Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 066

Tuesday, November 26 2002

• Re: Rambam's shitta religion?
• Astrology Mareh Mekomos
• Re: Astrology, ALN, corporeality, and ex nihilo too.
• RE: Avodah V10 #64
• Re: corpeality of G-d
• Re: Astrology
• Re: Mussar
• Re: Asher malach beterem kol
• "ein melech belo am"
• Re: "ein melech belo am"
• Adon Olam
• Re: Asher malach beterem kol
• old Jerusalem
• Re: old Jerusalem
• Re:Living in Yerushalayim
• people in Taanach
• ve'eid ya'aleh min ha'arez
• Re: Living in Yerushalayim
• Rachel's tomb
• ve'eid ya'aleh min ha'arez
• Re: ve'eid ya'aleh min ha'arez
• Asher malach beterem kol
• RE: Astrology

> So, did the Rambam create Judaism?

The issue of mesora versus seichal is a complex issue which applies not
only to hashkofa but also to halacha. A source relevant to the assumption
that hashkofa may contain a significant amount of seichel is the following
quotes :

1) "That goes for you as well. If you are not able to arrive at things
like the reasons for the mitzvahs on your own, your reluctance to
delve into that is reasonable. You could not be punished for having
transgressed because, like an unlearned woman or child, you depended on
a tradition. But if you are knowledgeable and understanding, and capable
of discerning what you have been taught by the sages in the name of
the prophets about the fundamental doctrines of faith and the impetus
for all our actions, then you are commanded to make use of as much of
that as possible to draw conclusions from both tradition and logic. But
if you avoid or neglect that, you are only partially fulfilling your
obligations to your Creator.

That can be understood in two ways:first in light of the verse that reads,
"Should something be too enigmatic for you to judge occur in differing
bloods, laws, plagues, or arguments....(Devarim 17:8-10). Note the
sorts of laws listed in this verse: things that are to be enunciated,
differentiated and specified according to tradition rather than according
to reason alone. Note too that you do no find a single problem cited
there that can be solved by reason.

It does not say, for example, that if you are unsure of the nature
of G-d's Oneness, about His various names and characteristics, about a
particular principle of faith like serving G-d, trusting Him, surrendering
to Him, dedicating your deeds to His name, ridding your good deeds of
untoward influences, repenting of sins, fearing Him, loving Him, being
abashed in His presence, being introspective for the sake of His name,
and so on in the realm of things that man can come to understand on his
own....that you should believe in them from the teachings of the Torah
sages, and depend on their traditions alone.

What it says is that you should delve into these things after learning
about them from the Tradition, which incorporates all of the mitzvahs
of the Torah along with their roots and details, and that you should
use your own mind in the study of them, and arrive at the truth while
eradicating all falsehood."

Duties of the Heat translation by R' Yaakov Feldman

2) Concerning Free Will

Rambam (Teshuva 5:1 Hyamson translation) Free Will is bestowed on every
human being...(5:2) Let not the notion expressed by foolish gentiles and
most of the senseless folk among Israelites, pass through your mind that
at the beginning of a person's existence the Al-mighty decrees that he is
to be either righteous or wicked. This is not so. Every human being may
become righteous like Moses our teacher or wicked like Jeroboam...There
is no one that coerces him or decrees what he is to do, or draws him
to either of the two ways; but every person turns to the way which he
desires, spontaneously and of his own volition... (6:1) There are many
verses in the Pentateuch and in the Prophets which seem to contradict
this fundamental doctrine. And they lead most people astray and make
them think that G-d decrees that a person shall do good or evil and
that a man's heart is not under his control, to incline him in whichever
direction he pleases...

3) Reward and Punishment

Kiddushin (39b Soncino translation). R. Joseph said: Had Aher interpreted
this verse [about long life] as R. Jacob, his daughter's son, he would
not have sinned. Now, what happened with Aher? Some say, he saw something
of this nature.[Now, if one's father said to him, 'Ascend to the loft and
bring me young birds,' and he ascends to the loft, dismisses the dam and
takes the young, and on his return falls and is killed ] Others say, he
saw the tongue of Huzpith the Interpreter dragged along by a swine. 'The
mouth that uttered pearls licks the dust!' he exclaimed. [Thereupon]
he went forth and sinned.

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Daniel Eidensohn cited part of a Yale translation of Rav Saadia Gaon to 
Iyov, ch.39:
    "Nature, in the case of animals is called their character or
    constitution. Other things are said to have natures in the general
    sense, as the natures and effects of the stars, of which He says,
    Dost thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades? (Chapter
    38:31). by this last He means that among the stars there are those
    whose nature it is to warm and those whose nature it is to cool. The
    cooling ones water the fruit and make it succulent; that is why He
    refers to their sweet influence. The warming ones ripen the fruit
    and sustain its growth; that is why He refers to their drawstrings
    (38:31). But these actions of the stars are not the most regarded. We
    tend to make much only of the claims of astrologers about the effects
    determined by conjunctions, declinations, oppositions, and the
    like. In reality these are suppositions with no ground in evidence
    beyond the claim itself. The heating and cooling, moistening and
    drying effects of the heavenly bodies by contrast are undeniable -
    the warmth of the sun and coolness of the moon, for example which
    are apprehended by the sense and evident to observation. "

On this, RDE comments:
> He clearly is not rejecting the influence of the stars. I also don't see
> this as a rejection of the validity of astrology. It just seems to be
> saying that the reality of the heating and cooling effects of the stars is
> directly ascertained by the human senses while the science of astrology is
> based upon conjecture which is tentatively accepted as is most of science.

And this is what I think:
I question whether you are apprehending the chiluk Rav Saadia Gaon seems
to be making; if you believed that the gravitational pull of the Moon
affects the tides on earth (and I imagine that you do) would that make
you a believer in astrology?

Certainly not. Well, Rav Saadia Gaon's description of this "influence
of the stars" seems to be more in line with the lunar tide effect rather
than with astrological powers that be. Now, it could be that Rav Saadia
Gaon's science was wrong and it could be that modern science has not
yet discovered the correlations he speaks of (or it could be that the
natural effect has disappeared for some extrinsic reason), but he does
seem to differentiate between a consistent measurable (read, scientific)
phenomenon and uncorroborated astrological claims.

Read this way, Rav Saadia Gaon is rejecting astrology, as Prof. Marc
Shapiro noted.

Henoch Moshe Levin

R. Micha Berger: <<..it's the Aruch laNeir ("and many other fine Jews")
who notes the Rambam assumes his position is Chazal's..>>

No. he doesn't. What ALN may have thought, ver vais. He may have
thought (b'ruach haqqodesh to be sure) that micky mantle was a better
ballplayer than willie mays, but the ALN citation originally quoted has
as much textual relevance to proving this latter proposition as to the
former. There was a go-round about this in the previous iteration and
it's unfortunate that people simply continue to parrot citations, perhaps
without reading them, even after they've been explicitly challenged and
(imnsho to be sure) discredited.

RYGB: <<The Raavad held it was a shibush, same as the Rambam. As R'
Chaim Brisker said, he held "nebech a apikores iz nisha a apikores"
while the Rambam held "nebech a apikores is oich a apikores.: That is
the sum total of the machlokes, there is no other pshat. R"L that the
Raavad held that Chazal held that Hashem has a guf or demus ha'guf.>>

A mixture of the true and perhaps not quite as true. Avada, Raavad
disagreed with corporeality. What is perhaps not as true (if this was
intended) is the suggestion that Raavad agreed that holding such a false
corporeal belief rendered the mistaken holder an apikores. I inferred RYGB
was so claiming because his declamation that "there is no other p'shat"
(I sadly note he has not yet taken up my stylistic advice re apodicticity)
came after his reprise of the rambam's famous Yiddish vort on apikorsus
-- if memory doesn't fail me I think rambam first published that in der
tag morgen journal.

I have had a new thought (well, new to me) re the whole rambam business
and astrology. Given that rambam was a yochid amongst rishonim in his
rejection (ignoring for the moment Prof Shapiro's suggestion re B. ibn
Pakuda (with which I disagree) as well as the ambiguities raised re RS"G,
with -- but never mind. I don't want to get distracted here. Everybody
can agree, I think, that he was uniquely clear and vehement in that
rejection) one might ask just WHY is it that rambam seems uniquely
doctrinaire amongst all rishonim.

It struck me that this unique sensitivity might be directly attributable
to rambam's philosophical position on b'riyoh yeish me'ayin creation,
which opinion, though shared by most other rishonim (though certainly
not unanimously) was never made as a big a deal of by anybody as did
the rambam.

Rambam's ex nihilo writings were consonant with his sensitivity to
(in Rambam's perception) incompatibility of a God (sic -- hyphenless)
who could intervene and reward/punish behavior. Thus the incompatibility
of astrology with s'char v'onesh and toras hag'gmul would have leaped
out at rambam as a qal v'chomer with which he could neither avoid nor
live with in a way that the more easy going rejection of qadmus ho'olom
by other rishonim would not compel. By easy going I mean without the
excessive philosophizing and explication of derived implications and
consequences with which the rambam indulged himself as opposed to others
who rejected a pre-existing world. Thus other rishonim may not have
focused, or at least expended little literary angst, on the notion of
incompatibility of astrology, and possibly even of an Aristotelian God,
with toras hag'gmul. This notion could use a bit more development and
I may give it some additional thought.

As a footnote I would add that even those -- to be sure, the minority --
who believe rambam rejected ex nihilo (and his many apparent explicit
statements to the contrary are just places where he is consciously
lying to you. in fact I tend to agree with this as I'm persuaded
the esoreticians have the better arguments here) the basic argument
still can be made, that the rambam was at least acutely aware of the
potential contradictions between an infinite aristotelian world and
an interested and active divinity, and thus could hardly have let
a hit-you-on-the-head-obvious contradiction like astrology to pass
unprotested.

I shall be in London for the next few days and thankfully incommunicado.

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

RYGB
> (BTW, R' Meir Shinnar claimed anti-kadmus is not in the Yad - it is
> there in Teshuva 3:7.)

I actually said IIRC - it is clearly not in hilchot yesode hatora
discussing hashem's relationship to the Universe.

However, even, in Teshuva 3:7 it isn't found - again, unless RYGB has a
different text or learns texts dramatically differently (something that
is quite possible)

my translation of 3:7

Five are those called minim:
one who says that there is no god and the world has no leader, who says
that there exists a leader but they are two or more, and who says that
there is one master, but that he is a body with an image, and who says
that he isn't alone the first and master of all, and one who worships
a star or a sign and others besides him to be an advocate between him
and the master of the universe any one of those five is called a min.

The requirement is to believe that he is alone the first and master
of all -the Aristotelian position mentioned and rejected in the moreh
is actually consistent with this requirement - as first (harishon) does
not necessarily mean temporal priority (could be first cause) - and the
rambam was clearly aware of this use of harishon and was very careful in
his choice of language. There is nothing explicit here about creation -
somehting that (IIRC) others (including, IIRC, R Twersky in his book),
remark about.

Meir Shinnar

Eli Turkel wrote:
>The fact that it is not an ikkar according to Raavad is based
>on the fact that Chazal in fact do not claim it to be true.

How do you get that from Ra'avad's very brief hasagah? All he says is
that some great men were misled by taking aggados literally and are not
minim because of it.

Gil Student

RAA wrote:
> But the dating system (5763 years from the creation of the world) is firmly
> established in mesorah -- with NO indication that it's meant allegorically.

Not if by messorah you mean going back to 'Hazal. It was there, sure
enough, but not "firmly established". Read Rav Shim'on Schwab's essay
on chronology of bayit sheni, and you'll see that using anno mundi is
of relatively recent introduction.

Plus, if you mean that it firmly establishes a particular reading
of ma'aseh vereishit, your statement becomes entirely irrelevant,
since it says nothing about "before creation was finished", ubazeh
the not-so-literal-creationists deal. See both Rav Shim'on Schwab and
Gerald Schroeder to see how irrelevant the current date is to the entire
argument.

Arie

>Assimilation is primarily one of comfort and pleasure not ideology....
>I don't see that Mussar is the solution...

While the statement regarding assimilation is true, one of the primary
goals of the mussar movement was exactly to address the pursuit of
pleasure and comfort as a goal rather than as a means. See chapter
one of Mesilas Yesharim where the Ramchal emphasizes that pleasures of
this world are meant solely to provide the menuchas hanefesh needed to
serve Hashem. In addition, besides for being epicurean, our society is
plagued with moral relativism. What is mussar if not for establishing
an absolute ethical standard for living. Perhaps reintroducing mussar
on a mass scale is exactly what we need?

Motya Hoffman

>We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
>anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.
>
>How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?

If I understood you correctly, I might mention old Mr. Teich, in Lynn, 
Massachusetts (40 years ago).  He objected to the pauses in the song and 
would declare:
"asher molakh beterem, kol-yetzir nivra."

This may not answer your objection, but it sounds a lot better than the 
standard "beterem-kol, yetzir nivra."
---------------------------

IRA L. JACOBSON
---------------------------
mailto:laser@ieee.org

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
> anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.

> How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?

See the Peirush Anaf Yosef in the siddur Otzer Hatefilos where he
addresses this fully - and quotes from the Arvei Nachal that 'ein melech
belo am' refers only to a melech bosor vedom whose malchus depends on
the approval of his people - no so HKBH.

And even though the Arvei Nachal also quotes "ein melech belo am" -
AFAIK - it is another of the phantom maamorei Chazal..

SBA

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:35:50PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: See the Peirush Anaf Yosef in the siddur Otzer Hatefilos 
: where he addresses this fully - and quotes from the Arvei 
: Nachal that 'ein melech belo am' refers only to a melech bosor vedom
:  whose malchus depends on the  approval of his people 
: - no so HKBH.

In contrast, there is the Gra's relatively famous chaqirah between
melekh and mosheil. "Ein melekh belo am", because someone who rules
without the approval of those lead is a "mosheil".

Which is why "ki Lashem hamlukhah" -- for klal Yisrael, "umosheil
bagoyim". "Malkhuskha malkhus kol olamim", however, "memshaltekha"
is only "bekhol dor vador", only until yemos hamashi'ach when "vehayah
H' lemelech al kol ha'aretz".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

> We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
> anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.

> How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?

The Ohr Gedayahu talks about this on the first page of his chelek on 
Moadim. He says that ein melech belo am is mitzad the briyah, but mitzad
HKBH, being that He is malah min hateva, He is  King with or w/o an am.

Jay Spero 

> We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
> anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.

> How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?
 
It is not within a melech's ability to create an am; hence, in its
absence, there is no possession of m'luchah. The Melech, however, _can_
create the am, and hence already possesses m'luchah.

<There is an interesting problem. The walls that exist now are not 
the original walls and are not necesarily built on the location of 
the original walls. There are views that  that Jerusalem covered a 
much greater area than that of the present Old City. >

I don't understand this. Besides "ir david" and possibly har Zion it 
is fairly clear that nothing of the ancient Jerusalem is outside the 
modern walls. In the direction of shaar shechem the city may have 
been larger at the end of the second Temple. However, those 
extensions are even later than Herod and certainly would not have 
kedushat Yerushalayim

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/25/2002

<<There is an interesting problem. The walls that exist now are not 
the original walls and are not necesarily built on the location of 
the original walls....>>

< I don't understand this. Besides "ir david" and possibly har Zion it 
is fairly clear that nothing of the ancient Jerusalem is outside the 
modern walls. In the direction of shaar shechem the city may have 
been larger at the end of the second Temple...>

Read R' Reznick's article
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5761summer/MTZION.PDF

Regarding Shlomo Goldstien's statement "There is NO obligation to live
in Yerushalayim despite its maaleh," I would like to add the hashkafic
ramifications. The gemara in K'suvos 110b states that a woman can force
her husband to divorce her (and retain full kesuba rights) if she wants to
be oleh to Yerushalayim and he refuses. The Rambam poskens this halacha
in Hilchos Ishus 13:20. If, in fact, there is no obligation to live in
Yerushalayim, that would mean that a woman could force a divorce simply
because her husband refused to pursue a "simple" maaleh, as opposed to
having violated an obligation.

Motya Hoffman

<Rav Tzadok  (Resisei Layla 44] states that the opinion that Bilam 
lived for hundreds of years is not meant literally. It just means the 
manifestation of evil of this type was described as Bilam - even 
though it wasn't the same person who advised Pharoh and tried to 
curse Klall Yisroel.>

Would the same reasoning apply to other people that the Gemara 
identify (Ketura=Hagar, Mordecai,Daniel,Ezra etc. and especially 
Pinchas=Eliyahu  - heard once that Eliyahu was gilgul of Pinchas)
and other people the gemara assumes extraordinarily long lives

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/25/2002

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
> RCS wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2002 at 18:21, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>>> I need to explain this pasuk, whether it is part of the rain cycle, if
>>> not what it is, without recourse to midrashim such as those brought by
>>> Rashi, for an unaffiliated person.

>> I always understood the simple pshat to be that a spring is coming up
>> from the ground, a natural phenomenon that we see every day. And it
>> wouldn't be at all unusual for a garden to grow alongside a spring.

> Problem: ... vehishkah et hagan, umisham yipared vehayah learb'ah
> rashim. Shem hae'had ... (citing from memory) The problem is that the
> four rivers do not have a common source, if by that you mean a spring.

There are answers for that one too. If we assume that the Gan was in
the mountains of northern Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates originate,
that area has been geo-tectonically active. In fact, the plain of Iraq
has risen and fallen various times in fairly recent geologic time, such
that old river courses are still visible in the topography of the land.
If you include a couple of the old, now-dry rivers, there are indeed
four rivers coming out of the same area in those mountains.

Source: Charles Pellegrino, "Return to Sodom and Gomorrah", about the
science underlying various biblical tales (and how that disproves the
existence/necessity of God, but that part is less solidly based).

R MHoffman:
> Regarding Shlomo Goldstien's statement "There is NO obligation to live in
> Yerushalayim despite its maaleh," I would like to add the hashkafic
> ramifications.  The gemara in K'suvos 110b states that a woman can force
> her husband to divorce her (and retain full kesuba rights) if she wants to
> be oleh to Yerushalayim and he refuses. The Rambam poskens this halacha
> in Hilchos Ishus 13:20. If, in fact, there is no obligation to live in
> Yerushalayim, that would mean that a woman could force a divorce simply
> because her husband refused to pursue a "simple" maaleh, as opposed to
> having violated an obligation.

Such a conclusion is not impossible. After all, the Megillas Ester
believes that according to the Rambam there is no obligation to make
Aliyah, yet the Rambam says that a woman may force her husband to divorce
her if she wishes to move to E"Y and he doesn't.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

There have been citations on Areivim from Rabbis Menachem Leibtag and
Yitzchak Etshalom that the traditional site of kever Rachel near Bethlehem
(just south of J'lem) is in error, and that the "real" kever is to be
found north of J'lem. The only referenced written citation is the
fairly extensive discussion on the "northern" and "southern" theories
by Rabbi Etshalom on parshat Va'yechi at torah.org. I thought that
Rabbi Leibtag had a similar exposition in his parsha sheet, but I can't
locate it on his tanach.org website. In general, the parsha insights
that the above educators publish are worthwhile reading. They focus on
theme and structure, and offer a good, modern exposition on the messages
contained in the Torah.

I must disagree, however, with their apparent conclusion that the
traditional location of kever Rachel is a mistake. If there is an
apparent disagreement between the evident understanding of verses in the
Torah vs. verses in the prophets, then the Torah must take precedence - in
the absence of a clear mesorah to the contrary. The verses in Vayishlach
and Vayechi (Gen. 35: 16-20 and 48: 7) clearly state that Rachel died
in childbirth and was buried on the way to Ephrat which is Bethlehem.
This identification of Bethlehem with Ephrat is not unique to the Torah,
it is also found elsewhere in Tanach such as Micah 5:1 and Ruth 1:2.
The latter citations clearly refer to a city in the territory of Judah.
In contrast with the above association of kever Rachel with the well-known
city of Bethlehem, we find a verse in the early prophets (Sam. I 10: 2)
which associates kevurat Rachel with a town, Zelzach, in the territory
of Benjamin. There is also a verse in Jeremiah 31: 14-16 which refers
to the wailing of Rachel heard in Ramah (apparently, a Benjamite city)
about the fate of her descendents who are being driven into exile by
the Babylonian conquerors. The latter verse, however, can be readily
understood as referring to an experienced or poetic voice heard by
the exilees (particularly the Benjamites) who have been collected in
Ramah prior to their being lead to Babyonia in chains (see the Ramban
on Gen. 35: 16). The above verses in Genesis and Samuel are not as
easy to resolve. The Tosefta (a Tanna'itic work) Sotah 11:7 interprets
Sam. I 10: 2 to mean that Saul will leave Samuel for home and find 2
men in Zelzach who are currently visiting kever Rachel (near Bethlehem).

Etshalom, in his "northern theory" exposition. Assumes that there is an
Ephrat and Bethlehem - in the territory of Benjamin, which he identifies
with the spring of Ein Farah (and the Benjamite town of Parah) a few
miles north of J'lem. While I have no objection to his identification
of the Perat in Jer. 13: 4 and 51: 83 with Ein Farah (since the verses do
not refer explicitly to the river, Perat - Euphrates), but that does not
justify the equation of Perat and Ephrat. Nor is the mention of people
of Bethlehem among the inhabitants of Benamite cities who returned from
Babylonian exile during the time of Zerubavel (Neh. 7: 26) a proof that
the Bethlehem (assuming that it refers to a Benjamite city) is to be
associated with the town, Parah = Ephrat. Etshalom even proposes the
identification of the "real" kever Rachel with the Kubur Bani Isra'il,
a collection of 5 identical stone structures a few miles northwest of Ein
Farah. He has not explained the significance of 5 identical structures
as an alleged memorial to Rachel, however. [He does note that one of
the mysterious structures was dismantled in the course of building a
bypass road around Ramallah. Does anyone know whether the dismantling
of an ancient monument was done under the control of archaeologists?]

In sum, Rabbis Etshalom, Liebtag, and other proponents of a "northern"
location for kever Rachel have not presented a sufficient case as to
cast real doubt on the traditional identification of the building on
the outskirts of Bethlehem with kever Rachel that is based on the Torah
verses, Tosephta, and the oral tradition that was cited by the Ramban
in the 13th century.

As to statements made that Charan, where Jacob stayed with Lavan's family
for 20 years, was south of Hebron and not far from it - that does not
seem to have any basis in either Tanach or archaeology. Charan is in
a portion of Aram (Aram Naharayim or Padan Aram) well to the northeast
of Canaan (the placenames, Charan and Nachor are preserved in southern
Turkey near the Iraqi border). It is east of the Euphrates as indicated
by Joshua (Jos. 24: 2), "...your ancestors - Terah, the father of Avraham
and Nachor lived across the river (Euphrates) from time immemorial.."
Indeed, Nachor never left that land, nor did his grandson, Lavan
[only Terah and Avram left for Ur at the Persian gulf and then returned
many years later - see the Ramban at the end of Noach (Gen. 11: 28)].
When Jacob returns to Canaan, he first camps in the Gilead mountains and
fords the Jabok river just to the northeast of the land. Jacob intends
to return home to his parents in Hebron (at his own liesurely pace) and
takes a southerly route along the mountain ridge from Shechem to Beit El
(near the "modern" village of Beitin) to Bethlehem and, finally, Hebron.

In his slow journey he first finds, apparently in Beit El, that his
mother, Rebeccah, has died, and then experiences the death of his beloved,
Rachel. The memorial that he established to commemorate that passing
should not be so readily displaced on the basis of a textual question
in the face of a contrary long-standing tradition.

Yitzchok

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
<<Problem: ... vehishkah et hagan, umisham yipared vehayah learb'ah
rashim. Shem hae'had ... (citing from memory) The problem is that the
four rivers do not have a common source, if by that you mean a spring.>>

Problem: citing from memory <g>. You left out a pasuk referring
explicitly to the river coming out of Eiden which is the source for the
four rivers. The eid is not.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Tuesday 26 November 2002 08:45, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> Problem:  citing from memory <g>. You left out a pasuk referring explicitly
> to the river coming out of Eiden which is the source for the four rivers. 
> The eid is not.

Oops. There is indeed a reason for not reading psuqim by heart. Anyway,
the objectino still stands, but WRT venahar yotze me'eden lehashkot et
hagan, but is of course largely irrelevant to your question of ve'ed
ya'aleh min haaretz.

Arie

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
<<We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.

How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?>>

Rav Gedaliah Shor addresses this in Ohr Gedalyahu. He says that the
idea of ein melech belo am is _also_ a beriah. Now, go explain that <g>!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> Not if by messorah you mean going back to 'Hazal. It was there, sure
> enough, but not "firmly established". Read Rav Shim'on Schwab's essay
> on chronology of bayit sheni, and you'll see that using anno mundi is
> of relatively recent introduction.

I realize that -- I didn't say "exclusive".

> Plus, if you mean that it firmly establishes a particular reading

Correct

> of ma'aseh vereishit, your statement becomes entirely irrelevant,
> since it says nothing about "before creation was finished", ubazeh
> the not-so-literal-creationists deal.

Which raises the (previously discussed question) of *when* that was --
some time up to the Birth of Avraham Avinu.

> See both Rav Shim'on Schwab and
> Gerald Schroeder to see how irrelevant the current date is to
> the entire argument.

Schwab I haven't seen. Anyone have a copy they could fax me?

Schroeder I've read -- and while I like his style, I've been told by too
many qualified (and Orthodox) people that his science is "questionable"
at best.

And I don't agree it's irrelevant. Chazal clearly held the world was 4000
or so years old (give/take a few years) -- if not, why date things from
"Brias HaOlam". Date them from Adam HaRishon, for example.

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]