Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 050

Monday, July 19 2004

• Re: Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Disputing Previous Generation and Halachah L'Moshe MiSin
• Re: nishtane hateva
• Re: Bamidbar 23:18
• Re: Pronounciation of word in parshas Balak
• Re: Pronunciation of word in Parashat Balak
• Matos-Masei - Q#1 - inheritance for Gad & Reuven
• Matos-Masei - Q#2 - humans as plunder
• Hu yaaseh shalom aleinu
• Re: Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Old tests
• Re: Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Re: nishtane hateva
• Re: Evolution
• Evolution of human genetic diversity

R' Micha Berger wrote:
>R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

>>I think I am getting a clearer view of your point - what does it mean that
>>"ein zeh biydei Shamayim". I am saying that it means according to Rashi
>>that G-d doesn't know and you are saying that it means that man must
>>have free will in the matter....

>As I said, look at Rashi on hakol tzafui vehareshus nesunah. He doesn't
>limit omniscience to resolve the paradox. Therefore, once must understand
>Rashi's statement literally: "biydei Shamayim" -- under heavenly control
>(yad as in "gito veyado ba'im ke'achas") not that it is known by Shamayim.

There is a problem trying to refute my understanding of the Rashi in
Sotah by citing the absence of such an explanation in Rashi on Avos on a
related topic. Rashi could have simply been explaining each according to
what he felt was the view of the particular text - and was not voicing
his own opinion.

Furthermore the Shem HaGedolim cites the Yaavetz that based on a content
analysis of the Rashi on Pirkei Avos he rejects Rashi's authorship of the
commentary on Avos. [On the other hand the Shem HaGedolim cites a number
of sources such as the Tur, Tosfos, Rashbatz, and Medrash Shmuel who do
ascribe authorship to Rashi - a view which he agrees with.] However none
of these latter sources address the question of content nor is it clear
that the text of Rashi that we have is the same that they had.

Finally Prof Fraenkel in Encyclopedia Judaica states: "The summit of
Rashi's creative work was his commentary to the Babylonian Talmud. His
commentary on most of the tractates of the Talmud has been preserved,
but those to tractates Ta'anit, Nedarim, Nazir, and Horayot ascribed to
him are not his. The commentary to Mo'ed Katan which bears his name is
not by him, but his commentary to this tractate has been published by A.
Kupfer (1961). His commentary to Bava Batra was completed by his grandson
and pupil, Samuel b. Meir (Rashbam), and to Makkot by his pupil, Judah
b. Nathan.... In his explanations of words he does not confine himself
to dry lexicographical data; his explanation is often colorful and the
commentary is replete with realistic concrete descriptions. He adduces
reasons for halakhot and talmudic argumentations, and often provides
psychological and realistic backgrounds to talmudic times. In manifold
ways he aids the student in the understanding of the text. He provides
introductions to themes, intersperses the commentary with the words of
the text, and combines recurring statements. With an excellent feeling
for the methodology of the Talmud, he points out difficulties in the
construction of the passages and unusual terminology. In all this his
commentary is unique. In Rashi's view, the only acceptable explanation of
the Mishnah is that given to it by the Gemara (see BM 33a and b et al.),
with the result that he does not give an independent explanation of the
Mishnah. Rashi did not write commentaries to those tractates that have
no Babylonian Talmud (the commentary to Avot ascribed to him is not his)."

>>You are saying that the announcement of
>>the Bas Kol some how would interfere with his free-will if it the zivug
>>were based on spiritual status. I simply don't understand what the Bas
>>Kol has to do with man's free will. Therefore I don't see why the person

>Every resolution of R' Aqiva's paradox in Avos seems to rely on the
>transcendence of HQBH. (Except, of course, for the Ralbag's limitation of
>Divine Foreknowledge.) The second Divine Knowledge becomes associated with
>an event and a point in time, the problem become far more accute. Such
>as via a bas qol going out before birth.

Referring back to my original post - there are a number of sources other
than the Ralbag [Ohr Hachaim, Malbim, Rav Tzadok, Kabbala] that clearly
state that G-d's knowledge of the future can be limited.

>>                Why should a tzadik have to marry a second time in
>>order to have the correct spiritual mate?

>Not "the correct", but the one he deserves.

mazel has nothing to do with what he deserves. In fact it is just the
opposite.

>You're thinking of "mazal" meaning luck, that the first zivug is a matter
>of chance. However, "mazal" is more like destiny. Thus the whole point
>of astrology, to those who thought/think there is a point.

Mazel is not the same as chance or deserving. Chance is inherently
a random fate. Mazel on the other hand refers to a mechanical system
which determines at birth what one's luck will be. Apparently time of
birth is chance [See below Taanis 25a]. Mazel in the sense of destiny
or deserving is a relatively recent understanding. Your view is clearly
stated by R' Aryeh Kaplan Jewish Handbook Vol II page 296-297. But it
is not the way the term is used in the gemora and rishonim and many
achronim Shlimazel is someone who has bad luck. Also as Shabbos (156)
as explained by the Derashos HaRan #8). A person can either overcome his
mazel by proper merit or can reroute the mazel to good. A person whose
mazel is to spill blood can have high merit if he becomes a doctor or low
merit if he becomes a murderer. The mazel is fixed and is not related to
deserving. Mazel is related to the issue of chance in that it seems that
the time of birth is from chance as we see in the following quote of R'
Yonason Eibschuetz when he equates chance and mazel.

Ya'aros Devash (1:10): There are two types of calamities. The first comes
from G-d and appears bad but in fact it is absolutely good. Its start
is difficult but it ends up sweet because its purpose is to cleanse a
person from sin. That is because nothing bad ever comes from Heaven. This
is what our sages (Berachos 5a) describe as "suffering from love" and
"all those that G-d loves He chastises". The second type of calamity is
the result of G-d removing His Providence and thus leaving the person
unprotected from harm - both from the astrological influences and the
forces of nature. This resulting multitude of bad is in fact absolutely
bad because G-d removed His protection and no "suffering from love"
results from accident. This second category - because of our many sins -
is the source of much of Jewish suffering. It is described in the Torah
(Vayikra 26:23-24): If you go with Me incidentally I will also go with
you in an incidental manner. That means that if they view misfortune -
not as a warning to repent from G-d - but rather as an accident then G-d
will in fact leave them to the vicissitude of nature and mazel. Then
they will in fact suffer randomly and thus all their misfortune will
be bad. This is especially relevant for Jews since according to the
astrological forces they could be destroyed - Heaven forbid - since they
are descendants of Avraham. Avraham according to the astrological forces
should never have had children and his children resulted only because
G-d lifted him beyond their influence. Thus in the realm of nature and
mazel the Jews have no right to exist and therefore when they are left
to these forces they have terrible suffering.

The following quote indicates that the time of a person's birth and the
consequent mazel is up to chance.

Taanis( 25a):R' Eleazar ben Pedas was extremely poor. On one occasion
after being bled he found he had nothing to eat to regain his strength.
He took the skin of garlic and put it in his mouth. He became faint
and fell asleep. The rabbis who came to visit him saw that while he
was sleeping he was crying and laughing and that a ray of light was
radiating from his forehead. When he woke up they asked him why he
had been crying and laughing? He answered because G-d was sitting
with me and I asked him: How much longer will I suffer in this world?
He said: Eleazar My son would you like me to return the world back to
its beginning and recreate it so that perhaps you would be born at a
more propitious time? I replied to Him in amazement: Despite all this
effort of creating the world anew it would only be a possibility that
my life would be better? I asked then Him: Which is longer the life I
have already lived or what I still have to live? He answered: The life
you have already lived. I then told Him that I didn't want Him to go to
the trouble of destroying and recreating the world...

Moed Koton(28a): Raba said: [Length of] life, children and sustenance
depend not on merit but [rather on] mazzal. For [take] Rabbah and R.
Hisda. Both were saintly Rabbis; one master prayed for rain and it came,
the other master prayed for rain and it came. R. Hisda lived to the age
of ninety-two, Rabbah [only] lived to the age of forty. In R. Hisda's
house there were held sixty marriage feasts, at Rabbah's house there
were sixty bereavements. At R. Hisda's house there was the purest wheaten
bread for dogs, and it went to waste; at Rabbah's house there was barley
bread for human beings

Rambam( Letter on Astrology): ... In summary, the philosophers claim
that everything that happens to everything - whether it is man, animal,
tree or mineral - is all due to chance. They also agree that the source
of of existence comes from G-d by means of the spheres. The controversy
between the philosophers and Judaism is that we assert that what
happens to a person is not chance but rather it is the result of G-d's
judgment... The Torah warned and gave testimony that if you don't obey
G-d He will punish you. (Vayikra 26:14). Therefore if you assert that
this suffering is not punishment for sin but is merely chance you will
suffer from additional calamities from this "chance". This is stated
clearly in Vayikra (26:27-28): If you walk with Me with chance then
I will walk with you in the wrath of chance. This is the root of our
religion which is the Torah of Moshe - that all events that happen in
the world and all suffering that happens to a person is a just decree
from G-d. Thus our sages said that there is no death without sin and
and suffering without transgression (Shabbos 55a).

Akeidas Yitzchok (#26): All human achievement can be categorized as
being the consequence of the following causes. 1) Divine intervention 2)
Influence of mazel 3) human effort or 4) chance.

Maharal (Rosh HaShanna 16b page 110): The explanation that the complete
tzadik is written for life is that everything concerning him is for
life even if the mazel is for death...he will be guarded against the
chance causes of death by G-d...Concerning the wicked it is the opposite
even if his mazel is for life G-d writes him for death. That means G-d
leaves him exposed to chance causes of death. Death is not inevitable
because the mazel might be so strong that it will guard him but it is
a strong possibility. That is why Chazal tell us that one should not
travel with a rasha because he is accompanied by the angelic agents of
destruction...however there are times that he doesn't actually die...This
is expressed by Dovid (Shmuel I 26) that death is divided into 3 causes
1) G-d directly causes 2) natural 3) chance...

In sum, I don't see any clear reason to retract my understanding of
Rashi as acknowledging that G-d's knowledge of the future righteous is
limited. Your argument from the absence of this explanation in Avos is
not convincing. Furthermore the sources are not in agreement with your
understanding of mazel. The sources indicate that mazel is luck based
on the chance time of birth - as opposed to merit or deserving.

       Daniel Eidensohn

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>: 12:17:11 -0400 (EDT) 

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote: 
> "Significant" is a relative term. Even the smallest difference in halachah 
> or theory is significant.... 

RMB (Mon, 12 Jul 2004): "What I'm calling "significant" is a difference
in machshavah, not halachah."

ZL: That was understood. That's why I added "or theory."

RMB: "[A] machloqes over the middos doesn't change the derashos
themselves.... Here's how I see it. The RSO gave us the Torah with
myriads of de "[A] machloqes over the middos doesn't change the derashos
themselves... "[A] machloqes over the middos doesn't change the derashos
themselves... ashos."

ZL: Sorry, I'm still not sure what you mean. The derashos are the use
of middos by which to connect Scripture to unwritten laws. (So-and-so
darshons a kal v'chomer to arrive at halachah X, while so-and-so
darsons a k'ra y'sayra.") So what do you mean by "[A] machloqes over
the middos doesn't change the derashos themselves"? By "derashos,"
do you mean "halachos derivable through derashos"? and that no rules,
such as kal v'chomer, binyan av, etc., were explicitly revealed?; that
Hashem revealed that halachah X is indicated, somehow, by this or that
word or phrase, and the later authorities deduced what specific rule
connects that phrase or word to the din? This does not conform with
the principle that the methods of using kal v'chomer, gezeyra shavva,
etc., were transmitted by Hashem. If you're taking this principle as
"lav davka," you'd be saying it merely means that Hashem said there are
rules by which to connect the oral laws to Scripture, but did not reveal
any of the! m. I can't accept that.

Or, do you mean that the pool of rules already existed, and the Tannaim
just assigned them as they deemed valid? I could accept that. But this
does not fit what you write "The RSO gave us the Torah with myriads of
derashos," to which "the tannaim sought overarching rules to explain
many derashos in one fell swoop. Hillel found 7 rules, R' Aqiva found 19,
R' Yishma'el 13." What form were these "myriads of derashos" in? If you
can give me a concrete example of a halachic dispute involving derashos
and identifying (even hypothetically) the "drereshah" of the "myriad of
derashos" and the midda cfreated by the Tanna, perhaps that would help
me to understand your point.

The way I understand it is that all the rules were given explicitly,
but details of their mechanics came under dispute, and this included the
proprietey of using one rule (e.g., hekesh from this posuk vs. hekesh
from that posuk), and whether certain forms or words (such as "ess")
should be included in the method of ribui.

Regarding what you wrote, "R' Aqiva taught that the Torah was medayeiq
in lashon well beyond that of benei adam. Therefore, when looking for the
"lomdus" behind the derashos, he found them in textual details.

"R' Yishma'el, OTOH, saw the Torah primarily in terms of what information
is being communicated. Communication was to benei adam, so it's belashon
BA. Therefore, when he formulated his overarching rules in terms of the
ideas communicated.

"The purpose of the TSBP being primarily in its syntax or in its semantics
was my "significant difference".

ZL: I thought I proved, in the post to which you are responding, that
this is wrong. The issues of Ribbui U'Miut vs. Klall U'Prat, and Dibrah
Torah B'L'shone B'nei Adam were not overaching approaches to Torah
intepretation. Ribui U'Miut vs. Klall U'prat is a single machlokess over
the mechanics of Klall U'prat in the particular situation where another
Klall follows the Klall U'Prat. And Dibrah Torah B'L'shone B'nei Adam
is a specific machlokess over some instances where a word is repeated
(e.g., ish ish, etc.), and that Rabbi Akiva, as well as Rebbi Yishmael,
used the 13 middos, and that Rebbi Yishmael, as well as Rebbi Akiva
darshonned words like "ess" as a ribui.

RMB: "The following other halachic impact is masteiber to me, for which
I'm seeking frum sources:

"I think the talmidim ended up with two "toros", thus producing our
two schools of medrashei halakhah. And when that became unmaintainably
diverse, we put and end to it by stopped making new derashos. This would
play out at the same time as the mishnah, the 2nd generation after R'
Aqiva, and had some role in why we needed the mishnah.

ZL: But many drashos are post-Mishnaic. Even some that generate details
as opposed to merely supporting known details).

Zvi Lampel

Eli Turkel posted on 15 Jul 2004:
> The fact that an acharon states nishtane hateva does not mean it is
> reasonable from a scientific viewpoint.

> The Chazon Ish explains the gemara about the urine and semen tracts 
> by nishtane hateva. I have spoken with numerous religious doctors and 
> not one of them believe that the internal parts of the human male have 
> changed over 2000 years.

Do they not believe, or do they disbelieve? If the latter, what data
do these doctors have that reveal to them the change or lack thereof
of the internal parts of the male in the last 2000 years? Are they in
possession of diagrams or writings of those times?

Zvi Lampel

Elly Krimsky writes:
"When the bal koreh got to Bamidbar 23:18, the baal Koreh read the sixth
word of the pasuk "ushama". One gabbai (using a Hertz chumash) corrected
him as he saw the word ushma. I was using an ARt Scroll Stone chumash
and saw 'ushama' with a chataf patach."....I believe ushama is past..."

WHY-- you are thinking of veshama but the biblical form would more
likely be vayishma.

 "and ushma is tzivuy (or future)"

ACTUALLY I would make the case that ushama is a tzivui and the chataf
patach indicates a pausal form which elongates the initial vowel, while
ushma simply implies we do not have a true pausal. Both words mean --
"and hear!" and it is parallel to ha'azina. The nikud is dependent on
the view of the ta'am-- which is less than a full pausal but clearly
breaks the thought in two-- so that ha'azina is a separate and apposite
clause which repeats the first strophe as biblical poetry does when
emphasis is required. Surely had we not used up the esnachta in the
3rd word, we would put in with ushama. But Bilaam did not know there
would be an esnachta on the 3rd word so he put it on the sixth ;). In
English we would say the first esnachta is a colon (and he said: )--
the second a semicolon (...and hear; give ear..)-- is that enough of
a pausal to warrant elongating the vowel?-- since it's poetry I would
vote for ushama and say yes or rather "verily".

Zvi Basser

Re: the word ush'ma' in Bamidbar 23;18

I've been lurking for some months, but every now and then I get the urge
to break out - usually after midnight, so here goes:

One would expect that the question belongs in the Mesorah list but that
isn't quite true because in that list there would be no question as it
has been discussed there in detail.

The hataf patach is a sign that the masoretes used to keep people from
mispronouncing a sh'va na' in cases where it might be elided or slurred
This occurs when the sh'va na' is in the vicinity of a weak consonant
e.g., hei, 'ayin, chet, and also in sibilants and a few other consonants
(kufs and lameds) after"u".

As the sh'va na' usually had a very weak "a" sound in Teveria, they put
a patach next to the sh'va to remind the reader not to let the sh'va na'
degenerate into a sh'va nach.

Unfortunately, not every m'nakked was consistent in putting in these
warning symbols in "mild" cases, i.e., not groniot. Ben Asher himself
states it is optional, "birtzon hasofrim". Although the Keter itself
does not usually omit the hatafim, other reliable manuscripts do. R'
Mordekhai Breuer also omits them despite their appearance in the Keter.

So ush'ma' in Bamid. 23:18. (In my transliteration, the first apostrophe
is for a very weak "a" sound while the second is for the 'ayin.)

And similar examples of sibilants after "u":
uz'hav in Breish.2:12; us'dei, Vayik. 25:34.
And after lamed,
ul'havdil at beginning of Breishit

Their are numerous others in Nakh including a few more ush'ma's that
probably wouldn't interest a bal-koreh.

And so, back to lurker's mode.
David

> I believe ushama is past and ushma is tzivuy (or future). One Hebrew
> linguist pointed out that ushma makes more sense because two words before
> we find 'kum' which is also tzivuy.

There is a meteg under the vav in my recollection. Not having the
tigan in front of me, this is from my memory. Remember that there is
no chataf in nikkud elyon, so imagine simply a sh'va under the shin.
Now if there is no meteg under the vav, most medakdekim (except eg the
Ba'al HaTanya) read the sh'va as nach. With a meteg most read it as na.
L'tosefet bi'ur, some redactors wrote it as a chataf patach, so that
it would be na. However usually Ashkenazim/Sefardim read sh'va na as
chataf segol.

This makes more sense in the light of the Temani k'lalim for pronunciation
of sh'va na, which state that except when before an ot g'ronit (alef,
chet, he, ayin) or a yud, sh'va na is read as chataf patach (Temanim
read segol as patach anyway - following the nikkud elyon where every
segol is a patach). So without a meteg and with a sh'va - ushma, with a
meteg and a sh'va ush(e)ma/ush(a)ma(Temani), or just ush(a)ma as it is
written in many chumashim including Artscroll.

For ushama to be past it would surely need a full patach (or is it
kamatz?) under the shin - the chataf always appears in place of a sh'va
na which can't be used for some reason (l'tosefet bi'ur, or it is an ot
g'ronit which can't accept sh'va na under nikkud tiveryani)

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

What happened to the land of Gad and Reuven during Yovel years?  Did 
property revert back to original ownership, etc.?

 - Sholom

End of perek 31 in Bamidbar (e.t., vv 40, 46-47).

The plunder/tribute/booty/whatever, included people. What was done
with them? What about the (see v 40-41) the 32 given to HaShem? Or the
50 that were given to the Levi'im in v 47?

+-------------------------------------------------------+
|   Sholom Simon     | sholom@aishdas.org               |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua Ari  4/18/93 - 27 Nissan 5753   |
|        and Eliana Rebekah  3/12/95 - 11 Adar-2 5755   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+

Joelirich@aol.com (Wed, 14 Jul 2004) asks:
> The MB quoting the MA on O"C 123 makes a big deal of saying 
> who yaaseh shalom aleinu, vaal kol yisrael. 
> No reason is given for the importance of the pause at that point. 

> Is there a difference in the meaning? Any ideas as to the concern? 

The Mishna Berura (123:1, 5) doesn't say "pause," but is speaking about
bowing in three directions while saying "oseh shalom etc." He says we
should assign each bow to each of the three parts of the sentence. I.e.,
(1) Oseh shalom bi'm'ro'av, (2) Hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu, (3) V'al kol
Yisroel... He makes a point of not distributing the "aleinu" to the
3rd bow. I assume that's because if one would do so, the clause of the
second bow would be an incomplete thought, lacking the object of the
verb which is meant to be there. He just wants to make sure that what
we say and do makes sense.

Zvi Lampel  

Micha Berger wrote:
>There were two parts to my argument:
>1- You bear the burden of proof to show that "yedei" refers to knowledge,
>as the word usually refers to ownership and control.
>2- In the one place where the mishnah could be taken as discussing the
>relationship between foreknowledge and control, Rashi does not connect
>the two.
>Therefore, why do you?

The Rashi is not clear. I simply am proposing one solution while
acknowledging that it might be wrong. On the other hand I don't see that
your explanation is obviously there either. The main problem with my
explanation is that it ascribes to Rashi or at least Rashi's understanding
of the gemora - a view which the rishonim generally did not accept -
however it is acceptable in the world of kabbalah.

>...
>: Referring back to my original post - there are a number of sources other
>: than the Ralbag [Ohr Hachaim, Malbim, Rav Tzadok, Kabbala] that clearly
>: state that G-d's knowledge of the future can be limited.

>I'm confused aa to relevance. You ask if Rashi limits divine
>foreknowledge, but we have no statement from Rashi to that effect. That
>others connect the two really has little to do with Rashi.

But that is my basic concern as I stated above. I am looking for
additional evidence that can lead to an acceptance or rejection of my
interpretation. As noted before the Chasam Sofer and others seem bothered
by the simple meaning of this gemora and the Rashi - from a brief survey -
seems problematic.

>As an aside, I question that these other sources say what you think
>they do. You projected your own problem dividing foreknowledge from
>predetermination onto Rashi -- how do you know you didn't in these other
>cases as well?

If you view that I am misquoting or mistranslating my sources I would
appreciate your translation of the sources I cited in my original
posting. If you can demonstrate that I have mangled the facts then I
would be ready to admit that I have mangled the understanding of Rashi.

>                          .... "Mazal" is used to describe the first
>marriage, not the second. Rashi calls the first the product of mazal,
>of fate, of predestination; part of the hand the person is dealt, just
>like the parents and life situation he is born into. The second marriage
>is the one he deserves.

>However, both are "correct". just as a person gets the parents that are
>"correct" for him.

This is one of the points that I had questioned. In particular from the
gemora (Taanis 25a) concerning R' Eleazar ben Pedas - it seems that mazal
can produce a mismatch and that time of birth for a particular person -
according to Chazal - was not predetermined so that it was "correct"
for him. Where do you see in the world of Chazal and prekabbalistic
rishonim (e.g., Rashi) that the mazal and the parents one gets are the
correct ones for him?

>Mazal is predetermination. Fate, as I put it. Thus it is associated with
>the astrological configuration at birth. It's not randomness nor luck.
>I explicitely denied that misconception. I therefore am confused as to why
>you reply to my post also arguing against it.

Again - once you are born you have a mazel which is predetermined set of 
factors - but isn't the birth under a particular mazel chance or luck? 
The sources I cited seemed to associate mazal with luck or chance - 
rather than something deserved.

...
>Not derserving, destiny. Nor is it recent, it's clearly original usage --
>it's the only meaning that involves both constellations and life events.

>: stated by R' Aryeh Kaplan Jewish Handbook Vol II page 296-297. But it
>: is not the way the term is used in the gemora and rishonim and many
>: achronim Shlimazel is someone who has bad luck....

>Or fated to get a less-than-ideal life. Where is the presumption of luck?

the determination of which mazel a person has is luck or chance.

In sum, I admit that I am offering a tenuous hypothesis because
1) the Rashi is unclear
2) there is a kabbalistic explanation that would fit Rashi - except
Rashi was not a kabbalist.
3) the gemora itself is unclear
4) the issue of mazel and deservedness is also unclear as can be seen by:

Kiddushin(82a ): R' Meir said that a person should teach his son a
non demanding trade which is clean work. He should also pray to G-d who
controls and owns all wealth. That is because there is no such thing as a
trade which does not have poor and rich people. That is because poverty
and wealth is not caused by the trade but everything is dependent on
his merit.

Tosfos( Kidushin 82a): Everything is dependent on his merit - that means
that everything is dependent on his mazal. Because children, lifespan
and livelihod and not dependent on merit but on mazel.

Tosfos HaRosh( Kidushin 82a): Everything depends on the persons merit.
Merit here means his mazel i.e., that he merited to have a good mazel.
It doesn't make sense in this context to understand the word "merit"
literally since many wicked people merit the pleasures of the world. It
also can't be understood to mean the merit and reward for observing
the commandments. The wicked also can observe a particular commandment
that they would have merit. In fact Moed Koton (28a) states: Children,
lifespan and livelihood are not dependent on merit but on mazel.
Nevertheless on occasion mazel changes to the good by merits of ones
merit as we see happened to Avraham.

      Daniel Eidensohn

The situation is the following. The student knows that the teacher repeats
the same exam with minor changes. The teacher is relying on the honesty
of students not to take advantage.

I believe that in this case the teacher is guilty of lifnei ivver. YU
policy is that teachers are obligated to compose new exams. I make my
own old exams available.

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 12:02:42AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: The Rashi is not clear. I simply am proposing one solution while
: acknowledging that it might be wrong...

Again, I don't see the lack of clarity, nor the grounds for your solution.

Rashi simply says "hareshus nesunah". You use this to suggest that perhaps
Rashi has a limited understanding of "hakol tzafui". As you point out,
Rashi says nothing about foreknowledge, only that somehow a bas qol would
rule out that the decision was based on foreknowledge. So why assume
anything more than that; why assume there is even a question to address?

: Tosfos( Kidushin 82a): Everything is dependent on his merit - that means
: that everything is dependent on his mazal. Because children, lifespan
: and livelihod and not dependent on merit but on mazel.

Zechus is a broader concept than "merit". As in "I was zocheh to..." need
not mean that I believe I earned it. It could be that the positive was
in the act that earned the event's occurance, or that one is saying the
event itself was fortuitous.

Howwver, this is getting to be a tangent off our tangent. I still think
that defining "mazal" as destiny in a sense like predestination is the
only way the word could have made sense to begin with.

Jews lack mazal because they have the ability to sublimate that destiny,
to choose whether they spill blood in murder or in milah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, 2004-07-18 at 16:07 -0400, wrote:
> Eli Turkel posted on 15 Jul 2004:
>> The Chazon Ish explains the gemara about the urine and semen tracts 
>> by nishtane hateva. I have spoken with numerous religious doctors and 
>> not one of them believe that the internal parts of the human male have 
>> changed over 2000 years.

> Do they not believe, or do they disbelieve? If the latter, what data
> do these doctors have that reveal to them the change or lack thereof
> of the internal parts of the male in the last 2000 years? Are they in
> possession of diagrams or writings of those times?

they've uncovered men frozen in ice that are well preserved that I
presume have the same internal parts as us.

> Dinosaur bones don't
> bother me at all, but if the above is true, and Hashem really created
> an evolved world nearly 5763 years ago (on 25-Elul-1), and put Adam and
> Chava in it to breed and produce all of us, then how can we explain the
> diversity of human genetics? Modern genetic analysis seems iron-clad
> proof of how many generations ago two lines diverged, so how can mutations
> that seem to have happened more than 6000 years ago exist?

The Netsiv in parashas Bareishis explains the word lemineihem (according
to their kinds) to mean that every specie created had in it the potential
to branch out other related species. This mechanism was preprogrammed
and may ahve only applied for a few generations.

In term of genetic anlysis, an area I know a littel bit about, it is not,
in my opinion, ironclad. What it depends on is relative frequencies
of alleles in different populations and correlation with historical
evidence of migration patterns. It has been done with blood groups,
prevalence of genetic diseases and DNA polymorphisms. There are several
crucial assumptions that may not apply in pre-historic times.

M. Levin

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
>	But over the last few years, I've been
>bothered by one problem with this whole scenario. Dinosaur bones don't
>bother me at all, but if the above is true, and Hashem really created
>an evolved world nearly 5763 years ago (on 25-Elul-1), and put Adam and
>Chava in it to breed and produce all of us, then how can we explain the
>diversity of human genetics? Modern genetic analysis seems iron-clad
>proof of how many generations ago two lines diverged, so how can mutations
>that seem to have happened more than 6000 years ago exist?

One explanation I heard is that Adam's genetic composition was much
more complex than that of modern man, and contained the seeds of the
future human genetic diversity. One way of visualizing this is that he
had additional chromosomes, or that his chromosomes contained multiple
alleles that in subsequent generations resolved to form the current
diversity that characterizes human genetics. Perhaps this genetic
simplification correlates with (and maybe explains) the decreasing life
span of subsequent generations?

-- 
AP
email: pinter@phri.org

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


[ 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         ]