Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 020

Monday, May 10 2004

• Re: Christianity
• Re: Christianity
• 33rd of Omer
• Re: 24/7
• Re: Rebbe Akiva
• Re: Valid halachic change
• Re: Valid halachic change
• Re: R Akiva
• rebbe akiva
• Re:Lag BaOmer
• Fwd (leffjud@earthlink.net): Fw: Sfas Emes Study List: Pri Tzadik on Lag Ba'Omer
• Re: Valid halachic change
• Re: Valid halachic change
• Re: Valid halachic change
• Re: Hot water on Shabbos
• musar
• Not eating pat akum during asseret ymei tshuvah
• Re: C services/shalom mishpacha
• Re: hatred vs lifne iver
• Re: Avodah V13 #19
• Sircha-os
• Tzaddikim not m'tamei
• Re: Valid halachic change
• Re: Valid halachic change

Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
>[R Zvi Lampel] <hlampel@thejnet.com> stated the following, initially
>quoting me:

>>>With regard to translations of Moreh Nevukhim, it might be noted that
>>>the Rambam himself examined Ibn Tibbon's translation and approved it.

>>See R' Kapach's own introduction, where he deals with this, criticising R'
>>Ibn Tibbon's translation and maintaining that the Rambam did not approve
>>of it.

>Unless you consider Iggerot HaRambam to be a forgery (and can bring
>evidence to support such a claim), we have clear evidence that the Rambam
>approved Ibn Tibbon's translation.

R' Kapach feels that Ibn Tibbon was not a master of the philosophical
material since he had come to study it later in life [In other words he
takes literally Ibn Tibbon's own apology for his level of competence].
It is not clear as to whether the Rambam asked Ibn Tibbon to translate
it because he was the only candidate or whether the Rambam requested Ibn
Tibbon to translate because he knew him well from previous correspondence
and was impressed with his competence.

R' Shilat discusses this issue in detail in his edition of the Rambam's 
Letters #35

He notes on page 521 of volume 2 note 25 "The words of the Rambam's son
[in Milchemes HaShem 'At the end of his life the Ibn Tibbon's translation
of Moreh Nevuchim into Hebrew reached him and he replied to his questions
because he is a distinguished scholar and has great understanding'. Also
in Oxford manuscript 2360 "My father,, my master testified that Ibn Tibbon
descended into the depths of the esoteric material in Moreh Nevuchim and
his other works and understood their intent".] are not mentioned by R'
Kapach in his introduction when he discussed the nature of Ibn Tibbon's
translation. This is astounding! ..."

R' Kapach does mention that it was highly unlikely that the Rambam
actually saw the finished translation since he died a relatively short
time after it was completed and there would not have been much time to
make a copy of it and send it to the Rambam.

Daniel Eidensohn

At 11:33 09-05-04 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn stated the following:
>He notes on page 521 of volume 2 note 25 "The words of the Rambam's son 
>[in Milchemes HaShem 'At the end of his life the Ibn Tibbon's translation 
>of Moreh Nevuchim into Hebrew reached him and he replied to his questions 
>because he is a distinguished scholar and has great understanding'. Also 
>in Oxford manuscript 2360 "My father,, my master testified that Ibn Tibbon 
>descended into the depths of the esoteric material in Moreh Nevuchim and 
>his other works and understood their intent".] are not mentioned by R' 
>Kapach in his introduction when he discussed the nature of Ibn Tibbon's 
>translation. This is astounding! ..."

And to top it all, Rav Qapah was a Darda'i.  I understand that his 
acceptance to sit on the High Court was conditional on his not pasqening 
according to Darda'ism.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

RMB
>Moreso, Rav Tzadoq writes that 33 baOmer is really to remember Rabbi
>Aqiva...

where?

In  Avodah V13 #13 dated 4/29/04  [R Meir Shinnar]
> ...I was pointing out that the minhag in Ashkenaz, even among rabbanim,
> was to go to the opera....

> Here was one local minhag, based on oral heterim, that the SE did not
> accept - but he clearly realized how widespread it was, and didn't think
> that it was obligatory to protest. (the fact that RSRH had gone to the
> opera might be news here, but was well known in Germany), and his tshuva
> documents his awareness that his approach is not the local approach.

> >WRT to RYGB's post on the SE, I think he is misunderstanding my point.
> >I was pointing out that the minhag in Ashkenaz, even among rabbanim,
> >was to go to the opera....

> Vu shteit rabbonim?!

While RYGB is asking RMS that question, he should also ask him, vu shteit
" the *fact* that RSRH had gone to the opera"? RMS says about this
"fact" that it "was well known in Germany." Was it?

  Omer Day 33
 -Toby Katz

> "He too died on 33 baOmer, in addition to RShbY."
> where does Reb Tzadok say this?
> See Yalkut Shimoni Mishlei #944

and this week's midrash agadah (sh. buber's edition of the hhalab
manuscript).

/dw

> do we say eilu v'eilu

afaik that was once said about one particular mahhloketh.

/dw

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 02:45:28PM +0300, proptrek wrote:
:> do we say eilu v'eilu

: afaik that was once said about one particular mahhloketh.

See RYGB's article on the subject at <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eilu.htm>,
our MANY discussions here, and of course RZLempel's seifer, "The Dynamics
of Dispute".

I don't know of anyone who limits that statement to machloqesei batei
Hillel veShammai. RMF, in his haqdamah to IM, says that it doesn't
really mean both are true, but rather because both were honest products
of ameilus beTorah, beis Shammai were zakhin. However, RMF seems to be
in the minority, and most do actually hold that in a true machloqes,
both sides are amito shel Torah.

-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?

> He too died on 33 baOmer, in addition to RShbY."

WADR, IIRC, the inscription on the kever of R Akiva refers to Yom
HaKippurim as the day of his petirah.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Some reflections-- not concerning daf 33b bavli shabbas (story of Rashby)
on sefira day 33:
Harry Miles draws attention to Yalkut Shimoni Mishlei #944 where it is
said Rabbi Akiva was niftar on yom kippur. The usual siman of this yom
kippur yahrzeit is given as "oR zaruA latsadiK uliyishreI leV simchA" the
last letters spelling R Akiva (ending with heh as in talmud yerushalmi
and galilean midrash)-- and this explains why we begin erev yom kippur
with this posuk. Also the recitation of 10 harugei malkhus is generated
by this idea that the slaughter happened on yom kippur and thus repeated
on that day in musaf. The idea of misas tsakidim mekhaperes is blatant--
and liturgically tied to the horns of the scape goat. I have often
been troubled by what looks like christian overtones in juxtaposing the
account of the avoda in the beis hamikdash and the harugei malkhus in
musaf on YK. I would prefer to say it on tisha'a be'av but nobody asked
me. Agnon has a strange story about all these conflations-- I think it's
called hanagar ve'hatarnagol or vice versa.

Zvi Basser

> I'm curious about LaG B'Omer and the customs surrounding it. It seems
> like there isn't much going on halachically - no tachanun, and lifting of
> omer restrictions - but at least in EY it's a day of great significance
> - - bonfires, pilgrimage to Meron, etc. Is there a distinction between
> religious holidays and "folk holidays"? How do "folk" elements get
> into religious holidays? Do these practices have inherent religious
> significance, or do they acquire it? Another example that comes to mind

See R Zevin's Hamoadim BHalacha for some excellent discussions re the
origins and developments of all of the Chagim , Simchas Torah, Purim and
LagBaOmer. With regard to LaGBaOmer, you will see that not all of the
Gdoie Acharonim ( See ShuT Chasam Sofer, YD : 233, Shut Shoel UMeshiv
Mahadura Chamisha : 39, and other Acharonim cited as to the eyebrows
raised over the festivities) were that entralled and or enthusiastic
over the pilgrimage to Meron and the associated festivities . Yet, as
R Zevin points out, the minhag seems to overwhelmed and outweighed the
objections to the festivities.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Apparently I misunderstood the R' Tzadoq. Here's a clearer take.

-mi

 ---- Forwarded message from "Nathaniel H. Leff" <leffjud@earthlink.net> ---- 
From: "Nathaniel H. Leff" <leffjud@earthlink.net>
Subject: Fw: Sfas Emes Study List:  Pri Tzadik on Lag Ba'Omer 
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:23:14 -0400

The Pri Tzadik on Lag Ba'Omer

Lag Ba'Omer will soon be with us. A fair question at this point is:
What is Lag Ba'Omer all about? The Pri Tzadik (also known as R'Tzadok
HaCohen) addressed this question as follows.

The Zohar tells us that Lag Ba'Omer commemorates the petira (the passing
away) of R' Shim'on Bar Yochai. You may wonder: why do we make make the
yahrzeit -- i.e., the day in which a great Talmid Chacham is niftar --
into a "hilula" (celebration)? Because, as Chazal tell us, the talmidim
truly grasp the teachings of their Rebbe only after his petira. (Perhaps
because when their Rebbe was alive, the talmidim felt that they could
always rely on him.)

Another question. Why do we make such a big thing out of R'Shim'on Bar
Yochai? The answer is straightforward: because R'Sim'on bar Yochai bore
the quintessence of R'Akiva's teachings (Gitin, 67,a). And R' Akiva, in
turn, was the quintessence of Torah she'be'al peh (the Torah that HaShem
taught Moshe Rabeinu at Sinai orally. Moshe Rabeinu then transmitted
those teachings to Bnai Yisroel only by the spoken word). Thus, the
Medrash tells us that HaShem revealed to R' Akiva (and to his colleagues)
teachings that He had not revealed even to Moshe Rabeinu!

What Lag BaOmer is, then, is a celebration of R' Akiva, who exemplified
Torah she'be'al peh AND -- I add -- much, much more. Thus, R' Akiva
was the living example of an ahm ha'aretz who started learning late,
but -- through his mesiras nefesh and the mesiras nefesh of his wife
 -- became gadol ha'dor. Likewise, by his example, R' Akiva tauight
extraordinary courage and emuna. After he lost his many thousands of
talmidim, he started teaching Torah all over again -- this time to a
mere five talmidim. Also, he carried Bar Kochba's armor. But when events
proved him wrong on that issue, he was still able to die -- tortured by
the Romans -- in a exemplary demonstration of Kiddush HaShem.

Good, so we know that R' Shimon bar Yochai, R' Akiva's prime talmid,
was niftar on Lag Ba'Omer.We also know that Lag BaOmer is the day when
we commemorate the petirah of R' Akiva. Apart from his other features of
greatness, R' Akiva was the quintessence of Torah shebe'ahl'peh. At this
point, a basic question comes to mind. Would it not make much more sense
to celebrate Torah she'be'al peh not on the day when R' Akiva's talmid
(R'Sh'B'Y') was niftar, but rather on the day on which R'Akiva (himself)
was niftar?

The Pri Tzadik answers this question by pointing to a brutal fact. R'
Akiva had defied the Romans; and for that, the Romans had killed him.
In view of the the Romans' continuing domination of Eretz Yisrael, it
was totally out of the question to commemorate R'Akiva's petira; for
the Romans would have treated such a celebration as rebellion. Hence,
the shift, as a cover, to R'Shim'on Bar Yochai, R' Akiva's prime Talmid!

APPENDIX -- More from the PRI TZADIK

What Lag BaOmer is, then, is a celebration of Torah she'be'al peh.
This interpretation fits in neatly with the Sefiras Ha'Omer on which Lag
BaOmer occurs. That is, each of the Sefiros is associated with a quality
that characterized one of our Tzadikim. Thus, Chessed is associated with
Avraham; Gevura, with Yitzchok; ... and Hod (Luster), with Aharon. And
not by coincidence, the Sefira that comes on Lag BaOmer is the Sefira of
"Hod She'Behod" -- building on Aharon's unique quality of Hod.

Note further connections that link Aharon HaKohein with Torah she'be'al
peh. Thus, in his first encounter with HaShem, Moshe declined the
leadership role that HaShem offered, claiming that his speech defect
disqualified him from the job. To which HaShem answered that Aharon,
Moshe's brother, would do the talking: "Ve'hu (i.e., Aharon) yihe'yeh
le'cha le'peh".

Likewise, after Moshe received the Torah, Aharon's (spoken) teaching
was a prime channel through which the Torah was transmitted to Bnai
Yisroel. And Aharon's descendants, the kohanim, continued in this key
role of transmitting the Torah she'be'al' peh. Thus, the navi (prophet)
Mal'achi (2, 7) generalizes: "Sifsei kohen yish'meru da'as, ve'Torah
ye'vak'shu mi'pihu". (That is, "The lips of a kohen will keep knowledge,
and people will seek Torah from his mouth".)

Sfas-Emes, Copyright © 2004 by Torah.org and Dr. Nosson Chayim Leff.

> One can't reason about a contradiction. (It's provable that in boolean,
> true/false, logic once you accepts a single contradiction any suggestion
> can be "proven" true.)

i have no boolean knowledge, but out of my own fat belly this has always
been self-evident that two contraries cannot both be true at the same
time and in the same place and respect.

/dw

Micha Berger wrote:
>I don't know of anyone who limits that statement to machloqesei batei
>Hillel veShammai. RMF, in his haqdamah to IM, says that it doesn't
>really mean both are true, but rather because both were honest products
>of ameilus beTorah, beis Shammai were zakhin. However, RMF seems to be
>in the minority, and most do actually hold that in a true machloqes,
>both sides are amito shel Torah.

Maharal says it only applied to beis Shammai and Beis Hillel Baer HaGolah
1 page 19 and Derech Chaim (5:17). The Ran and the Chinuch clearly
indicate that one side is right in a dispute as do Rashi and Tosfos in
Kesubos (57a). Something can be emes in terms of the halachic process
but still be false in relationship to the absolute standard of what
was originally given at Sinai. Introduction to Ketzos. To complicate
the matter a bit more. Rav Moshe seems to switch sides later on in the
Igros Moshe YD III #92 page 334 "there is nothing in chazal that is not
emes". See also OH IV #25 page 43 etc or page 275 in Yad Moshe. Part
of the problem is what is meant by the term emes. Is it objectively
true or is it a manifestation of ratzon HaShem (true to G-d's will)
and not necessarily objectively true. I think all of these things pare
somewhere in the archives.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Sun, May 09, 2004 at 09:05:00PM +0300, RDW "proptrek" wrote:
: i have no boolean knowledge, but out of my own fat belly this has always
: been self-evident that two contraries cannot both be true at the same
: time and in the same place and respect.

One of the weird things about the new physics is that this simply isn't
true on the subatomic level, and is only true on the scale we observe
because we're here to observe it.

There's also "fuzzy logic", which deals with things like the blurry edges
between who is tall and who isn't, what objects are red or hot, or even
concepts like who is "Orthodox". True and false aren't the only options
in the real world.

The rules of birur (safeiq, sefeiq sefeiqah, etc...) are typical for
logic systems that deny Aristotle's Law of Contradiction (ie that allow
something to be both A and not-A and the same time) and his Law of
Ecluded Middle (allowing possibilities between true and false).

Then there's this whole topic we've raised about a Yefetic perspective
which reduces things to components and true/false question vs a Semitic
one which focusses on interactions and interconnectedness, and therefore
reduces the complex to things that can often serve multiple roles at once.

But we don't need to invoke any of this oddness to explain machloqesei
halakhah. As RDE writes:
: Part of the problem is what is meant by the term emes. Is it objectively
: true or is it a manifestation of ratzon HaShem (true to G-d's will)
: and not necessarily objectively true....

Halakhah is a discussion of law, not truth. The criterion for what is
"right" is different.

No matter how boolean you might think the world is, it's pretty clear
that the human condition isn't. Very often contradictory descriptions of
the human state are both true. (Gadlus ha'adam vs qatnus ha'adam as one
example.) Halakhah gives us the tools to live productively within that
condition. If human nature allows for contradiction, shouldn't halakhah?


Again, I suggest hunting the archives, as this is well-trod ground and I'm
not keen on a repeat -- unless you have something to add that wasn't said
in previous iterations.

-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?

R' Micha says
> A[t] some point, though, the incoming cold water is heated to become
> he next batch of "hot water higher up".

certainly the cold water eventually becomes heated but it may not become
heated as it enters the hot water tank, just as the warm air entering
your fridge inevitably contributes to the compressor being energised and
being energised a little earlier and may even trigger the compressor at
the time of the door being open.
The linked diagram is very simplistic and is only there to serve its
purpose.

meir

First thanks to Micah on his notes - much appreciated

[A more Areivim-oriented point was torn off and sent there. -mi]

[Micha, summarizing comments by REBecker:]
> Self-help addresses (1) loss of productivity; and (2) personal
> pain. In Torah (including Mussar) we'd call these yisurim (trevails?). 
> But Mussar wouldn't want you to attach yisurim. Yisurim are triggers, 
> part of  the solution. They aren't the things that need changing, they 
> are causes to get up and change something. Mussar adds to self-help 
> the notion of  duty. One doesn't try to eliminate yisurim, but their 
> causes -- which reside in flaws in our ability to carry out our 
> mission.

I just finished reading an interesting pamphlet based on R. Wolbe's 
works on rearing children. Besides the Jewish sources I would guess 
that 90% could also be found in many secular self-help books.

> The idea of duty is a lack of freedom that is alien to contemporary
> man. You have to know what you want before you can know what to 
> change. But moderns really don't know what we want.

R. Soloveitchik in many derashot also stresses this theme very much.
However, he was not a musar person -).
What differentiated musar thought from general Jewish haskafa

> The resident of Lithunanian during the Mussar movement was poor. We
> too  face challenges he did not. And note that in the lands that were
> wealthy when R' Yisrael Salanter tried planting mussar in them -- 
> Germany  and Paris -- didn't take to Mussar.

> The Gra was asked what could be done to insure having children that
> stay on the path. The Gra suggested that one pray "May it be Your Will
> that none of them have wealth."

Thet tell the story that the Ketzot haChoshen did not own a stove even 
for heat. When later in life he made enough money to heat the home his 
seforim were not the same quality.

However, today a very poor kollel boy spends his time running from one 
gemach to another and doesn't have enough time to learn.
So too much wealth isn't good (va-yishman yeshurun va-yivat) but too
much poverty isn't good either. No one claims that the latest Israeli
cuts in the kollel budgets is really a good thing for them.

[From the summary of R' Elyakim Krumbein's speech:]
> The Tanya writes that books about piety written by human beings
> can't be for everyone. Even within halakhah, there are debates based 
> on  people's perspectives. How much more so in less rigid venues!

R. Desseler writes that in Haskafa there are no disagreements in the 
Gemara. I have always found this hard to believe. According to the 
above it would seem that the Tanya disagrees.

> I therefore suggested that menuchas hanefesh ... [is]
>                      to be able to find the point of quiet and watch 
> the emotion. The anger is there, the stress is there, but not 
> overwhelming our ability to think.>

I understood the approach of Kelm was to actually overcome stress.
The example I have heard several times was never to look to see if the 
bus was coming. When it comes it is there - no purpose in looking 
ahead it only encourages stress over why it is late. So they tried to 
have true menuchat hanefesh and avoid stress and not just learn how do 
deal with it.
However, I agree with Micha that for ordinary mortals we need to learn
how to deal with stress.

> 2- If one pays attention to moments of calm, one can capture the feeling
> and more readily reproduce it. I'm not talking about intellectualizing
> the process. Just that through awareness, one can recall the feeling on
> a gut level. After all, with menuchas hanefesh, meditation will itself
> help acheive calm...

My wife is a great fan of meditation with music to calm. Is this included
in menuchat hanefesh?

 Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 5/10/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

IIRC we've discussed this in the past. R' Sperber brings down in Minhagei
Yisrael a custom based on the Yerushalmi to only eat btaharah during this
period and an opinion that this was the reason for not eating pat akum
during this period since it was likely to be huchshar to be mkabel tuma!

KT
Joel Rich

R. Steve wrote
> Some years ago we were invited to a family bar mitzvah which was to
> take place in a C synagogue. I asked RAS zt'l what I should do. He said
> (paraphrased) you know that I am a big believer in sholem bayit, this
> also applies to sholem mishpacha. You should go, daven before and make
> certain that they do not offer any and surely do not accept any kibudim.

Any formal shu"t on the subject? What are the perspectives of other
gedolim on the question?
I remember raising the theoretical question with my LOR who opined that
it would be very difficult to find a tzad heter for attending a Reform
or Conservative service.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 10:00:59AM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
: I think he thinks it's amazing, because its just so open ended.  For
: example, what's the difference b/w this and me shaking a female's hand?

[Micha:]
> Poor example. RMWillig also allows giving a "dead fish" (very non-derekh
> chibah) handshake rather than offend.

Not that I advocate it but the only place in writing I had seen a heter
for handshakes is in Vchaeh machanecha kadosh, a madrich for bnei akiva
in EY. It is quoted in the name of "some poskim".

For those who are interested in more info, please contact me off-line.

M.Levin

On Sun, 9 May 2004 11:58:38 -0500, Avodah wrote:
> One expert, who is familiar with shechitos done all over the world,
> reports that in the western United States, one may expect to find 2%
> of adult bovine without any sirchos at all; in central United States,
> about 15%; in Honduras, approximately 45%; in Brazil, around 70%;

 From my last visit to Denver they no longer have any shechitah there.
Hence, the 2% in the west is probably 2% of almost no shechitah.

BTW in the kosher store there they sell bison hamburgers. Are they 
sold in other places? As I mentioned in the latest Mesorah OU magazine 
they pasken that it is kosher without any doubts.

 -- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 5/10/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Posted on Areivim:

> The following is from Sfunei Tmunei Chol, bottom of Page 163:

> One expert, who is familiar with shechitos done all over the world,
> reports that in the western United States, one may expect to find 2%
> of adult bovine without any sirchos at all; in central United States,
> about 15%; in Honduras, approximately 45%; in Brazil, around 70%;

> Does this mean that you can't drink milk in Brazil since there's no
> rov non-terefah?

If the above is translated accurately, the question should be posed on
American milk.  I always thought that not having sircha-os is a good
thing from a kashrus perspective.

In Brazil, 70% of the milk is from absolutely non-traif, 100% kosher
cows.

Noach Witty

Regarding Carl's question about whether Tzaddikim are or are not mitamei
I just saw two interesting teshuvos that indirectly talk about it.

1) Minchas Yitzchak Chelek 1 Siman 30 deals with a question of whether
kohanim can walk over an area where the "soap" from Nazi Germany was
buried. He is referring to soap made of r"l human flesh.
One snif l'heter he gives is that the people who died al kiddush hashem
are tzaddikim and kivrei tzaddikim are not mitamei.
If my reading of the Minchas Yitzchak is correct he is not relying on
it as a full heter but only a snif l'heter combined with other reasons.

2) The Avnei Nezer Y"D chelek 2 Siman 466 Os 17 brings a kasha from
Tosfos that the gemara says the carriers of Yosef's aron became tamei
meis. If kivrei Tzaddikim aren't tamei how did they become tamei?

The Avnei Nezer gives the following answer.
Rav Chaim Vital says that when the malch Hamaves takes a person's life
there are three drops of "marah" which is thrown on person (don't ask
me what this means I have know idea) and this causes tumah.

Therefore most people are tamei even tzaddikim like Yosef HaTzaddik.
There are however 2 exceptions

a) a tzaddik who died from misas neshika since these drops don't exist.
b) Tzaddikim who are killed who don't die thru the Malach Hamaves. The
reason for this exception is that peopel who are killed don't die thru the
Malach Hamaves. However their bodies still become tamei based on a zohar
(which I don't understand-if anyone wants to look up this teshuva and
let me know what it means I'd appreciate it). However, this zohar doesn't
apply to Tzaddikim and therefore a tzaddik who is killed is not mitamei.

On Sun, 2004-05-09 at 22:56 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Something can be emes in terms of the halachic process
> but still be false in relationship to the absolute standard of what
> was originally given at Sinai.

so could one claim that what he have today is false in relation to the
absolute standard given at Sinai?

> One of the weird things about the new physics is that

it is beyond and above me.

please do not leave my name under mutilated messages.

i quoted, what you had written as valid proof against the gibbetarians,
as equally valid proof against the notion of two contradicting statements
being both true at the same time.

if you now fetch those newfangled quarks to rescue that notion, you
ought to reconsider trinity as an option.

not for me.

/dw

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


[ 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         ]