Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 046

Tuesday, June 11 2002

• Posei'ach - Bitachon
• Re: Derashah and sevarah
• Re: A Stable Existentialist!
• Re: rock solid foundations (was--first principles)
• Re: rock solid foundations (was--first principles)
• makom sakanah
• kavvanot
• Maaser
• Re: Maaser
• meraglim, minyan . . . tikkun?
• Re: Mahol ha-mavet
• Seeing around the moon
• Re: Seeing around the moon
• Re: Donations
• Re: english translations of Torah
• Navi - True or False?
• Re: Navi - True or False?
• Re: Navi - True or False?
• Re: Navi - True or False?

Concerning my discussion of the meaning of "U'masbi'ah l'chol chai
ratzon," (sorry to those joining in the middle of the conversation -
previous e-mails in the series available upon request) a correspondent
found it astounding that I did not discern a peirush based on the loshon
rabim of the Targum and the change from 2nd person to 3rd person.

I was also chided for not looking up the Yalkut.

What intrigued me, however, in this correspondent's note to me, is an
allusion to the broader topic of whether tefillo and bitachon etc are
restricted to "ha'tov b'einecho asai" - i.e., the ratzon of HKB"H or
are also for retzoneinu - our personal desires and agendas.

This correspondent proposed linking these different perspectives on to an
interesting machlokes between the Chazon Ish in Emunah u'Bitachon (where
he says we rely not that things will be "good" from our perspective,
but that since HKB"H knows what is best it will be best), and a strong
negation of this position by the Lubavitcher Rebbe (in a sicha that,
to be honest, was once forwarded to me but that I never read).

I'd be interested in knowing how the LR takes issue with what seems to
be a pretty solid position of the CI.

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

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 01:03:03PM -0400, David Glasner wrote:
:> In fact, for these two, the question is why they are midos of derashah,
:> and not forms of sevarah.

: So are you now conceding that new derashot are possible? ...

I am entertaining two possibilities, each might be true for different
subsets of kinds of derashos.

1- That derashos compell a single possible answer. In which case, they
are implicit in the material already at hand, and are implications to
be discovered rather than innovations.

This is apparantly true of qal vachomer and hakasuv hashelishi. It could
be true of other forms of derashos, if we follow the Kuzari in assuming
that the rules as codified are what was left after much was forgotten.

You seem to limit that which we were given in Sinai to the text and
the halachos leMosheh miSinai. This is a definition of de'Oraisa (for
the rest of de'Oraisa, including derashos) that is alien to me.

It also doesn't jibe with the notion that divrei soferim are a step
below de'Oraisa because ratified by nevu'ah is a step below given
via Moshe-style-nevu'ah.

Leshitascha, what's the difference between a derabban with asmachta
and a de'oraisa with derashah.

Last, there is a machlokes as to whether asmachtos require a mesorah,
how can the origin of derashos be on the table? See R' Chaim Brown's
post at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n051.shtml#13>. R'
Aryeh Stein at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n054.shtml#03>,
cites the Ritva as saying that considering an *asmachta* to be a rabbinic
invention to be meenus.

2- That derashos were given to us by HQBH in Sinai.

The Ramban says that the list of words for which one makes a GS was
given, as was all of halachah -- including those the gemara gives us a
GS for. Chazal were left matching GSos to known dinim.

This makes derashos to be demonstative, not innovative.

:                                                             All these
: questions about the application of derashot indicate that Hazal were not
: narrowly confined to a pre-selected set of derashot....

Or that eilu va'eilu applied to derashos. Not that these were unknowns,
but that the mesorah provies both answers.

:> As far as I can tell, it's because these are quantitative: which is
:> more chamur, which has the preponderance of meqoros. Sevarah might only
:> include qualitative logic reasoning.

: Sorry, can't follow what you just wrote.

This is a tangent, trying to define the line between
sevarah and derashah, and why QvC is on the sevarah side. As
for what I wrote, it was a reference to ideas I wrote in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n091.shtml#10>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 6/8/02 11:10:05 PM, R'Carmy writes:
<< I suspect that the Anthropic Principle does increase the probability
of divine creation. The best philosophers I've read are not sure how
much is really gained. (A non-Jewish colleague who is current on this
issue and with whom I discussed it, holds that most philosophers don't
know enough math to get to the bottom of it.) In any event, while my
willingness to rely on such arguments waxes and wanes with my reading
and thinking, my existential sense of purposefulness (which fuels my
intellectual curiosity) is much more stable. >>

A stable existentialist! I've heard of such creatures, but I didn't know
they really exist. Having read a number of pieces written by R'Carmy,
however, I realize that his self-assessment is accurate, even though in
his Avodah post he probably used the term "existential" in a more general
sense than I am implying. That's what makes R'Carmy's writing so valuable.

Another view, this from that great Judaic Goy, Rainer Maria Rilke: "Ach,
nicht getrennt sein, / nicht durch so wenig Wandrung / ausgeschlossen
vom Sternen-Mass." (Ah, not to be cut off, / not through the slightest
partition / shut out from the law of the stars.) The fear of being cut
off from HaShem is larger than our sense of logic, whatever "logic"
might mean. The fear persists throughout our life. If anything within
us is truly stable, it is that fear. It keeps us humble. Without this
humility, we have no hope of approaching HaShem.

David Finch

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:41:06AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>: I didn't say it wasn't valid however. Perhaps beleif can rely on intuition
>: which is derived experientially and emotionally...

> Reason can only explain ideas based on logically prior ideas. At some
> point, we have to rely on first principles. Where are we to turn other
> than our senses and experience?


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "logically prior ideas."

It just seems like such a simple concept to me. Logic dictates that
everything in existence must have had a cause. If you keep goig back in
time, you eventually have a first cause... the Infinite One Himself who
needs no cause. He is the Prime Cause. The fact that we can't expalin His
existence or that we can't understand how He always existed isn't germain
to the issue. But what it DOES do is help to understand how everything
else came into being. To say that it was spontaneous or random sidesteps
the question and doesn't really address it. It just doesn't seem as
logical to say that something always existed or "happened by itself"(IOW
caused itself!) as it does to say that it was caused by a Prime Cause.

> I'm not sure about "emotionally", though. Instead, I would define the
> feeling of deveiqus that a correctly said Shemoneh Esrei can bring
> into two parts: the emotion, and the experience itself that caused the
> emotion. Just because the experience is entirely within the individual's
> mind doesn't mean it's necessarily subjective.

I would say subjectivity is difinitively what is in the "subject's"
mind. There may be universal expressions of emotion but the experince
itself is entirely subjective and is based on one's genetic makeup,
upbringing, education, and environment which comprises the totality of
one's individual psyche. And no two psyches are alike.

> Many people don't like brussels sprouts. Again, there are two issues:
> the shared dislike, and those features of the taste that various people
> don't like.

> When we find some sevrah (or math proof or scientific theory) to be
> beautiful there are also two parts: the aethetic judgement, and the
> intellectual features of the sevarah that we are judging.

I'm not sure that I get what you were saying here. If your saying that
"sevrah (or math proof or scientific theory) is subjective, perhaps to a
certain degree it is but there is a point where subjectivity falls away
and objectivity takes over... certainly in the case of a mathematical
proof.

...
> Well, the alternative is that it is simply a random event. The event
> marks a start, but is causeless.

I find this notion to be absurd or at least not as logical as to say
that there is a Prime Cause. See above.

> In any case, the original argument presumes causality, which would
> either have to be proven or accepted as a first principle with all
> the issues I've been raising about those.

Causality in a material universe... is THE default position IMHO.

HM

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 11:15:43PM -0400, Shalom Carmy wrote:
>: I suspect that the Anthropic Principle does increase the probability
>: of divine creation...

> (The weak anthropic principle simply says that the odds of it being 10
> heads given that we find 10 heads is 100%. The odds that things turn
> out a way that supports the existance of people given the exitance of
> people to ask the question is 100%. Regardless of the odds without
> that given.)

I had thought that the anthropic principle was an argument against divine
creation. It says that when calculating the probability that things
came out as they are by chance, we have to calculate the conditional
probability based on things being close enough for us to calculate ....
That ought to increase the odds considerably. I think that was RMB's
point as well.

David Riceman

<But R' Leff, as reported, spoke more of the situation than the people
who set it up. Perhaps he's saying that in the bitachon-hishtadlus mix,
a situation of saqanah requires alot more bitachon, because the teva side
is so negative. Or (if this actually is a different idea) the gemara's
statement that when one awakens midas hadin when in a maqom saqanah. >

To me it is clear that one engaged in battle has a greater chance of
dying which is the need for the sgan to give his speech before going
into battle. As the gemara says when the malekh hamavet is active it
includes everyone.

To rephrase Micha I assume that under ordinary circumstances one dies
only if he deserves it. However, in a makom sakanah and certainly in war
one is saved on if he has special zechuyot. Thus, stepping on a scorpion
in safe only for a great tzadiik. One cannot step on the scorpion and
assume that one will die only if it was decreed last Rosh Hashana.

Similarly, if one is a place where a terrorist is acting then the laws
of physics take place. There will be a special hasgacha that a person
is saved only if he has special zechuyou. A "benoni" will be killed even
if that was not his lot on RH.

kol tuv,
--
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 09/06/2002

In the artscroll siddur is brought down for Rosh Chodesh special kavannot
in shem havayah for a person to think during Musaf.
Do most people really do this?

In the introduction to the artscroll siddur there is a section on the
mystical powers of tefilla a la R. Chaim Volozhin. I understand that
this whole introduction does not appear in the RCA version of the siddur
partially because of their objections to the mystical approach to tefilla.

I am currently giving a class on the various approaches to tefilla,
eg kabbala, philosophical etc.

I find the book "Kavannah" by Seth Kadish to be excellent. Does anyone
know of other books that treats the meaning of tefilla at a high level
(not a perush one the siddur but a discussion of what we do when we pray -
there are deep differences between kabbala on one hand and RSRH, R. Kook,
RYBS etc on the other).

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 06/10/2002

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> ...Why are we calculating precise ma'aser? As far as I can
> tell, ma'aser kesafim is a 20th cent "minhag" that is newer than wearing
> one's tzitzis out.

Is it?
I have just checked the KSA I have here in my office and in
34:4 it clearly talks about maaser being midah benunis
with chomesh being mitzva min hamuvchar.

> Remember the medrash about Yishma'el's "she'eilah" -- ma'aser of anything
> but edible crops isn't din.

Eisov (Rashi Toldos 25:25 dh Yose'a Tzayid).

> ... Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>:> Remember the medrash about Yishma'el's "she'eilah" --
>: Yishmael's? Maybe you meant Eisav's question of ma'asering salt?

> Yes, I misspoke. Salt -- and pishtan.

Oops...Straw...[melach and teven].

> Also, as I noted here way back when, Rome paid their soldiers in salt.
> ....So, it could well be that this medrash refers to ma'aser kesafim in
> general.

First of all I doubt if according to Rashi/Midrash is talking about maaser
'kesofim'. (And even if you have a rayah from a thousand years later in
Rome for the salt, can you same the same about straw?)

But... leshitoscho - this would prove that maaser kesofim is definitely
NOT a 20th century invention...

> But even if not, if non-farmers had to pay 10% of their income, wouldn't
> salt miners (and panners) and [straw] growers be included?

Of course they would. Whatever way one brings in his parnoso! But 'takeh'
because the Torah calls Eisov a 'Yodea Tzayid' proves that he was asking
about the usual maaser and not kesofim.

SBA

On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 10:31:09PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: I have just checked the KSA I have here in my office and in
: 34:4 it clearly talks about maaser being midah benunis
: with chomesh being mitzva min hamuvchar.

Which is a far cry from making a din out of giving 10%.

[My errors and their corrections deleted.]

:> Also, as I noted here way back when, Rome paid their soldiers in salt.
:> ....So, it could well be that this medrash refers to ma'aser kesafim in
:> general.

: First of all I doubt if according to Rashi/Midrash is talking about maaser
: 'kesofim'. (And even if you have a rayah from a thousand years later in
: Rome for the salt, can you same the same about straw?)

My point was that they are non-food profits. Mah bein melech lekesafim
(silver)?

: But... leshitoscho - this would prove that maaser kesofim is definitely
: NOT a 20th century invention...

No, it would mean that making a din out of it is, even if the idea was
floating around before them.

I suggested that it's a 20th cent minhag to take the ma'aser kesafim
imposed by the autonomous qehillah and make a firm number out of it.
Of course they got the number from somewhere, too.

The question is whether there is a din or minhag, or if one is "only"
less than a beinoni in an aggadic sense.

:> But even if not, if non-farmers had to pay 10% of their income, wouldn't
:> salt miners (and panners) and [straw] growers be included?

: Of course they would. Whatever way one brings in his parnoso! ...

This experiment should be realtively simple, as we're arguing about the
origin of something that has a clearly defined buzzword. Ideal for a
CD Rom check -- or even something as low tech as beki'us!

But I didn't have to resort to that. See the Mar'eh Mekomos at:
<http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor/beinadam/tzedakah.htm>. I didn't yet,
but it's a good place to start.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

At our shabbos table we were discussing the fact that, at least according
to some, the derivation of the number 10 for a minyan comes from the 10
meraglim, and the fact that those ten were the ones getting bnei yisroel
into trouble.

And then someone mentioned a thought that I had never heard before,
and was wondering if others had, and/or what others thought.

The thoughts, a chidush to me, was: is it possible that whenever ten
get together and say d'varim shebekdusha it is, in part, a tikkun for
the actions of the meraglim.

Comments?

-- Sholom
+-------------------------------------------------------+
|   Sholom Simon     | sholom@aishdas.org               |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua Ari  4/18/93 - 27 Nissan 5753   |
|        and Eliana Rebekah  3/12/95 - 11 Adar-2 5755   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

Reb Yisrael Dubitsky <yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU> wrote:
> SY Agnon in his short story "Ba-Derekh" mentions several interesting
> minhagim from medieval Ashkenaz. Among them is one called the "ma.hol
> ha-mavet"
<snip>
> This minhag is similar, I think, to what is sometimes done,
> so I've heard, at Hasidic weddings (the toiten tantz? It's found also
> in non-Jewish sources as an act against the Black Death, as a trick
> to cheat death. Anyone with info re the Hasid minhag at weddings,
> elaboration would be appreciated) but I think this is not related to it.

It is called te'hiyas hamaisim tantz, and is quite beautiful (assuming
the two main players know how to execute it; it requires a lot of
coordinated choreography).

I have seen it at a number of weddings, but never in the USA (nor
in Israel). In my first yeshivah (we called elementary school shule,
not yeshivah) some guys performed it - extremely well - on Purim.

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

Based on <http://tinyurl.com/crz> "The moon partially obscuring the sun
to create an annular, or ring-shaped, eclipse."

Any reason a "backlit" moon wouldn't be good for Kidush Hachodesh? (Not
that this one was visible in Israel.)

- Danny
  AIM: DannySatAtomica

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 09:42:25AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Any reason a "backlit" moon wouldn't be good for Kidush Hachodesh? (Not
: that this one was visible in Israel.)

A solar eclipse only occurs at solar noon during the exact minutes of
a new moon. Even with the difference between the molad (an average)
and the actual new moon, AFAIK it's never more than 3 days apart. So
an eclipse would be too early in the month, and not during "melei'as
pegimas halvanah".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:49:25AM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: - When calculating precise maaser - should you take into account the %
: that the meshulochim pocket?

To which R' Micha Berger responded:
> Back a step.... Why are we calculating precise ma'aser? As far as I can
> tell, ma'aser kesafim is a 20th cent "minhag" that is newer than wearing
> one's tzitzis out.
...

Which made me go back to basics:
I looked it up in Hilchos Tzedoko in YD siman Remez (247). Working from
memory: In the last se'if the Remo says that one may test Hashem (for
wealth only) by giving tzedokoh.

The classic Nose Kelim (I forget which) say this is only if you're
careful to give a 10th as per the common minhag. (Others claim it's only
for produce).

These Nose Keilim predate the tzitzis-out minhag by centuries. That's
also how I recall it from the sefer Maaser Kesofim (in English) where
it was traced back to be a very old Ashkenaz minhag - (and more recent
Sefard one?). IIRC.

R' Micha, what did you mean by your statement? I thought everybody
calculated precise 10 or 20% maaser...

- Danny

[Bounced from Areivim because this is a useful list to have in the web
archive. -mi]

The following represents all English translations that I have been able to 
find of parts of SA:

I. OH

1. Mishnah berurah : the classic commentary to Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim 
comprising the laws of daily Jewish conduct / translated by Aharon Feldman 
and Aviel Orenstein. -- Jerusalem : Pisgah Foundation : Feldheim, 
1980-  [still lacking helek 4: simanim 345-428]

2. Abridged Shulhan Arukh; a compilation of the laws contained in the Orah 
Kayyim and Yove Deah,
by Joseph Pardo. New York, Hebrew Pub. Co., 1928 .

3. Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, Hilkhot Shabbat, with Mishnah Berurah: an 
annotated translation of selected chapters / by Laurence M Skopitz / 
Dissertation: thesis (Rabbinic) -- H.U.C.-J.I.R. , 1978.

4. Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, Hilkhot Pesah, with Mishnah Berurah : an 
annotated translation of selected chapters dealing with the Passover Seder 
/ by Michaels, Mathew David. / Dissertation: Thesis (Rabbinic) -- 
H.U.C.-J.I.R., 1980.

5. Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, Hilkhot Yom ha-Kippurim, chapters 604-624; 
an annotated original translation / by Brahms, Jan M., ; ed. / 
Dissertation:  thesis (Rabbinic)--H.U.C.-J.I.R. , 1976.


II. YD

1. The kosher code of the orthodox Jew, being a literal translation of that 
portion of the sixteenth-century codification of the Babylonian Talmud 
which describes such deficiencies as render animals unfit for food (Hilkot 
Terefot, Shulhan 'aruk); to which is appended a discussion of Talmudic 
anatomy in the light of the science of its day and of the present time/ by 
Solomon Isaac Levin; Edward A Boyden. New York, Hermon Press. 1975 .

2. The Jewish kitchen : a code of Jewish law following the rulings of Rabbi 
Yosef Karo updated
according to Rabbi Ovadia Yossef : derived from the Shulchan Aruch, yore 
de'a chapters 87-111 = Hamitbach hayehudy / Rafael Abraham Soae, Cohen; 
Ovadia Yosef. Jerusalem ; New  York : Sephardic Library Bene Issachar, 1994.

3. Section on charity from the Shulhan arukh / Feinberg, Louis. New York : 
New York School of Philanthropy,1915.

4. Shulhan arukh. Hilkhot gerim -- Commentaries. / by Hiroshi Okamoto / 
Dissertation: Thesis (Rabbinic) -- H.U.C.-J.I.R., 1964.

5. Code of Hebrew law = Shul.han 'Arukh : containing original Hebrew text 
of R. Joseph Caro and glosses of R. Moses Isserles:Yoreh de'ah 335-403 / 
translated into English with commentary, glossary and indices by Chaim N. 
Denburg. -- Montreal : Jurisprudence Press, 1954.


III. EH

1. Hupah vekiddushin: the marriage ceremony as discussed in the Shulhan 
Arukh, Arukh HaShulhan, and selected responsa/ by Roman, Norman T. / 
Dissertation: Thesis (Rabbinic)--H.U.C.-J.I.R., 1975.

2. Shulhan 'arukh, 'Even ha'ezer, Hilkhot ishut and Hilkhot kidushin / by 
Bell, Maynard W., ed. An annotated translation/ Dissertation: thesis 
(Rabbinic)--H..U.C.-J.I.R., 1974

3. An annotated translation of chapters 34 through 38 of Hilchot Kidushin 
Shulhan 'Arukh, volume Eben ha Ezer/ by Garten, Steven H., ed. and tr. 
Contains commentary by Rabbi Moses Isserles/ Dissertation: thesis 
(Rabbinic)--H.U.C.-J.I.R., 1975.

4. An original translation with commentary of the Jewish divorce procedure: 
Shulchan aruch, Even haezer, chapters Seder haget and 154 /by Hillman, 
Andrew R., ; ed. Contains commentary by Rabbi Moses Isserles/ Dissertation: 
thesis (Rabbinic)--H.U.C.-J.I.R., 1974


IV. HM

1. Code of Hebrew law = Shul.han 'Arukh : containing original Hebrew text 
of R. Joseph Caro and glosses of R. Moses Isserles: .Hoshen hamishpat 1-27 
/ translated into English with commentary, glossary and indices by Chaim N. 
Denburg. -- Montreal : Jurisprudence Press, 1955.

2. The traditional Jewish law of sale : Shulhan arukh, Hoshen mishpat, 
chapters 189-240 / by Passamaneck, Stephen M. Hilkhot ona'ah u-mikah ta'ut. 
Cincinnati : Hebrew Union College Press ; New York, N.Y. : Distributed by 
KTAV Pub. House, Year: 1983.

3. A Restatement of rabbinic civil law / by Emanuel Quint. Northvale, NJ: 
Jason Aronson, 1990-. Vols 1-8 [comprising HM 1-302]


[Rs. Wagschal's and Tamari's are not straight translations per se. If 
anyone knows of anything I may have missed, I would appreciate feedback]

YD

As a follow-up question to my essay on nevuah 
<http://www.aishdas.org/articles/navi.htm>, someone asked me how we can know 
if a navi turns false.  For example, the gemara in Sanhedrin 90a says that 
Chananiah ben Azor had been a true prophet but became a false prophet.  How 
can the public know this?

The only two ways I could think of in which the public would know is if the 
navi recommended violating an issur in a non-temporary manner or is 
contradicted by another navi.  In the latter case, the two would have to 
produce signs of being a true navi.

But other than those two scenarios, would the public be stuck OBLIGATED to 
follow a false navi?

Gil Student

On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:41:33PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
:                          ...                someone asked me how we can know 
: if a navi turns false. ...
: The only two ways I could think of in which the public would know is if the 
: navi recommended violating an issur in a non-temporary manner or is 
: contradicted by another navi.  In the latter case, the two would have to 
: produce signs of being a true navi.

I would think there is also:
3- The navi predicts a future event that isn't an onesh, and it doesn't
come to pass.

-mi

Gil Student wrote:
> But other than those two scenarios, would the public be stuck OBLIGATED to
> follow a false navi?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the gemara say that if two neviim
prophesy using the same style (signon) that's conclusive evidence that one
of them is a false prophet? Of course, how you know which one, except in a
case like Michayhu, could be a problem.

David Riceman

Gil Student wrote:
> But other than those two scenarios, would the public be stuck OBLIGATED to
> follow a false navi?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the gemara say that if two neviim
prophesy using the same style (signon) that's conclusive evidence that one
of them is a false prophet? Of course, how you know which one, except in a
case like Michayhu, could be a problem.

David Riceman

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


[ 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         ]