Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 064

Tuesday, January 25 2005

• Re: Testing a People (Was: Torah and Science - Rav Dessler)
• Re: Testing a People
• Re: Testing a People
• Re: Rav Schach on the Torah Codes, Mekubalim, Future Tellers, etc.
• Metronome on Shabbos?
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Reb Yisroel Salanter and Kabbalah (Avodah V14 #62)
• RE: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Igrot
• Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Singular/Plural
• Tell The Sons of Israel to Travel
• 'kabbolas ol malchus shomayim' at public gatherings
• Re: metronome on Shabbos?
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• daf yomi - pregnancy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy

At 07:34 PM 1/23/2005, [R Zvi Lampel] wrote:
>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.

And then we have Reb Elchonon in Kovetz Maamarim, who attributes the
refusal to recognize a Creator to negi'os. I am a fan of the Kuzari's
mahalach, and it is necessary to authenticate Yahadus, but Tanach and
Chazal are replete with the assertion that the garment testifies to
the weaver.

>> 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.

The Torah tells you, in the parashah of navi sheker, precisely this point,
no more, no less: Miracles prove nothing.

Mah inyan zeh l'kahn?
YGB

[RAB:]
>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.

I believe this isn't just for a Jewish navi sheker, but for non-Jewish
religious leaders as well. I have heard it said that non-jews also have
religious miracles so there would be true bechira, though I haven't seen
this in print and haven't heard of specific instances where the miracle
is acknowledged in Jewish circles. What is interesting here is that
in the case of a navi sheker it is testing a people and not a specific
individual (or rather, is not limited to the case of an individual).

Other examples?

mendel

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:45:42PM +0200, R' Akiva Blum wrote:
: 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.

1- There HQBH gave man the power to lie. The navi sheqer is the liar
using a ko'ach HQBH placed in the universe. HQBH's role was to provide
bechirah, not sheqer.

2- The reason for the koach the navi sheqer used was a zeh le'umas zeh
with nissim and real nevu'ah. This balance is lacking in the case of
providing evidence of a false history without equal evidence of the
real one.

-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      

From: "Chabad of the Space Coast" <chabadspacecoast@att.net>
> 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...
>                                         And I found in a kuntres,
>    a manuscript from Rabbi Eliyahu Cohen z'l (the author of Shevet
>    Musar) who wrote as follows: ...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. 

It seems that they limit this practice to Torah and Nach.

SBA

As a music major many years ago, I can tell you that a metronome was
never considered a musical instrument. Technically, a metronome is
a device used to mark time by means of regularly recurring ticks or
flashes at adjustable intervals. In a sense it could be defined (as
Micha Berger did) as a tool used to aid playing a musical instrument
and a keli shemilachto lei'ssur. An analogy that might fit would be
a clock that ticks. Would there be an issur for a ticking clock that
was wound prior to Shabbos? I don't believe so, but I don't say that
with authority. Would the same hold true of a metronome that was set
before Shabbos? I leave that to a posek.

rw

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 04:11:11PM -0500, R Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: 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>

Molad tohu, as the name indicates, is a reverse engineered number. It
would have occured before the literalists believe was the first moment
and during the period the inconprehensablists believe was "time" not time.

But in any case, it occured before "hachodesh hazeh lachem", before the
one molad we know was given to us.

There is no proof from the molados because there is nothing ruling out
someone during bayis sheini or later who worked backward from a known
molad and using Seider Olam or a predecessor seifer.

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:06:32PM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:                                       ... 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.

Dr Chaim Heifetz has an alternate chronology (which, BTW, Lisa Liel is
working on a book to further develop). Brad Aaronson's description in
Jewish Action (Summer 1991) is at
<http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzfix.html>.
Subsequent letters to the editor are at
<http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/heifetzletters.html>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 07:17:34PM -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: There is more in the Etkes book about Reb Yisroel Salanter and his study
: of Kabbalah...
:     1O. From a letter written in 1850 to his friend and disciple,
:     R. Elijah of Kartinga...
:     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? ...             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...

It can't be "did not give any expression ... if in fact he did learn",
as Rav Itzele Blazer expressed knowledge of his learning qabalah. What
he did not do was teach qabbalah. R' Hillel Goldberg's assessment is
more loyal to the source.

I find it quite odd. The opening chapters of Etkes's book set the
historical context of Rav Yisra'el and the rise of the mussar movement
in terms of a sequence from the Gra and R' Chaim Vilozhiner. Given that
context, could R' Yisra'el Salanter have succeeded in gaining a following
if his contemporaries had doubts about his knowledge of qabalah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer quoting Rabbi Ken Spiro at Aish:
> 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

The latest BAR (Jan/Feb 05 pages 50-53) has an article on a dispute
between archeologists Finkelstein (low chronology) and Mazar (high
chronology): "All agree that King Solomon ruled ... say somewhere
between 960 to 930" BCE. The question is precisely when Iron
Age II begins according to these savants. Iron Age I building is
unimpressive and impoverished, but there are monumentally great Iron
Age II buildings. Conventionally, Iron Age II starts no later than
980 BCE consistent with King Solomon's building program. However, low
chronologists such as Finkelstein peg the start of Iron Age II about
60 years later (say 920 BCE) with what they claim is a problem for the
Biblical account of King Solomon, although I note that Finkelstein's
evidence for low chronology is about as impressive as his description
of Iron Age I buildings. It is interesting that each side has suggested
that the other is acting to defend the Bible or c"v to discredit it. At
issue is a question about radiocarbon dates.

Of course, according to our authentic traditional count (836 BCE according
to R. Spiro), the Tanach is confirmed however you do the radiocarbon
calibration curves (needed because carbon concentrations vary depending
on the era), wiggle matches or 1 sigma/2 sigma probabilities. I note in
passing that radiocarbon dates are highly problematic and I would rely
on them mostly for relative dating (perhaps) and of course where they
do not disagree with Tanach. By 836 BCE, great buildings, city gateways
and well-built palaces are everywhere in view, and even Dovid Hamelech
would have had the opportunity to initiate an impressive architectural
programme.

If any Avodah members have more information on this, I would very much
appreciate your input.

KT ... JSO

On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:49:31PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: 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'?

1- Many (most?) of those who consult the Igros call it "asking the rebbe"
which would make it closer to ov veyid'oni in intent than a goral.

2- Rav Shach was against the contemporary use of other known experiences
of "practical qabbalah", citing the fascination with dibuq's for example.
I believe goral haGra would also be excluded.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

[R' David Bannett:]
> 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.)

There are mant poskim who say Yisaschor or both.  You can say that you
disagree; I do not think that you should say that they are totaly
wrong.

> As RMB has pointed out in Siddur Ashira Lashem...
> See <http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml>. Have I mentioned this superb
> work before? :)

This is a great work. However, having spoken with Baale Batim at
Maimonides Minyan about the Rav's minhagim, it certainly does not have all
of them. For example, in the Kaddish D'Rerabonan after Be'meh Madlikin,
they claim that the Rav said Ve'ara. If you listen to the recording of
him saying kaddish at <http://www.613.org/rav/kaddish28.ram>, he clearly
does not say Ve'ara. This is just one example.

[I know, there will be a new revision one day. However, as my current
laptop is a Mac and can't edit DavkaWriter files, it's hard to find time
to sit in front of a stationary computer and work on it. -mi]

In Beshalach, after shevii, the complaint is heard "lama he'elisanu
miMitzraim lehamis osi ve'es banai ve'es miknai batzomo".

Why the switch from he'elisanu (plural) to lehamis osi etc. (singular)?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

When the Yidden were caught between the Yam Suf and the approaching
Miztriyim, where was the cloud that led them, the cloud that they followed
all the way from Mitzrayim?
Was it hovering over the sea beckoning the Yidden to follow? Or was it
perhaps just resting at the seaside?
Was HKB"H angry with MRA"H? Is that not the tone of Mah Titzak Elay
Daber al BeNey Yisroel VeYisoU?
Is this disappointment in MRA"H or the Yidden?
If the Annan was hovering over the Yam this might explain the
disappointment as the instruction were given and were not followed?
Why was MRA"H told to tell the Yidden that they should travel, Moshe
himself should have led the people in to the Yam?

Sincerely,
meir

I have noticed in recent years a trend to include something which is
termed 'kabbolas ol malchus shomayim' at various frum/haredi public
mass gatherings.

I suspect that it may have originated in Eretz Yisroel, but has spread
to elsewhere, e.g. North America, for one place. When in the past it
seemed like something special, rare and extraordinary, now it seems to
have become de rigueur at such events.

In a newspaper account I just read re the recent mass gathering for
shmiras Shabbos in Eretz Yisroel arranged by R. Refoel Halpern, it was
part of the program. At various Tehillim/tefilla rallies in the USA in
recent years it has been part. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be a
part of upcoming gatherings where the siyyum hashas of lomdei daf yomi
will take place (iy"H).

I submit the following questions related to it -

1) Where and when did this practice originate ? Who conceived and
implemented it ? Anyone have any written mekoros related to it ?

2) It seems to be the same thing that is done at the conclusion of Yom
Kippur - namely the recitation of Shma, boruch shem kevod.....and Hashem
hu HaElokim, in a certain manner. Is it proper to take a hanhogo from
the end of Yom Kippur and do it at a different time of the year and in
a different situation ?

I can see arguments being made against it along the lines of

1) it takes away from the uniqueness of the practice at the end of
Yom Kippur.

2) Cheapens / lessens uniqueness of Shema. Shema should be limited
to certain places and situations. Where do we see it being recited at
such gatherings in Jewish history ? It was usually limited to specific
occasions - e.g. davening, before going to sleep, at the end of life
and at times of kiddush Hashem (R"L).

3) A lesser question is if people could be yotzei krias shema with it if
they haven't davened yet, which may not be the optimum and most desirable
way to do so.

Comments please.

Mordechai

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> 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.

There's a machlokes acharonim whether anything designed to make a sound
is a musical instrument (see AHS 338:9). You might argue that a metronome
is even closer, but it's certainly not literally a kli zemer.

David Riceman 

Re: Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org> latest
posting

The moladot prove nothing. They are mathematical calculations of mean
new moons which are tied to neither observational astronomical data nor
to any "absolute" chronological calculations. They can be calculated
retrospectively to any date in the past or prospectively to any date in
the future without proving anything about absolute chronology..

The astronomical evidence I am talking about are cuneiform tablets which
say that in such a such a year of such and such king the following planet
positions were observed. Using the periodicity of planet positions vis
a vis the constellations and the fact that the least common multiples
of their periodicities are very large, one can calculate absolute
relationships between specific kings and our own chronolgy. The moladot
give you no such rooting in terms of absolute chronolgy.

In addition the even harder thing to understand is why , if according
Seder Olam Rabbah, the period between the conquest of Judea by Alexander
and the beginning of the Seleucid era (i.e Year 1 of Minyan HaShtarot)
was only 6 years , did all the non Jewish chroniclers of that period
measuring it as taking 20 years. I note that from the time of Alexander's
conquest of Judea the following were said to occur.

3 32 -- Alexander besieged and took Tyre and Gaza. Alexander conquers 
Judea. (December) Alexander entered Egypt.
3 31 -- (6 April) Foundation of Alexandria in Egypt.
         Alexander defeated Darius III at the battle of Gaugamela (or Arbela).
         Alexander took Mesopotamia and entered Babylon and Persepolis.
330 -- Destruction of Persepolis by Alexander's forces. Darius III was 
murdered in Bactria. (October)
330-328 -- Alexander conquered Bactria and Sogdiana.
328/327 -- Cleitus was murdered by Alexander.
327 -- Marriage of Alexander and Roxane.
         Alexander began the India Expedition.
326 -- Alexander crossed the Indus, won the battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum) 
River and conquered the Punjab. At the Hyphasis River, Alexander's army 
refused to proceed further. Alexander and his army sailed down the Indus to 
the Indian Ocean.
325 -- Alexander returned through Baluchistan, with his army suffering 
great loss of life in the waterless deserts.
324 -- Alexander returned to Susa.
         Exiles' Decree issued by Alexander to repatriate exiles to their 
cities.
         Macedonian army mutiny at Opis on Tigris River.
323 -- Death of Alexander the Great at Babylon, age 32.
         Perdiccas became regent of Alexander the Great's empire.
323-322 -- Athens and other Greek states revolted against Macedonia (Lamian 
or Hellenic War).
322 -- (August) Battle of Crannon (Macedonian victory over the allied Greek 
states).
         Athens was occupied by Macedonians, and an oligarchy was 
established. Death of Demosthenes.
320 -- Death of Perdiccas. Beginning of Alexander IV reign
319 --  Ptolemy I seized Palestine and Coele-Syria.
317 -- Philip III Arrhidaeus was murdered by Olympias.
315 -- (Spring) Olympias, mother of Alexander, was executed by Cassander. 
Seleucus I fled to Ptolemy I.
312 -- (Late) Ptolemy I defeated Demetrius Poliorcetes at the battle of 
Gaza. Seleucus I recaptured Babylon
The Seleucid Era begins in the 7th year of the reign of Alexander IV.

Again this is based on multiple sources, not one and if one follows SOR
all of these events occured in 6 years and all the various independent
Greek,Persian,Indian and Egyptian sources were either deliberately
falsified or coincidentally all made the same set of synchronous mistakes.
Of course either of those hypothesis are possible they are exceedingly
improbable. Piled upon an assumption that all of the regnal lists of the
Greeks,Egyptians and Persians as well as all of the historical accounts
of Herodutus, Thucydides, Berossus, etc. etc and the synchronisms
between their lists and the lunar eclipse synchronisms recorded in
Ptolemy's Almagest are also deliberate falsifications or coincidental
synchronous errors the probabilities become even slimmer. (Note BTW
that the Almagest is a book which the Rambam quotes as an authoritative
source for astronomical data). In addition one must also assume the same
falsification and/or coincidental mistakes in the Nabonides Chronicles,
the Behistun and many other Achaeminid inscriptions and the various
Babylonian cuneiform astronomical diaries

Personally, If one is going to try to reconcile SOR with both astronomy
and less improbable views of non-jewish chronology, then R' Scwab's
hypothesis looks very good.

According to recent daf yomi the time that bleeding is associated
with birth is determined by the lunar calendar and not the physical
time. Similarly Ramah in EH 4:14 states that a five month old fetus can
be viable if it includes 7 lunar months !

Today doctors dont even use months to describe the passage of pregnancy
but weeks and even days. Does anyone have any explanation?

In general I have been having great difficulty squaring many of the
gemarot in Niddah with modern medicine. I would venture that this has
more problems than almost any other area of halacha.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

At 02:41 PM 1/25/2005, [RRM] wrote:
>The moladot prove nothing. They are mathematical calculations of mean
>new moons which are tied to neither observational astronomical data nor
>to any "absolute" chronological calculations. They can be calculated
>retrospectively to any date in the past or prospectively to any date in
>the future without proving anything about absolute chronology..

This is not true. As Mr. Remy Landau has written, there is a drift in
the molados:

The Molad Drift
by Remy Landau <remylandau@yahoo.com>
=================================

The value of the period of the molad is an average value. Consequently,
the value of the time of the molad, as derived by the fixed calendar
method, is not necessarily the actual time of the new moon.
This idea was noted by Maimonides (also known as the Rambam) in his
medieval work Hilkhot Qiddush HaHodesh. At chapter VII:VII Maimonides
stated that
    ...these calculations determine the conjunction of the sun and the
    moon only according to their average rate of progress, and do not
    reflect their true positions...

The traditional Hebrew value for the period of the molad is given as
29d 12h 793p.
The value has the rather interesting property that the halakim when
remaindered by 18 (the number of halakim in one minute) increment by
1 helek from Hebrew month to successive Hebrew month. This phenomenon
can be seen from the molad tables in

<http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/moladot1.html>
The Moladot - Additional Notes

Converting to decimal form the traditional Hebrew time of the molad period, 
it is possible to have it compared to a value for the time of the mean 
lunar conjunction as referenced from the
US Naval Observatory web page.
the period of the molad = 29.5305 941 358 ... (approx)
the astronomical  mean  = 29.5305 888 531 ... (approx)

The difference between the period of the molad and the above given
astronomical value of the mean lunar conjunction is 0.0000 052 827 days
per mean lunar period.
Hence, the difference between the molad period and the astronomical
period is about 0.456 425 seconds per lunar month, equivalent to 0.1369
parts per lunar month.
Consequently, the traditional Hebrew value for the lunar month
differs from the current astronomical value by about 1 day in every
((86,400/0.456425)/235)*19 = 15,304.883 years.
Up to Rosh Hashannah 5759H (Mon 21 Sep 1998g) 72,127 Hebrew months had
elapsed. Consequently, the difference between the elapsed moladot and
the astronomical periods had widened to 9.029233 hours, equivalent to
9h 1m 13.57p.

Because of the constantly widening gap between the time of the molad
and the time of the astronomical mean conjunction, as well as the
unknown value of the time of the Hebrew calendar's first molad, it is
very difficult to suggest the geographical location over which any molad
takes place. Now, it is a davar muskam l'kol ha'dei'os (you can do a Bar
Ilan search if you don't believe me - you will get 96 hits for Baharad)
that the count of molados begins from Baharad because that was year 1
l'berias ha'olam. Thus, our starting point is fixed. Hence, the drift
is easily calculated and measured. I am not very good at math, but my
calculation indicates that165 years should have yielded an additional
drift of 3.1379238 seconds - not much, but surely detectable. The drift
factor sustains our traditional chronology, not the secular chronology.

>The astronomical evidence I am talking about are cuneiform tablets which
>say that in such a such a year of such and such king the following planet
>positions were observed. Using the periodicity of planet positions vis
>a vis the constellations and the fact that the least common multiples
>of their periodicities are very large, one can calculate absolute
>relationships between specific kings and our own chronolgy. The moladot
>give you no such rooting in terms of absolute chronolgy.

Oh, no!

The problem with all ancient chronology (until the fourth century CE)
is that all those folks were ignorant of the fact that they should have
been counting and noting in their documents that it was year 900 BCE,
then year 899 BCE, then 898 BCE, etc. Darn inconvenient, but that's
the way it was. Thus, *all* dating, taking independent dating systems,
cutting and pasting, is interpretive, not normative. Thus "such a year of
such and such king" might be plugged in several places along the timeline,
depending who's doing the plugging. That so many people have been taught
the interpretation currently accepted does not make it right.

Indeed, ours is the *only* normative chronology, that needs no
interpretation.

>In addition the even harder thing to understand is why , if according
>Seder Olam Rabbah, the period between the conquest of Judea by Alexander
>and the beginning of the Seleucid era (i.e Year 1 of Minyan HaShtarot)
>was only 6 years , did all the non Jewish chroniclers of that period
>measuring it as taking 20 years. I note that from the time of Alexander's
>conquest of Judea the following were said to occur.

I do not know why the non-Jewish chroniclers made this mistake.

>Again this is based on multiple sources, not one and if one follows SOR
>all of these events occured in 6 years and all the various independent
>Greek,Persian,Indian and Egyptian sources were either deliberately
>falsified or coincidentally all made the same set of synchronous mistakes.
>Of course either of those hypothesis are possible they are exceedingly
>improbable. Piled upon an assumption that all of the regnal lists of the
>Greeks,Egyptians and Persians as well as all of the historical accounts
>of Herodutus, Thucydides, Berossus, etc. etc and the synchronisms
>between their lists and the lunar eclipse synchronisms recorded in
>Ptolemy's Almagest are also deliberate falsifications or coincidental
>synchronous errors the probabilities become even slimmer. (Note BTW
>that the Almagest is a book which the Rambam quotes as an authoritative
>source for astronomical data). In addition one must also assume the same
>falsification and/or coincidental mistakes in the Nabonides Chronicles,
>the Behistun and many other Achaeminid inscriptions and the various
>Babylonian cuneiform astronomical diaries

Varfing "sources" is really not helpful. Since you do not demonstrate
that these "sources" are indicative of the secular chronology without
any interpretive assumptions, we must assumedly rely on your assertion.
You really expect me to reject our mesorah based on your assertion that
I must?!

BTW, having seen it asserted that Heredotus is one of the major
"refutations" of Chazal, I read Heredotus, and *I* assert that I was
deeply unimpressed with any building on his foundation - he does not
use a coherent dating system - indeed, cannot, since almost of all of
his history is based on hearsay - local legends and the like.

>Personally, If one is going to try to reconcile SOR with both astronomy
>and less improbable views of non-jewish chronology, then R' Scwab's
>hypothesis looks very good.

Out of kavod for Rav Schwab, I do not want to dwell on this point,
but suffice it to say that Rav Schwab's approach seriously undermines
one of the pillars of Yahadus, the rational approach of the Kuzari,
and therefore must be rejected out of hand.

YGB

In Avodah V14 #63, RYGB responded:
> If there was a 165 year gap, then the molados cheshbon would need be 
> compensated accordingly.

For the sake of argument, what if the gap was a multiple of 19, e.g. 171?
(BTW, it was RAM who implied that the gap was 165; I believe Rav Schwab
indicated that the gap was _at least_ 165 but didn't specify a ceiling;
the timeline of the URL I listed in my previous response (listed again
below) specifies a 169-year Anno Mundi gap (520/519-352/351 BCE), and
see the beginning of that URL's page re picking one out of a few AM
definitions; and I don't believe that the alleged historical evidence
which pegs a span of far more than 490 years between churban bayis
rishon and churban bayis shaini is accurate enough that 171 is out of
the question.) Multiple-of-19 gap, no gap in the cheshbon.

  From <http://tinyurl.com/23npb> [condensed from a aish.com URL -mi]
Thanks, and see what Aish notes there: "Note that we are following the
Jewish calendar for these events (and not the Gregorian calendar which
is at times 150 years at odds with Jewish computations)." They argue
(see <http://tinyurl.com/3qxw8>) that Seder Olam is inherently more
accurate than the piecemeal historical records of the ancient
civilizations which came and went. All well and good, but the problem
noted by RMA is with the length of domination by one and only one
empire, the Persian, of the Jews (again, see
<http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Article/Religion/biblical.tl> for
details) -- while I'm no expert in this field, I was given to understand
that Persian records on their kings could not be negatively characterized
the way Aish generally characterizes all records of ancient times.

> 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

Strictly out of curiosity and tangential to the subject: wasn't one
70-year period, as proclaimed by Yirmiyahu, from the initial conquest
by Bavel to when Coresh permitted the Jews to return? In that case,
shouldn't this timeline also list a 440 BCE entry representing the
beginning of that period?

> 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

Allocates far fewer years for Persian rule over the Jews than is indicated
by the alleged historical evidence, and the same issue exists with Seder
Olam. I've been told that Ency. Judaica listed the span of Persian rule
affecting Jewish life (i.e. from when Jews returned to E'Y' and began the
rebuilding effort to when Persia was conquered by Alexander) as approx.
two centuries, while Seder Olam allocates 34 years. Time for some
nitty-gritty (those not interested in history may want to stop here if
they haven't already fallen asleep :-)). AIU Seder Olam, Coresh's rule
was less than 20 years (as per the above timeline and taking Ezra 1:3
literally), because the bayis-shaini effort, 18 years after his edict
(recorded in Ezra 1:3) which allowed Jews to return, starts anew under
not his rule but that of Daryavesh, son of Esther (see Daniel 9:1);
18 becomes 15 when we consider that whomever the Achashvairosh of
M'gilas Esther is, he's not Esther's son. Is Achashvairosh Coresh?
This timeline says there's a 15-year span between Coresh's edict
and Purim, but M'gilas Esther (3:7) gives us a 13-year span between
when Achashvairosh ascended the throne and Purim. Perhaps someone
with access to Seder Olam can explain if&how he divvies up 34 years
between at least two, possibly three kings (viz. Ezra 4 and 6:14;
Artachshas[h]ta seems to come after Daryavesh [pace M'gilas Esther],
which would mean three kings in that space of time; and then there's
Daniel 11:2...), when Persian timelines (as per many Websites, e.g.
<http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_time_persianempirekings.htm>
and <http://www.haydid.org/purim4.htm>, and presumably based on
something more than imagination) allegedly record over two centuries
(and 12 kings) between the latter Cyrus (a/k/a/ Cyrus the Great) and
the last pre-Hellenic ruler and record three kings, none with a name
like Coresh or Daryavesh, between 370-336 BCE.

(Tangentially, another interesting [but, looks aside, definitely not
'glatt kosher'] Website which looks at events of the period through
Biblical eyes is <http://www.haydid.org/purim3.htm>. Its thesis implies
at least 64 years and six Persian kings between Coresh's proclamation
and the events of Purim, which means that in its opinion the span between
that proclamation and the fall of Persia is even greater.)

Last, but not least, I still await a response from RMA (who privately
replied, listing his name) explaining "In addition all the records of
astronomical events we have are consistent with the 275 year chronolgy
rather than the 110 year old one." Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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         ]