Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 053

Monday, November 11 2002

• Chazal on Astrology
• agadot
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• peeled garlic
• Re: agadot
• cultural bias
• Chazal and Astrology
• gezel akum
• Lamah zeh anochi
• Halacha vis-a-vis Present Day War
• Re: NAMES THAT HAVE NO PSUKIM
• Re: astrology
• Re: Chazal on Astrology

Following the discussion re: Chazal's "knowledge" of astrology,
and Rambam's position on this matter - I wish to raise a simple
"ba'le-batishe" kashya:

The Rambam himself rules (in hilchot teshuvah) that disregarding one
iota from torah - even shebaal peh - is heresy! How then can the Rambam
disregard the words of Chazal on astrology etc.?

Now, although yesh le'yashev that the Rambam doesn't consider "scientific"
knowledge in Shas as Torah ----

[which is in itself a dochek gadol, because:

a) accordingly, one wouldn't make a birchas ha'torah before learning
major sections of shas!!! pele gadol!!

b) how did ravina and rav ashi incorporate chocmot chitzoniyot in
talmud??!!! In fact, doing so involves major halachic issues. v'ain
kan mekomo.

c) the rambam himself writes in the end of hilchos kiddush hachodesh
that he gleaned his info. from chachmai yavan, but he incorporated it
in sefer hayad so that "dirshu mai'al sefer hashem", ie we should study
this out of a G-dly book. I find it inconceivable that merely placing
secular info. in a holy book gives it special status. It seems as though
rambam is saying that in this book it's part of Torah!!!!]----

but, b'lav hachi, many scientific statements are of a torah'ic and
halachic nature. This being the case, how can the rambam diregard torah?!

Avol, ha'emes yoreh darko, that the halachic Rambam (mishneh torah) and
the philsophical Rambam (igros and moreh) maintained different thoughts
and beliefs. It's been long argued that the mishneh torah rambam is a
radical departure from the moreh rambam. Some argued -rachmana litzlan -
that the rambam was a ....  schizophrenic!
I ch"v don't intend to argue that. all I'm saying is that a different
set of values governed the rambam in yad than in moreh.

To use an anology: we all acnowledge the rashbam was a master halachist
and talmudist as in rashbam in bava batra. Now, check out the way the
rashbam relates to chazal in his perush al hatorah, and you'll see a
major gulf seperating them. Not a setira. Just two approaches used at
different times and circumstances.

An even better example would be ramban. now, he was far from being a
rationalist, and in fact accused the rambam of ultra-rationalism and
undermining faith. The ramban, in addition to being a super-talmudist
lent much credence to kabalah and aggadah. However, this same kabbalist
and aggadist acted very differently when he stated -in vikuach haramban-
that he doesn't go for agadetato! huh? yes, it's all a mattter of
circumstances. IOW, the ramban said what he said to a christian minister
lidechoto be'kash!

Same here: The rambam and other rationalists had one approach when
defending faith in a rational world, and another approach when cofifying
halacha for future generations.

RYGB writes
< The R' Shmuel ha'Nagid, Ramban, R' Avraham ben ho'Rambam etc. about
Agados in Shas refer to stories and sermons, not to statements that
purport to be factual. >

First I am confused what is the difference between a story and facts -
how does one distinguish between them. Again, while we have stressed
astrology the same discussion pertains to shedim. The Gemara is full of
stories (facts?) about Lilith and other shedim There are several halachot
(eg zugot) that are based on shedim. It is clear that Rambam rejected
shedim even though it was clearly accepted by the overwhelming majority
of amoraim (again see teshuvat haRashba).

RYGB also quoted R. Wolbe to the effect that we simply read the text
without personal intepretation. IMHO this is simply not true. Two
simple examples (among myriads of others). We compare the culture of the
rishonim in Spain to that of Germany/northern France. In Spain and other
arabic countries philosopjy, poetry, dikduk were highly valued. In Xtian
countries the emphasis was entirely on the Talmud. It is clear that
the difference is the influence of Arabic culture on R. Saadiah Gaon,
R. Hai Gaon and later rishonim. While the perush of Rashi on Chumash was
accepted almost immediately in Ashkenaz it took centuries to be fully
accepted in Spain. Ibn Ezra ignores Rashi. While Ramban accepts Rashi
other more "rational" rishonim rejected Rashi even later because Rashi
did not know enough dikduk and his commentary was not enough pshat.

A second more modern example is whther Chazal thought the earth was flat
or round and if Copernicus was correct that the earth revolves about the
sun. The are several sources in acharonim that reject these possibilities
on the ground that they are against chazal. In our discussions of
this issue people bring interpretations that Chazal believed the earth
was round. My point is not what Chazal believed but that commentaries
re-interpret the Talmud based on what is accepted in contemporary science,
i.e. our interpretaion of chazal is determined by the outside culture.

Hence, chachmei ashkenaz had no trouble accepting astrology and demons
as factual while chachmei Sefard struggled with the issue.

kol tuv,
--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/11/2002

I'm thinking it fruitless to continue this exchange. Citing sources or
mar'in b'etzboh just doesn't make much impression on my distinguished
interlocutor. A peculiar situation in which I am left to muse, quite
unproductively, on the metaphysics of "proof' when participants apparently
do not share the same ontological universe. I fear if I continue to
interact with RYGB in this vein I shall end up staring at my navel whilst
contemplating, as a former boss of mine famously did, what is the meaning of
"is". Not being philosophically inclined such prospective fate gives me
terminal pause. For closure then, I make one last submission directly on
this topic for completeness, to engage -- and dismiss -- the additional
sources that RYGB has mustered to ostensibly bolster his position that, at
least some/most? Chazal did not believe in the natural science of their day,
i.e. astrology. The reading chevra, if there be any left out there, have
enough back and forth chit chat to reach their own conclusions.

Let me sum up the bottom line on top. (After all, who knows who will still
be reading by the bottom). RYGB's contention re chazal and astrology is
disputed by EVERYBODY. Gaonim, rishonim, acharonim, distinguished
professors, MO/CO/Charedi, RW, LW, Chasidish wing, no wing and probably
barbeque wing (and exemplars of all such sources have been previously
provided). This is flat out simply not controversial. RYGB is a daas
yochid -- which is OK, it's a free country, but his insistence that all these
"droves' of others agree with him is flat our wrong. They don't exist. NONE
of the sources he adduces, if one but reads them, actually support his
point. He also introduced a side issue, i.e. whether the rambam was learning
p'shat in the g'moroh or basically disagreeing with it. Again, the
overwhelming consensus learns the rambam differently than does RYGB. And it
is amazing that he persists (as at least till now he has) in ascribing the
contrary opinion not to EVERYBODY but only to some "l'shitaschem" LW cabal
or something by myself and an unindicted coconspirator. In the course of
this assertion he has also made some very general statements about the
nature of mesorah which (I believe) are incorrect, but shall not expand on
here.

And now, one last time into this particular breach.

RYGB: <<As usual, RMF is entertaining. I am sorry that he continues to
sustain the position that I attribute to him. Although his first paragraph
(deleted) makes a big to-do denying it, his last two paragraphs clarify that
he does, indeed, hold (and somehow attributes this position to the DR, who
would never have held this way in a million years..>>

I regret dragging the Dor Riviie into this as RYGB has obviously missed the
point I was making by doing so, for which lack of clarity I take
responsibility. I was not trying to adduce the DR as agreeing with the
position I espoused (though I have no doubt that he did -- but will leave for
another distinguished member of this list, the Dor Shivie, to provide
appropriate source citation if he wishes). The DR was rather brought in for
his perspective on the general nature of torah she'b'al peh and the role of
chidush, in insightful apposition to RYGB's formulation of mesorah as
rishonim not declaiming on matters in which they lacked a qabboloh. This
topic is certainly worthy of expansion into its own space, but is here just
an en passant diversion.

RYGB: <<RMF makes much in those last paragraphs of mazal as an indication
that Chazal were all astrologer. But the Tif. Yis. that I cited -- plus
droves and droves of other sources -- are perfectly happy interpreting mazal
as "flow." without relevance to astrology, and I see no reason to believe
these terms indicate inherent belief in astrology.>>

With a RYGB source, you gotta put a stake through its heart and even then it
resurfaces since RYGB doesn't even acknowledge the puncture wound. We
thoroughly dismissed the relevance of the TY in my first response -- to which
RYGB professed amusement but no rebuttal. Firstly TY is already deep into
the acharonic period and hardly provides much insight into chazal's world
view. He does more or less agree with the rambam on astrology, i.e. he
himself doesn't believe in it, but by the acharonic period this was no
longer rare. (it is also almost impossible to find a rishon who agreed with
rambam about the sh'tus of astrology). But none of this supports RYGB's
contention that rambam could only have said what he did with a qabboloh from
chazal and TY certainly doesn't say that. Oh, and there are no "droves and
droves". Not even a single drove.

RYGB: <<This pertains to the Meiri and other sources he cited below
(deleted) directly. I will try and find direct references if needed, but it
highly improbable that the Meiri disagreed with the Rambam on a theological
issue.>>

Factually incorrect. And here is another "mar'in loa b'etzboh" routine.
Unlike RYGB I do not have to speculate that it is "highly improbable that
the Meiri disagreed with the Rambam on a theological issue". I can cite
chapter and verse and read. Indeed I actually did so -- already in my previous
post, though in translation. Herewith the original quote: "..v'yovin
v'yedah, she'hatt'filos v'hatz'doqos yakhrichu ha'mmazal...>> (Meiri, T.B.
Mo'eid Qoton, p. 153) i.e. that prayer and charity can overcome the mazal,
which works -- but can be defeated by undertaking certain countermeasures.
This is worlds apart from the rambam's stand on mazal. For good measure I
shall also throw in a (translated) quote from Rav Binyomin Benedict, Rav of
Achuzoh (or perhaps past rov, my quote is from 1985). "The Meiri's shittoh
on matters related to the influence of the constellations is unique. It is
fundamentally separate from the Rambam's position which completely negates
any influence of constellations, and who (i.e. Rambam, not Meiri)
characterizes astrological wisdom as stupidity, lies,...". So source texts
and sensible reading suggest that Meiri did disagree with rambam on a
theological matter. Of course source texts never seem to trump RYGB's
instincts, but its the best i can do.

RYGB: <<..Sorry, RMF. You disputed, earlier, my characterization of Me'onen
as an Astrologer.>>

No, I didn't and that's not what's at issue. If you will re-check your post
you will note that I mentioned that the definition of an m'onein was a
machloqes -- which it is -- both explicitly in Sanhedrin 65b as well as
amongst all the m'foroshim, some shittos (without an exhaustive search
which I have no interest in undertaking, can't say whether a majority or
minority of known shittos) do indeed hold that m'onein (as someone who talks
of propitious or unpropitious time) involves an astrological component.

RYGB: <<The ALN notes, it seems with some basis from the Sifri, that the
Rambam had a girsa "Kochavim" explicit in Sanhedrin 66a. Check it out.>>

First I believe you've mis-remembered or confused the Ran with the Rambam in
the Aruch Laneir that you cite. I believe the fella with the alternative
girsoh of "kokhovim" which the ALN cites is the Ran, not the Rambam. But no
matter, the ALN is anyway irrelevant for your purposes as I had previously
explained. His entire focus is to explain why the rambam only seems to
mention punishment for one lav in A.Z. 11:8, when in fact there seem to be
two laavin -- that mentioned in Vayiqroh (loa s'oneinu) and another in
D'vorim. He comes up with the chidush that there are actually two types of
m'onein (you can look up the details in ALN to Sanhedrin 65b), one of which
is covered by some other category, and that the rambam is referring to
different types of m'onein in 11:8 and 11:9. this is all quite lomdish but
completely off topic. I.e. he says absolutely NOTHING of relevance to the
issue on our table. Now, this too was pointed out in a previous posting, but
RYGB brings it back again as though there is something there. Just read it
this time. There isn't.

RYGB: <<..Heavenly bodies is not astrology, which the Kuzari rejects.
Indeed, even our hero the Rambam in Yesodei ha'Torah 3:9 gives heavenly
bodies souls and knowledge etc., yet still states that astrology is hevel.
 >>

Heavenly bodies is/are indeed not astrology, it is poetic license. That was
my poor translation. But heavenly bodies controlling the stuff on ground
level, which is what the kuzari describes in 4:9 is most definitely
astrology, as he states clearly, and is a notion to which he evidently
subscribes. Actually R. Yehudah Halevi's (I follow here conventional
transliterations with common names) views on astrology are more complex and
it is hard to exactly say what he believes. His position apparently goes
something like this. Matters on earth are indeed controlled by the
constellations, but it is too difficult for people to figure out so we must
distrust those who say they can. But in any event, whatever R. Yehudah
believes, it has little relevance to our fundamental argument, developing a
chazalic source that indicated the contrary. (A separate thought -- are poets
are counted as full rishonim? -- yet another topic for another day)

RYGB: <<I addressed the rest of RMF's post already en passant.>>

Well, no you didn't, but never mind. There's enough material out there for
readers to make up their own minds. I do have one summary suggestion for
RYGB and it is a stylistic one, especially when he engaged on matters in
which controversy exist and g'dolim addirim not to mention just plain old
(and young) folks like many of us'ns might have taken positions different
than your own. And that is this. Lose that apodictic style.

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

"Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com> writes on Sun, 10 Nov 2002 
21:27:22 -0500: 
> Let me sum up the bottom line on top. (After all, who knows who will still
> be reading by the bottom). RYGB's contention re chazal and astrology is
> disputed by EVERYBODY. Gaonim, rishonim, acharonim, distinguished
> professors, MO/CO/Charedi, RW, LW, Chasidish wing, no wing and probably
> barbeque wing (and exemplars of all such sources have been previously
> provided). This is flat out simply not controversial. RYGB is a daas
> yochid -- which is OK, it's a free country, but his insistence that all these
> "droves' of others agree with him is flat our wrong. They don't exist. NONE
> of the sources he adduces, if one but reads them, actually support his
> point. He also introduced a side issue, i.e. whether the rambam was learning
> p'shat in the g'moroh or basically disagreeing with it. Again, the
> overwhelming consensus learns the rambam differently than does RYGB. And it
> is amazing that he persists (as at least till now he has) in ascribing the
> contrary opinion not to EVERYBODY but only to some "l'shitaschem" LW cabal
> or something by myself and an unindicted coconspirator. In the course of
> this assertion he has also made some very general statements about the
> nature of mesorah which (I believe) are incorrect, but shall not expand on
> here.

I believe my dear friend RMJF (I noticed today there should be a J
in there) actually is not reading what I am saying. I am not saying
that Chazal rejected astrology, nor even that some of Chazal rejected
astrology. I am saying that the Rambam understood that at least some,
if not the majority of Chazal rejected astrology. Thi is manifest in the
Rambam Hil. AZ 11, in Peirush ha'Mishnayos AZ 4:6 and Shemoneh Perakim
8th perek.

There is no way to read the Rambam any other way. 

> Factually incorrect. And here is another "mar'in loa b'etzboh" routine.
> Unlike RYGB I do not have to speculate that it is "highly improbable that
> the Meiri disagreed with the Rambam on a theological issue". I can cite
> chapter and verse and read. Indeed I actually did so -- already in my previous
> post, though in translation. Herewith the original quote: "..v'yovin
> v'yedah, she'hatt'filos v'hatz'doqos yakhrichu ha'mmazal...>> (Meiri, T.B.
> Mo'eid Qoton, p. 153) i.e. that prayer and charity can overcome the mazal,
> which works -- but can be defeated by undertaking certain countermeasures.
> This is worlds apart from the rambam's stand on mazal. For good measure I
> shall also throw in a (translated) quote from Rav Binyomin Benedict, Rav of
> Achuzoh (or perhaps past rov, my quote is from 1985). "The Meiri's shittoh
> on matters related to the influence of the constellations is unique. It is
> fundamentally separate from the Rambam's position which completely negates
> any influence of constellations, and who (i.e. Rambam, not Meiri)
> characterizes astrological wisdom as stupidity, lies,...". So source texts
> and sensible reading suggest that Meiri did disagree with rambam on a
> theological matter. Of course source texts never seem to trump RYGB's
> instincts, but its the best i can do.

I would like to admit error on the Meiri. I was wrong about his
shitta. He, in Sanherin 68a argues on the Rambam (very gingerly, but
there it is) and accepts the validity of astrology.

That having been said, the rest of your assertions, and those of Rabbi 
Benedict, are in error. The Rambam himself, as I noted earlier, ascribes 
knowledge and soul, etc. to stars, and was not opposed to the idea of mazal in 
the literal sense, i.e., that stars have governance - see Moreh 2:10. 

But he also interpreted it in the non-literal sense that the TY many years 
later reiterates - as in Iggeres Techiyas ha'Mesim where he interprets Ein 
Mazal l'Yisrael as they not falling under the influence of nature. 

But we are going afield - I am prepared to do so, of cousre :-) - all that need 
be said for now is that mazal and astrology are not congruent issues. 

As to the rest of your post, I really so not believe you looked at Chap. 11 
inside in any yishuv ha'da'as. 

Sorry, there is no other way to learn the Rambam. 

KT, 
YGB 

The gemarah lists a number of actions as being dangerous, e.g. eating
peeled garlic left overnight, olives, activities at the solstice etc.
Rambam, followed by SA leave out all these halakhot. Shulchan Arukh haRav
brings them down and these seems to have been accepted by most modern day
poskim. Rarely do these poskim even discuss that Rambam left out all these
halachot. Since, there is no debate in the Talmud of about these dangers
it would seem that Rambam (and SA) left out because he felt that these
are based on shedim which don't exist. I don't think that Rambam ever
uses "hishtanu hateva" in the way that it is used today that activities
existed in the days of chazal that no longer exist.

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/11/2002

At 11:07 AM 11/11/02 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>RYGB writes
>< The R' Shmuel ha'Nagid, Ramban, R' Avraham ben ho'Rambam etc. about
>Agados in Shas refer to stories and sermons, not to statements that
>purport to be factual. >
>
>First I am confused what is the difference between a story and facts
>- how does one distinguish between them. Again, while we have
>stressed astrology the same discussion pertains to shedim. The Gemara
>is full of stories (facts?) about Lilith and other shedim There are
>several halachot (eg zugot) that are based on shedim. It is clear
>that Rambam rejected shedim even though it was clearly accepted by
>the overwhelming majority of amoraim (again see teshuvat haRashba).

It is a pity the Rambam changed his mind and decided not to write his
earlier promised book on which agados are k'pshutan and which not. While
R' Aaron Soloveitchik is renowned for interpreting the shedim gemaros
as having to do with germs, I would be more prone to interpret them
psychologically or symbolically. It is worthwhile noting that R' Tzadok
interprets "Bilam" as he appears in Chazal as a prototype (Chochma
ba'Goyim) or persona, not as necessarily an historical person, and the
same may pertain to Ashmedai etc.

Astrology i different. This is an issue of emunos v'dai'os, not one of
nice demon stories. If Chazal did uniformly accept astrology as the way
that HKB"H designed the Beri'ah, then that means that it is fundamental
that this is one of HKB"H's tools of hashgocho and hisgalus, albeit one
that is held in negative esteem.

For the Rambam to allegedly reject this position out of hand is to
impute to him governance over the mesorah, not to the mesorah governance
over him. If he can reject astrology unilaterally, why should someone
else not reject, say, the Exodus? It is only a matter of degree, no?

>RYGB also quoted R. Wolbe to the effect that we simply read the text
>without personal interpretation. IMHO this is simply not true. Two
>simple examples (among myriads of others). We compare the culture of
>the rishonim in Spain to that of Germany/northern France. In Spain
>and other arabic countries philosopjy, poetry, dikduk were highly
>valued. In Xtian countries the emphasis was entirely on the Talmud.
>It is clear that the difference is the influence of Arabic culture on
>R. Saadiah Gaon, R. Hai Gaon and later rishonim. While the perush of
>Rashi on Chumash was accepted almost immediately in Ashkenaz it took
>centuries to be fully accepted in Spain. Ibn Ezra ignores Rashi.
>While Ramban accepts Rashi other more "rational" rishonim rejected
>Rashi even later because Rashi did not know enough dikduk and his
>commentary was not enough pshat.

>A second more modern example is whther Chazal thought the earth was
>flat or round and if Copernicus was correct that the earth revolves
>about the sun. The are several sources in acharonim  that reject
>these possibilities on the ground that they are against chazal. In
>our discussions of this issue people bring interpretations that
>Chazal believed the earth was round. My point is not what Chazal
>believed but that commentaries re-interpret the Talmud based on what
>is accepted in contemporary science, i.e. our interpretation of chazal
>is determined by the outside culture.

>Hence, chachmei ashkenaz had no trouble accepting astrology and
>demons as factual while chachmei Sefard struggled with the issue.

My dear Reb Eli, these last paragraphs sound suspiciously like academic
pontification. If you know enough, as a mathematician, to strive for
unbiased objectivity, you do not think the Rishonim - who had the example
of Chazal before them - were not striving for that as well?! You think
they took their biases and induced them into Torah - cooked the data?!

I do not think you believe that. Yirasecha kodemes l'chochmosecha and
you know it not to be the case.

OTOH, I have noted earlier in this debate that 98 panim la'Torah and
what one hears another does not, and vice versa. What the Satmar Rebbe
heard is not what Rav Kook heard. But that is not the same as inducing
our views into Chazal.

Your examples, BTW are IMHo flawed. But that is not the issue anyway.

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

<you do not think the Rishonim - who had the example of Chazal before
them - were not striving for that as well?! You think they took their
biases and induced them into Torah - cooked the data?! >

No one here is talking of cooking the books. We are talking of
re-interpreting gemaras to reflect our cultural/scientific knowledge.
 There are people (I won't ascribe in R. Wolbe since I really don't
know his position) who describe chazal and rishonim/schronim as
if they were sitting in a bubble completely uninfluenced by their
surroundings. There statements consist of pure Torah and it is immaterial
where and when they live.

My position is that all people are influenced by their surroundings,
the tannaim by Greek and Roman culture, Rishonim by aristotle etc.
Since, according to many chazal knew all of science while our current
knowledge of science changes it implies that our interpretation of chazal
must change to conform to modern science (or else reject modern science
which is hard when it is overwhelming accepted).

Hence, many rishonim had no problem learning gemara that the earth was
flat and astrology was a fact. Later when a flat earh was found to be
false and astrology out of vogue the same gemaras are used to prove
that chazal knew the earth was round and that there must be at least
some amoraim who knew that astrology was false.

BTW I am not insulted by being an academic or reading other academics. I
strobgly suspect that the academics in Bar Ilan and Hebrew University know
shas and rishonim better than 99% of the people in kollel. I find many
of their arguments convincing. In particular it is clear that rishonim
on Ashkenaz and Sefard reacted differently to many basic issues in
yiddishkeit. Dismissing it by calling it academics doesn't prove anything.

Besides, I am not the only professor of math on this list -)

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/11/2002

I would like to humbly suggest that the area of dispute here is smaller
than it may seem.

RYGB writes:
> [The Rambam] states that Chazal's knowledge of science was not necessarily
> complete. This relates to an issue we have discussed here in the past,
> the lice on Shabbos issue (perhaps) but not at all to the discussion at
> hand. Astrology is not science, and science cannot refute it.

RMF writes:
> But I have no particular problems with this as astrology back then
> was simply science. It certainly included what we today separate out
> as astronomy. It did however include some bad science -- from today's
> retrospective.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that both would agree on
the following principles:

1. Chazal were the ba'alei hamesorah, and we are to accept the accuracy of
their statements as ba'alei hamesorah, certainly in matters of halachah.

2. There are times that Chazal make statements which they did not receive
as a mesorah, such as statements that clearly reflect the science of
their times (e.g. spontaneous generation of lice).

The crux of the dispute seems to be the dividing line between these
two categories. RYGB seems to be assuming that anything that cannot
be directly disproved by science must be assumed to be mesorah (and
put in the same category as halachah with regard to the extent to which
we accept Chazal's authority on the matter). RMF seems to be assuming
that Chazal's role as ba'alei hamesorah is limited to halachah, and any
statements about other issues such as the way the world works are based on
their own understanding (and can be put in the same category as science).

Now that I'm done with my attempt at analysis, I'll throw in my own
two cents. As my own understanding on the matter is closer to that of
RMF, I would like to ask RYGB for the following clarification of what
he believes is the mainstream position:

What is the evidence that Moshe Rabbeinu was given, for transmission
through the mesorah chain, not just halachos, but also insight into
the way the world works (thing like astrology)? How do we know that
Chazal weren't simply going on their own understanding? We know that
they were transmitting the mesorah in areas of halachah, because it's
clear that they understood themselves to be doing that, and it doesn't
make sense to say that they would be prepetuating a fraud. But where
is there evidence that Chazal UNDERSTOOD THEMSELVES to be transmitting
a mesorah when they made other statements?

Yes, there was an amora (or maybe a tanna -- I can't remember exactly
who it was, but it was in daf yomi a couple of weeks ago) who never said
anything that he hadn't heard from his rebbe. But the very fact that
the gemara has to say that about him would seem to suggest that there
were others who did not have this policy, and felt free to make certain
statements based on their own understanding.

David Cohen

<Harav Eliyahu answered that if the groves have been captured because
of military action, the area belongs to Israel and the Jews may harvest
the olives with the permission of the IDF. The reason is that such an
area is clearly the subject of yi'ush ba`alim to get there.>

Is it clear that all the details of yeush are applicable to nonJews?
Does Harav Eliyahu apply the same reasoning in reverse that if the British
or arabs capture a grove than the fruit halachic belongs to the captors?

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/11/2002

The Berdichiver brings a kabbalah from AR"I that women who are tzidkaniyos
have no tza'ar ibbur (they are excluded from the onesh of Chavah).
Anochi=the 1st dibra, which is kollel all positive good (R' Tzaddok also
has this idea, i.e. anochi=kollel all mitzvos aseh). Rivka reasoned that
if she has such tza'ar ibbur than she must be lacking in her "anochi".

My wife noticed that aside from the opening, "anochi" is a recurring
theme in the parsha. Eisav's "anochi" reflects his fall - "ayef
anochi", "hinei anochi holeich lamus". Ya'akov on the other hand is
"anochi ish chalak", and has to disguise his "anochi" to become Eisav -
"anochi Eisav bechorecha".

There is also an interesting contrast in 28:15/16 - Hashem reveals "hinei
anochi imach"; Ya'akov says "v'anochi lo yada'ti" (does the anochi refer
to himself, or is he saying he till that point has not been aware of
the presence of Hashem as revealed through anochi?)

-Chaim

Last night Rabbi Yitzchok Breitowitz gave a lecture on "Combat Morality".
It was very interesting and informative. I took some notes. I can
send them to anyone who requests, or, if the chevra wishes, I can post
them here.

-- Sholom

On 11 Nov 2002 at 12:06, SBA wrote:
> The Kitzur Shulchan Oruch (18:15) brings the minhag to say a posuk (or
> psukim) from T'nach beginning and ending with the same letters as the
> persons name.

What if you have more than one name? 

-- Carl

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

Eli Turkel wrote:
>However, at this point I am lost. Rambam and several
>Geonim are also against the existence of Shedim and
>Kishuf and other such other worldly activities. I would
>explain this that they rationally could not accept the
>existence of sheidim. Hence, given some statements
>in the Gemara that "paskened" like those opinions
>even though many other sugyot show that many of
>chazal did accept sheidim, astrology etc.

But what Rambam did was read these passages allegorically which,
he claimed, was the most genuine and faithful understanding of them.
Aderaba, Rambam would claim that those who understand these passages
literally are distorting the true view of Chazal.

[Email #2 -mi]

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>Chazon Ish also voices criticism of the baalei mussar in the
>2nd chapter of emunah and bitachon. He criticizes the baalei
>musar who start with notions such as that being nice is a
>foundation principle and then try to bend the halacha to fit.
>He notes that instead one starts with what the Torah says
>and not what one thinks the Torah should have meant.

The way the Alter of Slabodka and his talmid R' Avraham Grodzinski
explained it, they were following in the path of R' Nissim Gaon who held
that there is a "natural law" that all human beings are obligated to
follow. I believe that R' Norman Lamm wrote a long essay on the history
of the theory of Natural Law in Judaism. This isn't something that the
ba'alei mussar invented.

Gil Student

geshmake sevara <geshmakesevara@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Avol, ha'emes yoreh darko, that the halachic Rambam (mishneh torah) and
> the philsophical Rambam (igros and moreh) maintained different thoughts
> and beliefs. It's been long argued that the mishneh torah rambam is a
> radical departure from the moreh rambam. Some argued -rachmana litzlan -
> that the rambam was a ....  schizophrenic!
> I ch"v don't intend to argue that. all I'm saying is that a different
> set of values governed the rambam in yad than in moreh.

My Dear Mr. Geshmake Sevara:

I cannot beleive that anyone would denigrate the Rambam by
attributing to him different sets of values or truths in writing his
Yad and Moreh. Despite your disclaimer to the contrary you are indeed
accusing the Rambam of at the very least intellectual dishonesty if not
shcizophrenia. There is only one value that guided the Rambam and that
is the Emes of Torah as transmitted by Chazal. That there is a discussion
now about whether the Rambam disagreed with Chazal in matters of science
or whether astrology is even a part of science or whether the Rambam
accepted scientific belifes of his day thus rejcting Chazal or not...does
not take away from his consistency of belief or exposition of that belief.

Perhaps he was speaking to two different audiences in his two different
tomes... perhaps not. That has always been a matter of debate. However,
to attribute two differing sets of values which conflict denies Emes
itself. Attributing different thoughts and beliefs is about the last thing
anyone would accuse the Rambam of as that would make a liar out of him.

HM

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


[ 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         ]