Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 061

Friday, January 21 2005

• Re: Rav Schach on the Torah Codes, Mekubalim, Future Tellers, etc.
• re: Rav Schach on the Torah Codes, Mekubalim, Future Tellers, etc.
• Re: Rav Schach on the Torah Codes, Mekubalim, Future Tellers, etc.
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Chadash
• Re: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler
• Re: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler
• Testing a People (Was: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler)
• Re: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler
• Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Alternative Medicine and AZ
• re: Rav Schach on the Torah Codes, Mekubalim, Future Tellers, etc.
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Levels of Shabbas

In a message dated 1/20/2005 12:07:24pm EST, llevine@stevens.edu writes:
>  Although we know that such gedolim as the Vilna Gaon and the Chafetz
> Chaim involved themselves with dybbuks," he added, "this is because
> they had a tradition about these matters from their predecessors. In
> any event, only gedolim of such stature as theirs can do such things;
> in our generation there is no one who is permitted to deal with all
> these matters.

So the mesora existed within the last 100+ years and someone didn't
transmit it? Why Not - Yiftach bdoro???

KT
Joel Rich

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> When Rav Yisroel Salanter was asked why he did not study Kabbalah
> he replied, "What need do I have to know in which Sephirah the Sh'chena
> is? I know that if I do not live my life according to the Torah, I will
> be punished in the World to Come. That is enough."

I have to believe that Rav Salanter meant this comment rhetorically,
and not literally, because learning kabbalah DOES count as Talmud Torah
(doesn't it?), and it would be difficult for me to imagine that he only
learned the practical parts of Torah.

Akiva Miller

In Avodah V14 #60 dated 1/20/2005 R' Yitzchok Levine
<llevine@stevens.edu> writes:
> As is well-known, Rav Schach strongly objected to any preoccupation
> with modern-day "prophecies," calculations of the End of Days, dybbuks,
> transmigration and elevation of souls, and other paranormal phenomena. He
> often declared that it is forbidden for anyone to determine any course of
> action based on these kinds of "information" ....Furthermore, he said,
> we do not have any authority to introduce in our generation practices
> and customs that we did not receive as part of our tradition from our
> forefathers and rabbis.

There are people who write letters to the Lubavitcher Rebbe and then
stick the letters randomly in one of the many anthologized volumes of
his letters, believing that whatever is on the page the book opens to,
is the answer to their question. I once asked my father zt'l if it's
mutar to do this, and he said no. When a Lubavitcher BT friend of mine
asked about this, I advised her to speak to a Lubavitcher rav in town
with whom she could form an ongoing relationship, and not rely on this
kind of "magic."

 -Toby Katz
=============

My point was not that the molad could not be before the 15th of Adar. When
looking at the calendar failing, I assumed the first failure would have
to be in a shanah me'uberes. Do not deduce anything beyond that from my
specifying Adar II.

-mi

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:13:27AM +0200, R Simon Montagu wrote:
:> Are Osenat or Tzofenas Hebrew? How closely does Mitzri follow Hebrew's
:> rules for sheva?

: WADR, this reminds me of the fellow who wanted Hillel to teach him Torah
: Shebikhtav without Torah Sheb'al Pe: it you don't assume that these names,
: as written in the Torah, follow the same rules of pronounciation as the
: rest of the Torah, how can you know how to pronounce them at all? Maybe
: Mitzri doesn't have a kamats katan? Maybe the tsadi represents a different
: consonant in Mitzri? etc, etc.

Think of Hebrew transliterated into English letters. Would you assume
that "Yam Suf" must be pronounced similar to "yam stuff" (a reference
to something made from yams) just because that's the way it would be
pronounced if it were native English? Transliterations using the nearest
possible letter, and deducing the norms for letters that have multiple
sounds requires knowing the "transliteration scheme".

Differences that can't be representwed in the target alphabet ban't be
presumed upon. Differences that can, can. So, we know that the sound of
the samech in "Osnat" is closest to that of a samech of any Hebrew letter.

I therefore would not correct someone who read in a transliterated word
a sheva nach that would be impossible in Hebrew. All we know is that
a sheva is the closest representation of the original, I can't be sure
that the sheva would be na in the original.

BTW, the tzadi in the word "Mitzri" is a usual tzadi, not the sound
closest to a tzadi; "Mitzri" is the Hebrew form of a name of another
language, it's Hebrew. Just as Mitzaryim is in the Hebrew dual form, and
only derives from the original "Misr". It's not a transliteration. When
I wrote "How closely does Mitzri..." (2nd line of this email) I was
speaking about the Mitzri language, not the word "Mitzri" itself.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - unkown MD, while a Nazi prisoner

> Actually I would assume that the inference is that any not bearing
> the Yoshon certification may or may not be chadash.

Joel is, of course, correct.

In Avodah V14 #60 dated 1/20/2005 Mendel Singer <mendel@case.edu> writes:
> This  is like the response you and others have given to the "world was
> created  old theory", that it isn't satisfactory, or "Why would Hashem
> fool us".....  Sure,
> it's more personally satisfying to be able to understand, but  that
> isn't a reliable indicator of truth....
> And how is it that Hashem  would be "fooling" us according to the world
> created old theory?  

I don't have a problem with saying that the dinosaurs were created by
Hashem for whatever reason He created them, whenever He created them.
I have a curiosity about them, but no burning need to know where they
fit in the scheme of things.

However I do reject out of hand the theory adduced by some that dinosaurs
never actually lived, but Hashem created the world with dinosaur bones
JUST to make it look old, to provide us with a nisayon or with the
possibility of bechira.

Now, His putting something in the world to benefit us that ALSO has the
property of possibly being misleading--that I don't have a problem with.
For example, coal and petroleum are extremely useful to us, and if they
also have the side property of appearing to be organic material from
plant decay millions of years ago, so be it. Doesn't bother me.

But if you want to say--and some very frum people have said it--that
dinosaur bones serve no purpose and that dinosaurs never actually lived,
but the bones were put in the ground JUST to mislead us, then I do have
a problem. Because one of Hashem's midos is emess.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

Mendel Singer <mendel@case.edu> wrote:
> At 07:45 AM 1/19/2005 -0800, RHM wrote:
...
>> This is an issue that must have bothered him which can be seen by the
>> way he refered to the complexity of the universe being created in so
>> short of a time (6 days). In the end, focusing on the spiritual side of
>> creation is somewhat evasive and not a very helpful explanation, in my
>> view. For those of us who see physical indications of an older universe
>> the question remains and begs an explanation. As far as I am concerend,
>> a respected scientist and Talmid Chacham like R. Aryeh Kaplan offers a
>> far more satisfactory perspective on creation than does REED.

> Why is his answer more satisfactory? Because it is something you can
> understand, and the other answer says the matter is impossible to
> understand? Is our ability to understand it any indication of
> truth?

Because it deals with science and tries to reconcile it with our
Mesorah. If you simply wish to wipre awaya anything science comes up with
because it doesn't fit with a narrow Hashkafa, that is your right. Others
like myself choose to not simply reject eveything scientists come up
with out of hand. I do not deny one "truth" oiver another. I simply do
not automatically accept one "truth" over another. As to satisfyimg
my intellect... why shouldn't I? If I reject my intellect I may as
well be an anmial or vegetable. Intellect is what separates us from
the rest of biologocal creation. And we give thanks to God for it 3
times every weekday by acknoweldging his granting it to us: "Atah Chonen
L'Adam Daas"...

God gave us an intellect to use... not ignore.

> if we know that Hashem is infinitely greater than us,
> and that we cannot understand everything, why is it hard to accept
> that we may not be able to understand the details of creation?

I never claimed to undersand the details of creation. But that does not
and should not prevent me from trying to understand as much of it as
I can.

> Sure,
> it's more personally satisfying to be able to understand, but that
> isn't a reliable indicator of truth. 

AS I said there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to satisfy your
intellect. But there is a lot wrong with trying to deny it.

> finding an
> answer to be more satisfying may be nice to put questions out of my mind,
> but it doesn't make it more likely to be correct 

Never said it did! ...And it doesn't make it incorrect either. Why are you
so opposed to allowing your intellect a bit of freedom? Are you saying
that one should never factor scientific knowledge into our thinking? Do
you think that if there is more than one way to undunderstand it the
more popular way even if it is less intelligent?

> (actually, if it makes
> sense to me it might make it more likely to be incorrect). 

Unless this is an attempt at humor this is an incredibile statement!

> The question
> is why is an answer more satisfying - because it fits better with what
> we know from solid sources, or because it feels better?

Solid sources? What's the matter with Rabbi Kaplan's sources? You don't
think they are solid? ...and this has nothing to do with feelings.

> And how is it that Hashem would be "fooling" us according to the
> world created old theory? 

This has been discussed so many times I'm just not going to get into
it again.

HM

In Avodah V14 #60 dated 1/20/2005 Mendel Singer <mendel@case.edu> writes:
>This is like the response you and others have given to the "world was
>created old theory", that it isn't satisfactory, or "Why would Hashem
>fool us"..... Sure,
>it's more personally satisfying to be able to understand, but that
>isn't a reliable indicator of truth....
>And how is it that Hashem would be "fooling" us according to the world
>created old theory?

First, let me thank you for explaining this. I hadn't understood before 
exactly where the issue of "fooling" was.

At 02:24 PM 1/20/2005 -0500, [Rn Toby Katz] wrote:
>I don't have a problem with saying that the dinosaurs were created by 
>Hashem for whatever reason He created them, whenever He created them.  I 
>have a curiosity about them, but no burning need to know where they fit in 
>the scheme of things.

>However I do reject out of hand the theory adduced by some that dinosaurs 
>never actually lived, but Hashem created the world with dinosaur bones 
>JUST to make it look old, to provide us with a nisayon or with the 
>possibility of bechira.

Certainly Hashem has done things just to test individuals (e.g. Avraham 
Avinu). Are you saying that Hashem doesn't do this as a test for a people?

>Now, His putting something in the world to benefit us that ALSO has the 
>property of possibly being misleading--that I don't have a problem 
>with.  For example, coal and petroleum are extremely useful to us, and if 
>they also have the side property of appearing to be organic material from 
>plant decay millions of years ago, so be it.  Doesn't bother me.

But we do have a use for fossils - fossil fuel! :) Would it be different
if we found that bones could be used to generate usable tissue for
medical purposes? Does it suffice to have *any* other purpose?

>But if you want to say--and some very frum people have said it--that 
>dinosaur bones serve no purpose and that dinosaurs never actually lived, 
>but the bones were put in the ground JUST to mislead us, then I do have a 
>problem.  Because one of Hashem's midos is emess.

Are you saying that doing something for the *sole* purpose of testing
us is a violation of the midah of emes?

So the issue here, if I understand you correctly, is whether it is a
reasonable position to say that Hashem would do something *only* for
the purpose of testing a people.

I think this is a fascinating theological question. First, do we
agree that Hashem can do this at the individual level? Is the Akeida an
example of Hashem "fooling" Avraham Avinu just to test him? My immediate
inclination is to say that of course this has been done many times,
with different individuals in Tanach. I just want to make sure we are
in agreement, and that I am not missing something, like a side benefit.

If we do agree at the individual level, then the next question is for a
people. Are there examples in Tanach of Hashem doing something that could
fool the Bnei Yisroel for the sole purpose of testing our emunah? Are
there clear-cut examples, using basic pshat, as opposed to drosh or more
general type situations like golus and hester ponim?

I think this is getting interesting. I hadn't thought of it along this
level of detail. I guess, inherently, I have no problem with the idea
of being tested as a people with a completely "manufactured" test. I
look forward to the discussion.

mendel

At 12:57 PM 1/20/2005 -0800, [R' Harry Maryles] wrote:
>> Why is his answer more satisfactory? Because it is something you can
>> understand, and the other answer says the matter is impossible to
>> understand? Is our ability to understand it any indication of
>> truth?

>Because it deals with science and tries to reconcile it with our
>Mesorah.

No problem here. The "world created old" theory also reconciles science
with mesorah. The question is why is it more satisfying to believe
alternative solutions. This isn't a personal attack or an attack on any
group. I also find other solutions more personally satisfying. part of
this is self-reflection. I am thinking that for me, part of the reason
is that I have a need for Science to be more believable than some others
want to say.

>If you simply wish to wipre awaya anything science comes up with
>because it doesn't fit with a narrow Hashkafa, that is your right. Others
>like myself choose to not simply reject eveything scientists come up
>with out of hand.

I am not choosing to reject everything scientists come up with out
of hand, and it would be unfair to characterize any group (including
chareidim) as doing this. There has been a lot of generalizing about
movements lately on this topic and the related discussions of Rabbi
Slifkin, and much of it is unfair. I wasn't trying to "attack" you. I
wanted to understand your position better, because I have had some
similar feelings but also some differences in dealing with it.

>  I do not deny one "truth" oiver another. I simply do
>not automatically accept one "truth" over another. As to satisfyimg
>my intellect... why shouldn't I? If I reject my intellect I may as
>well be an anmial or vegetable. Intellect is what separates us from
>the rest of biologocal creation. And we give thanks to God for it 3
>times every weekday by acknoweldging his granting it to us: "Atah Chonen
>L'Adam Daas"...

>God gave us an intellect to use... not ignore.

Absolutely. I agree with you. I am not saying that you shouldn't explore,
and that you shouldn't continue to do so until you find a satisfying
resolution. The question is *why* the "world created old" theory is
not satisfying - what difficulty does it create? The nafka mina is that
after finding a solution that *is* satisfying, can we way that this is
more likely to be correct than the rejected, unsatisfying answer?

Let me explain. I used to spend a fair amount of time on this issue. I
decided that the "world is created old" theory is an acceptable answer,
even if not particularly satisfying on a personal level. As a result,
I am not bothered by the questions of reconciling science and Mesorah on
this issue, though I am still very interested in alternative solutions
that I like better. However, I also think that my finding another solution
more satisfactory doesn't mean it is more likely to be correct, and that
the "world created old" theory should not be rejected. In other words,
if the "world created old" theory is acceptable, then the science vs
mesorah issue is moot. One may still seek a more satisfying answer,
and I am not suggesting people shouldn't do so.

>> if we know that Hashem is infinitely greater than us,
>> and that we cannot understand everything, why is it hard to accept
>> that we may not be able to understand the details of creation?

>I never claimed to undersand the details of creation. But that does not
>and should not prevent me from trying to understand as much of it as
>I can.

Yes, by all means try to understand all you can. That is not just your
right, but possibly your obligation. By all means keep investigating. The
question had to do with Rav Dessler and saying that we cannot fathom the
creation process and cannot even gain a basic understanding. It seemed to
me like your reaction was an emotional rejection, and I was suggesting
that the position is reasonable (even if not personally satisfying),
though it doesn't mean you should stop looking for alternative approaches.

>> Sure,
>> it's more personally satisfying to be able to understand, but that
>> isn't a reliable indicator of truth.

>AS I said there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to satisfy your
>intellect. But there is a lot wrong with trying to deny it.

No disagreement.

>> finding an
>> answer to be more satisfying may be nice to put questions out of my mind,
>> but it doesn't make it more likely to be correct

>Never said it did! ...And it doesn't make it incorrect either. Why are you
>so opposed to allowing your intellect a bit of freedom? Are you saying
>that one should never factor scientific knowledge into our thinking? Do
>you think that if there is more than one way to undunderstand it the
>more popular way even if it is less intelligent?

You have this backwards. I never suggested any restriction of intellectual
freedom. You rejected certain approaches because you found them
dissatisfying. I am saying that is fine motivation to search for other
solutions, but it might be unfair to reject those positions. There is
nothing wrong with saying that a position may be correct, but because it
is not satisfying to me I will look for other solutions. The issue isn't
about continuing to search, but about rejecting the earlier approach (as
opposed to holding it in abeyance as a default position until something
better comes along).

>> (actually, if it makes
>> sense to me it might make it more likely to be incorrect).

>Unless this is an attempt at humor this is an incredibile statement!

It was an attempt at humor. I sometimes forget to put smiley faces in. It
canbe hard to know for sure when something is a joke in an e-mail without
knowing the other person well.

>> The question
>> is why is an answer more satisfying - because it fits better with what
>> we know from solid sources, or because it feels better?

>Solid sources? What's the matter with Rabbi Kaplan's sources? You don't
>think they are solid? ...and this has nothing to do with feelings.

I am not saying they aren't solid. I worded the question wrong. I was
more interested in understanding why the rejected approaches were "not
satisyfing" rather than why Rabbi Kaplan's approach was more satisfying.

>> And how is it that Hashem would be "fooling" us according to the
>> world created old theory?

>This has been discussed so many times I'm just not going to get into
>it again.

I've seen many references to it, but sorry if I managed to miss the
parts where the meat of the issue was discussed. RTK responded and my
response does raise an interesting question that I hadn't noticed here
before. If I am wrong, then I would appreciate someone pointing me to
the right place in the archives to look.

RHM - I seem to have upset you, and I apologize for this. I never intended
this as an attack. I don't know if people expect that from me because
of my positions on the techeiles issue, but people who know me know that
I do not look for machlokes, and I go to great lengths to avoid hurting
people. Am I just being dense? If I have written something in a way that
offended anyone, I would like to know so I don't repeat this.

mendel

I just spent a long time (finally) catching up on Avodah. Going through
a number of digests quickly, I found this particularly interesting. It
is from Zvi Lampel in V14 #54. He quotes R. Sa'adia Gaon as writing
the following:
> or 'informs you that He created Heaven and Earth in one year,' we shall
> not not ask him for a sign because he brings us a message which is not
> sanctioned by Reason or Mesorah.

Note the inclusion of the term "Reason." That could only mean that if
Reason today leads to a creation 12 billion years ago then one merely
would not be labeled a false prophet for saying so even though one would
be wrong. Or it could mean that it is a viable view as long as Reason
supports it.

As to REED's position, I stand by Micha on this. After reading his many
presentations (and the original piece myself), I don't understand how Dr.
Ostroff is reading the piece in MME.

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

I have followed the intricacies of the discussion on a multi billion year
old universe vs. a 5765 year old one, but haven't seen any discussion on
the details of what such a dating implies about more recent history. In
particular Jewish and secular chronology are in synch only from 312 BCE.
The 275 year period preceding 312 BCE took only 110 years according to
Sefer Olam Rabbah based chronology. For example according to Jewish
Chronolgy the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed in 423 BCE and Alexander
conquered Judea in about 320/319 BCE. How do we reconcile these dates?

Was time moving at different rates for Am-Yisrael and the rest of the
world at that time, so 27 hours in Sparta were the equivalent of 11
hours in Jerusalem?
Perhaps all of the non-Jewish records and data we have from antiquity
which purport to tell us the names of ancient kings and their regnal
periods are all forgeries or part of a grand conspiracy to confuse
the Jews.

In addition all the records of astronomical events we have are consistent
with the 275 year chronolgy rather than the 110 year old one.

Was physics operating differently before 312 BCE as well as during the
creation period?

In particular we have the following

summary of archeological evidence for the secular neo-Babylonian
chronology. (The evidence for dating Alexander's conquest of Judea to
332 BCE is even more extensive.)

* Chronicles, historical records, and royal inscriptions from the
Neo-Babylonian period, beginning with the reign of Nabopolassar and
ending with the reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, show it ran from
626 to 539 BC.
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#regnal>Berossus
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#regnal>Ptolemy
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#royal>Various Babylonian chronicles
such as the Nabonidus Chronicle
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#royal>Nabonidus No. 18
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#royal>The Hillah stele, Nabonidus
No. 8
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#royal>The Adda-Guppi stele,
Nabonidus H1,B
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#business>Business and administrative
documents
* Tablets exist that are dated from each year of the Neo-Babylonian period
as established by Berossus, Ptolemy and contemporary stele; no tablets
are inconsistently dated. About 5000 have been published and about 50,000
remain. These are contemporary documents from the Neo-Babylonian period.
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#astronomy>Astronomical diaries
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#vat4956>VAT 4956 fixes the 37th year
of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 BC by a unique set of astronomical observations,
establishing his accession year in 605 BC.
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#bm32312>BM 32312 plus the Akitu
Chronicle pin the 16th year of Shamashshumukin (a Babylonian king before
the Neo-Babylonian period) to 652/1 BC This, combined with business
documents, Ptolemy's canon, the Akitu Chronicle and the Uruk King List
combine to date Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 605/4-562/1, with his 18th
(destruction of Jerusalem, Jer. 52:28-30) year in 587/6 BC.
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#saros>Saros (lunar eclipse) texts
* Four independent texts provide absolute dates within the Neo-Babylonian
period. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is fixed at 587/6 BC.
* <http://www.disfellowshipped.org/#egypt>Synchronisms with contemporary
Egyptian chronology show the following:
* Josiah died during Pharaoh Nechoh's reign, which began in 610 BC.
* Some Jews fled to Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) immediately after
Jerusalem's destruction. Since he began to reign in 589 BC, Jerusalem
could not have been destroyed in 607 BC.
* A fragmentary cuneiform text mentions a battle by Nebuchadnezzar in
his 37th year against Pharaoh Amasis, who began to rule in 570 BC

So to recapitulate,
How do we reconcile the Jewish daring of 5765 from Sedr Olam Rabbah with
the above?

[Moderator's note: I will be selective in how many presentations of R'
Schwalb's proposal I let through. -mi]

Lately I've heard a lot of talk about those who believe many aspects
of alternative medicine may be prohibited because of Avodah Zara.
My pediatrician has a copy of an item from "Orchose Rabbenu" saying that
those who pass their hands over a body for healing are doing Avodah Zara.
Someone wrote in on the side that "lichora even if they touch the body
it's the same problem."

At least two alternative medicine practitioners I know began to study
Reiki but stopped because they found it full of AZ.

Does anyone know personally, or know people who know halahca and really
understand any of the various modalities (for example Bach flowers,
homeopathy, chiropractic, network chiropractic, neurolinguistic
programming, emotional freedom techniques etc etc) and can offer some
factual information?

It seems clear to me that someone who tries to read up on any of these
subjects without really studying under an expert will come away with only
partial knowledge. This would be analogous to what some folks commented
when Rabbonim went to India and tried to delve into their practices --
if someone visited a frum community and saw Kiddush Levana they'd say
Jews worship the moon.

Another example comes to mind from a tape I recently heard from Rabbi
Berel Wein. He says that a professor writing about pre-war Europe quoted
the Gerer Rebbe as saying he had 10,000 chassidim who at on Yom Kippur.
The professor concluded that many Gerer chassidim were not observant.
But Rabbi Wein says the Rebbe was making a joke, referring to the
11-year-old boys who came with their father to Ger for Yom Kippur....

Conclusion - you need to know the whole story...

"kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
>> When Rav Yisroel Salanter was asked why he did not study Kabbalah
>> he replied, "What need do I have to know in which Sephirah the Sh'chena
>> is? I know that if I do not live my life according to the Torah, I will
>> be punished in the World to Come. That is enough."

> I have to believe that Rav Salanter meant this comment rhetorically,
> and not literally, because learning kabbalah DOES count as Talmud Torah
> (doesn't it?), and it would be difficult for me to imagine that he only
> learned the practical parts of Torah.

It's interesting that Rav Yisroel Salanter's view of Kavalah was identical
to mine. I have long wondered why anyone would desire to study something
as incomprehensible as Kabalah. Sephiros? Klipos? I realize that there
are some Chasidic groups, (one in particular) who advocate this study but
I could never figure out why. The question I always asked was virtually
identical to Rav Yisroel Salanter's: "What need do I have to know in
which Sephirah the Sh'chena is?" This was always followed by "What's
the point of knowing that?" I have never received a satisfactory answer,
although those who study Kabalah have certainly tried.

HM

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:52:19 -0500, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:13:27AM +0200, R Simon Montagu wrote:
>: Maybe the tsadi represents a different
>: consonant in Mitzri? etc, etc.

> BTW, the tzadi in the word "Mitzri" is a usual tzadi, not the sound
> closest to a tzadi

You misunderstood me: I meant the tzadi in Mitzri, not the tzadi
in "Mitzri". The one I had in mind in this context was the tzadi in
"Tzafenat Pa'aneach". :)

Returning to the main point, my impression is that at the time of the
Tanach, and in fact until very recently, people went much further than we
would today to transform foreign names into their own language. Compare
Xerxes (Greek) Ahashverosh (Hebrew) and Khashayar Shah (Persian), or
look at 19th century books on music that talk about John Sebastian Bach.

RMB wrote:
> Differences that can't be representwed in the target alphabet ban't be  
> presumed upon. Differences that can, can. So, we know that the sound of  
> the samech in "Osnat" is closest to that of a samech of any Hebrew  
> letter.

This is generally true, but sometimes transcription traditions stay  
conventional even if the pronounciation has changed.

> BTW, the tzadi in the word "Mitzri" is a usual tzadi, not the sound  
> closest to a tzadi; "Mitzri" is the Hebrew form of a name of another  
> language, it's Hebrew. Just as Mitzaryim is in the Hebrew dual form, and  
> only derives from the original "Misr". It's not a transliteration. When  
> I wrote "How closely does Mitzri..." (2nd line of this email) I was  
> speaking about the Mitzri language, not the word "Mitzri" itself.

Right, just as in English, you call the French capital PErrice, not
BakhEEhh.

Lipman Phillip Minden

Shabbas was observed first in Mitzrayim even while the Yiddin were slaves.
Then they got more laws at Marah...then at Sinai.....then the Mishkan
gave a different model...and there are several other citations of Shabbas
in the Torah. Does anyone discuss the various levels of Shabbas as such
systematically?

Chaim
hgschild@yahoo.com

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


[ 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         ]