Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 033

Tuesday, October 28 2003

• mabul vs mashal
• RE: rishonim
• Re: Hashkofa and Authority
• Re: Emanation and Panentheism
• Re: leaf falling
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• HP on animals
• Re: Hashkofa and Authority
• RE: rishonim
• RE: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• RE: Basics for Philosophical discussions
• Re: Avodah V12 #31
• RE: Rambam and Creation
• Interesting article on TECHELET
• Re: Eruvin

RNS said that the mabul not happening over the Earth is as strong as
dvar Hashem since this is maase Hashem. [ He dismissed the possibility
of Hashem creating a world with misleading clues. Irrelevant issue for
this post]

RYGB answerred flippantly that a fact against the Torah requires one to
become a non-Jew.

I think both statements reveal fundamental errors. I hope both authors
will agree with the following formulation:

Rambam expands in his intro's and in the ikkarim of peirush haMishna that
G-d communicating with Man is called nevua. ONLY prophecy can claim to
represent what G-d says. Torah she-baal peh, to the extent that it is
not reflecting direct prophecy (halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai), may represent
G-d's word to the extent that it is prophetically-endorsed method of
understanding a previous prohecy.

An appreciation of nature/natural history can help us understand the
world we live in; it can present a question as to how to understand
Torah; but itself it never can become Torah. Torah is immutable as the
only vehicle to reflect G-d's will.

In parshas ha shavua, the nature record can present a question to the
Torah's account of the Flood. This question can be ignored (RYGB).
This question could be answered (RNS) and this answer could be rejected
as unacceptable (RYGB); but the question itself cannot be Torah.

Kelmer Torah emphasizes that Hashem intended nature to be a dominant
force in the world and therefore deserves our respect. This is only with
an awareness that nature is not quite Torah and not quite a mitzva in
and of itself.

Therefore a fact against a bonafide prohecy can never be more than
a question. That's why R' Chaim Brisker said, 'we don't die from a
question.'

Shlomo Goldstein

> We do not know the extent of civilization "1 second" before the previous
> world was destroyed. We *do* know that it was populated by some form of
> human beings. We also know that "1 second" after the current world was
> created there was Ohr.

Of course we have an idea of the extent of "civilization" 5764+ years ago.

And tossing in "buzzwords" like "Ohr" just avoids the question.

Akiva

>A broad discussion of shittos about what? There is no mention of the Besht
>nor his shitta of HP. If you are saying that he has a broad discussion
>of bitachon - that is irrelevant to our discussion. There is nothing
>that he cites that a good litvak wouldn't be comfortable with. He does
>not provide in any of his works a discussion of HP which includes the
>views of the Besht. Yet you asserted that if I do such a thing I will
>be intellectually dishonest. Why isn't it acceptable for me to do what
>he has done?

He does not have a discussion of HP!!!

>I assume you mean that Rav Dessler would have included a discussion of
>the Besht if he had written the sefer. This would also imply that when
>he talked about HP he must have also talked about the Besht and that
>these views were censored out when the Michtav M'Eliyahu was compiled. I
>think it is more likely that there is no mention of the Besht because
>he didn't feel it necessary to talk about it.

I have already asserted that the discussion in vol. 5 includes the position 
of the Besht, so he obviously did take it into account.

>>R' Tzuriel does present all sides.

>He doesn't. Please cite the location in his writings where he presents
>the

He does not have a discussion of HP!!! Issues that he discusses he presents 
from all sides.

>Otzaros HaMussar does not deal with the status of Rishonim. Therefore
>there is no mention that not all Rishonim were Ba'alei Mesorah. He
>does have the following categories: Emuna in chazal concerning halacha,
>exalted level of chazal, whatever was said by chazal was fitting that it
>could have been said by G-d, disagreeing with chazal is like disagreeing
>with Sanhedrin, difference in authority between tanaim and amoraim, 2000
>years of Torah, yeridas hadoros, why later generations are prohibited
>to disagree with amoraim..... Dealing with contradictions between the
>Talmud and science, Chazal were not concerned with science, problem of
>variant texts of the gemora, emunas chachomim and medrash...rishonim who
>didn't ascribe the highest level of importance to medrashim, gedolim
>who disagreed with the latter rishonim and ascribed the highest level
>of importance to medrashim, understanding how the gaonim did not ascribe
>the highest level to medrashim, achronim who lacked proper appreciation
>of agada and took a rationalistic view because of lack of involvement
>with kabala, Rashba's criticism of those who take a rationalistic view
>of agada, pashut pshat in medrash, punishment of those who question
>medrashim, greatness of chazal.

You missed it. Pages 208-209.

YGB 

[Micha:]
>Except that the NhC's approach is one of atzilus. To him, tzimtzum is real,
>and then beri'ah is ne'etzal into the vacuum. The Tanya's approach is not.

>The NhC would never have to ask and answer, as does the Tanya
>(SHV ch 3), "Velama einum beteilim bemetzi'us liMeqoram?" In

I dunno. Nefesh HaChaim 3:4ff. sounds remarkably similar to the Tanya (I'm 
not the first one to notice this).

YGB

[RSSimon:]
>I don't see it as HaShem _intervening_ to get leaf-x landing at
>location-y. I see it more as HaShem setting up initial conditions because
>HaShem knew that an essential part of "the Plan" is for left-x to land
>at location-y. A big difference.

>I hope I have made a tiny bit of sense.

This is what I was trying to say concerning the Gra that was quoted by
the Sifsei Chaim. The Gra is dealing with G-d's knowledge as He sets up
initial conditions while HP is dealling with intervention.

Daniel Eidensohn

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> At 01:18 PM 10/27/2003, Harry Maryles wrote:
>> (RAL) is simply asserting the permissibility of legitimate
>> alternative interpretations to expalin data that was not avilable to
>> Chazal and synthesize it with Mesorah... and that perhaps the
>> Rishonim themselves would have made these same alternate explanations
>> if they had this new data.

RYGB: 
> Then Judaism is not transmitted as a mesorah but created anew every
> generation.

I don't think you need reach that conclusion. Why can't one synthesize
new information with traditionally transmitted Mesorah? In theory, if
we attain new evidence that seems to contradict a Mesorah, why not be
allowed to change our understanding of that Mesorah so that it jives
with the facts? Can we say for certain that all the Rishonim wouldn't
have done the same had they be presented with these same facts?

Please understand that I am not asserting that any such facts now
exist. Maybe they do and maybe not. But it shouldn't be about dogmatic
acceptance of a traditional understanding of Mesorah. It should be about
trying to reconcile new facts with the traditional understandings. Is this
not what Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan did in reconciling the age of the universe
with our Mesorah? In fact he went to great lengths to reconcile them. No?

> So why can't the Conservatives, Reforms et al create their own 
> too? They changed the substance of Judaism because of data as
> well...

I do not advocate changing substance. Denying Maamid Har Sinai is changing
substance in a concession to Archeologically generated deductions. Those
who do are arrogant Apikursim. I am simply saying that new information
requires new understnding, not as C does in favoring scientific data to
the rejection of Mesorah but ...as a synthesis of the two for a clearer
understnding of the Truth.

To put a given Torah event into this perspective: it happened as our
Mesorah teaches us... but PERHAPS it didn't quite happen in the way we
thought it did because of newly discovered data.

HM

> where, as RYGB states they are not the same. Allegory is "a form of
> extended metaphor is which objects and persons in a narrative...are
> equated with meanings that lie outside the narrative itself."

Allegory is a story with two meanings -- a literal and a symbolic.

> The story of Bereishit cannot be an allegory b/c that would mean that
> the event itself did not occur.

Not at all -- the *literal* process may differ from the actual process,
but the symbolic meaning remains valid.

Akiva

>> How do you define "allegory" and how does it differ from "derashos"?

> Rebbitzin Boublil did this quite well earlier today, ayain sham.

She defined allegory.

If we treat allegory as a story with two meanings, a literal and a
symbolic, how does that differ from derashos?

Akiva

Gil Student writes:
<The Gra says that HP applies also to animals (quoting the Yerushalmi
about tzipora kala); everything is hidden miracles. How does the Besht
differ?>

Can you please provide me with the exact statment of the Gra and it's
source, as I don't have the Sefer SC?

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>> A broad discussion of shittos about what? There is no mention of the Besht
>> nor his shitta of HP. If you are saying that he has a broad discussion
>> of bitachon - that is irrelevant to our discussion. There is nothing
>> that he cites that a good litvak wouldn't be comfortable with. He does
>> not provide in any of his works a discussion of HP which includes the
>> views of the Besht. Yet you asserted that if I do such a thing I will
>> be intellectually dishonest. Why isn't it acceptable for me to do what
>> he has done?

> He does not have a discussion of HP!!! 

As I said - Rav  Tzuriel does have a bring down sources of HP in his 
Otzros Gedolei Yisroel - he does not mention the view of the Besht. Why 
is acceptable for him to fail to mention the view of the Besht but it is 
intellectual dishonesty for me to do this?

>> I assume you mean that Rav Dessler would have included a discussion of
>> the Besht if he had written the sefer. This would also imply that when
>> he talked about HP he must have also talked about the Besht and that
>> these views were censored out when the Michtav M'Eliyahu was compiled. I
>> think it is more likely that there is no mention of the Besht because
>> he didn't feel it necessary to talk about it.

> I have already asserted that the discussion in vol. 5 includes the 
> position of the Besht, so he obviously did take it into account. 

You never responded to my disagreement with your assertion - there is no 
mention in vol 5 nor is there an allusion in volume 5 to the position of 
the Besht.

>> R' Tzuriel does present all sides.

>> He doesn't. Please cite the location in his writings where he presents
>> the

> He does not have a discussion of HP!!! Issues that he discusses he 
> presents from all sides.

See my above comment. Perhaps it would help if you looked at his Otzros 
Gedolei Yisroel. He generaly ignores  chassidic sources - except for an 
occasional Rav Nachman or  Tanya.

>> Otzaros HaMussar does not deal with the status of Rishonim. Therefore
>> there is no mention that not all Rishonim were Ba'alei Mesorah....

> You missed it. Pages 208-209.

page 208-209  is entitled - emuna based on recognition of the greatness 
of chochmei Yisroel

page 208 He has a discussion of greatness of the Rambam
page 209 He cites Rav Kapach about how great the Rambam was
page 209 He cites R' Yonason Eibscheutz that the Shulchan Aruch was 
written with ruach hakodesh
page 209 He talks about how great chazal were. - in particular the Rashbi

I fail to see how this is a meaningful answer to the question concerning 
the status of the rishonim.

        Daniel Eidensohn

[RAAtwood:]
>> We do not know the extent of civilization "1 second" before the previous
>> world was destroyed. We *do* know that it was populated by some form of
>> human beings. We also know that "1 second" after the current world was
>> created there was Ohr.

>Of course we have an idea of the extent of "civilization" 5764+ years ago.

Only from very incomplete archaeological "records."

>And tossing in "buzzwords" like "Ohr" just avoids the question.

>Akiva

I do not understand what I am avoiding. I did want to be misleading. The 
creation at zero hour + 1 second consisted of the ohr ha'ganuz l'tzaddikim 
l'osid la'vo (Rashi).

YGB 

RMS 
>> What is the basis for this statement?  We know from past discussions that
>> you sincerely believe this. But this is a great hiddush - and where
>> is the source for it??

RYGB 
> I have addressed this elsewhere today.

No, you have brought a statement from the besht about relative spiritual
levels - and extrapolated to our issue. Do you have an explicit source
for this hiddush? I am not the only one surprised by your position -
others who have not our past debates also wonder.

RMS
>> It seems directly relevant - the rambam is saying precisely that his
>> allegorization is not due to a mesora, but due to attempts to reconcile
>> torah with sechel.  The fact that it is inconvenient does not make it
>> irrelevant...

RYGB
> It is only relevant if the Rambam ever did it. He did not.

RMS
>The Rambam explicitly says that he allegorizes something that chazal didn't,
>and that it wasn't based on mesora - but purely on rational considerations.

RYGB
> What was that?

I have brought the ma'amar techiyat hametim where the rambam explicitly
says that the basis for his allegories is not mesora - but the attempt
to reconcile torah with sechel. You have said that that is not relevant,
and now that he did not say it. How do you read then ma'amar techiyat
hametim, which seems quite unequivocal and plain?? I am seriously
asking for a detailed pshat, rather than a statement that it is clear,
or that it doesn't apply. We have had previous debates, and you have
never answered this point. Let me cite it again

know that these prophecies and similar matters that we say that they
are allegorical - our word in them is not a decree, that we did not
receive a prophecy from hashem that will tell us that it is an allegory,
nor did we have a tradition for one of the sages from the prophets who
will explain that these details are allegorical.

Rather, what brought us to that is the our effort and the the effort
of every man of wisdom (of the few) - the reverse of the effort of
the multitude. That the multitude of the the followers of torah, what
is beloved of them and tasty to their folly, that they will put torah
and sechel as two opposite poles, and will derive everything separate
from the reasonable, and will say that it is a miracle, and will flee
from thngs being natural, not in what is told about what happened in
the past, nor what he will see now, nor what is said that will happen.
And our efforts to gather between the torah and the reasonable, and will
manage all things accroding to a possible natural order, except what is
specifically explained

that it is a miracle (mofet) and it is impossible to explain it otherwise,
then we will need to say that it is a miracle

RMB
> We've argued this before ad nauseum, RMS understands the Moreh 2:25
> one way, that he'd bow to ra'ayos from philosophy, RYGB that the
> Rambam would bow to ra'ayos from Tanakh. However, in 2:5 and 15, the
> Rambam says he only takes liberty in those of Chazal's statements
> which do not come from our nevi'im. Look at the last paragraph (or so,
> pargraphing is pretty arbitrary) of 2:15, to me it seems VERY fitting
> to this debate. Friedlander's translation:

>: We have mentioned these things only because we know that the majority
>: of those who consider themselves wise, although they know nothing of
>: science, accept the theory of the Eternity of the Universe on the
>: authority of famous scholars. They reject the words of the prophets,
>: because the latter do not employ any scientific method by which only
>: a few persons would be instructed who are intellectually well
>: prepared, but simply communicate the truth as received by Divine
>: inspiration.

WADR to RMB, I think that he misunderstands chapter 2:15. The question
that the rambam with is dealing is whether the words of neviim have
any role in the discussion of philosophic issues - as their methodology
(or at least their style) is nonphilosophical and not based on proof -
and he argues that there is a validity to their words that can not be
merely ignored - especially if there is no convincing proof the other way
(it is perhaps a sign of different intellectual climate that people can't
perceive that the rambam would actually deal with an attitude that would
rule the neviim as irrelevant in a philosophical debate - the rambam is
trying to show that the words of neviim either agree or are consistent
with a philosophical approach) . (BTW, R Qafih translates the last
sentence quite differently - - they reject the words of the prophets
since their words are not in the way of proof but of pronouncements in
the name of hashem, and that way (the way of the prophets) is one that
few truly understand except those blessed with sechel (in his footnote
#29, he comments that it takes a great deal of wisdom to truly understand
what the prophets mean, given their elliptical and allegorical style..)).
Note that the appeal to the prophets in chapter 15 comes after a long
prelude where he argue that there is no proof either way about the issue
of kadmus, and therefore the neviim can be used to settle the issue -
not that the neviim can be used if there is a proof against a particular
shitta - something that is not found anywhere in the rambam, who holds
that there is no contradiction between neviim (properly understood)and
philosophy (properly understood). Similarly, in chapter 5, the rambam
is proving that the words of aristotle, the neviim, and hazal all agree.

If you look in chapter 16, this method is stated explicitly

vechaasher nitamet li ze, nena'asat she'ela zo kelomar kadmut haolam o
chidusho efshariim,
hare ani mekabla mitzad hanevua hamevaeret inyanim she'eyn bekoach haiyun
lehagi'a alehem

and when it became proven to me, that this issue, that is eternity or
creation of the world are both rationally possible alternatives, then I
accept from the side of prophecy that explains things that reason can't
arrive at

Qafih, in footnote 7, notes that this means essentially that our torah
shelema should at least be the equivalent of their sicha betela (my
adddition)
However, if reason would not have shown both options to be possible,
prophecy would not be used to decide against reason - because prophecy
must agree with reason, and therefore we must have misunderstood the
prophecy...

> RMS again:
>>  This, by the way, answers RMB's question about epistemology - the
>>  very notion that torah and sechel have different epistemologies is
>>  problematic (dare I say trafe...)

> Boy am I glad that I don't assert that!

> I am saying that if one considers BOTH valid, then mesorah doesn't
> give way for scientific evidence. The question remains awaiting
> answer. Your dismissal of mesorah consistantly treating the story as
> historical is in fact giving Torah the lesser weight.

No. Mesora doesn't give way for scientific evidence - this is the
wrong way of putting it (which prejudges them as antagonistic, and
(IMHO) reflects a lack of emuna). Mesora accepts scientific evidence as
determining facts - which are value neutral - and therefore allowing
for the proper understanding of the meaning of the mesora (even if we
previously misunderstood the mesora - as most understandings of the
aton of bilaam, or yaakov's fight with the angel, or to the age of the
universe, or ...)

Meir Shinnar

[E-mail #1]

>> IOW we turn our backs on "intellectual honesty"?

> No! Don't turn your back on intellectual honesty. Aderaba, if you think
> the Torah is not a document that relates precise truth then follow through
> on your conclusions.

But believing the Torah relates "precise truth" does NOT require believing
that everything is LITERALLY true as stated.

For example -- creation is discussed as taking place over 6 "24 hour"
days, that being the literal definition of "day" -- and confirmed by
the usage of "night" and "day".

Your position requires one to believe that time sequence.

As soon as one starts talking about "day" being 1000 years, eons,
"periods", "stages", etc, one has started treating the account
allegorically.

The "precise truth" of God's active involvement in the creation process
is *exactly* the same in an allegorical reading as in the literal reading.

> It says "ma'amin v'eino ma'amin" (7:7). This is the selective believer. Is
> that more clear?

The Ramban *clearly* disagrees with Rashi's pshat there. (which you
obviously know, since you referred us to the Ramban earlier).

[E-mail #2]

> Sure, if a civilization has a dating system that has remained in
> continuous use. This is not the case with the Mesopotamian peoples.

During the period in question (5000-3000 years ago) the historic timeline
is continuous due to the meticulous record keeping.

[E-mail #3]

> I do not understand what I am avoiding. I did want to be misleading. The
> creation at zero hour + 1 second consisted of the ohr ha'ganuz l'tzaddikim
> l'osid la'vo (Rashi).

(I assume the "I did want" is a typo)

Now you are talking about the "metaphysical" process of creation --
and you gave no indication that you were switching the domain of the
discussion.

Without a *clear* definition of the terms used AND the domain of the
discussion this discussion can not go anywhere.

Akiva

Rygb wrote
>>source please   = is the Besht as holy as Rambam, Ramban, Ran
>>that he can disagree with Rambam, Ramban, Ran

>The Besht himself writes about his aliyas neshomo. And the term Baal
>Shem has a specific connotation.

But many people of that time were called Baal Shem.
I don't think that the Gra would agree with your opinion -).
Still don't understand how that gives a right to disagree with rishonim.

>>what happened 5764 years ago that began this cycle?

"Is this a trick question? Chazal say he destroyed the previous world
"mipnei ro'ah malaleihem" - the Torah Sheleimah in the back of vol. 1
brings several ma'amarei Chazal to that effect. No allegorization of
Chazal. Efener zachin."

What I meant that is nothing that scientists know about occurred 5764
years ago. If one doesn't care of the scientific view that one doesn't
need the whole explanation of cycles and worlds destroyed. While it is
true that there are medrashim to that effect which Aryeh Kaplan also
brings I nevertheless I insist that is not pshat in many gemarot. At
most you have shown that various opinions existed many years ago.

BTW for my information - which medrashim are these - as we all know some
medrashim are taanaitic or early amoraic while others are from the time
of the geonim and some even from after Rashi.

[Email #2 -mi]

If the mabul covered the entire world and destroyed everything how come
we have trees with more than 6000 rings on them?
How come when one digs deep in the glaciers of Greenland one finds a
continuous record of changes that goes back for ten of thousands of
years. Certainly it does not show a destruction at 5764 years ago.

Again without being argumentative please explain what was destroyed 5764
years ago - the universe? the earth? previous humans or animals or what?
i.e from bereshit I understand that 5764 years ao the sun and moon and
the stars were created. If this is true than previous worlds don't help
us. The only way out is that only life (or perhaps only the dinosaurs)
were destroyed.

We are still left with Folger's question that archaeology evidence shows
human beings for at least 100,000 years

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 28/10/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

> RMS
>>> (and the rambam's own statement that he would be willing to
>>> allegorize all of ma'ase breshit is not related by him to any mesora or
>>> license - nor does he ever suggest that he requires license for any of
>>> his allegorizations)
>>where the Rambam states that he would
>>  be willing to allegorize all of ma'ase breshit?

> More Nevuchim 2:25

<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/b9-2.htm#2>

I'm sorry, I read the whole chapter and couldn't find anywhere the use
of the word "mashal" or "nimshal" (allegory). Could you point out the
actual paragraph?

(the URL is for a Rav Kapach's Moreh Nevuchim).

Shoshana L. Boublil

I just came back from our hospital library where I came across the
September 20th issue of the journal NEW SCIENTIST. A (gentile) British
amateur scientist who wanted to re-create techelet may have stumbled
on the mechanism. He isolated a blue pigment from a shell (cockle),
fermented it for 10 days at 50 degrees C whereafter it reduced to a
green form soluble in water. When a cloth dipped in the green solution
was dried in sunlight, the dye oxidized and debrominated, turning blue.

His "chidush" is the fermenting stage (10 days at 50 degrees C).

Josh

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:25:28 EDT Rabbi Bechhofer wrote:
 >I knew about it, and own it. Generally, I tried to
 >stick, for various reasons, to Litvishe poskim.
 >Moreover, Rabbi Price relied on very significant
 >kullos in his eruv.

Although I realize that the readers of an English language sefer would
be Litvishe inclined. I am wondering what do you mean by, "I tried to
stick, for various reasons, to Litvishe poskim," because you quote the
Maharsham, Avnei Nezer, Imrei Yosher and the Minchas Yitzchok to name
a few. Even the Bais Ephraim was probably chassidish inclined. I guess
you mean you are more inclined to paskin like the Litvishe poskim.

 >I must tell you, the inclusion of the reshus
 >ho'rabbim issue in my work, while essential,
 >was not its primary motivating factor. Rather, I
 >have seen many times l'ma'aseh the emes of the
 >purported statement of the CI that he never saw a
 >kosher eruv. I just recently saw an eruv that was
 >put up by someone with good credentials, was under
 >the hashgocho of someone with good credentials, and
 >was passul from day 1, five years before I first saw
 >it.

While I believe that there are eruvin in cities that were not made
correctly. I am positive that there are fewer private eruvin that are
kosher. This is one of the reasons why lately in some large cities one
all encompassing eruv was erected with one bal machsher. The chances
are still better that someone who is well known will be a better bal
machsher. If there is anything good that has came out of this machlokas
it's that more people are learning hilchos eruvin. Hopefully, it will
translate into better eruvin.

I question though if this purported statement is from the CI. Because what
I have seen brought down from the CI was not that he never saw a kosher
eruv just that there were usually problems with eruvin (Dinim V'Hanhagos
o.c. perek 14). (The CI himself utilized an eruv at one point in his
life so I guess he saw at least one eruv that was kosher Orchos Rabynu
vol, 3 p253.) Perhaps you are taking about a purported statement from
Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik that he never saw a kosher eruv and a passul
mikvah (Tshuvas V'Hanhagos 2:152). I question this purported statement
though for I have seen a passul mikvah and know that there were quiet a
few more. Besides the Brisker Rav was known to be a machmer in hilchos
mikvah as opposed to the CI (for the Brisker Rav see Tshuvas V'Hanhagos
1:513 and for the CI see Chelkas Ya'akov y.d. siman 116).

It's interesting to note the problem with eruvin that the CI himself
wrote about was that after Shabbos the eruv was always damaged which I
believe very rarely happens today (see Tshuvos V'Kasvim siman 85).

 >In the recent, second ed., I noted my error,
 >acknowledging Rabbi Adam Mintz for pointing it out
 >to me. I always appreciate he'aros, and will IY"H
 >include them in subsequent revisions.

On the subject of ha'aros here are a few more:

1) Page 35, note 66 you state that the Oznei Yehoshua was printed after
Eruv V'Hotza'a. While that is obviously true, the Oznei Yehoshua was
definitely written first but printed last. (See Oznei Yehoshua 1:18 the
first and last paragraph and the editors note at the end of the tshuva
and the ha'kdamh to Eruv V'Hotza'a.) So the issue of reshus ha'rabbim
was tackled first in the Oznei Yehoshua and a heter tiltul was the
area under discussion in Eruv V'Hotza'a. (We know that Eruv V'Hotza'a
was written at the latest in 1905 (see the end of the Rabbi Seigel's
tshuva) and the Oznai Yehoshua was written even prior to that. So that
means that there were fewer bridges he had to contend with. They are 1)
Brooklyn Bridge, 1883 2) Williamsburg Bridge, 1903 3) Willis Ave. Bridge,
1901 4) Third Ave. Bridge, 1898 5) Macombs Dam Bridge, 1895 6) Washington
Bridge, 1888. Since the Third Ave. El crossed over to the Bronx at 129th
street and 2nd ave., in the boundaries of the eruv there were only three
bridges-the Brooklyn, Williamsburg and Willis Ave. bridges. Concerning
reshus ha'rabbim though all six of these bridges were pertinent and
of course later on as more bridges were built, they also had to be
contended with. I know this is nitpicking, but you state on p36 that
the Manhattan Bridge was also a problem he had to contend with when
actually it was finished at the end of 1909 after Eruv V'Hotza'a was
printed.) I also believe that if the Oznai Yehoshua was published before
Eruv V'Hotza'a, some of the hisnagdut towards this eruv could have been
avioded particularly regarding the issue of reshus ha'rabbim, because
Hilchasa Rabasa L'shabasa was printed in 1910 and Oznai Yehoshua in 1914
and as I said before it was in the Oznai Yehoshua that he really dealt
with reshus ha'rabbim.

2) Note 90 you state, "To assume that the Mishna Berura would also
be inclined to allow a ba'al nefesh to conduct himself leniently when
additional mitigating factors are involved in a modern metropolitan eruv
seems nevertheless, speculative."
There are two levels to additional mitigating factors 1) A fundamental
factor in the din of reshus ha'rabbim like mefulash or mechitzos. 2)
A tzad le'heter like for instance mechitzos that are questionably 10
tefachim. The Mishna Berura would even permit a tzad le'heter to be used
as an additional mitigating factor for in his Bi'ur Halacha 345:23 he
quotes the Elya Raba that if you have an additional tzad le'heter you
can rely on shishim ribuy. So how much more so if you were relying on a
fundamental mitigating factor like mechitzos then there is no doubt that
the Mishna Berura would agree that a ba'al nefesh could be lenient. (See
also the Misnha Berura 364:8 where he is obviously of the opinion that
if the criterion of mefulash is not met you would be allowed to erect
an eruv of a tzuras ha'pesach lichatcila.)

I also wonder if we are be'geder ba'al nefesh (see Kehillos Ya'akov,
Lashon Chachmim 226) I won't go there because this in itself can be a
long discussion.

Shmuel Pultman

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


[ 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         ]