.

IIRC we already discussed the Shita of the Hafla'ah WRT how Avrohom Ovinu 
could keep Shabbos ant yet not be Oveir Nochri Sheshovas, for sources on this 
subject see Encyclopedia Taalmudis Vol. 22 Erech Yom Ois 3.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 5/6/02 4:23:34pm EDT, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> RSS wrote on Areivim:
>> Naive question: just as we don't know who Amelek is, etc., since
>> Sannechrev's 'ethnic mixing', is it possible that we don't know who Eisav
>> is today?

> The whole idea of identifying Europe with Eisav is questionable. Europeans
> are to be regarded as descendants of Yefet (=yavan, etc.).. The
> identification of Eisav and Rome which we find in 'Hazal is undoubtedly
> a result of Herod who was associated with the Romans and who was himself
> an Idumean. I have no sefarim handy now, can anybody post a comprehensive
> list of maamarei 'Hazal that mention Eisav and Rome within 10 words of
> each other?

> If I am right, even a broad interpretation of Eisav sonei le'Yaaqov
> would not include modern Europeans (and hence other Caucasians). Better
> candidates for Eisav's descendants would be ... surprise ... Arafat's
> henchmen (although he is apparently an Egyptian).

1) Lhalacha we don't know who Edom is therfore one doesn't have to wait 3 
generations, Rambam Hil. Issurei Biah 12:25

2) In any case we are a Kivsa Achas Bein Shivi'm Z'eivim (see also Rambam 
Hil. Mlochim 12:1), and Bchol Dor V'dor Omdim...

3) See Rashi Breishis 36:13, (27:39).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Arie Folger:
>             I have no sefarim handy now, can anybody post a comprehensive
> list of maamarei 'Hazal that mention Eisav and Rome within 10 words of
> each other?
...
[In a 2nd email. -mi]

> I asked for occurences in 'Hazal of Eisav and Rome within 10 words of each
> other. Please search for Edom and Rome as well.

I ran it through my DBS CD, I found two:

Megilla 6b - Germamia of Edom *as opposed* to Rome;
Makkoth 12a - seems to equate the two (at least the Sar of Rome comes from
Edom);

The Arabians I believe migrated all over the area, so Arafat being an
Egyptian says nothing about his yichus. But I have no doubt that these
people who can blow themselves up just to hurt and kill some Jews are
Amalekies.

Shlomoh

In this week's parasha, Rashi mentions three reasons for counting the
Benei Levi from the age of one month. When the pasuk says "ach es mateh
Levi lo sifkod" Rashi says "kedai hu ligyon shel Melech..."

Later, when they are in fact counted, Rashi says one reason is "lamud
osah hashevet lihyos nimnim min habeten". The second/third reason is
that they should not be included in the count of those 20+ who would
die in the midbar.

Two questions:

1. If the Leviyim did not do the chet ha'egel, why would the age at which
they are counted make a difference in their punishment or lack thereof?

2. Why all the reasons?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 5/6/02 4:23:13pm EDT, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> Micha wrote:
>>There is actually a strong qushya on the Rambam from Chullin 7b. "No
>>person bruises his finger down below unless they decree it about him
>>up above." This wasn't an idea the Ba'al Shem Tov introduced to the mesorah 
>>ex nihilo.

> In Rabbi Carmy's book on Suffering, R. Yaakov Ellman has an essay on
> this topic in which he tries to demonstrate (among other things) that

1) the proof to the BS"T's Shita from CHulin 7a, was said by none less then 
the Baal Hatanya.

2) OTOH the Chinuch writes that the BS"T's Shita is not jewish.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

This note is to apologize to the chevra for opening the subject of G-D's
foreknowledge. My statements on this matter are not necessarily incorrect,
but, after reflection - and a sleepless night, they were inappropriate. It
is not for a highly limited and fallible human to assess the nature and
extent of Divine knowledge. I am a strong believer in hashgacha pratit
for individuals. I see it in my own life as well as in personal stories
told by reliable persons - not to mention all the stories that are found
in scripture. I am also aware of instances of clairvoyance on the part
of some great people, where they had an insight - clouded as it was -
into a future event that was not predictable or anticipated. The latter,
presumably, involves being connected to a source of such a detailed
foreknowledge, i.e. a divine source.

It is also unseemly for me to paint myself as some kind of heretic in
the eyes of others. Therefore, kindly disregard my previous posts on
this subject.

Yitzchok

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


[ 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         ]