Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 014

Wednesday, May 21 2003

• Re: eilu v'eilu
• VIDC Kibud Av
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Re: The limits of dan lekaf zechus
• Re: The limits of dan lekaf zechus
• Vernacular (was: ketuvah)
• Vernacular (was: ketuvah)
• Ben Franklin's "cheshbon ha-nefesh"
• Re: How long did Shaul reign?
• Re: eilu v'eilu
• Re: Vernacular (was: ketuvah)
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures
• Re: Ben Franklin's "cheshbon ha-nefesh"
• Re: bonfires on Lag Ba'Omer
• Re: Bar Ilan Torah U mada lectures

> I think historical facts can be eilu v'eilu, even according to Rashi
> who certainly cannot argue with the following Gemara and Midrash.

> Hatach, the messenger between Mordechai and Esther, disappears in the
> middle of the story. tthe Gemara in Megilla 15a learns from this that
> it is inappropriate to deliver bad news [and he therefore he chose not
> to deliver the message]. Tosafos Bava Basra 3b brings a Midrash that
> Hatach was killed by Haman. Tosafos says the Gemara is ar5guing with
> the Midrash. It seems that this is because we cannot learn about the
> propriety of delivering bad news from one who is killed . I would think
> that eilu v'eilu applies here.

I don't follow your reasoning. Rashi indicates that there is a distinction
between dispute concerning halacha and historical events. He says the
former is eilu v'eilu while in the case of the latter one of them is
wrong. You seem to be saying that since there is a dispute in Chazal
concerning whether Hatach died that must be eilu v'eilu also and
hence Rashi must agree that it is eilu v'eilu?! According to you what
distinction was Rashi making?

For a more reasonable effort at saying eilu v'eilu applies to historical
facts when disputed by Chazal see Rav Hutner's Collected Letters. He
in essence says that when chazal disputed historical facts it must be
because Gd wanted the information concealed and wanted Chazal to express
their various opinions. That Ratzon is obviously emes and since each
opinion is therefore emes it is also eilu v'eilu.

                                                          Daniel Eidensohn

The following is from Making of a Godol p. 41:

"R' Ruven [Yudkovsky] had each of the spring-term applicants sit before
him; he asked each one which /massekheth/ he had learned during the
winter, and then proceeded to pose a question to each young man in turn
on the /massekhet/ he had recently studied. When one of the applicants
was unable to prove from the /massekheth/ he had studied, /Massekheth
Qiddushin/, who, between a father and a teacher, is more deserving of
respect, my father [R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky] spoke up and said he could
prove it from a /massekheth/ /he/ had learned, /Babba Metzi'a/."

I do not have the footnotes to that page to see what, if anything, the
author added. However, as a mental exercise I decided to see how many
proofs related to this issue I can find in Kiddushin. I came up with
eleven, although some of them are more Purim Torah than anything else.
The results are at <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/kibud.pdf>. Some
of the proofs are intentionally in specific derachim, which is why I
associated this with the old Voss Iz Der Chilluk (VIDC) threads.

Gil Student

On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 10:29:08AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:                                      If Velikovsky, who had no axe to
: grind for Chazal (ifcha mistabra!) can condense the PErsion period,
: we who have Chazak have no reason to not do so!

Despite the speaker's claim, it's not a problem in understanding chazal,
but in Yirmiyahu 25:11-12, 29:10, Daniel 9:2 (who is both explicit,
and gives it as peshat in Yir') and Divrei Hayamim II 36:20.

V, who has no notion of TSBP, has /greater/ motivation than we do.

-mi

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" 
>  5/16/03 , Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>I had a discussion concerning R' Schwab's original assertion that the
>>Persian kings lasted much longer than 54 years ...

> ....I am astounded that any leading TC can say that R' Schwab wholly
> unsubstantiated position is correct. If Velikovsky, who had no axe to
> grind for Chazal, ... can condense the Persion period,
> we who have Chazak have no reason to not do so!

Bimchilas kevodecha, Velikovsky was a nut case. No authority to quote
about anything one way or another.

I don't know how R' Schwab explained the dating problem, but overlapping
kingdoms/time periods is one approach. I have seen the similar problem
of Egyptian dynasties explained this way (I don't remember where).
If they went one after the other there seem to have been Pharoahs in
Egypt for thousands of years--an obvious problem for us. But if they
overlapped and/or ruled different areas, the problem is solved.

Toby Katz 
**********************

At 08:52 AM 5/20/03 -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
>Bimchilas kevodecha, Velikovsky was a nut case...

>I don't know how R' Schwab explained the dating problem, but overlapping 
>kingdoms/time periods is one approach.  I have seen the similar problem of 
>Egyptian dynasties explained this way (I don't remember where).  If they 
>went one after the other there seem to have been Pharoahs in Egypt for 
>thousands of years--an obvious problem for us.  But if they overlapped 
>and/or ruled different areas, the problem is solved.

Interesting that you brand Velikovsky a "nut case" but then proceed to 
suggest his solution...

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

In a message dated 5/20/03 8:57:55 AM EDT, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> Interesting that you brand Velikovsky a "nut case" but then proceed to 
> suggest his solution...

I didn't know that was his suggested solution, but it is reasonable.  His 
worlds in collisions fantasies are not.
Toby Katz 
**********************

[From Areivim: -mi]
>>Calling him a "Rasha" makes it clear than both he and his deeds
>>are unacceptable.

> Exactly.  But we have no right to say that he is unacceptable.

The Ba'al HaHagada doesn't hesitate to describe the second son as a
"Rasha". Not the *actions* of the son -- but the son himself.

(Bouncing this to Avodah): What are the halachic requirements to calling
someone a "Rasha"?

Akiva

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 11:30:56AM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: The Ba'al HaHagada doesn't hesitate to describe the second son as a
: "Rasha". Not the *actions* of the son -- but the son himself.

But would he be willing to call any given person a "2nd son""?

The hagadah doesn't actually label anyone, it creates a category
or archetype.

: (Bouncing this to Avodah): What are the halachic requirements to calling
: someone a "Rasha"?

Well, we know from Shemos that raising a hand to hit someone is
sufficient.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   submission to truth, and what results?

[From Areivim. -mi]

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< I always assumed that the ketuva was in aramaic
rather than hebrew precisely so that both sides would know exactly what
it says otherwise it is a mekach taut>>>

I've always suspected similarly, and the same thing could be said about
Kaddish, Yekum Purkan, and other texts, that they were written in the
vernacular specifically to make them more understandable.

At some point in history, Aramaic was no longer the vernacular for most
Jews. Does anyone know whether or not the Jews of that time considered
changing those texts to the then-current vernacular language?

I can easily imagine one group of people saying "The minhag is to say
it in Aramaic, and you can't change the minhag!" The other group would
respond that "The minhag is to say it in the vernacular! We're not
changing anything!" Obviously, either the question was never debated,
or keeping the Aramaic won the debate.

Yes, I do have an ulterior motive in asking this, namely: I am bothered by
the very slow move from Yiddish drashos in shul to English ones a century
or less ago. I am bothered by people who insist on announcing the molad
in Yiddish or beginning the Zimun in Yiddish, even when virtually none of
their other talking is in Yiddish. Knowing why Aramaic was retained for
those texts would help me understand these other things as well. In fact,
getting back to Yekum Purkan, I feel that its being in the vernacular
sets a strong precedent that today's tefila for the Government ought to
be in the vernacular as well.

I'm just trying to get a historical perspective on things, that's all.

Akiva Miller

Akiva Miller wrote:
>I've always suspected similarly, and the same thing
>could be said about Kaddish, Yekum Purkan, and
>other texts, that they were written in the vernacular
>specifically to make them more understandable.

Tosafos (Berachos 3a sv ve-onin) explains that Kaddish is in Aramaic
"because they would frequently say Kaddish after a derashah and the
unlearned who did not understand Hebrew would be there. For that reason
they instituted [Kaddish] in Aramaic -- so that everyone would understand
because it was their language."

When we learned this Tosafos, mv"r R' Mayer Twersky said in the name
of RYBS that we do not retranslate the Kaddish and other tefillos into
our vernacular because the words of these tefillos have great depth
and we lack the ability to adequately translate them without losing
significant meaning.

Gil Student

From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannyschoemann@hotmail.com>
> So, in brackets you have RYS's version, translated partially, so as not to 
> lose too much.

> These names of virtues, with their precepts, were:
> 1. TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
> ()

> 2. SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid
> trifling conversation.
> (13. SHEKET. Think of the purpose of your words before speaking.)

> (6. NACHAS. The words of the wise are listened to quietly, therefore make an 
> effort to speak quietly.)

<snip>

> 12. CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never
> to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace
> or reputation.
> ()

You did not find a parallel for chastity, but what about perishus?  Or is 
that only in Mesillas Yesharim and not R' Yisrael Salanter?

Toby Katz 
**********************

At 07:21 PM 5/18/03 -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
>I have now had a chance to check the Abarbanel on ShmuelI, 13,1....
>The Ralbag ibid expresses his wonderment at Chazal assigning only 2
>years to Shaul in almost the same terms as RYGB. I therefore witdraw
>my previous suggestion that a lot can be packed into eventful years of
>hakamas malchus. It is, however, true that history tends to move in spurts
>- many languid years punctuated by intense periods of upheaval and change.

Well of course, the very fact that the pasuk says "ben shana Shaul
b'malko" indicates that it is "omer darsheni."

YGB

>> I don't follow your reasoning. Rashi indicates that there is a distinction
>> between dispute concerning halacha and historical events.

> He does?? Please quote.

Translation by R Lampel in Dyanamics of Dispute page 209:

"When two Sages argue over someone's statement, one saying that the
man said this, and one saying that he said something else then one of
them is making a false statement.But when two Amoraim are arguing over
whether something is permitted or forbidden each one saying, this is more
logical - then no falsehood is present. Each one is presenting his own
conclusion and not attempting to report someone else's...Here we can say
"these and those are words of the Living G-d."

>>According to you what distinction was Rashi making?

> Rashi says it is sheqer that one person made 2 contradictory comments.

Rashi is presenting a conceptual distinction between the dispute over
fact as to what was actually said (historical information) and halachic
disputes where the sevora can be true (eilu v'eilu) but not applicable
in this case. He is saying that contradictory historical facts can not
both be true. In contrast conflicts over the halachic analysis can be
true even though they might not be applicable in this particular case.

>  That a verse can have more than one meaning was never discussed by Rashi.

Of course a verse can have multiple meanings. The question is whether
understandings which are mutually exclusive in terms of historical events
are considered eilu v'eilu - i.e., emes. Rashi is saying no. The Persian
kings did not last both 52 and 250 years. One of these is wrong and thus
is not emes(eilu v'eilu) according to Rashi.

Rav Hutner says - concerning what was actually done in the Mishkan - one
side corresponds to what happened historically and the other doesn't. His
chidush is not that both sides of a mutually exclusive dispute are
historically accurate but that they both can be emes only because it
was G-d's will that the facts be concealed. It is Emes only because it
was G-d's will that both positions be presented by Chazal. Rav Hutner
limits eilu v'eilu for historical facts only to "chochmei hamesorah"
and for information that was concealed from all.

Rashi does not define eilu v'eilu as Rav Hutner i.e., that emes is a view
that Gd wants expressed. Rashi's defintion of the word Emes is whether
it corresponds to reality ie did it happen historically? Rashi is saying
that eilu v'eilu does not apply to historic reality since only one side
actually happened.

The Yam Shel Shlomo (Introduction to Bava Kama also Ritva Eiruvin 13b)
also addresses the question of historical facts and eilu v'eilu. He
asks how it could be that contradictory halachic statements could have
been said by G-d to Moshe at Sinai. His answer is that 49 different ways
were presented to Moshe and the dispute in later generations is which is
most applicable. In other words, the mere fact that there is a dispute
in chazal does not make it eilu v'eilu unless it were true that Moshe
actually received the contradictory alternatives. He obviously does not
agree with Rav Hutner since he could have said that G-d made the baalei
mesora forget what was given to Moshe and thus since it was ratzon HaShem
that there be this dispute it is still eilu v'eilu. Instead he says that
they were all given at the same time.

Rav Moshe in the introduction to Igros Moshe says that even though one
side in a dispute is wrong corresponding to the objective nature of
Torah - eilu v'eilu is applicable since it only means that both have
the value of the mitzva of Torah study. Eilu v'eilu can apply to views
that are not true. This also seems to be in disagreement with the plain
meaning of Rashi.

Maharal also seems to reject the idea of eilu v'eilu applying to
historical disputes as well as most halachic disputes. He limits the
term to the dispute of Hillel and Shammai.

Ran#3 [translation from R. Lampel]: "Since the words of those who declare
something unfit and and those who declare it fit are intrinsically
contradictory, it is impossible for both to be conforming to the
truth...Clearly one of the two opinions is the true one, and the other
is the opposite."

>> For a more reasonable effort at saying eilu v'eilu applies to historical
>> facts when disputed by Chazal see Rav Hutner's Collected Letters.

> which one?

letter #30 page 49-52.

> Excellent.  I agree totally.  Do you think the Pachad Yitzchak is arguing
> with Rashi?

yes. as stated above, Rashi is using eilu v'eilu as corresponding to
objective reality ( something which can occur for halachic analysis but
not historical facts). While Rav Hutner is using it to indicate whether
the views are ratzon HaShem - which he acknowledges is not necessarily
connected to objective historical reality.

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

I asked why certain tefilos were written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew.
R' Gil Student offered an answer which he heard from <<< mv"r R' Mayer
Twersky said in the name of RYBS >>>.

I began a lengthy response on this, but I realized that I need more
source information.

In order to properly understand why Kaddish and Yekum Purkan were written
in Aramaic rather than Hebrew, I think we need to also understand
why Shmoneh Esreh and Brachos were written in Hebrew rather than
Aramaic.*Then* we can compare the two.

There are two standard answers that I am familiar with, namely that Hebrew
contains specific nuances unavailable in other languages, and that Hebrew
would be a unifying language common to all Jews everywhere. But there may
be other reasons given, and I am not familiar with any original sources
who gave even these as the reasons. If anyone can offer other reasons,
or sources, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.
Akiva Miller

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:03:18AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I didn't know that was his suggested solution, but it is reasonable.  His 
: worlds in collisions fantasies are not.

I suggest checking out Lisa Liel's version of revisionist history. She's
countinuing the approach some of you may remember from Brad Aaronson,
who wrote articles on his theory in Jewish Action (as well as publishing
in peer reviewed journals).

See <http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm> for Brad's article,
<http://www.starways.net/lisa/history_toc.html> for Lisa's site,
or search for Lisa's name in the Avodah archives.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
Fax: (413) 403-9905                   submission to truth, and what results?

>You did not find a parallel for chastity, but what about perishus?  Or is
>that only in Mesillas Yesharim and not R' Yisrael Salanter?

I included all of RYS's 13 - and perishus is not one of them. This amazed
me at first also, and I double and triple checked my work.

I can think  of a dual explanation:

1. Perishus is not chastity.
- Perishus is something you work up to and includes everything you do - not
  only chastity related. It's a way of life that you work up to after Zehirus 
- making sure everything you do is above board, then Zerizus - making sure
  you're not leaving anything out (or is it the opposite - I'm working
  fror memory here), etc.

2. Chastity does not belong in a daily heshbon hanefesh.
- Chastity is so elementary to religious yidden that if you he has
  to remind himself about it on a regular basis he's obviously missing
  something a lot more elemetary than RYS's "13". Actually, to the average
  religious Yid, mentioning chastity on a frequent basis would be more
  detrimental than beneficial - it may simply put ideas into his head.

- Danny

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
<The fact that fires on lag ba'Omer have been more of a communal event
as opposed to more individual fires on erev Pesach, have limited the
problem then - however that may be in danger of changing...
P.S. On a language note, according to Merriam Webster, the word bonfire
comes from bone fire (not bon-fire = good fire). R. SM ? Can you elaborate
on what kind of bones were burned, etc. ?>

Obviously, the bones of people who believe that there is a s'gullo
in making fires <grin>. As I have had fun telling people, the _only_
bonfire that was an ancient Jewish tradition was the Simchas Torah
bonfire in Ashk'naz, which is attested from the 14th century up until
the 19th century, but has gone out of style. The Lag Ba'omer bonfire is
a very recent phenomenon among most Jews.

Indeed, the word bonfire is from "fire of bones." The term was used
primarily in various pagan ceremonies which then were transferred to
christianity, for a funeral pyre, and in burning infidels or books
(like The Gaon of Vilna or MOAG). The bones used, if 'twere not a pyre,
were primarily animal bones.

Here's an early quotation (1493): "in worshyppe of saynte John the
people waked at home and made all maner of fyres. One was clene bones
and no woode, and that is called a bone fyre." From Marlowe in 1586:
"Making bonfires for my overthrow. But, ere I die, those foul idolators
Shall make me bonfires with their filthy bones." (Think that would get
by the moderators on Areivim, R. SBA?)

1689: "The dead corps is buried. They of old made a bone-fire and therein
burnt it."

1622: "Their holy Bibles cast into Bone-fires."

The term became used for any large fires used for celebrations, although
the practice and term continued to be used especially for those associated
with various christian saints, particularly John and Peter. From a 1570
history: "Then doth the joyfull feast of John the Baptist take his turne,
When bonfiers great with loftie flame, in every towne doe burne." From
a constitution of the association of the cooks of Newcastle, 1575:
"The said Felloship of Cookes shall yearelie. mainteigne and keep the
Bone-fires. that is to say, one Bone-fire on the Even of the Feast of
the Nativitie of St. John Baptist. and the other on the Even of the
Feast of St. Peter the Apostle." These quotations start in the 15th
century, because that is as far back as the term bone-fire goes, but the
practice of making a bonfire in honor of christian saints goes back to
ancient times in England (and in France as well). Another practice that
goes back to ancient times in christian Europe is making pilgrimages to
"qivrei tzaddiqim" and donating alms at the qever; this practice is well
known from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales.

Most christian scholars attribute the association of the bonfires
with celebrations of the feast of a saint to pagan, pre-christian
practices which were later adopted by the local people to their new
religion. Indeed, the Celtics made bonfires to honor some of their
deities and spirits. No one would ever claim that these practices,
going back into old Anglo-Saxon England, are of Jewish origin.

The Arabs of EY, Syria, and Lebanon, as is well-known, honored the
christian and Jewish "saints" (everyone knows that the qever of Sh'muel
haNavi has been a "holy" site to the Arabs for hundreds of years, and
they built a mosque there; the site is called "anNabi Samwil"). They
made pilgrimages to them, like the christians did, and they made large
celebrations to honor the festival of the saint. The Arab pilgrims
who came did various things to honor the saint. They gave alms (a big
mitzva in Islam), usually done by the practice of cutting the hair of
their children (which they had let grow from before the pilgrimage),
then weighing it and giving the same weight in gold or silver for
alms. They also made large bonfires to honor the saint. The custom
of making pilgrimages, giving alms, and making bonfires may have been
borrowed from the christians, since a) they originally appeared among
the Arabs of EY, Lebanon and Syria, AFAIK; b) they are first recorded
after the time of the Crusades (although the giving of gold or silver
in the weight of the hair seems to have been from the Middle East).
However there is no clear proof that they did not arise from another
source. But they are attested in Arabic sources going back to the 15th
century, and probably before.

Can the custom of bonfires on Lag Ba'omer have arisen among the Jews
separately and independently from the non-Jewish sources? Theoretically
it's possible. Books like Minhag Yisruel Toyre he brings all sorts
of reasons from various chasidic rebbes and from the book Ta'amei
haMinhogim for the origin of the bonfires on Lag Ba'omer. The problem
with all the explanations is that a) they are all of recent origin, and
b) they somehow ignore the fact that the custom was completely unknown
to any Jews up until the time when it is recorded in EY in the 16th
century. Furthermore, it was the custom there of only one group of Jews,
the Musta'ribim, about whom other Jews complained that they had adopted
a lot of Arab customs (the very name mean "Arabicized).

 From contemporary documents we learn the Muslims (and a few Jews) cut the
hair of children as well as lit a bonfires on the yohrtzeit (28 of Iyyar)
of non other than the aforementioned Shmu'el haNavi. However, in the
1560s the Arab authorities forbad Jews to go there. Shortly afterwards,
we have the testimony of R. Chaim Vital that he was told by R. Yonatan
Sagiz that a year before he started learning by the Ari, in the Ari's
first year after he immigrated from his homeland of Egypt (also 1570),
that "Mori v'Rabbi Z'L took his small son and all of his family there
[to the celebration on RaShBY 's yohtzeit in Meron] and there he cut
his hair in accordance with the custom." R. Chaim Vital is careful to
note, however, that "I do not know whether at that time he was expert
and knowledgable in this wondrous wisdom [Qabbolo] as he became after
that." IOW, R. Chaim Vital himself is cautioning the reader that he has
doubts about whether the Ari did this in accordance with his views in
Qabbolo, or just because it was a popular celebration, and he might not
have participated had he already been an expert in Qabbolo.

Some historians believe that once the Musta'ribim were forbidden to go
to the qever of Sh'muel haNavi, they transferred their celebration to
Meron and the date to Lag Ba'Omer. Others claim that the custom at Meron
predated 1570. But both groups agree that both of these customs, cutting
the hair of the children and making bonfires, were practiced by the Arabs
and the Musta 'ribim, but not by any of the Ashk'nazi and S'faradi Jews
in Israel. Of great interest is that the local rabbis in Tz'fat, who had
the practice of going to the all the known q'vorim of the Tano'im from
the middle of Iyyar until Shavu'os and having a seder in learning there,
opposed the celebrations of the Musta'ribim on Lag ba'Omer and tried
to forbid it. They made little headway, and once it became known that
the Ari participated one year, any opposition was swept away. We know
from travelers to EY in the 18th and 19th centuries that the "hilula"
at Meron on Lag Ba'Omer with bonfires and the cutting of children's
hair had become an affair of the masses. A well known talmid chochom
from Europe, R. Avrohom Rozanes, writes that in his visit to EY in 1867
he saw an Ashk'nazi Jew who had taken his son to the "hilula" and was
giving him a haircut. R. Rozanes says that he could not restrain himself,
and went to that Jew and tried to dissuade him but was unsuccessful, and
that most of the Ashk'nazi and S'faradi Jews of EY participate in this
"craziness," with "drinking and dancing and fires." The custom of giving
the son his first haircut at that celebration, originally called "halaqa"
by the Jews of EY (apparently because there was an established Arabic term
but no Jewish term for the custom) was later mixed with the custom of
making a celebration when a son reached 3 and began learning Torah. The
two customs were combined by many, and resulted in the boy's haircut
being delayed until he was 3, and not specifically on Lag ba' Omer. A
chasidish rebbe, R. Yehudah Leibush Horenstein, who emigrated to EY in
the middle of the 19th century writes that "this haircut, called halaqe,
is done by the S'faradim in Yerushalayim at the qever of RaShB'Y during
the summer, but during the winter they take the boy to the synagogue or
Bet Medrash and perform the haircut with great celebration and parties,
something _that is unknown to the Jews in Europe_. and at that point they
start him growing his pe'ot. it is incomprehensible why this is not done
outside of EY [as well]" [emphasis mine]. Indeed, the custom was adopted
by shortly thereafter by chasidim in Europe to imitate the custom of the
S' faradim in EY, and the custom of lighting bonfires on Lag Ba'Omer also
was adopted at that time by chasidic communities in Europe. The Jews in
Europe, knowing no Arabic and having no Yiddish name for the custom of
the haircut, called it by a normal Yiddish word for cutting off the hair:
opsheren. Both customs are less than 150 years old among Ashk'naz Jews,
including chasidim. Now we scarcely can expect to find a historical
document that says "we, the undersigned Jews, have decided that there is
nothing wrong with copying the Muslim celebrations in honor of saints,
and we will participate in them." So you're never going to find better
historical evidence for Jewish borrowing of non-Jewish customs than this:
that a custom that was previously unknown to any group of Jews arose among
a group of Jews known to copy various Arab customs in a time and place
that the custom is attested among the Arabs from independent evidence.

Is there anything osur about a bonfire on Lag Ba'Omer, or waiting to
give a son a haircut until he is 3 or until you go to Meron? Certainly
not. As I believe R. SBA has noted, the opsheren provides an excuse for
a party that is connected with the boy's beginning to learn; it could
be done without the haircut, but if people feel that it is important
to give a haircut as well, there is no issur. Certainly no one who
lights bonfires or celebrates opsheren has any idea that the source
of these customs is extremely questionable. And after 130 years most
Jews forget the origin of customs anyway and just assume they are old
Jewish customs.. However, those who studiously avoid eating turkey on
Thanksgiving should know that the origin of the customs of the bonfire
on Lag ba'Omer and halaqa/opsheren are much more suspect.

Seth Mandel
seth_mandel@klipperandassociates.com

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 07:27:36PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: 1. Rabbi Rappaport - microscopic information doesn't apply to mitzvot
: since we assume that chazal didn't sin even be-ones. So whatever is new
: is not included in mitzvot and issurim...

This is question 1: How to act in response to advances in scientific
knowledge.

Even the viability of a ben 8 chadashim? Are we to say that chazal
couldn't have erred, particularly with the magnitude of the cheit
involved, and not be mechalel shabbos for infants we know are viable?

And if one invokes nishtanah hatevah (NhT) for this, why not for other
questions?

R' Avraham b haRambam's NhT gives a far-reaching answer to this
question. To him (besheim haRambam), NhT means that scientific knowledge
changed. The existance of the term would therefore imply, LAD, that we
do change practice as knowledge advances.

In contrast, there's the CI's notion of the 2 millenia of Torah being
qovei'ah the din, thereby giving us no power to overrule a decision
made during those 2 millenia. Unless we could declare the new situation
different enough to not be covered by their pesaq.

The version of NhT commonly taught would limit this to biological
questions. The biology of a living being could change more than
assumed by current science, and therefore an older pesaq is about a
no-longer-applicable metzi'us.

An even more limited notion of NhT discussed here in the past by RGStudent
(IIRC) would limit the scope of NhT to things that could change because
of breeding: eg egg and olive sizes. And similarly limit the ability to
use NhT to obsolete an older pesaq. I'm not sure that would include a
ben 8 chadashim, but RGS discusses it in Daat Emet.

:                                         Chatam Sofer claims that "pokdim
: al kaveraim" is only a far-fetched safek. Since, today we can verify
: the time of death there is no need to wait 3 days to see if the body is
: really dead. The question is why is this different than laws of shekazim
: where we rely on chazal even when it differes with modern day science?

They're different things.

WRT misah, we're discussing advances in our ability to determine a
metzi'us. Which I'm now identifying as question #2.

WRT shekatzim the issue is a change in belief about what the metzi'us
is. This is back to the first question.

: Griz says that today one should make his tefillin as square as
: possible. RMF disagrees and says the gemara gives the square root of 2
: as 1.4 in order to tell us that this is halachically true, i.e. any error
: within 1/140 i.e. about 1% is good enough even lechatchila. Similarly the
: mizbeach was not exactly square but only within their capabilities.

Question #3: Irrational numbers can never be fully specified (by
definition). Therefore we must rely on an estimation, regardless of
how many digits we know of the number or how accurately we can measure
the diagonal of a square or the circumferance if a circle. So the question
is: how do we know whether chazal were giving the best estimation known
then, or the the limit of precision required by halachah?

...
: Bodenheimer - 
: According to Aristotle thought experiments determine nature. So the 
: ancient Greek way of thinking about nature is fundamentally different 
: than an experimental science.

: examples: Techelet today, the time of death, the defintion of tad soledet,
: kebolo kach polto, paternity

FWIW, Einstein also conducted "thought experiments". The term is in
fact a translation (from the German) of his coinage. So, this difference
may not be as critical as portrayed.

Another difference is that A describes the world as man expects it
to behave. A's physics is very much in line with intuitive physics.
Such as how the untrained person would draw the path of a thrown
object. (Scientific American carried an article discussing this
similarity at length.)

There is therefore a sense in which A's science is not obsolete.
It works well in a pyschological context.

This opens up a far broader question (#4): do we even care about the
objective truth? Or do we say (as per my "Taam and Taste" posts of a
while back) that it's reality's impact on the individual that should
determine halachah. In consonance with the idea that halachah is driven
by ha'adam nif'al.

If the latter, A's natual philosophy may be more relevent to
the poseiq than contemporary science.

: Avodah Zarah 33b - they did experiments to see if some dishes 
: absorbed Nidah 49a -  kones mashkeh determined by experiment
: Avodah Zarah 35b  - only Tahor Milk coagulates

Question #5: When were chazal determining din, and when were they
post-facto providing a rationale. In R' CO Chait's class in HS
we tried determining yad soledes bo by experiment. Did chazal also
engage in trying to recreate a known?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 34th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            4 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Yesod sheb'Hod: How does submission result in
Fax: (413) 403-9905                      and maintain a stable relationship?

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


[ 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         ]