Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 098

Wednesday, February 18 2004

• Censored Stanzas from Dror Yikra
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Re: kol isha al hayam?
• re: Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Re: Yisro's advice
• Re: Yom HaShishi in Kiddush
• Gilui ervah
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Re: Dishwashers on Shabbos
• Re: Yom HaShishi in Kiddush
• Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Re: Usage of the Hebrew word 'ki'
• Re: kol isha al hayam?
• RE: Waving at Candles
• tfillin
• Re: Rambam and the Creation of the world
• Re: Hasgacha

Could anyone send me the text of the stanzas from Dror Yikra that apparently
were deleted by the medieval censors?  We had a Shabbos guest from Israel
recently that said the stanzas could be found in the Machzor Vitry.  Thanks.

Arnie Frishman
Office of the General Counsel
University of Minnesota
email:  arniefrishman@mail.ogc.umn.edu

On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:55:05AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
[RCSherer:]
:> Which doesn't really shtim with the Gemaras that talk about kashin 
:> geirim l'Yisrael because they excel at mitzvos more than many of us 
:> do. In other words, our natural tendency is NOT to want geirim 
:> because they make us look bad. 

: The reason you give for gerim being 'kashim leyisrael' is not in the
: gemara, it's the interpretation of R Avraham Hager. The pashut pshat
: in the gemara is that they are 'kashim' because so many of them leave.
: As I said, we want gerim, but we only want quality gerim, the kind who
: will stay for the rest of their lives, and raise their children to stay.

There is a bigger problem. Geirus relies on an i efshar levareir. We
really have no idea if the geir is really meqabeil ol mitzvos. We have
to screen for attitude because if not, we can no longer follow the
chazaqah or rov that we rely upon instead of such birur.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

> 1. Written Torah given word-for-word at Sinai. There is a debate about
> whether a few Rishonim conceive of short editorial comments inserted later
> under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh here and there; there is also debate
> whether that view, even if incorrect, would be now considered apikorsus

How do you view the differing views of Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra and Rambam
as to what exactly was the content that Bnei Yisrael received directly
from HaShem at Sinai?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 04:37:22AM +0200, Avi Burstein wrote:
: I've heard these sorts of questions asked before. Basically, pointing out
: an inconsistency between a (somewhat contemporary) halachic idea/concept
: and the behavior of biblical figures. Am I the only one that finds this
: a bit strange?...

: Is this really how people feel? That immediately after Matan Torah the
: Jews were keeping everything in the Mishna Brura and Shmiras Shabbos
: k'Hilchoso? ...

Why only /after/ matan Torah? We find the same thing with the avos
following kol hatorah kulah. R' Chaim Vilozhiner even explains how this
is metaphysically possible. And RMMS uses the same reasoning to say the
metaphysics, not the letter of the din, was observed.

As a general rule, I'd agree that the covenent has had many expressions,
and could have gone in vastly different directions than it did. TSBP is
a process, not a static entity. So, the giving of the process and its
initial snapshot need not imply every pesaq in the MB.

(Tangential quip: Why the MB? Given the location, wouldn't they be more
likely to have followed the Ben Ish Hai?)

One has to know the age of various pesaqim. Obviously many dinim
derabbanan didn't exist yet. And I'm very comfortable with the idea that
anything open to an eilu va'eilu could have been pasqened according to
the other eilu.

But the broad strokes of geirus are derived from the Torah. And since
geirim were accepted, some definition of geirus was in place, some pesaq
was used. Which would mean that to change, the new beis din would have to
overrule that pesaq, and yet grandfather in its geirim. All of which
without record in the mesorah.

Much of the question becomes one of whether derashah is used to prove
pesaq or to construct it. We've discussed that one numerous times.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

SBA wrote:
>1) Targum [Y]onoson: "Vezomras lehon Miriam".

Nu. Targum Onkelos writes: "u-me'ania le-hon Miriam shabechu ve-odu kadam
Hashem..."

>2) Rashi 15:21: "Moshe omar shirah l'anoshim...
>uMiriam omro shirah lenoshim..."

Ha gufa ra'ayah! "Amrah"

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

R' SBA wrote <<< The Torah clearly states that first "...Vateitsenoh kol
hanoshim achareho..." -- all the women followed Miriam out [away from
where the men were] and only then: "Vataan lohem Miriam shiru laHashem.."
Besides this, the women also played their drums which would have helped
drown out the singing. >>>

If "vataan" means that she sang (rather than respond in some other
manner), then I am bothered by the letter "mem" in "lahem", which must
be translated either as "to the men" or "to the men and women", which
must mean that she did expect the men to be able to hear her.

"Trei kolay" would still work according to all the above, but what
about the poskim who hold that trei kolay doesn't work for kol isha even
when davening? The only solutions for them (that I can imagine) is to
translate "vataan" as something other than singing. Or to explain the
"mem" in "lahem" some other way.

Does anyone know of another case in Chumash where a mem suffix is used
for a group of women?

Akiva Miller

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:36:59PM +1100, SBA wrote:
: I was thinking about Yisro and his advice "VeAtoh Sechzeh" - to MR .
: How come MR - or even Aharon or any of the other leaders of Am Yisroel -
: didn't think of this idea?
: And where did Yisro himself, get the idea from?

: Venireh li [I wouldn't be surprised if some has already written this],
: Klall Yisroel were coming out of 400 years of slavery and misery -
: and hardly had any organisied communal or religious set up.
...
: Yisro, however, came from Midyon a 'normal' and organised country with
: an established religion/church/AZ - of which he had been the head [Cohen
: Midyon - see Targum Yonoson] who knew all about delegating authority and
: appointing religious functionaries - at various levels and power...

But Moshe Rabbeinu grew up in the home of the person running the most
successful empire extant. Shouldn't he have known all about delegation?

-mi

RHM:
> Most Poskim say that we should start Veyhi Erev which is the beginning
> of that Pasuk because of the Halacha of Kol D'Lo Pasik Moshe, Anan
> Lo Paskinan.

Of course, anybody who has looked in a chumash should have noticed that
vaihi 'erev is not the beginning of the pasuk.

That is the reason some who want to start at the beginning of the
sentence do not start with vaihi but with vayar. Others start with
Yom hashishi so as to have the YKVK. Another reason for the two extra
words yom hashshishi is to add two to the 35 words in the paragraph.
Some then say kiddush of 35 words to get a total of 72 = shem 'ayin-bet.

For 35 words, "ki hu yom" and "ki vanu vacharta .... mikol ha'amim"
are omitted. BTW the Gr"a and others skip "ki hu yom" but say "ki
vanu vacharta".

I leave it to the mystics on the list to explain the numerology.

k"t,
David

Re #97 thread about the use of 'gilui ervah' in the psukim at end of
Parshas Yisro re 'V'lo sa'aleh b'maa'los al mizbechi' (Sorry, I'm not
sure how to respond more directly):

Rav Zweig, Shlita suggests that the term gilui ervah means undue focus on
ervah. In the mikdash no focus at all on ervah is permitted, therefore
not even steps can be used, as steps cause a man to have an opportunity
to focus on his private parts more so than a ramp.

I suggest this approach is consistent with Sforno at beginning of Parshas
Tazriah where he explains that a woman must bring undergo a tehara
process after childbirth before being permitted to enter the mikdash
b/c she has been so deeply focused on the physical aspects of childbirth.

Thoughts?

Gedalia

Gary S. Litke
Email: glitke@torys.com

Gil Student wrote:
>Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>Rambam(Tshuva #149):
>>...It is in fact permitted to teach the commandments
>>to Christians and to attract them to our religion -
>>but not Moslems.

>My recollection of this teshuvah is that the Rambam does not specify that
>it is to *our* religion. Rather, exactly to what we want them to return (I
>believe "return" is the word he uses) is unclear. I think some poskim
>(Seridei Eish and RYH Henkin) consider it to be the 7 mitzvos and not
>full-blown Judaism. Again, this is just from memory and I apologize if I
>am getting this wrong.

The text clearly says "to attract or draw them to our religion". I don't
understand why you don't simply look up the teshuvah. It is included on
the Bar Ilan data base. It is also cited in the Encyclopedia Talmudis
volume 3 on the topic of Ben Noach page 358 column 2.

However the version in "Pe'er HaDor #50 has much of this deleted and
says instead "....It is possible to teach the mitzvos to Christians and
reward and punishment because there will be many who return to good.
They say and admit that our Torah is from Heaven and was given through
Moshe...." In the footnote #6 R' Dovid Yosef has a long discussion of
the teshuva. He cites the Meiri (Sanhedrin 59a): if a goy studies the
Torah in order to know whether it is valid and if he finds it so he will
return and convert" He concludes "According to the words of the Meiri
who ever studies for the purpose of understanding to know the truth
and will possibly convert because of this it is permitted. From this we
can explain the Rambam's view in this teshuva that he permits teaching
Torah to Christians. It is possible to say that he is referring to such
a goy who wants to learn to establish the truth and he thinks that if
he finds the Torah truthful he will convert. For such a goy there is no
prohibition to learn the Torah by himself and it is obvious that it is
even permitted to teach him Torah and there is then no prohibition of
lifnei ivair...The Maharsha (Shabbos 31a) says that a goy who comes to
convert can be taught Torah... R' Dovid Yosef concludes that the Rambam
means here that if you teach him the 7 mitzvos that he will come back
to doing the 7 mitzvos - but not convert." However he acknowledges that
in the nusach I cited that it is referring to conversion.

Rabbi Bleich vol II page 334 says:"7. Christians - Of particular
significance with regard to the applicability of this prohibition in
the present age is Teshuvot ha-Rambam, no. 364 (ed. Chaim Freimann).43
Rambam states that the prohibition extends only to gentiles who do not
accept the divinity of Torah and specifically includes Moslems among
those to whom the Torah may not be taught. However, declares Rambam, it
is permitted to teach "the mizvot and their explanations to Christians"
who accept the divinity of Torah.44 Christians are described by Rambam as
accepting the authenticity of the Masoretic text but as having interpreted
it incorrectly. However, continues Rambam, if the correct meaning of
Scripture is explained to them it may perhaps be accepted by them;
even if this does not prove to be the case, no harm is done in making
knowledge of Torah available to Christians since they accept the Bible
as the revealed word of God. "

In sum - according to the teshuva of the Rambam [and also the
Meiri(Sanhedrin 59a)] apparently it is permitted to teach a non Jew
Torah - if it seems he wants to discover the truth and if he finds it
he will convert. This is explicit in the Blau edition that I cited and
possiblely true according to the other versions.

          Daniel Eidensohn

It seems that I remembered correctly, more or less. According to the text
in Pe'er HaDor (and the Freiman edition, that R' David Yosef quotes in the
footnote to Pe'er HaDor), the Rambam is unclear whether he is referring
to a Christian converting or merely adopting a Noahide life. The text
in the Blau edition implies conversion.

The Seridei Eish (vol. 2 no. 92) quotes this teshuvah with the Freiman
text and argues that it is referring to conversion. RYH Henkin (Bnei Banim
vol. 3 no. 16), however, argues that it is referring to the 7 mitzvos. He
points out that, according to all texts, the Rambam begins by stating
that ideally a Gentile may not learn Torah *until he converts*. Later the
Rambam writes that one may teach a Christian Torah because he accepts
the Torah's authority but merely misunderstands it. To resolve this
contradiction, RYHH suggests that one has a carte blanche permission to
teach a Christian about the seven mitzvos.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

[In response to R' Steven Brizel. I can't tell which post, though. -mi]

Thank you for pointing this out. As a matter of fact, this is the argument
that R. Saadia Gaon used very effectively in rolling back the Karaite
challenge. After his time, the Karaites were reduced to admitting that
there must have originally been an Oral Law but that it clearly must
have been forgotten or else why so many disagreements. That significantly
complicated and weakened the power of the Karaite argument.

[Email #2. -mi

>> 1. Written Torah given word-for-word at Sinai. There is a debate about
>> whether a few Rishonim conceive of short editorial comments inserted later
>> under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh here and there; there is also debate

> How do you view the differing views of Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra and Rambam
> as to what exactly was the content that Bnei Yisrael received directly
> from HaShem at Sinai?

I think that you are focusing on what was heard at Sinai versus what was
given at Sinai but wriiten down over the 40 years in the midbar. The
idea of progressive revelation over the 40 years in the desert does
have adherents in classic sources, at least such as, such as Gittin 59,
Chezkuni at thend of Shemos, Netsiv, Meshesch Chochma, R. Dovid Hoffman
and Torah Sheleima. It is also consistent with the description in HCumash
of changing fortuens and spiritual levels of Bnei Israel there.For
a listing of some of these see Torah Sheleima in miluim to parshas
mishpatim, entry on R. Eliezer. However, the Rambam's formulation that
the entire Torah that we have in out hands was given to Moshe Rabbeinu
has no explicit disagreement from any Rishon. All suggestions to the
contrary are fairly unclear and in exegetical, not theological contexts.

 M. Levin

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> SBA wrote:
>>1) Targum [Y]onoson: "Vezomras lehon Miriam".

> Nu. Targum Onkelos writes: "u-me'ania le-hon Miriam shabechu ve-odu kadam
> Hashem..."

>>2) Rashi 15:21: "Moshe omar shirah l'anoshim...
>>uMiriam omro shirah lenoshim..."

> Ha gufa ra'ayah! "Amrah"

And Moshe? "omar" ???

SBA 

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< ... If taken literally, why did these women
leave the congregation? How far did they go? Could they have gone far
enough that they could hear the men of the larger community sing, but
not the reverse -- since they were fewer in number and had instruments
with them? >>>

Are you saying that there were more men than women? I've always presumed
that the numbers were roughly equal, or that there were more women than
men, due to the time during which the baby boys were killed. Is there
a svara or source to say that there were more men than women?

Akiva Miller

In v12n96, R Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>> What about outdoor sprinklers....

> Because everybody knows they're automatic. "Avsha milta" is not a new issur,
> it's just a species of Morris Ayin.

1- Here on Avodah the norm would be *R'* Morris Ayin. <g>

2- I actually thought the problem was one of shevus, not mar'is ayin. IOW, not
a problem of how it looks, but of being something that feels like a workday.
The "everyone knows" would still work, though, because it means that it won't
change the feel of the surroundings to be less Shabbosdik.

-mi

R Harry Maryles wrote:
> IIRC the CS says that begining Yom HaShihi is to complete the Roshei Tevos
> of the Shem Havaya:
>
> (Y)om (H)ashishi, (V)ayechulu (H)ashamyim...
>
> Most Poskim say that we should start Veyhi Erev which is the beginning of
> that Pasuk because of the Halacha of Kol D'Lo Pasik Moshe, Anan Lo Paskinan.

This is why RRW proposed a long time ago that this proves that we hold that an
asmachta qualifies as a pesiq for this din. He brought other examples, I
believe "Vezos haTorah" was another.

The problem is that we do not say this rule for two words. Such as "'Zeh Keili'
anu, ve'ameru ..." (Punctuation significant.) So what would be wrong with "Yom
hashishi"?

Thus explaining the usual minhag, at the expense of the question that started
the variants.

-mi (who learned from his father to start from "Vayar E-lokim es kol asher asah")

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 03:33:17PM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote <<< ... If taken literally, why did these women
: leave the congregation? How far did they go? Could they have gone far
: enough that they could hear the men of the larger community sing, but not
: the reverse -- since they were fewer in number and had instruments with
: them? >>>

: Are you saying that there were more men than women? ...

If the genders were of roughly equal numbers, then the audiences were
about the same sizwe. However, amongst the men it's "Az yashir Mosheh
uVnei Yisrael". In the suggested ezras nashim, it's only "Vata'an
lahem Miriam". Even if there were undocumented other women singing,
it need not be all of them.

-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"

R Amiram Singer wrote:
> Is anyone aware of examples from Tanach of the word "ki" being used in the
> sense of "in order to," rather than as "for" or "because"?

No. I thought that's the difference between "ki" and "lema'an".

> The question came up this past Shabbat regarding the phrase in Yitro "ki li
> kol ha'aretz."

Such usage, though, would require lashon asid. As we find with "lema'an" (as in
"Lema'an yirbu yameikhem...")

In fact, an interesting difference betwen ki and lema'an is that they point in
opposite directions in time. Cause vs telos. And the end of the chain in
either direction is the Borei. And Shabbos is both a reference to ma'aseh
bereishis and to yom shekulo shabbos. If you want more organized ramblings on
the subject, see <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tikanta.shtml>.

-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"

Did anyone raise the issue yet of "vateitzei"?  I heard it argued that it was
meant idiomatically, that Miriam emerged from the crowd to become its head".
But then it becomes strained (although still possible) to say that a group of
women followed her. Yes, they would follow her singing/chanting, but not her
emergence.

If taken literally, why did these women leave the congregation? How far did
they go? Could they have gone far enough that they could hear the men of the
larger community sing, but not the reverse -- since they were fewer in number
and had instruments with them?

Adding that to the list, we also have the suggestions that:
2- They didn't sing
3- Singing as a group, or as tefillah, is not a problem of kol ishah
3b- Singing as a group or as tefillah in the presence of people who just
experienced more than Yechezqel did is not a problem of kol ishah

and of course
4- The takanah wasn't made yet, so they didn't worry about it.

-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"

Rn Rena Freedenberg wrote:
>> You are not "waving at the candles," you are welcoming the
>> Shabbos Queen into your home by waving your arms towards
>> yourself in a classic gesture of welcome that even small
>> children understand. "Come here, come in, welcome!"

> You have explained the physical dimension of the phenomena, but you did not
> explain the spiritual dimension of this action.

The Shabbas Malkah is a physical thing?

> When you circle the lights with your hands, you are also taking the kedusha
> of the flame and bringing it towards you. With this kedusha you are
> accepting Shabbat not only in your head but helping to bring the added
> kedusha of Shabbat into your aura.

What qedushah does the flame have? That of a devar mitzvah? Since the mitzvah
is that of oneg Shabbos, how is this different than RnTK's answer?

Flames aren't inherently holy. And while they have auras (and oros), I would
appreciate a maqor min haTorah for the notion of a person's sevivah being
light-like.


-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"

One person said Dovid HaMelech did not wear tfillin all day. Another
person said this cannot be true.

RSB
> This assumes that "everything" in terms of Halachic development was
> also given at Har Sinai. RHS pointed out...

> The Netziv in Kidmas HaEmek to the Sheiltos points out... We also know
> of many cases where a Beis Din reversed the psak of a prior Beis Din on a
> Torah law... We also know that while an Amora generally does not dissagree
> with a Tana, there is no hard and fast rules prohibiting such a machlokes
> ( see the comments of REW re "Rav tana upalig" and his quote from R Chaim
> ZTL on this issue). We also are aware that contemporary poskim of stature
> can dissagree with prior poskim as well. Therefore, the assumption that
> everything was frozen halachically at Sinai is questionnable.

If you still mean "everything" I agree. yet...

> The issue posed re Dovid and Tefilin is one of hashkafa, as opposed to
> halacha. One wonders what is the nafka mina lhalacha of such a statement,
> as opposed to the ikar that the mitzvos that we perform are unchanged.

Why is it not halacha? If throughout Shas we find minimal exceptions to
the rule of wearing tfillin all day, why all of a sudden should someone
dream up that Dovid HaMelech did not do so. Surely this is a novel
understanding of hilchos tfillin. Why should the possiblility of change
you documented lend credence to wholesale change without rhyme or reason?

Shlomo Goldstein

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> About a year ago there was an unresolved debate concerning whether the
> Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:25) was asserting that if there was a clear proof
> that the world was eternal he could readjust his thinking and accept it.

Actually, I agreed that the Rambam said it. I disagreed with your assumption
that the Rambam thought the antecedent were possible. He says that if they
conflicted one would have to re-interpret the Torah, and the *text* admits the
possibility of such a reinterpretation.

He does not say Torah as a whole does. We've argued before about what seemed
to me to be a clear statement against forming new peshatim in contradiction to
everything said by "nevi'im uzeqeinuim".

But my point wasn't about whether the reinterpretation was valid, but whether
the opportunity would arise. Since Judaism can not contradict wisdom obtained
in other ways, and (AIUI) the Rambam gives the consensus of "our nevi'im and
zeqeinim" an inviolatability, the eventuality under discussion couldn't
happen.

To my mind, that's the only way the two quotes from MN won't be a setirah.

> Just came across the following in the Ralbag's Introduction to Milchemes
> HaShem in which he states unequivocally that if there is a definite conflict
> between reason and our understanding of the Torah than he and the Rambam
> would readjust their understanding of the Torah....

It wouldn't surprise me on the part of the Ralbag. The Ralbag's hashkafah has
ceased to be able to surprise me. I've just gotten used to his saying things
very different from the philosophy I'm comfortable with.

However, whether or not the Ralbag says that such an eventuality is possible,
I would still assert the Rambam says it isn't. From the same sources, etc...

-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"

RJC:
>> To say this event is inherently good on some supernal level doesn't help
>> me come to terms with it on my own level.

> To which one might answer that that is the psychological problem of the
> individual. This seems to be the only resolution I can think of....

Resolution of what? The quote, "Gam zu letovah"? "Kol da'avad Rachmanah..."?
Or tzadiq vera lo in general?

The latter I would simply not resolve, as per Iyov 41. The others only become
a problem if you assume that we can judge an action without considering its
effects.

> How can we
> say that a particular event exists for the purpose of
> another event that causally follows from it, given that Hashem is quite
> capable of making the second event/effect happen without the need for the
> first event....

Events are a web, not a line. Every event has an uncountable number of causes
and interacts to produce impact an uncountable number of effects. And those
effects interact to have effects, etc...

Second, Hashem wants the world to run predictably, to both hide the Yad Hashem
and to allow us to make informed predictions about our choices. (And for other
reasons that didn't occur to me; kindly suggest on-list any that occur to
you.) Causality can't be regularly violated in any observable way, or else
free will is gone.

Or, to put it another way, the acausal production of good by G-d would defeat
the purpose of having an olam hazeh. It does define the purpose of olam haba,
though. (The Ramchal makes this point at length in Derekh H'.)

One might say that "all is good" because the good of having a world in which
we can imitate G-d in our being creative beings outweighs all the evil in that
world.

-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"

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


[ 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         ]