Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 088

Thursday, September 2 2004

• Re: Age of the Universe
• Literal meanings
• Re: Age of the Universe
• RE: Age of the Universe
• RE: Age of the Universe
• Re: Calendar year at creation
• Re: Calendar year at creation
• RE: Age of the Universe (Rabbi Dessler zt"l)
• A Woman's Public Role
• Hiyuv to daven in a minyan
• Re: Kaddish DeRabbanan
• Dictions was reading the ktuba
• Re: Shiv'im pa'nim la'torah
• Re: tfillin not worn
• Yevamos 4:11
• RE: Age of the Universe (Rabbi Dessler zt"l)

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> And FWIW The likelyiehood of the first days being literally 24 hours
> are unlikely due to the fact taht the Sun and the Moon wer not created
> until day 4.

What has the passage of a day got to do with the presence or absence
of a sun?  It's clear from the language of the chumash that the concept
of a day is independent of the sun.  And, for that matter, the secular
definition of a day also has no connnection with the sun, or with the
Earth's rotation.  In English, when we speak of a day, we mean 24 hours,
not anything to do with the sun; if the sun were ch"v to disappear, or
if the Earth were to stop rotating, we would still count days of 24 hours
each (for as long as we were alert enough to care about the passage of
time), so why should the 1st 3 days of creation be different?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In a message dated 8/19/2004 5:04:47 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
>> I just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. The next time
>> you see a word or term and you are confused about it being used in a
>> non-literal sense, think back to this conversation, and remember that
>> meanings often change according to the context and situation. If "ayin
>> tachas ayin" seems to be an odd way to phrase financial penalties,
>> perhaps it is only because we are so far removed from it, in so many
>> different ways.

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com:
> and bein einecha might not literally mean between the eyes but when you
> put the tefillin shel rosh on your head it should be between your eyes
> Also see uvishalta v'achalta, sometimes bishul might mean tzliya... 

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, zt"l, makes this point in the introduction to his
Living Torah.

Zvi Lampel

At 10:02 AM 9/1/2004, [R Meir Shinnar] wrote:
>Perhaps RYGB can cite one major mefaresh of the rambam who understands
>him as he does - requiring the literal understanding of ma'ase breshit?
>Does RYGB consider all the standard meforshim of the rambam as not being
>substantive sources?

Did I say all of MB must be taken "literally?" If I did, I meant that all
(or part) of Bereishis 1 cannot be dismissed as the Torah equivalent
of Aesop's fables. There are many layers of understanding between
fundamentalist pshat and peshuto shel mikro.

YGB 

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
>>FWIW, We have continuous geological and environmental records, taken
>>from the same location, going back over 100,000 years..

>>We have biological records going back over 10,000 years.

>Surely you jest? In the evolutionary time-frame these are mere moments...

But more than sufficient to refute a less-than-6000 year old universe...

	-Shlomo-

> This one (although not a member of Aishdas) happens to know some of our
> constituency and commented: "Some believe what they see and some see what
> they believe."

And there are those who refuse to see what's in front of their eyes.

All are problems in subjectivity.

>>We have biological records going back over 10,000 years.

> Surely you jest? In the evolutionary time-frame these are mere moments...

You brought an "expert" who claimed the following:

> BTW, I spoke today with a respected scientist familiar with the fossil
> record, and he said that seeing how there is no one location with a
> complete fossil record, putting it together is sheer hypothesis, and
> that therefore the record proves neither for nor against the Torah.

I just pointed out that we have both physical and biological records --
complete -- that go back MUCH further than 6000 years. Once we go back more
than 6000 years, it doesn't matter if we're talking 10,000 or 100,000 or 65
million years.

Akiva
--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[Micha] wrote: <<< My point is that 1 Tishrei was Shabbos, Adam
was created Fri, 30 Elul, within the period of time (or "time") in
question. >>>

[R Zev Sero] asked back <<< 1 Tishri was Shabbos, not Friday?
Mina hani mili? >>>

Isn't this just a question of semantics? IFAIK, Adam HaRishon did not
have a celendar such that he might have declared one day or another to
be Rosh Chodesh Tishrei.

On the other hand, a molad is a physical event, and Shabbos is a
metaphysical event, so I think one could accurately say that a molad
occurred on the day before Shabbos. But to say which of those days was
Rosh Chodesh is more a post facto definiton of terms, than a historical
fact.

If one would ask, "Why would we have a Yom Tov on 1 Tishrei to commemorate
an event that happened on the last day of Elul?", then we could debate
that. But it is a different question.

Akiva Miller

On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:59:23PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Isn't this just a question of semantics? IFAIK, Adam HaRishon did not
: have a celendar such that he might have declared one day or another to
: be Rosh Chodesh Tishrei.

Our year number is based on Seider Olam, a tanna. Our calendar is based
upon that year number, and a formula that uses molad tohu, a name that
indicates it was before day one, if at all.

Then, we happen to use a different year zero than the SO, a constant
offset.

But you're right that it's all a large work of reverse engineering,
what would have been had our calendar been in use, assuming the SO's
deduction about dates of various events.

The question is whether any of the above implies that the people setting
up the calendar thought there was time before the six days, that the six
"days" weren't necessarily days, or whether molad tohu refers to a point
before time -- when the molad would have been. Was the shift in what
to call year 0 one of using cardinal vs ordinal numbers, of whether the
first week should be counted, or an actual ideological issue?

This question then raised the one of whether tohu vavhu are beryos, or
refer to the per-beri'ah ayin. Because implied in the name "molad tohu"
is that tohu is what reigned then. Was molad tohu between Bereishis 1:1
and 1:2, or is Bereishis 1:1 an introductory pasuq for the pereq, not
a separate event (yeish mei'ayin)?

: If one would ask, "Why would we have a Yom Tov on 1 Tishrei to commemorate
: an event that happened on the last day of Elul?", then we could debate
: that. But it is a different question.

It makes as much sense to celebrate Adam's birthday as the first Shabbos.
I don't see how that question is demonstrable.

As for RZS's question, it will wait until I pull out some books on the
calendar. IIRC, molad tohu implies that the subsequent Elul was malei
if our calendar would have been in use.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

 Rabbi Nosson Slifkin wrote:
> In other words, according to Rav Dessler, pshat (at least as 
> far as maase Bereishis is concerned) is not a description of 
> physical reality, but rather something that is easy to grasp. 

RNS hangs a very radical re-reading of the Torah on a very slim reed indeed.

RNS appeals to Rav Dessler for a non-historical and totally metaphorical
and/or conceptual understanding of Maaseh Beraishis emptied of all physical
meaning of actual historical happening. For the sake of concreteness I will
refer to the specific case of Adam HaRishon on the 6th day. 

"But the theory that man was created by inserting a soul into a hominid
creature [i.e. the precursors of a gorilla] which itself evolved from
the earlier creatures [e.g an amoeba] is no more problematic than the
embryo evolving from a sperm and egg"
[RNS, The Science of Torah, p179, see also p206]

RNS states in footnote 2 that this approach has been endorsed by
universally acknowledged leading Torah scholars in Jerusalem. It would
be interesting to know who these scholars are, and to get an actual
quote from them in the light of the concerns expressed on avodah.

According to RNS, it is true that man is distinguished from the beast
by a neshama. But historically, he never was created directly from the
earth (makom hamizbeach) on the 6th day in Gan Eden. Adam HaRishon never
witnessed chidush haolam and the creation of Chava. He was not really
a lofty being of incredible spiritual stature and physical perfection
(to be regained only at the time of techiyas hamesim). He did not
use his free-will to eat from the tree of knowledge, which caused
destruction to himself and the world (the "fall" of man), as a result
of which he was expelled from Gan Eden with the memory of it seared
in his consciousness. He did not have to do teshuva for 130 years for
his sin. Therefore, Adam HaRishon could not really have testified to
chidush haolam from his creation and that of Chava on the 6th day in Gan
Eden. Nor could Lemech have seen the Adam of Gan Eden. Noach could not
testify having heard from Lemech, Avroham could not have testified what
he heard from Noach, and Yaakov could not have testified to the shevatim
"eid mipi eid". For neither Adam Harishon nor the 6th day were actual
historical events.

Anybody who has read Mictav MeEliyahu pages 137-149 (MmE1) will recoil
at such a misrepresentation of his thinking.

In this regard it may be of interest to see Rabbeinu Bechaya to Gen. 10:1,
based on a Ramban, who bases himself on a Rambam to MN, for how these
Rishomim viewed the historicity of Adam HaRishon.

RNS used the quotes below to justify his reading of Rav Dessler. I add
important words and context that RNS omitted in square brackets as well
as my own comments, after which I briefly explain an alternative and
more credible reading of Rav Dessler.

MmE2: Michtav Me-Eliyahu Vol. 2. p. 151. "All that the Torah recounts
of matters relating to the period before the completion of creation
is conveyed to us by Moshe from the mouth of God in terms of concepts
which we can grasp [the PESHAT, but the SOD is beyond our ken]. Just as
one attempts to give a blind person some idea of that which he cannot
see by making use of analogies with the sense of touch and so forth,
so does the Torah present to us that which is essentially spiritual in
a material guise, with some points of similarity and analogy to the
spiritual message, so that we may be able to grasp it to the best of
our ability [i.e. the PESHAT is but a pail reflection of the SOD]. [At
this point, RNS left out the quote from the Ramban which states that
there is a SOD as well as a PESHAT of 6 actual days MAMASH with 24 hours
KE'PESHUTO SHEL MIKRA]. In the simple meaning of the text - that which
is conveyed to us in accordance with our own conceptual capacity - we
are to understand actual days made up of hours and minutes. But in its
real essence, that is to say, in its inner meaning, the text has quite a
different connotation. It refers to the six sefiros, which are modes of
revelation of the divine conduct of the world. Only for our benefit does
Scripture present them to us in the form of six days. [RNS left out the
last sentence of the paragraph which states: the 6 days (i.e. PESHAT)
hint to the 6 giluyim (SOD) -- but the relationship between them is
hidden beyond our ken. Rav Dessler then goes on to explain how 6 days
MAMASH do hint to the SOD]."

MmE3: Michtav Me-Eliyahu vol. IV p. 113. "[TIME -- it's metzios is
only in our perception.] Creation, by definition, is outside our world
and outside our frame of thought. [RNS leaves out an important part of
the quote here --- "lemala min hazman" APPEARS to us to be untold eons;
therefore, it also APPEARS to the scientists as evolution over millions
of years]. Since creation does not take place in time we must ask why
the Torah describes [ESTABLISHED] it as taking [ "as taking" is an RNS
interpolation] six days. The answer is that the Torah wishes to teach us
a lesson in relative values. Everything has value only in relation to its
spiritual content. Vast physical masses and vast expanses of space and
time are of little significance if their spiritual content is small. The
whole physical universe exists as an environment for the spiritual life
of the human being; this is its spiritual content. When interpreting
non-temporal creation in temporal terms the Torah deliberately contracts
the time-scale compared with that which presents itself to the scientist
[?? scientists are not mentioned at this point in my volume nor "presents
itself" ??], in order to convey to us the relative insignificance of
the material creation compared with the spiritual stature of man." [RNS
leaves out the very next line at the beginning of the next section:
"why was the world created in a way that APPEARS to us AS IF it evolved
derech histalshus .... "]

In the long discussion in (MmE1) it is taken for granted that Adam after
the sin outside of Gan Eden is the same person as Adam HaRishon in Gan
Eden as a historical reality.

In (MmE2) there is a historical PESHAT and the deeper and essential
SOD that are both true at one and the same time. True, even the PESHAT
may have non-literal connotations. But, non-literal does not mean
non-historical. In historical PESHAT, there was a real tree mamash in
Gan Eden and a real nachash, but even the peshat is not according to
our superficial notions of today. But, at least the historical PESHAT
is somewhat understandable given our limited understanding and provides
a hint to the deeper SOD.

In (MmE3), we do not fully grasp our own perception of TIME -- it is
really much deeper than it appears at first glance. It only APPEARS to
the scientists that the earth and universe are old, and it only APPEARS
that there was slow evolution. The Torah wants to convey to us that these
vast eons of apparent time have very little value, in fact only 6 days
worth of value. It is fact the scientists who got it wrong due to their
limited understanding of creation and time.

Rav Desler (p137) says that one may not publicize the sins of the early
generations unless it is to help us (of course, if Adam is merely a
mashal, no embarrasment would follow from telling his "story"). Why then
does the Torah publicize the sin of Adam HaRishon? Not to satisfy our
curiosity. Only to help us learn from his mistakes for our own avodas
Hashem. Rest assured that there is a deep and real historical message
recorded in these parshiyos.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

Rabbi Wolpoe submitted the following matrix:
> Men performing for men - OK
> Women performing for women - OK
> Women performing for men or mixed - not kavod or tznius
> Men performing for women or mixed - a problem of tzinus but a necessary
> exception must be made when shluchei tzibbur do so in a shul etc. or a
> man blowing shofar or reading megillah for women.

What this means ("women performing for men or mixed-not kavod or tsnius")
is that no woman can deliver a lecture at any convention, seminar or
school where there will be men present, no woman may serve of the board
of any organization which has men on the board, no woman can speak up
at a shul meeting, no Orthodox woman can teach anything at YU, Tuoro
or Lander etc. etc. I suppose that's a possible position, but I wonder
if that's really the role we want woman to play today in both Jewish
and general society. I know, from actual practice, that such a position
has been rejected in my community (Teaneck, which , I believe, is also
R. Wolpole's community), even though many of the rabbonim (and laypeople)
are followers of R. Schachter.

I also have problems with "Men performing for women or mixed - a problem
of tzinus but a necessary exception must be made when shluchei tzibbur do
so in a shul etc. or a man blowing shofar or reading megillah for women."
Why, then, can a man read a ketubah? I understand why a man has to be
a mesader kiddushin or an eyd -- such roles have halachic significance
to the wedding ceremony.
 But since reading a ketubah does not have this significance ("even a
monkey or parrot can do it") why is tsnius for men waived when, in
fact, the modern equivalent of a monkey or parrot --a tape recorder --
is available?

I guess the real question is: do we believe that it is halachically
necessary to completely segregate men and woman in all public functions
except where a mitzvah is concerned? (This would surely be the end of
shul, school or organizational dinners.) It seems to me that except for
certain hareidi communities (and certainly not all), this viewpoint has
been, in practice, rejected in today's age by the vast majority of the
Orthodox community.

Joseph Kaplan

RYE Henkin seems to hold that there is a hiyuv for the community to have
a minyan, and there is a hiyuv for a person to be part of that community.
However, if the person has good reasons why he can't make the minyan
(work schedule, etc), he is against forming other minyanim so that the
person can go to minyan - the primary hiyuv is on the community, rather
than on the individual - and he says that was the widespread practice
in Europe - even large communities essentially had one minyan.

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 8/27/2004 5:06:38 PM EDT, motikagan@hotmail.com writes:
> The practice of saying Kaddish DeRabbanan migrated over to Nusah Ashkenaz 
> from the nushaot of the Hassidim in the last hundred years or so.

See Baer's Avodas Yisroel p. 153
loose translation: --- The Rambam brings this...and R. W. Heidnheim
{RWH} in his Siddur brings the above verion as per the "Vaye'tar
Yitzchok..." and in my book Totz'os Chayyim p. 115 I bring another
version..."

NB: RWH is circa 1790...
Baer is circa 1870?

There is a siddur that came out in the last few years called Ezor
Eliyahu (ed. David Kohen, published in Jerusalem) that sees as one of
its aims the undoing of changes made in Nusah Askenaz in the last couple
of hundred years by grammarians on the one hand Changes by grammariams
are lich'ora emendations/restoratiosn and not changes. The facts are
that Asheknazim unlike Sepharadim were usually not very good at grammar
For porrof See shu"t Noda Biyhuda {IIRC #1} where he pleads igorance of
how to pronounce ADNY mil'eil or mil'era or the fact that the average
ashkenazi does not know if the almaya at the end of y'hei sh'mei is
mil'el or mil'ra etc. {IOW amMAya or almaYA}

And grammarians did not change v'hashcyos yeshoreiru to t'shorrena {BAER
214} even though it is grammatically inconsistent because some things
were given a pass as per Ibn Ezra ayein sham

Furthermore, the changes on Shabbos to vanahu Vo and Vam are problematic
and iirc are based upon the Magen Avraham {MGA} based upon a midrash
and that the grammatically correct vah was probaly there to being with
and grammarians merely restored it.

Conflating attempts at restorantion with "chidushim" by kabblistis is a
bit confusing to say the least. While Ashkenaz siddurim/machazorim are
fairly reliable, they are not "WordPerfect" to the extent that we need
to restore "errors". It's like the difference between HIGHER Criticism
and LOWER criticism.

IOW it's one thing to say that the Tefillos are OK as they are re:
format, layout etc. and do not need to conform to an external model
of Halachah... OTOH it's another thing to say that they are 100%
error free....

and mystics on the other. It omits Kaddish DerRbbanan and includes
a footnote detailing the relatively short history of this prayer in
Nusah Ashkenaz.

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 8/23/2004 5:30:38 PM EDT, smash52@netvision.net.il writes:
> RMB and I are in agreement on this point; we agree that we do not study
> the text of the Torah or the siddur in order to attain
> perfection in Biblical or Aramaic grammar, but to understand the
> concepts -- philosophical, ethical, or halachic -- embedded in the
> texts. Nevertheless, it is clear that grammar is a necessary, significant
> tool in properly understanding what the text means. Structure and meaning,
> syntax and semantics, are inseparably entwined. Question to ponder...
> Is saying "Yehai Sh'Mai Rabba..." very loudly and with feeling yotzei
> "b'chol kocho" when it is grammatically mis-pronounced?

Background: this past summer I davened with my son's day camp at a nearby
shul. One fellow answer every Yehi Sh'mei loudly - {nothing else loudly
JSUT yehi shmei...} and he ended it with alMAya. which prompted me to
ask a colleague isn't i almaYA? My colleague did not know for sure but
reffered me to Daniel. That Shabbos in Wash. heights I asked 2 firends
and they were CERTAIN that it is almYA as per Daniel. I confirmed that
in Daniel all the plurals I could find were mil'era IOW almaYA is correct.

So now my question remains is bechol kocho limited to feeling and volume
or is good diction and proper enuncation part of "bechol kocho"?!

Remember it does NOT say bkol ram or b'kol gaddol it says bechol kocho!
To me that includes all of one's talents and abilites not just
loudness....

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 8/9/2004 3:58:21 PM EDT, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>> I haven't researched this but the question is why 70 and not some other
>> number like 100 or 10 etc.

> Think... Septuigent.

Aderabboh!  Septuigent proves ONE pannim in that they were unanymous!!!

The whole point of shi'vim panim is a model that has 
1) the # 70
2) each one being unique
3) each one being at least correct and possibly each one authoritative

The targum shiv'im is a case where 70 come to the exact same conclusion!

My argument is simple:
    Each member of the BD hagdaol had the power to interpret...
and therfore each interpretation COULD be valid even if all 70 were
unique and distinct

{Note: that does not mean they had zero parameters or zero massoros that
limitted them. All I am saying is that once they conformed to the rules,
there could easily be a case of 70 n uanced reading and all 70 could
be valid}

Therefore a Tzadduki or other fundamnetlist would say that the ONLY
correct version is the ONE SINGLE UNIQUE version given at Sinai and the
others are masquerading impostors.

And OTOH a Karaite might say that ANY interpretation is valid without
ANY RULES so long as it fits into the plain meaning. {AIUI Karaites give
the power of interpretation to EVERY individual withou regard to masorah.}

{And Reform might say that any reading is ok if one personally FEELS it
is ok.}

70 is AISI davka. It means that the 70 have the power over the meaning
{within certain parameters} and their authority counts as if it derived
from Sinai and that the Tzadukkim are WRONG to think that HKBH had ONE
intent. Aderabba, HKBH gave Torah shebichsav with middos/rules in order
to give the BD hagadol the latitude to make interpretations and that at
any time HKBH contemplated 70 meanings as a maximum outcome of His system.

I guess that a dugma might be the US Supreme Court could IN THEORY have up
to 9 interpretaions of a given Cosntituional passage at any one time. No
more than nine and likely less if/when there is a consensus.

The fact that the Halachah msut follow ONE opinion is due to the physical
limitations... IOW if Both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam were on the BD Hagadol,
and the BDhG voted for Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam's version would be equally
legit in theory but not in practice. That's because his interpretaion
of the order could be euqally valid as Rashi but we can only use one
interpreationa at any time. And sometimes the BD could say we shouldbe
chosheis for both dei'os... but that is not the usual case

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 8/6/2004 7:04:53 AM EDT, smash52@netvision.net.il writes:
> Why don't I wear t'cheilet? For the same reason most people do not,
> which if the truth be told is basically inertia -- *not* laziness, but
> rather just continuing to do things as they've always been done, even
> though circumstances may have changed....

When the authenticity of a particular type of t'cheilet will be
established beyond a doubt to the satisfaction of most poskim, and
they themselves wear t'cheilet, most people will come around. Halevai
shenizke l'cach.

As I was told by R. E. Kanarfogel, that RYBS was opposed to introducing
techieles at this juncture in history

and my classmate Dr. Marty Vassas explained to me the Rav's svara
as follows:

Sh'al avicha v'yagedcah, physcial massoros are in the realm of family.
Hence one 'cheiles is lost it is lost as a Masorah and not restorablye

OTOH zkeinecha v'yomru lach, that Chachamim can use logic/svara to pasken
and to derive chidushim in Halachah but not on physical metzius issues.

 --------------

On another note, we see that "chalita" is a lost art both regarding
pesach and re: melichas kaveid... This is as per the gaonim. Techeiles
is simlar, we forgot the lost art of tcheiles

The coutner argument is simple, what harm is there in sing t'cheiles?
It is not like chlita which if done improperly creates a kashrus problem.

But sometimes inertia is based upon an actual injuction {such as chalita}
or similar and not just inertia for its own sake

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: "Sholom Simon" <sholom@aishdas.org>
> The Gemara goes on to explain that the reason is based on psukim, that
> he builds up one house, not two.

> My chavrusa writes: "I would have expected the reasoning to be that he
> marries one by yibum, or submits to halitzah from one, which severs all
> zikah, and leaves the remaining former wives as "wives of a brother" -
> once an ervah, always an ervah."

> Our question is: why isn't the above logic relevant? Why does the Gemara
> have to use "build up a house" ? What's wrong with my chavrusa's 
> logic?

Now that I've had some sleep since last looking at this question <g>,
it seems to me that the origin of the principle stated by your chevrusa,
that zika is "broken" by yibum or chalitza of one wife, is in fact the
pasuk, bayis echad hu boneh.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' Jonathan Ostroff writes:
>RNS appeals to Rav Dessler for a non-historical and totally metaphorical
>and/or conceptual understanding of Maaseh Beraishis emptied of all physical
>meaning of actual historical happening. For the sake of concreteness I will
>refer to the specific case of Adam HaRishon on the 6th day. 

R' Ostroff has misunderstood my book and/or my Avodah post. I do not appeal
to Rav Dessler for anything other than the explanation of the six days per
se and showing that they do not represent periods of time (and certainly not
24 hours), not with regard to Adam HaRishon, who is not directly discussed
by Rav Dessler in this context.

>RNS states in footnote 2 that this approach has been endorsed by
>universally acknowledged leading Torah scholars in Jerusalem. It would
>be interesting to know who these scholars are, and to get an actual
>quote from them in the light of the concerns expressed on avodah.

It was foolish of me to state this, since the Torah scholars do not want
their identities revealed, and therefore my mentioning them is pointless.
However, the sefer does have haskamos from other people who did not mind
their identities being known, including Rav Carmell shlita.

I think, however, that the concerns expressed on Avodah - which have
only been by a certain segement of listmembers - have already been
adequately addressed.

>According to RNS, it is true that man is distinguished from the beast
>by a neshama. But historically, he never was created directly from the
>earth (makom hamizbeach) on the 6th day in Gan Eden.

Actually, I think I did not make any statement as to what happened, just
regarding whether this is an acceptable belief, which I think it is. But,
yes, I do now believe that to be the case.

>Adam HaRishon never witnessed chidush haolam and the creation of Chava. 

Does anyone hold that he did witness the creation of the world? He came at
the end of it all! Or am I misundertanding what you mean by "chidush
Ha-olam"? And how could he have witnessed the creation of Chava - he was
asleep at the time! 

>He was not really a lofty being of incredible spiritual stature and
>physical perfection (to be regained only at the time of techiyas hamesim).
>He did not use his free-will to eat from the tree of knowledge, which
>caused destruction to himself and the world (the "fall" of man), as
>a result of which he was expelled from Gan Eden with the memory of it
>seared in his consciousness. He did not have to do teshuva for 130 years
>for his sin. Therefore, Adam HaRishon could not really have testified to
>chidush haolam from his creation and that of Chava on the 6th day in Gan
>Eden. Nor could Lemech have seen the Adam of Gan Eden. Noach could not
>testify having heard from Lemech, Avroham could not have testified what
>he heard from Noach, and Yaakov could not have testified to the shevatim
>"eid mipi eid". For neither Adam Harishon nor the 6th day were actual
>historical events.

Whoah, this is going much further than anything I ever wrote! Although it is
a scenario that is addressed and rated as acceptable in Rav Kook's writings,
as discussed previously on Avodah. I have a question for you, by the way:
Where exactly is Gan Eden, and the cherubs with the flaming twirling swords?

>Anybody who has read Mictav MeEliyahu pages 137-149 (MmE1) will recoil at
>such a misrepresentation of his thinking.

Aside from the last part, which I never wrote, nothing I said about Adam
HaRishon was remotely suggested to be based on Rav Dessler. I would also
like to point out that Rav Carmell shlita, a leading talmud of Rav Dessler
and the editor of Michtav Me-Eliyahu, endorsed my book - and he read it very
carefully.

>RNS used the quotes below to justify his reading of Rav Dessler. I add
>important words and context that RNS omitted in square brackets as well as
>my own comments, after which I briefly explain an alternative and more
>credible reading of Rav Dessler....

I invite the Avodah listmembers to read Rav Dessler's words for themselves
and draw their own conclusions as to which is the more credible reading.

>[At this point, RNS left out the quote from the Ramban which states that
>there is a SOD as well as a PESHAT of 6 actual days MAMASH with 24 hours
>KE'PESHUTO SHEL MIKRA]. 

Addressed earlier in Avodah... Rav Dessler holds that peshat means what
we can grasp, not physical reality. They were six days mamash in pshat,
which has genuine spiritual meaning, but was not six days as we know six
days, as Rav Dessler explains: "In the simple meaning of the text - that
which is conveyed to us in accordance with our own conceptual capacity -
we are to understand actual days made up of hours and minutes. But in
its real essence, that is to say, in its inner meaning, the text has
quite a different connotation. It refers to the six sefiros, which are
modes of revelation of the divine conduct of the world. Only for our
benefit does Scripture present them to us in the form of six days."

> [RNS left out the last sentence of the paragraph which states: the 6 days
> (i.e. PESHAT) hint to the 6 giluyim (SOD) -- but the relationship between
> them is hidden beyond our ken. Rav Dessler then goes on to explain how 6
> days MAMASH do hint to the SOD]."

Right, I left this out, because it's not relevant to our discussion. He
doesn't hold that "mamash" means historically factual.

Regarding the quote from Michtav Me-Eliyahu vol. IV p. 113 - this is not
my own translation. I actually took the English version of this found in
Challenge p. 140, which I believe was translated by Rav Aryeh Carmell. Any
disparities between this and the version in Michtav Me-Eliyahu (which
was also edited by Rav Carmell) would have to be explained by him.

>In the long discussion in (MmE1) it is taken for granted that Adam after
>the sin outside of Gan Eden is the same person as Adam HaRishon in Gan Eden
>as a historical reality. 

Probably - however I did not claim otherwise in the book.

>In (MmE2) there is a historical PESHAT and the deeper and essential
>SOD that are both true at one and the same time. True, even the PESHAT
>may have non-literal connotations. But, non-literal does not mean
>non-historical.

I believe this is a misunderstanding of what Rav Dessler has written, at
least regarding the nature of the six days, which is what I was quoting Rav
Dessler for.

>In (MmE3), we do not fully grasp our own perception of TIME -- it is
>really much deeper than it appears at first glance. It only APPEARS to
>the scientists that the earth and universe are old, and it only APPEARS
>that there was slow evolution. The Torah wants to convey to us that these
>vast eons of apparent time have very little value, in fact only 6 days
>worth of value. It is fact the scientists who got it wrong due to their
>limited understanding of creation and time.

Who are these "scientists"? What Rav Dessler means is that if you examine
the universe, it appears to be billions of years old. Rav Dessler not say
that it is wrong to draw this conclusion. If anything, he indicates that
this is the more accurate perception, and the six-day description is
"deliberately contracted" to teach us a lesson that all these billions of
years were of no spiritual content.

>Rav Desler (p137) says that one may not publicize the sins of the early
>generations unless it is to help us (of course, if Adam is merely a mashal,
>no embarrasment would follow from telling his "story"). Why then does the
>Torah publicize the sin of Adam HaRishon? Not to satisfy our curiosity. Only
>to help us learn from his mistakes for our own avodas Hashem. Rest assured
>that there is a deep and real historical message recorded in these parshiyos.

Again, I don't know why you thought my book was addressing any of this.
However, I will address it now. If your point is that Rav Dessler must
have held Adam to be an actual person, then this is true. However the
argument itself can easily be countered - because the Torah publicizes
the sins of Iyov, and yet one opinion in the Talmud is that he was not
an actual person! (While the Talmud appears to reject this position,
it was held by someone in that era! Fascinatingly, Rav Eisemann, in
his ArtScroll commentary to Iyov, justifies that position and basically
adopts it!) And Iyov still conveys deep and real messages, even if they
are not historical. (To clarify - I am NOT saying that Adam was not a
historical figure - just that this particular argument for it does not
hold water. There are much better arguments for it.)

Kol tuv
Nosson

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


[ 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         ]