Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 063

Monday, January 24 2005

• Re: Alternative Medicine and AZ
• Re: Testing a People (Was: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler)
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Re: Avodah V14 #62
• Reb Yisroel Salanter and Kabbalah (Avodah V14 #62)
• Re: Testing a People (Was: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler)
• Testing a People (Was: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler)
• RE: Avodah V14 #62
• Re: Igrot
• Re: Rav Schach on the Torah Codes, Mekubalim, Future Tellers, etc.
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• TU B'SHVAT
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Reb Yisroel Salanter and Kabbalah (Avodah V14 #62)
• Re: Testing a People
• Re: metronome on Shabbos?
• Re: metronome on Shabbos?
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy

I have no answers, but I want to give more clarity to the issues in
the question.

Bach flowers, homeopathy and chiropracty are not based on any religious
concepts. Ignoring personal opinion about which is based on theories
I'd rely upon, I don't see how they're halachically different than
"mainstream" medicine.

Accupuncture is based upon Ch'i, which (in turn) inherently screams of
pantheism akin to buddhism. (Beqitzur: Star War's "the Force" is derived
from the concept of chi'i. Any one liner definition of the concept will
be about as inaccurate.) Chakra based therapies are equally problematic;
it's also a "universal energy" mysticism but with Hindu rather than
Buddhist derivation.

But what if someone took the results without the explanation? A frum
accupuncturist explained to me his belief. He feels that accupuncture
caught on in China because it works. Ovedei AZ tried to explain how, and
invoked their AZ to do so. By making the connection to AZ post-facto,
he explained how one can use accupuncture without invoking the AZ. His
poseiq accepted this explanation.

Reiki has no non-ch'i (which they call by the Japanese name, "ki")
component. It therefore is not amenable to this kind of division.

I'm also not sure how many of these arts provably started as AZ, and
therefore the AZ can't be dismissed as post-facto explanation of a
basically natural phenomenon. However, that would include Yoga, which
does have a natural explanation for working even though it was created
as an AZ meditation art.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:26:14PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
: 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?

I would say that no, Hashem would not construct a test that boils down
"Let's see if they can refuse to fall for My lie."

Perhaps we can complicate things by bringing in the aqeidah. Hashem is
no more likely to promote human sacrifice as He is sheqer.

But I don't see how one jumps from the presence of a false history to
assuming that is could only be for a test. HQBH often does things for
reasons that we can't fathom -- from parah adumah to Auschwitz. Why
assume we know the reason for a false prehistory?

-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

Re: Yissachar (not Yisaschar as is getting popular in Israel)

I remember writing quite a long posting to Avodah about two months ago
on the subject of the newly-popular, but incorrect, pronunciation of
Yissakhar.There is much more on the subject in the Mesorah sub-list.
( I say "completely incorrect" despite the g'dolim who have adopted the
"new" reading or read both ways. I beg forgiveness from those g'dolim but
stand by what I find in the sources and believe that, if they had been
familiar with these sources, they would not have changed the accepted
traditional reading.)

If there is interest, I can find that posting and send it to the list
(or off list) again.

Re: <<Then take all the words like Osnat, Tzorfat, Tzofnat, Bosmat - all
wrong! In every case the kamatz is rachav as can be seen from the meteg
or ta'am on the first letter. So even for those who pronounce kamatz as
'o' (Temanim and Ashkenazim) there should still be a sh'va na under the
second letter. (Oh and it's pronounced Ge-r(e)-shom - not Gershom. The
sh'va is na as it follows a tzere which is a t'nua g'dola, and it even
has a meteg, just so you can't possibly mistake it. >>

It is true that the traditional pronunciation of the names above is with a
kamatz gadol and sh'va na' (As to Ge-r'shon & Ge-r'shom, see below.) As a
bal-koireh,I read them that way. I wouldn't, however go so far as to say
that such pronunciation is really "correct". It is based on the decision
of the medieval ba'alei-mesorah that any kamatz with a meteg cannot be
a kamatz katan as the meteg emphasizes it and it is therefore a kamatz
gadol. They also tell us that, following an open syllable with a kamatz
gadol, the following sh'va is na'.

The most obvious proof that the k'lal,"kamatz with meteg is gadol", is
not correct, is to look at the Keter or other Tanakh based on it. E.g.,
Breuer, Cohen-Keter.(In this instance, k'tav yad Leningrad is also
acceptable.) My favorite proof is the word kol (kaf with kamatz) followed
by a makaf. (e.g. , kol-ma'y'not, kol-hap'kudim, kol-hab'chor). There are
14 such words in the chumash and over ninety more in Nakh with a meteg
next to the kamatz! Nobody ever suggested that they are rachav.(Do not use
Heidenheim or those who follow him such as Koren. Explanation below iy"H.)

Of course there are over a thousand kol- without the meteg, but usually
where the word after the makaf has a ta'am m'chaber or word/phrase with
two makafim.

(No, kol-'atzmotai does not have a meteg. It has a munach.)

But over one hundred examples is sufficient to kill the accepted rule.

And now, to the sh'va na' in the listed kamatzed names and to the sh'va
na' in Ge-r'shon, i.e., after open syllable with long vowel.

This k'lal is the result of R' Yosef Kimchi (father of Radak) who invented
the vowel pairs, five long and five short. When a sh'va follows the
long, it is na' and starts a new syllable. When it follows the short,
it ends the syllable and is nach.

But before R'YK, the ba'alei mesorah all state that Hebrew has seven
vowels, not ten. This is what Aharon ben Asher heard in T'veria. They
also mention a k'lal of "shiv'a m'lakhim marpim" which means that the
sh'va following one of the seven vowels is nach.

In Dikduk Hat'amim of ben-Asher, the accepted authority, one of the
examples with sh'va nach is Pinchas (Baer edition). This despite the yud
and the meteg! I don't know about ben Asher's knowledge of Egyptian and
the idea that pi-n'has might be a hyphenated Egyptian name as in pi-thom,
pi-hachirot (and not pi hab'er or pi Hashem).

As one born long after RYKimchi, I learned to lein Pi-n'chas and still do.

To fulfill the promise made above I will simply quote the Ohr Torah (R'
Menahem di Lonzano). Make that paraphrase, the "quote" is from memory.
"I'm sick and tired (katzti b'chayai) of the many extra ga'yot that the
Ashkenazim have added to their texts. They annoy me no end but are just
too many to enable me to correct them all. They are like the arbeh,
uncountable.They call them "meteg", I call them "meteg l'chamor"."

Heidenheim follows R' Y'kutiel Hakohen ben Yehuda who was one of those
who made up or figured out the rules of m'tagim and added gayot wherever
they were "missing".

R'; Shlomo Dubna, using Ohr Torah as his justification, removed some
(in circa 1800), but unfortunately he seems to have removed the wrong
ones. R' Mordekhai Breuer removed some. R' Menahem Cohen in his Keter
removed more and claims to follow the "Keter rules" also in those parts
of the Keter that are missing. In his hakdama (in sefer Yehoshua),
he discusses the subject in detail.

And having worn myself out in the middle of the night, I will now retire
with the hope that Hamapil chevlei shena will cooperate and cancel my
insomnia at least for this night.

bivrakha,
David 

At 04:38 PM 01/23/2005, [R M Levin] wrote:
>To apprecaite these words one needs to study details. BTW, there is much
>evidence that R. Y. Slanter studied and was proficient in Kabbalah. See
>HIllel Godberg, Did R. Y. Slanter study kabbala, in Isreal Salanter:
>Text, structure, idea, Ktav, 1982. pp. 109-119.

Immanuel Etkes in "Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement" on
page 93 he writes, "What is surprising is his (Reb Yisroel's) attitude
of distance toward Kabbalah..." Also, on the same page, "For this reason
Rabbi Israel's position concerning the Kabbalah may properly be described
as a conscious retreat."

On pages 12 -121 he writes, "In the theoretical realm, Salanter's
innovation was expressed first and foremost in the fact that he removed
himself from the conceptual world of Kabbalah, not that he doubted
the authenticity or sanctity of Jewish esoteric teaching, but that
he rejected study of some kabbalistic works, but that Kabbalah had no
significant influence upon his teaching..."

Yitzchok Levine

There is more in the Etkes book about Reb Yisroel Salanter and his study
of Kabbalah. The note below from page 339 deals directly with Hillel
Goldberg's claim that Reb Yisroel did indeed study Kabbalah.

    1O. From a letter written in 1850 to his friend and disciple,
    R. Elijah of Kartinga, quoted by Shraga ha-Kohen Willman,
    lggerot u-mikhtavim me-'er ha-gaon r. yisra 'el mi-salant (New
    York, 1970). 28, letter 6. Hillel Goldberg, in his book, Israel
    Salanter: Text, Structure, Idea (New York, 1982), devotes an
    excursus to the question: "Did Israel Salanter Study Philosophy and
    Kabbalah?" (pp. 209 -- 19).

    He engages there in a detailed polemic with my position, marshaling
    evidence of his own to support the conclusion that Salanter did in
    fact study Kabbalah. After a careful study of his arguments, I remain
    convinced of the validity of the position presented here. Even if we
    assume that Goldberg is correct -- namely, that Salanter did study
    and know Kabbalah -- and we admit, for the sake of argument, that
    he was expert in all the various branches of Kabbalah, what is the
    significance of it? The crucial question for anyone who wishes to
    characterize and to analyze the thought of Salanter is whether, and
    to what extent, his thought was influenced by the Kabbalah. Goldberg
    has not brought any proof likely to upset my conclusions on this
    matter. Incidentally, the seemingly most conclusive text cited by
    Goldberg in fact supports my stand. I refer to the following sentences
    from R. Isaac Blazer: "[HJe lSalanter~ evidently also knew a great
    deal in esoteric matters, for he also possessed books of Kabbalah,
    and he would at times search diligently to acquire one of the books
    of Kabbalah; but due to his humility, his way in holy matters was
    not to speak of this with any person, and therefore his path in this
    matter is unknown to us" (Or yisra'el, 119).

    It follows from these remarks that Salanter did not give
    any expression in his contacts with his students to what he had
    learned, if he in fact did learn, of kabbalistic literature. But the
    most conclusive proof that Salanter's thought was not influenced
    by Kabbalah are his own writings. See on this Mordecai Pechter,
    "R. Israel Salanter Seen in a New Light" [Heb.], Tarbiz 53 (1984):
    636.

Yitzchok Levine

At 04:14 PM 1/23/2005 -0500, RMB wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 05:26:14PM -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:
>: 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?

>I would say that no, Hashem would not construct a test that boils down
>"Let's see if they can refuse to fall for My lie."

>Perhaps we can complicate things by bringing in the aqeidah. Hashem is
>no more likely to promote human sacrifice as He is sheqer.

Let's take this further. What if the point of testing is not so much to
test us, but to give us a zechus? Maybe the whole issue of the age of the
universe, and any possible issues of science vs Chazal (real or imagined)
is to give us a special opportunity to strengthen our belief in Chazal
and in Hashem, and give us merits. For a person who fully accepts the
Science in his mind, and isn't happy with any of the Torah approaches
but still demonstrates faith that this is merely his own limitation,
isn't this a great zechus?

When Hashem tests people, isn't that an opportunity for the tested people
to grow? Couldn't that be a justifiable reason to test - because we need
the growth? or we need the merits?

>But I don't see how one jumps from the presence of a false history to
>assuming that is could only be for a test. HQBH often does things for
>reasons that we can't fathom -- from parah adumah to Auschwitz. Why
>assume we know the reason for a false prehistory?

Excellent points. People objecting to the "world created old" theory
have suggested that this would be a violation of Hashem being emes, that
it indicates He is fooling us. That does presuppose that the purpose
is to test us. I suspect that the idea that there could be a reason
that we just cannot understand/can't see/hasn't been revealed will not
make those not enamored with the "world created old" theory any happier
(and they may well have thought of this).

mendel

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org> posted onFri, 21 Jan 2005:
> The issue is whether Hashem actually created the world to lead 
> the vast majority of people since the middle of the nineteenth century 
> astray, depriving them, perhaps, of Olam HaBa. This runs counter to the 
> entire concept of "HaShomayim Mesaprim Kevod Keil," and "K'Shem 
> She'ha'Beged Mei'id" etc.

I think the solution to this issue lies in considering that the vast
majority of philosophers and their followers in the middle ages were
convinced, through their observing the world the way Hashem made it,
that it was not created, but eternal; or that there is no G-d, or He
doesn't care about life on earth; or by consdiering trhat the entire
non-Jewish world in biblical or talmudic times determined that there
were two gods or many gods. Perhaps they can all be faulted for not
achieving the thinking of Avraham Avinu. But on the other hand, there is
the Kuzari's statement that we cannot blame the philosophers for their
error, since they did not have the benefit of a reliable mesorah.

> In no case in Tanach does Hashem set up a nisayon 
> in which He deliberaltey plants indicators that will lead the menuseh to 
> erroneous conclusions. The Emes is clear.

According to some meforshim, however, Hashem allows a navvi shekker to
actually perform real miracles, solely as a test of our loyalty to the
mesorah. Not that I'm saying this is done in any other realm.

KT,
Zvi Lampel (who, due to other responsibilities, is sorrowfully phasing
out of Avodah discussions)

On January 19, 2005 micha@aishdas.org wrote 
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:33:17AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
> ...
> : Translation:
> : The concept of time exists only within the framework of our perception.[1]
...
> : Notes:
> : 1 For a full treatment of this concept, please refer to Michtav MeEliyahu
> : Vol. 2, pg. 150. It is important to note here that the word "exists"
> : should be taken in a modified form. The terminology that would more
> : accurately represent Rav Dessler's shita in this matter is "exists for
> : the purpose of", the latter being causal, the former being consequential.

> No it certainly should not! Your reinterpretation is not indicated by
> MmE vol IV, 

Perhaps. That is why I had to clarify Rav Desslers words.

>and runs directly counter vol II! IMHO you're turning REED's
> words around to prove the opposite of what he explicitly states at length

Apparently RMB and I have different copies of MmE vol II. Rav Dessler
states in no less than 4 places in the maamar that he is referring
to perceptual time, or, time the way it was *felt* by Adam Harishon,
not real time. This follows his approach that Adam Harishon had a "very
feeble and impoverished sense of time" (pg. 150) due to the fact that
his entire Bechira was focussed on one point alone thus his feeling of
hischadshus was limited thereby causing the weak perception of time. This
does *not* mean that real time did not exist as is evidenced by his
quoting of the Ramban in Bereishis 1,3. Besides, real time must have
been in place otherwise, how could there be a physical beriah with cows,
trees, flowers, the sun, the moon the stars etc.

> In MmE vol II, REED explains the causal connection between eating the eitz
> hadaas and our current experience of time. He clearly states that the
> current millenium is exactly the same time interval as day 6 of maaseh
> bereishis. Literally. How? Being post-eitz people, we experience time
> as some linear progression, but that's an artificial limitation in us,
> and not inherent in time itself. We're not capable of comprehending
> time's true nature.

Sounds very esoteric but IMHO is a misrepresentation of Rav Dessler's
words. Rav Desller actually states (pg 153) that each of our six
millennia correspond to one of the days of creation (actually, this is
a quote from the Ramban) and that on a *spiritual plane*, each one of
the days *is* one of the millennia. But not that each one of the days
took a thousand years or longer to occur. Thus R' Dessler states "the
six days of maaseh Bereishis are *actually* the six thousand years of
our existence for their essence and revelation are one and the same"
not that real time didn't exist or that real time flowed slower.

How is it that the two periods of six correspond exactly? Rav Dessler
explains that AH had the ability, with one concentrated Bechira, (and in
one linear day) to accomplish (in a spiritual sense) what now is taking us
6000 (linear) years and therefore, all the giluyim of the first six days
that were supposed to be used by AH to elevate mankind into Gan Eden with
one singe concentrated bechira now have been spread out over 6000 years.

> IOW, R' Dessler really believes that tthe thing we call time literally
> only exists within the framework of our perception. As opposed to block
> Time, a different thing altogether.

Block time? I am not familiar with that term.

Best wishes
Simcha Coffer

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> 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."

How is this worse than opening a chumash at random to find an answer
to a current problem? Or than Chazal's practise of asking a child what
pasuk he had learned in cheder that day? Or 'goral haGRA'?

Actually, even leaving aside any 'magical' aspect, opening the LR's
igrot at random is probably a good idea. First of all, it gets people
learning the igrot, which is never a bad thing. But the letters often
address common issues, that lots of people have, and so it's likely that
if you read 4 or 5 letters at random you will find *something* that can
help, somewhat, with whatever is bothering you now. And if not, well,
it wasn't a waste of time, at least you learned something, and maybe it
will come in handy some other time.

The practice of the Igros Kodesh should not be a stira to adhering to
the advice of one's Rav, as this was the Lubavitcher Rebbe's instruction
before his passing that when chassidim will not be able to get his advice
they should follow their rabbonim in all matters of Halacha.

As to the actual practice, the Birkei Yosef in Yoreh Dei'ah, siman 179,
se'if 8 says in the name of the Maharikash:
    "It is permissible to open the Torah to see what pasuk appears, since
    it is our life, and just as we see with Yoshiya, who did something
    because he found a Sefer Torah rolled up to a particular pasuk and
    so it is common practice. (end quote of the Maharikash)

(Birkei Yosef continues:)
    "And it says in the Yalkut Mishlei, siman 219, if you want to take
    an eitza from the Torah, take it. As we find that Dovid says,
    "b'fikudecha asicha" (end of the Yalkut). Apparently, taking an
    eitza from the Torah is possible and in this is included opening
    the Torah to see what pasuk appears. And I found in a kuntres,
    a manuscript from Rabbi Eliyahu Cohen z'l (the author of Shevet
    Musar) who wrote as follows: I received from my teachers, that
    when they wanted to do something, and were uncertain whether to do
    it or not, they would take a chumash or nach and would open it,
    and look at the top of the page to see what pasuk was there, and
    based on the pasuk they would take action. And so it comes out, that
    they consulted the Torah to know what to do in all their inyanim,
    and this itself is alluded to in the statement of our sages z'l,
    litol eitza min ha'Torah that it rules it permissible to do so,
    and this is not at all in the category of 'utilizing the Torah'
    (end of quote). And it's also possible that our sages z'l ruled
    on this that despite the fact that it says in Sifri that one does
    not ask through lots for it says, "tamim tihiyeh," however, in such
    a way, it is permitted v'dok heitev.(end quote of Birkei Yosef)

Rabbi Zvi Konikov

In Avodah V14#61, the moderator wrote after RMA's post:
> [Moderator's note: I will be selective in how many presentations of 
> R'Schwalb's proposal I let through. -mi] < 

I assume you meant R'Schwab z'l'.  Would you allow a post to point to 
<http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Article/Religion/biblical.tl>? 

In Avodah V14#62, RYGB replied to RMA:
>> In addition all the records of astronomical events we have are 
>> consistent with the 275 year chronolgy rather than the 110 year
>> old one.

> As to astronomy, au contraire, the Molados chart stretching to Molad
> Tohu in perfect order debunks the claim. See
> <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584>

'tis a wonderful Website, but methinks RMA (full name, please)
had objective astronomical sightings or the like in mind, not our
system of molados. In any case, mah inyan molados (and BaHaRaD)
aitzel BCE chronology/events such that our ability to calculate
forwards from BaHaRaD should "debunk the claim" [of a chronological
gap] -- did CHaZaL list the molad for any particular event whose
dating is in question because of Seder Olam? In previous public
(<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v9/mj_v9i25.html#CEH>, 3rd post [19
Sep 1993]) and current private writing, RYGB, you've clearly maintained
the position that CHaZaL didn't deliberately conceal certain years
(thereby creating a chronological gap) -- in fact, you believe there is
no gap -- so please take the opportunity of this thread to contradict
the timeline given by Rav Schwab (see above) and offer us one of your
own (or of someone else's, perhaps in the JA article you mentioned in
1993?). Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Very interestingly the closest sidrah to the holiday of Tu B'shvat is
Beshalach. Verse 25 (Ch.15) states: "He (Moshe) cried out to HaShem,
and HaShem showed him a tree; he threw it into the water and the water
became sweet. There he established for [the nation] a decree and an
ordinance, and there He tested it." G-d tested the people to see how
they would react to the lack of water - and they failed.(Rashi). Or,
He tested them to see whether they would accept and fulfill the mitzvot
He gave them in Marah; if so, they would be worthy to receive the entire
Torah. This was a test they passed (Sforno; Or HaChaim).

According to Mechilta, these springs and trees were prepared from
Creation in anticipation of the coming of the twelve tribes and their
seventy leaders, and in order to show individual honor to each of them
(R' Bachya). Thus, we afford great honor to trees which are another
reflection of the greatness of HaShem. This symbolism of the tree
sweetening the bitter waters of Marah is poignant. Perhaps Tu B'Shvat
(the New Year for Trees) can be seen as a renewal of Torah sweetening
the bitterness of our lives.

Richard Wolberg

> [RYBS] would make the Baal Koreh say the Posuk twice (once as Yisaschar
> and once as Yissachar), just as we say Zeicher and Zecher Amalek (which
> he would make the baal koreh do every time (i.e. Ki Seitze, Zachor,
> Beshalach, and Purim)).

As RMB has pointed out in Siddur Ashira Lashem, RYBS also said Tehillim
145:7 (in "Ashrei") twice, once as Zeicher and once as Zecher.

Given the Brisker propensity for always trying to cover all the bases,
this is not surprising.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml>. Have I mentioned this superb
work before? :)

Saul Mashbaum

At 04:38 PM 01/23/2005, [R M Levin] wrote:
>To apprecaite these words one needs to study details. BTW, there is much
>evidence that R. Y. Slanter studied and was proficient in Kabbalah. See
>HIllel Godberg, Did R. Y. Slanter study kabbala, in Isreal Salanter:
>Text, structure, idea, Ktav, 1982. pp. 109-119.

[R Yitzchok Levine:]
> Immanuel Etkes in "Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement" on
> page 93 he writes, "What is surprising is his (Reb Yisroel's) attitude
> of distance toward Kabbalah..." Also, on the same page, "For this reason
> Rabbi Israel's position concerning the Kabbalah may properly be described
> as a conscious retreat."

> On pages 12 -121 he writes, "In the theoretical realm, Salanter's
> innovation was expressed first and foremost in the fact that he removed
> himself from the conceptual world of Kabbalah, not that he doubted
> the authenticity or sanctity of Jewish esoteric teaching, but that
> he rejected study of some kabbalistic works, but that Kabbalah had no
> significant influence upon his teaching..."

Hillel Goldberg quotes these words of Ettkes and argues with them. The
evidence for Ettkes is third line (R. Zaitchik and R. Levovits) and
very late whereas R. Y. Blaser reports in Ohr Isroel that R. Salanter
studied Kabbala. His other evidence is that a number of people around
R. Slanater, including his teacher R. Zundel were masters of Kabbala as
well his immediate disciples, such as R. Blaser.

I agree that R. Salanter made a break with the conceptual
world of both philosophy and Kabbala (see my article in
Jewish Action, Volume 64, No. 2, Winter 2003/5764, fn.10,
<http://www.aishdas.org/news/jewishAction.pdf>). That does not mean that
he did not study or wasn't proficient in Kabala. While he seems to have
avoided using Kabbalistic terms, philosophical terms are encountered
abundantly in his writings.

M. Levin

RYGB wrote:
>In no case in Tanach does Hashem set up a nisayon
>in which He deliberately plants indicators that will lead the menuseh to
>erroneous conclusions.

What about a novi sheker? He can do a sign which Hashem allows only for the
purpose of testing, even though it appears to be solid evidence.

Akiva B.

>When we were putting away muktza for Shabbos my son asked why
>we had to put away the metronome. My gut reaction was that it's a musical
>instrument, but of course it really isn't.

My gut reaction is also that it is classified as a musical instrument. It
is designed to make a sound, like a door knocker that is also assur.

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

Mima nafshach:

Either the metronome's beat is for it's own sake, and it's a musical
instrument, or it's a tool used to aid playing a musical instrument
and a keli shemilachto lei'ssur.

No?

What does the chevrah think?

-mi

At 01:06 PM 1/24/2005, [R M Poppers] wrote:
>'tis a wonderful Website, but methinks RMA (full name, please)
>had objective astronomical sightings or the like in mind, not our
>system of molados....                        In previous public
>(<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v9/mj_v9i25.html#CEH>, 3rd post [19
>Sep 1993]) and current private writing, RYGB, you've clearly maintained
>the position that CHaZaL didn't deliberately conceal certain years
>(thereby creating a chronological gap) -- in fact, you believe there is
>no gap -- so please take the opportunity of this thread to contradict
>the timeline given by Rav Schwab (see above) and offer us one of your
>own (or of someone else's, perhaps in the JA article you mentioned in
>1993?). Thanks.

If there was a 165 year gap, then the molados cheshbon would need be 
compensated accordingly.

 From <http://tinyurl.com/23npb> [condensed from a aish.com URL -mi]

1812 BCE Time of Abraham begins
Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilization in flower
1712 BCE Time of Isaac begins
1652 BCE Time of Jacob begins
1544 BCE Joseph sold into slavery
1522 BCE Joseph welcomes his family to Egypt
1428 BCE Israelites enslaved in Egypt
Egyptian cities of Pithom and Ramses are built
1392 BCE Time of Moses begins
1312 BCE Exodus
1312 BCE Torah given at Mt. Sinai
Caananite tribes occupy Promised Land
1272 BCE Conquest of Promised Land
1106 BCE Time of the Judges begins
Phillistines occupy coastal area of Israel
879 BCE Saul annointed king
877 BCE Time of King David begins
836 BCE King Solomon begins his rule
825 BCE First Temple completed
Assyrian Empire rising in the north
796 BCE Israel split into two kingdoms
555 BCE Assyrians overrun Northern Israel; Ten Tribes are lost
547 BCE Sennacherib attacks Jerusalem
Babylonians overrun Assyrian Empire
422 BCE Babylonians conquer Israel and destroy Temple
Persians overrun Babylonian Empire
370 BCE Jews return to Israel from Babylonian Exile
355 BCE Miracle of Purim
352 BCE Construction of Second Temple begins
347 BCE Time of the Great Assembly begins
Greeks overrun Persian Empire
312 BCE Greeks conquer Israel
245 BCE Torah is translated into Greek; Greeks persecute Jews
167 BCE Revolt of Maccabees begins
139 BCE Miracle of Chanukah
Romans overrun Greek Empire
63 BCE Romans invade Israel
37 BCE Herod the Great begins his rule
32 BCE Time of Hillel and Shammai
67 CE The Great Revolt of Jews against Rome begins
70 CE Jerusalem conquered by the Romans,
17 17t h t of Tamuz
70 CE Temple destroyed by Romans,
9t h t of Av
120 CE Rebellion of Bar Kochba
136 CE Rabbi Akiva martyred
219 CE Mishna compiled by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi
312 CE Constantine converts Roman Empire to Christianity
Fall of Rome and Rise of Byzantine Empire
638 CE Islamic Conquest of Jerusalem
1040 Time of Rashi begins
1096 Time of Crusades begins
1135 Time of Maimonides begins
1144 First Blood Libel
1263 The Great Disputation; Time of Nachmanides
1348 The Black Plague
1478 The Inquisition begins
1492 Jews expelled from Spain; Columbus discovers America
Ottoman Empire takes over the Middle East
1517 Protestant Reformation; Time of Martin Luther
1567 Jews invited into Poland
1570 Time of the Ari and the Kabbalists
1648 Chmielnicki Massacres in Eastern Europe
1651 Time of Shabbtai Tzvi, false messiah
1654 First Jews arrive in America
1698 Time of the Ba'al Shem Tov begins; the Chassidic Movement
1772 Time of the Misnagdim and Vilna Gaon
The Enlightenment; American & French Revolutions
1791 Emancipation of the Jews begins in Europe
1791 Jews herded into the Pale of Settlement in Russia
1810 Reform Movement begins in Germany
1881 Jews made scapegoats of Tzar of Russia
1882 First Aliyah to Israel
1887 Conservative Movement founded in America
1894 Dreyfuss Affair in France
1897 First Zionist Congress
World War I; End of Ottoman Empire
1917 British Mandate begins in Palestine; Balfour Declaration
1927 Country of Jordan created by the British on the
East Bank of the Jordan
1933 Hitler comes to power in Germany
World War II
1942 Final Solution formulated by the Nazis
1947 Partition of Palestine by the UN
1948 State of Israel Declared
1948 War of Independence
1964 PLO founded
1967 Six Day War and Reunification of Jerusalem

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


[ 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         ]