Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 077

Friday, December 13 2002

• talmud and science
• Re: talmud and science
• Re: talmud and science
• Re: talmud and science
• Re: Chessed
• Re: talmud and science
• Kiddush levono with a minyan - proper timing
• Kaddish responses
• Re: Chessed
• Re: Chessed
• Ebay auctions closing on Shabbat
• RE: Rambam's shitta
• science & Talmud
• And also our donkeys
• Re: Ebay auctions closing on Shabbat

The recent daf yomi discuss mice that come from the earth. Enclosed is
an interesting discussion from the pages of the Kollel Iyun haDaf of
R. Mordecai Kornfeld

-----------------------------------

1) THE MOUSE THAT GROWS FROM THE GROUND
OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that a certain heretic challenged Rebbi
Ami regarding Techiyas ha'Mesim, saying that it is not possible for
a decomposed body, which turns into earth, to rise again as a living
body. One of Rebbi Ami's proofs for Techiyas ha'Mesim was the fact that
there is a rodent that lives in the valley "that today is half-flesh
and half-earth, and tomorrow it becomes completely flesh."

We find this creature mentioned elsewhere in the Gemara in a different
context. The Mishnah in Chulin (126b) mentions a mouse "which is
half-flesh and half-earth; one who touches the flesh part is Tamei,
and one who touches the earth part is Tahor."

According to modern scientific knowledge of the biological world,
all living things come about through propagation and regeneration.
However, in the times of the Chachamim, it was accepted by all that
many creatures are formed from inanimate objects. The Gemara in Shabbos
(107b) permits killing, on Shabbos, a louse that is produced from
sweat spontaneously (see TOSFOS, Shabbos 12a). The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD
84:15) prohibits eating birds that grow on trees because of the Isur
of Sheretz. It was also commonly believed that flies are produced from
rotting meat. (It was only towards the end of the seventeenth century
(C. E.) that experiments by Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur surprised
the world by proving that substances that were protected from the air
did not produce insects.) The reason Rebbi Ami proves his point from
the rodent is because the rodent arises not from a living organism,
but from dirt, like the dead who will come to life.

Is there any evidence today to support the existence of rodents that are
formed from the earth? (The following discussion is culled primarily from
the research of Rabbi Nosson Slifkin (www.zootorah.com), which will be
published in his forthcoming book, "Mysterious Creatures," Targum Press,
summer 2003.)

(a) The RAMBAM seems to confirm the existence of such a creature. In
Perush ha'Mishnayos (Chulin, ibid.) he writes, "This is a well-known
matter; there is no end to the number of people who have told me that
they have seen it. Such a thing is indeed astonishing, and I have no
explanation for it."

The TIFERES YISRAEL (Bo'az, Chulin 9:6) also defends the existence
of such a creature. He writes, "I have heard heretics mocking with
regard to the creature that is discussed here and in Sanhedrin 91a,
and denying it, saying that there is no such thing at all. Therefore,
I have seen fit to mention here that which I found written in a Western
European work compiled by a scholar renowned among the scholars of the
world. His name is Link, and the book is titled 'Auervelt.' In volume
I, page 327, he writes that such a creature was found in Egypt in the
district of Thebes, and in the Egyptian language that rodent is called
'dipus jaculus;' and in German it is called 'springmaus.' Its forequarters
-- head, chest, and hands -- are perfectly formed, but its hindquarters
are still embedded in the earth, until after several days when it fully
changes to flesh. And I say, 'How great are Your works, Hashem!'"

(b) However, Professor S. Z. Leiman has raised doubts about the accuracy
of the Tiferes Yisrael's understanding of Link's words (in his article
entitled, "Rav Yisrael Lipshutz and the Mouse that is Half Flesh and
Half Earth," printed in Chazon Nachum, New York, Yeshiva University
1998). Link cites Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian, who reports that
the Egyptians maintain that life first began in Egypt, and as proof of
this they note that mice are generated in vast numbers from the soil
of their land. Diodorus himself testifies, "Indeed, even in our day
during the inundations of Egypt, the generation of forms of animal life
can clearly be seen taking place in the pools which remain the longest,
for, whenever the river begun to recede and the sun has thoroughly dried
the surface of the slime, living animals, they say, take shape, some of
them fully formed, but some only half so and still actually united with
the very earth."

Link then adds a footnote to Diodorus' account. He writes, "The springmaus
(dipus jaculus), which dwells in Upper Egypt and is characterized by
very short forelegs, looks as though it is a creature that is not yet
fully developed."

This "springmaus" is the jerboa. The jerboa belongs to a family of tiny
to large rodents that have very small forelegs (which they hold against
their bodies) and long back legs for jumping and dig burrows in which they
sleep. One of the three small subfamilies is known as Dipodinae and it
includes the genus Jaculus. This is the dipus jaculus mentioned by Link.

It is clear that Link himself, who lived in the nineteenth century and
was very familiar with the jerboa, did not believe that it or any other
animal grows from the ground. Rather, he is saying that this creature
may be the source of the Egyptian myth. Because the jerboa's forelegs
are not visible while it is jumping, it appears to be a two-legged mouse
(which is why it is called "dipus," or "two legs"). One who observes
it sitting on the ground or jumping in the air, it appears that the two
hind-legs are actually the forelegs, and the rear part of the mouse has
not yet been formed.

Rav Aryeh Carmell suggests that the creature referred to is the mole.
A dead mole, with clods of earth attached to its body, would appear
to have grown from the ground. Alternatively, as it emerges from the
earth, people could mistakenly believe that it is growing from the
earth. (However, the people in the time of the Gemara seem to have
been familiar with moles and burrowing creatures, and thus people would
not have been mistaken about the nature of such a creature; see Mo'ed
Katan 6b.)

Perhaps we may suggest that the myth developed from the existence of
certain species of small amphibians and rodents that burrow in the
mud and entomb themselves in a cocoon of solidified mud during the dry
season. Entombed, the creatures' bodily functions nearly cease and they
remain entirely motionless until the first rain, at which point they shed
their cocoon. A creature photographed in such a state unquestionably
appears as a clod of earth, and while leaving its cocoon it certainly
looks as though it is half-earth and half-creature. One such animal is
the burrowing frog, which lives in arid regions and deserts. At the start
of a long dry spell, when the pools from the last rainstorms are in the
last stages of evaporation, the frog buries itself up to twelve inches
deep in the mud. There it settles into a state of suspended animation,
with its breathing and heartbeat slowing to a rate just sufficient to
keep it alive. After about two weeks, the outer layers of the frog's skin
detach and meld together into a membrane that is fully waterproof apart
from two tiny tubes to the frog's nostrils. The frog can survive in this
state amidst desert drought for many years. Then, when the rainfall
finally comes and turns the sand into mud, the frog breaks out if its
bag and emerges upon the surface, appearing to have grown from the mud.

(c) RAV SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH has an enlightening approach to the subject
of how to understand statements like these in the Gemara in light of
modern science. In his essay entitled, "Trusting the Torah's Sages"
(a letter written in 1876 to Rav Pinchas M. E. Wechsler, published in
1976 in the Jerusalem journal Hama'ayan, Chapter 4), he writes, "Imagine
if a scholar such as Humboldt had lived in their times and had traveled
to the ends of the world for his biological investigations. If upon his
return he would report that in some distant land there is a humanoid
creature growing from the ground or that he had found mice that had been
generated from the soil and had in fact seen a mouse that was half-earth
and half-flesh and his report was accepted by the world as true, would
we not expect Chazal to discuss the Torah aspects that apply to these
instances? What laws of Tum'ah and Taharah apply to these creatures? Or
would we expect them to go on long journeys to find out whether what
the world has accepted is really true? And if, as we see things today,
these instances are considered fiction, can Chazal be blamed for ideas
that were accepted by the naturalists of their times? And this is what
really happened. These statements are to be found in the works of Pliny,
who lived in Rome at the time the second Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed,
and who collected in his books on nature all that was well-known and
accepted in his day."

Rav Hirsch explains that the Chachamim were simply giving a ruling for a
case that was presented to them. They did not take it upon themselves to
verify whether or not such creatures existed, just as the Torah scholars
of Rav Hirsch's day would readily accept the testimony of Alexander von
Humboldt, a famous German naturalist.

------------------------------------------

To my mind the discussion misses the main point. We are not interested
in "blaming" chazal who clearly followed the local science. The
serious question is whether we change halacha based on the "new"
science. i.e. killing lice on shabbat or eating birds that grow on trees
etc. These have been debated by poskim before

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 12/12/2002

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:56:47AM +0000, R' Eli Turkel quoted R' Mordechai
Kornfeld and wrote:
:> 1) THE MOUSE THAT GROWS FROM THE GROUND
:> OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that a certain heretic challenged Rebbi
:> Ami regarding Techiyas ha'Mesim, saying that it is not possible for
:> a decomposed body, which turns into earth, to rise again as a living
:> body....

: To my mind the discussion misses the main point. We are not interested
: in "blaming" chazal who clearly followed the local science. The
: serious question is whether we change halacha based on the "new"
: science. i.e. killing lice on shabbat or eating birds that grow on trees
: etc. These have been debated by poskim before

I don't see why a discussion about techiyas hameisim is supposed to
reolve around rethinking halachah as scientific theory changes.

Second,I didn't see the discussion to be one of blaming chazal. Rather,
it touches on something debated here: are we to take such statements as
indication that the mesorah makes a scientific claim that is at odds
with current theory or data, or not?

My stance in that discussion was that a scientific statement in shas
is akin to our attempts to explain something from mesorah using current
scientific theory, or discussing the halachic or aggadic impact of the
scientific issues of the day. Unsurprisingly, RMK finds this shitah in
RSRH. I probably picked it up from him, too long ago to remember my
maqor. (Which for my memory is a duration measured in days.)

On biological issues, this revolves around defining nishtaneh hateva:
if it means gross changes, changes due to breeding, or changes in theory
alone. R' Gil addressed these points better than I do.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 09:56:47AM +0000, R' Eli Turkel quoted R' Mordechai
> Kornfeld and wrote:
> :> 1) THE MOUSE THAT GROWS FROM THE GROUND
> :> OPINIONS: The Gemara relates that a certain heretic challenged Rebbi
> :> Ami regarding Techiyas ha'Mesim, saying that it is not possible for
> :> a decomposed body, which turns into earth, to rise again as a living
> :> body....

...
> Second,I didn't see the discussion to be one of blaming chazal. Rather,
> it touches on something debated here: are we to take such statements as
> indication that the mesorah makes a scientific claim that is at odds
> with current theory or data, or not?

No.

Techias HaMesim, the concept of ressurecting all deserving dead people
since the begining of time, by it's very nature seems to contradict what
we presently know about resurecting such dead. Scientifically it is
impossible. Yet one loses his Olam HaBah if he doesn't beleive that its
source is the Torah. But I do not view this as a contradiction bewtween
science and Torah. We are talking about endtimes... Acharis HaYamim. Those
will be times where G-d will once again revert to be revealed as opposed
to being hidden and his promise to ressurect the deserving dead is not
one which necesarily a part of natural law, although it may be. The
point is that it is based on belief, and that it is ultimately G-d's
will. We cannot now know what the method of resurection will be, not at
our present level of knowledge if it is within the realm of natural law...
or if is in the realm of the spiritual to which only G-d has the power
to effect. That Chazal were able to resurect the dead is wrapped in
mystery in that we do not exactly know what is menat by ressurection.

That Elisha perfomed it is to know that... something... happened. But
perhaps it was nothing more then re-starting the heart through CPR.
Or perhaps it was miraculous. I don't think we can really know what
happened there or anywhere else where it is mentioned as happening.
But in any case that is not the resurection of Techias HaMesim under
discussion. Techias HaMesim is endtimes resurection.

Additionally, Techias HaMesim is used interchangeably with Olam HaBah in
the Gemmarah in the beginning of Perek Chelek of Meseches Sanhedrin. Can
one ask scientific questions about the existence of Olam HaBah? No. Olam
HaBah is a belief not a percept. So in my opinion the scientific component
is not germain to the discussion. The discussion revolves entirely
around the belief in the Techias HaMesim promise and science is has no
bearing on it since we do not know the mechanism of its implementation.

To my way of thinking the only issue that becomes problematic is when core
belief issues contradict hard scientific evidence such as the age of the
universe being 15 billion years old. Those who maintain the belief that
the world is only 5763 years old have a lot of "splainin" to do about
the hard evidence to the contrary. The issue of Techias HaMesim hasn't
happened yet, we don't know what the mechanism for it will be so there is
no reason to speculate about it because that's all it is... speculation.

HM

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:34:14PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> Second,I didn't see the discussion to be one of blaming chazal. Rather,
:> it touches on something debated here: are we to take such statements as
:> indication that the mesorah makes a scientific claim that is at odds
:> with current theory or data, or not?

: No.

: Techias HaMesim, the concept of ressurecting all deserving dead people
: since the begining of time, by it's very nature seems to contradict what
: we presently know about resurecting such dead...

But we weren't discussing techiyas hameisim, we were discussing this
alleged mousy proof of techiyas hameisim. I therefore don't understand
your bald "No." Doesn't seem to address our point.

The "proof" itself lends itself to RSRH's treatment: they found something
in contemporary scientific thought that lent credance to an ikkar emunah.
They were not asserting that the nature of this mouse and its usability
as proof is a mesorah since Sinai.

: Additionally, Techias HaMesim is used interchangeably with Olam HaBah in
: the Gemmarah in the beginning of Perek Chelek of Meseches Sanhedrin...

While the Ramban would probably agree, since to him "olam haba" is the
post-resurrection life. The Rambam and Ikkarim managed to learn Cheileq
without thinking the two were identical. They define OhB to be the
non-physical existance between lives and after both lives.

: To my way of thinking the only issue that becomes problematic is when core
: belief issues contradict hard scientific evidence such as the age of the
: universe being 15 billion years old. Those who maintain the belief that
: the world is only 5763 years old have a lot of "splainin" to do about
: the hard evidence to the contrary...

Oh Ricky! There is no evidence that the statement "but it was all bederekh
neis" can't answer. It would require an ikkar emunah that claims that
something happened naturally for physical evidence to bear any weight
against it. (Not that I personally maintain the belief in question.)

FWIW, ma'aseh bereishis is much less a scientific problem, since we have
reasons al pi TSBP to assert it isn't literal without any science questions.
The mabul, migdal Bavel, yetzi'as Mitzrayim and Yehoshua's conquest are
bigger issues when speaking to non-O thinkers.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Micha Berger writes:
> The intro to Sha'arei Yosher made me thing of the following while saying
> 18...
> What is "gomel chassadim tovim"?

Could I suggest a simpler pshat (off the top of my head).  Note that
this comes in a list of praises of HaShems attributes, all attributes
that are superior to those of a person.  Perhaps we might say that for a
person the _intention_ in an act of chesed is necessarily "tov," but,
because we are not capable of seeing all the ramifications of an act,
the result may not be for the best.  HaShem is the only one whose acts
of chesed are truly "chassadim tovim."

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<daniel@cfd.ame.arizona.edu>		1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
  Engineering				Tucson, AZ  85711

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:34:14PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
>: No.
>: Techias HaMesim, the concept of ressurecting all deserving dead people
>: since the begining of time, by it's very nature seems to contradict what
>: we presently know about resurecting such dead...

> But we weren't discussing techiyas hameisim, we were discussing this
> alleged mousy proof of techiyas hameisim. I therefore don't understand
> your bald "No." Doesn't seem to address our point.

> The "proof" itself lends itself to RSRH's treatment: they found something
> in contemporary scientific thought that lent credance to an ikkar emunah.
> They were not asserting that the nature of this mouse and its usability
> as proof is a mesorah since Sinai.

You are correct. I had read your response before I read the original
piece sent by R Eli and I misunderstood your point. Indeed RSRH
explanation of the reason Chazal addressed the issue of THE MOUSE THAT
GROWS FROM THE GROUND is quite reasonable. But I think R Eli's point is
legitmate as well: "To my mind the discussion misses the main point. We
are not interested in "blaming" chazal who clearly followed the local
science. The serious question is whether we change halacha based on the
"new" science. i.e. killing lice on shabbat or eating birds that grow
on trees etc."

>: To my way of thinking the only issue that becomes problematic is when core
>: belief issues contradict hard scientific evidence such as the age of the
>: universe being 15 billion years old. Those who maintain the belief that
>: the world is only 5763 years old have a lot of "splainin" to do about
>: the hard evidence to the contrary...

>        ...There is no evidence that the statement "but it was all bederekh
> neis" can't answer. 

Yes we've been down this road many times and you can always answer "G-d
can do anything " so he can create the world "old". But I do not beleive
that this is a reasonable approach when there are legitimate sources on
which we can rely to reconcile scientific proof with Torah.

> FWIW, ma'aseh bereishis is much less a scientific problem, since we have
> reasons al pi TSBP to assert it isn't literal without any science questions.
> The mabul, migdal Bavel, yetzi'as Mitzrayim and Yehoshua's conquest are
> bigger issues when speaking to non-O thinkers.

Agreed.

HM

When saying kiddush levono with a minyan (esp. for those who say the
additional pieces beyond the ikkar brocho - siddur Eizor Eliyohu has
an abbreviated version as in old siddurim as opposed to the lengthier
version in many siddurim today), should one expend extra effort (e.g. in
scenario when a sizable group is exiting Shul after tefilas arvis and
some arrive at the levono viewing site earlier than others - should the
early arrivers wait for the [bulk of the ?][some of the ?] others rather
than starting immediately ?) to time their recital to say the berocho
at the same time that others are saying it so that the berocho could be
said in unison, or is such not necessary or advisable ?

Mordechai 

IIRC, I heard that the (last) Brisk'er Rav did not answer omein after the
fourth word of kaddish (and perhaps didn't answer / say anything after
'brich - hu' either ?). I believe the hesber was, because really, the
only places where omein should be answered are where, in the text of the
kaddish, it states (instructing the listeners / tzibbur) 've'imru omein'
(and say omein) - which is not the case after the fourth word (nor after
the word 'mishichei' in the Sepharadic kaddish).

My questions are -

1) Is the above account (that the 'Brisk'er Rav' was noheig that way)
correct? Did any well known personalities do the same (Brisk'er or
non-Brisk'er), e.g. perhaps RYBS, etc.?

2) Is this practice recorded or addressed in any seforim ?

Mordechai

On 12 Dec 2002 at 21:24, Micha Berger wrote:
> What is "gomel chassadim tovim"?
> A side question is why the verb is gomel, why we speak of gemillas chessed.
> I think this is related to gamal, which survives for a long time on a single
> tovah. Gemillas chessed is, perhaps, the notion that one isn't just helping
> in the short term but providing sustenance over a longer run. Teaching the
> poor man to fish is the greater *gemillas* chessed than giving him one.

Gmul is also a payment. Or more correctly the receipt of a reward for
a good thing done. Could the implication be that Hashem causes Chessed
to be done to those who are worthy of its receipt?

-- Carl

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

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 01:36:22PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: Gmul is also a payment. Or more correctly the receipt of a reward for 
: a good thing done. Could the implication be that Hashem causes 
: Chessed to be done to those who are worthy of its receipt? 

Then what about Avos 1:2 "... ve'al gemillus chassadim", which is
presumably chessed performed by people.

-mi

From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> Leon Manel wrote:
>>May one Place bids on Ebay for auctions that end on Shabbos? 

> Why not?  

> People place bids on auctions that take place on Shabbat/Yom Tov all
> the time. In shul, no less.

IIRC there is a hetter - due to it being a mitzva or similar.

But, leshitoscho, why only Ebay?
Why not buy a house at a Shabbos auction?
And then why only via auction?

(We have these auctions in Melbourne which is known as the auction
capital of the world. But for the past 20 years or so they are held
on Sundays in heimishe areas - thus eliminating many problems and
situations.)

SBA

At 09:32 AM 12/6/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>sigh The Hebrew language is not so simple. Much of the Moreh Nevuchim
(deleted)
>RMS contends more Hebrew words do not say what they do, and that "Mamtzi"
>has some novel meaning.
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

>Unless someone (including he himself) can bring evidence to his new
>pshatim in rishon, ein ketz, tamid, mamtzi (vos noch?), there is no
>basis for this conversation.

I have never said that Hebrew words do not say what they do - they just
do not say what RYGB says they do.

As clearly RYGB and I speak and read two different languages both called
Hebrew, further conversation is difficult - as (unfortunately) most of
our conversations end. As the rambam (according to RYGB) couldn't have
said it, he therefore didn't say it.

However, let me just clarify some usages of a word from the rambam
himself

With regard to rishon meaning both logical and temporal priority (relating
to the rambam's statement in hilchot tshuva 3:7 (haomeer sheeyno levado
harishon vetzur lacol) - the rambam himself explains the dual meaning
of the language of temporal priority.

In the moreh nevuchim (2:30), the rambam discusses that there are two
words that refer to priority - one (translated by r kafih as reshit) that
refers to logical priority, and the other (translated by by both R Kafih
and ibn tibbon as rishon) that refers to temporal priority - the rambam
then specifically says (p 233) vehayesod reshit hadavar shehu lo yesod,
veyesh shegam omrim bistam al inyan ze shehu rishon - there are those
that refer also to things that are logically prior by the language of
rishon (unlike the reverse - no one refers to things that are temporally
prior by the language of logical priority). Rishon therefore can refer
to logical priority, not just temporal priority - as I said.

What is even more, in this chapter, the rambam is explicit that it
would be wrong to claim that hashem is temporally prior to the world,
as time is part of creation, and therefore it is meaningless to say that
something was temporally prior to creation - which is why the torah uses
bereshit - which the rambam explains is the language of logical priority,
rather than temporal priority. Thus, when the rambam uses sheeyno levado
harishon - the term harishon (according to the rambam) refers primarily
to the logical priority of hashem to the world, rather than the temporal -
as the rambam believes it is wrong to say that hashem is temporally prior
to the world. Therefore, this statement in hilchot tshuva does not talk
about creationism and hashem's temporal priority,and is consistent with
either of the Aristotelian, Platonic, or creationist viewpoints.

The word tzur in that halacha is also explained by the rambam in MN
1:16 - liyesod kol davar umotzao - and ...nikra hasehm yitaleh tzur
ki hu hamotza vehasibba haoseh lechot ma shezulato - again refering to
hashem's role as the First Cause.


With regard to mamtzi - it means causes to exist - that is not a
novel meaning, but clear pshat (the rambam knows the word boreh for
creation), and is commonly used that way. It can be used in a specifically
Aristotelian context and meaning - look in the Moreh Nevuchim (kafih) at
part 2, chapter 4, where, describing aristo's shitta about the galgalim,
he frequently uses the words mamtzi and himtzi to describe the relation
of the galgalim to one another, to hashem, (hashem yitbarach hu asher
himtzi hasechel harishon) and umamtzi hasechel sechel - quite clearly,
in this context, not talking about creation but the aristotelian
causal relationship. Later on, when the rambam talks about creation,
he always uses the notion of being mamtzi something that wasn't there -
2:27, himtzi davar lo haya nimtza, 2:30 himtzi haolam lo midavar - the
words himtzi does not by itselfnecessarily mean create, which is why,
in order to specify creation, one has to specify the previous nonexistent
state - something that he doesn't do in the mishne torah.

lastly, with regard to the pshat of hilchot yesode hatora 1:5 The pshat
is quite simple - it is unfortunate that general principles do not allow
some to read the Hebrew. With regard to evidence - outside of just
reading the words - please note that (as previously cited), R YItzhak
Twersky, both a major talmid chacham and a major scholar of the rambam,
brings Hilchot Yesode hatora 1:5 as being clearly a direct statement of
Aristotelian philosophy in the Mishne Torah, and contradicting the general
position of the Moreh Nevuchim which is anti Aristotelian (this is part
of the general discussion of potential contradictions between the Moreh
and the Mishne Torah - many may only be apparent, but this one is quite
clear). The Ohr Sameach also clearly understands it as Aristotelian.
One merely has to look at the logical argument and see that it is the
same logical argument that is brought in the name of Aristotle in MN 2:4.

With regards to the words eyn ketz, tamid - everyone understands them to
mean without an end and continuing - the question is whether the end (and
the continuity) only refers to going forward or also to going backward -
and that depends on the context.

As evidence doesn't matter much in areas of deeply held beliefs, and
previous evidence has been ignored, I don't know that I will convince
RYGB, but the emet remains..

Meir Shinnar

Enclosed is part of a response I received from Rabbi M. Kornfeld 
about the question of the effect on Halcha

< An extensive discussion of that issue can be found in Rav Carmell's 
footnote to Michtav me'Eliyahu, vol 4 p. 355.

Rabbi Slifkin's article deals with Rav Carmell's footnote and many 
other sources, you can contact him at zoorabbi@zootorah.com .>

Eli Turkel

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: And also our donkeys

Question about parashas Mikeitz....

Here the brothers think they're about to become Tzafnas Panei'ach's
slaves, and they add that they're concerned that also their donkeys
would be confiscated.
>>>

This 'chamoreinu' business has worried me for years too.

The Ramban seems to explain it - that by taking away
their only means of transport and shipping - their donkeys -
(and them being under arrest), there was no way for the grain and
food to be sent back to their families in Kenaan - which was their main
concern

BTW did anyone else notice the Midrash saying that the hunger
was only in 3 countries - besides Mitzrayim - Palestina, Arabia and
Pankia  or Pinkia. One fo the meforshim (I don't have the Midrash before me)
explains that EY is called Palestina by the nations.
 (And IIANM he brings this from the Biur RMD.
Would that be by Mendelson von Reform? )

SBA

In a message dated 12/13/02 11:01:13 AM EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
>> People place bids on auctions that take place on Shabbat/Yom Tov all
>> the time. In shul, no less.

> IIRC there is a hetter - due to it being a mitzva or similar.

See S"A 306,

Here is a free translation of S"A Horav 306:16:

That what it is customary to announce Mitzvohs in Shul that who ever
will give the most will be Zoche in them, would have been proper to
prohibit due to buying and selling, which is a Shvus Gomur which was not
permitted for a Mitzvah, but it is possible to answer the custom Bdochak
and say that buying and selling is not applicable in a Mitzvah only in
an object that is acquired, but it is forbidden to buy places in Shul
or houses of Tzedaka, and the proper way is like some Anshei Maseh are
Noheig that what ever amount they said they donate even if someone else
bought it, which in that case it isn't comparable to buying and selling
at all, but rather like pledging to Tzedaka and in this manner it is
permissible even to buy places and houses of Tzedakah, and every Yirei
Shomayim should be careful in this.

WRT the question at hand perhaps one who has knowledge in this area can
elaborate on what the procedure is after the bid closes, payment method,
when does the object become his etc.

Gut Shabbos v'Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]