Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 078

Tuesday, February 8 2005

• Re: Mezuzah
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Mezuzah
• Re: Mezuzah
• Gedolim who attended college.
• Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronology
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Age of U
• Age of U
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronology
• Pakod Pakadti, was: A of the U
• Re: Mezuzah
• Derakhim in Studying Kabbalah
• Re: Derakhim in Studying Kabbalah

[Micha:]
> Two last points I appreciated. First, besheim R' Hillel Herz (17th cent),
> a lack of "arichas yamim" is not the same as qitzur. Not meriting
> a lengthened life means getting a normal-length one -- lo yirbu
> velo yiqatzru. No implication that poor mezuzos cause tragedy and a
> shorter-than-planned life. And in fact, such a punishment for violating
> an asei without performing a ma'aseh would be unique.

Is there anyone who suggests otherwise? I've never heard such an opinion
expressed, ever, though I've seen ignorant and anti-religious journalists
implicitly attribute one to various rabbis as the opportunity presents
itself. Which is why I said in the first place that I am 100% confident
that the original report cited here misquoted the rabbi in question.

As to the question of whether it's the mitzvah of mezuzah that protects,
or the scroll itself, I suppose it's an interesting chakira, but I don't
see how it makes the slightest difference. From some people's responses
I think certain careless readers somehow got the idea that I assumed the
scroll has some inherent magical power. I don't see how they got that
idea, but it ain't so. Everything I have written on the subject has been
based on the assumption that the protection comes from the mitzvah, not
the scroll (which is why it's effective whether you're home or not; how
could a magical scroll on someone's door protect him when he's sitting
on a bus?)

To get back to the kids on the bus. Had their parents had kosher mezuzot,
who's to say that they would not have been protected? Why isn't saying so
just as reasonable as saying the same about seat belts, if they weren't
wearing any? Some posters who attacked this anonymous rabbi (and me for
defending him) seem very close to implying that they don't really think
(the mitzvah of) mezuzah really does provide physical protection, that
it's all part of some mysterious 'hanistarot laHashem Elokeinu' that we
should not bother our heads with, and certainly not anything like as real
as that provided by seat belts or immunisation. And, to borrow a word
from another thread, I really don't see how such a position is tenable.
And the opinion that was attributed here (whether correctly or not)
to RAM doesn't in any way support such a position.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
<snip>
> Thus, "untenable" is worse than "incorrect." A position may be tenable,
> yet incorrect - an untenable position is so utterly incorrect as to be
> indefensible and beyond justification. This is patently untrue of the
> position of Chazal on lice. It is eminently defensible and eminently
> subject to justification. Indeed, I think I have mentioned here in the
> past that R' Aharon Soloveitchik told me (and RHM heard from him in shiur
> as well), that were he alive at the time of R' Yitzchak Lampornati,
> the "Pachad Yitzchak," he would have put him in cherem for suggesting
> Chazal were mistaken in their dispensation to kill lice on Shabbos -
> and that was for suggesting Chazal were mistaken, which is much less
> derogatory that asserting their position to be untenable. And, we know
> that REED and R' Dovid Lifshitz, both quoted here in the past, presented
> very cogent explanations of the ruling of Chazal.

> Thus, yes, it is indeed a lack of emunas chachamim to say Chazal's
> position on lice is "untenable."

With no disrespect toward R. Aharon Soloveitchik intended, were RAS
alive in the time of the Pachad Yitzchok, no one would have been paying
any attention to his charemim.

If this story tells us anything, it's only that RAS didn't extend
"Emunas chachomim" to trust in the judgement of the contemporaries of
the Pachad Yitzchok.

[Micha:]
> I don't think R' Dr MLG succeeds in proving that the point is erroneous.

In my understanding of what he wrote, I feel that he has succeeded (at
least theoretically) in proving the point being erroneous.  It is very
possible however, that I don't comprehend every point in your thinking
that he has not succeeded, but let me try to defend my position.

> The famous Y-mi in Pei'ah, in which Rebbi gave the Parthian King Artavan
> a mezuzah and explained that his gift protects the recipient seems to
> support the causal position, but the author shows from the seifa that
> it doesn't. Rebbe quotes Mishlei 6:22 to prove his point, "When you walk
> it shall lead you, when you lie down it will watch over you..." Rebbe is
> speaking of shemiras hamitzvos, not the mezuzah itself. Does the mezuzah
> lead you when you travel?

I'm not quite sure I understand your point but this verse quoted
(according to MLG's understanding) is a passage which lauds the merit
of wisdom or Torah study, as is clear from the context of the sugyah,
establishing the superiority of such study even over the practice of
mitzvot. Rebbi was far from any attempt at selling the mechanistic potency
of a specific ma'aseh mitzvah or heftsa shel mitzvah. He was projecting
the Torah, generally, as the key to an entire corpus of redemptive values.

Mitzvat mezuzah appears in two Biblical passages. The context of
the first of these passages (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) clearly points to an
instructional role for the mitzvah,. no protective function is in any
way suggested. Calling upon the Israelite to devote his attention to
the Divine unity and the love of God: "And these words which I command
thee this day shall be upon thy heart"- the parshah formulates several
practices intended to facilitate that end:

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk
of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way
. . . And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall
be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the
doorposts of thy house . . .

The function of mezuzah, together with that of tefillin, is to arouse
the religious consciousness, just as diligently teaching "these words"
to one's children and regularly talking of them will serve to intensify
and perpetuate one's religious commitment. In fact, the affirmation of the
unity principle (Shema yisrael), which opens the parshah, and the command
to "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might"-whatever the sacrifice, as Rabbi Akiva's martyrdom
demonstrated-would preclude a concern for one's physical security,
even as a passing thought, in the process of implementing mitzvat mezuzah.

One could argue that granted, self-protection should not be one's
motive in performing the mitzvah of mezuzah, but that nonetheless, such
protection, deriving from the mezuzah, is a possible by-product of any
mitzvah. However, shemira as a potency within the mezuzah has no basis
in the Torah.

This is precisely the thrust of Rambam's critique of the protective
view of mezuzah. "For they have treated a major mitzvah, namely the
[affirmation of the] Unity of the Name of the Holy One Blessed Be He . .
. as if it were an amulet for their personal advantage ..." (Hilkhot
Mezuzah 5:4). His criticism is not confined to mezuzot featuring angelic
and magical interpolations, but applies equally to a protective perception
of the standard mezuzah (see Haggahot Maimuniyyot, Hilhhot Tefillin, 1:7).

According to one talmudic view, the promise of long years relates
specifically to mitzvat mezuzah with which it is linked in immediate
sequence. But this view is not unanimous. It has been demonstrated that
the rabbinic mainstream during the talmudic period rejected the notion of
Divine-name potency. The limited number of talmudic aggadot and midrashic
passages reflecting such a doctrine are shown to be overridden by the
rabbinic consensus (and I submit this consensus comes from the Torah
understanding).

The Torah implicitly rejects the notion that Divine names are possessed
of inherent power, a strikingly unique position when viewed against the
background of the literatures of the ancient world. Among the ancients,
divine names were considered a source of supernatural power, which,
if activated by the skilled magical practitioner, could control and
coerce even the gods themselves, who were thought to be reliant for
their strength on these secret name formulae. See J. G. Frazer, The
Golden Bough, Abridged Edition (New York: Macmillan,1972), pp. 302-05.

The Torah, on the other hand, in its formulation of the monotheistic
ideal, denies any such doctrine. God Himself is the exclusive source
of all power, and His Name(s) is in no way possessed of independent
potency. Divine Names merely designate God and serve to convey to
the worshipper a sense of His closeness and His many facets. See E.
Underhill, Mysticism (New York: Noonday,1955), pp. 70-71

The reference to the saving angel, in the supportive verse (Psalm 34:8)
quoted by the baraita, depicts the power of the mitzvah in a psychological
sense, as channeling the individual away from sin. See Sefer ha-Eshkol,
ed. Auerbach (Halberstadt, 1869), II, p. 80: "For each and every mitzvah
is like an angel, protecting him from sin." (The latter explanatory
statement does not appear, how- ever, in the Albeck edition of the Eshkol
[Jerusalem,5695], I, p.202.) Rambam (Hilhhot Mezuzah 6:13) and Semag
(Aseh #3), developing the same theme, describe the mitzvot as "mazkirin"
of one's religious commitment. The talmud (Menahot 44a), in a passage
following the citation of the baraita, corrobative of the restraining
power of mitzvot, recounts the story of a man, who, at the point of
committing zenut, was confronted by the strands of his tzitzit.

In light of the foregoing I maintain that Dr. MLG has succeeded (to
some satisfactory degree) that the point here being erroneous, has
Torah backing.

Richard Wolberg

On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 09:35:41PM -0500, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: In my understanding of what he wrote, I feel that he has succeeded (at
: least theoretically) in proving the point being erroneous...

He succeeds quite well in proving that the mitzvah of mezuzah protects.
He doesn't prove that the object of mezuzah does not ALSO protect. I see
the same shortcoming in your post -- you elaborate on the centrality of
the idea of mezuzah qua mitzvah and say little about the lack of another
element. Both of you confuse the chachamim stressing the mitzvah giving
long life with rejecting the idea that the object might as well.

Yes, the Rambam speaks strongly against the idea. And Seifer Razi'el
haMal'ach presents it. Typical Rambam vs Qabbalah. In practice, since
we have sheimos written on the outside of the scroll, we don't seem
to side like the Rambam in the case of mezuzah.

As I said, I wish he proved the point, because I too am bothered with
the philosophical implications of the idea of metaphysical causality. But
the article doesn't.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

From [R Dr Josh Backon]:
> Rav DR. (!) Shimshon Refael Hirsch. Then there's Rav Yaakov Ettlinger
> (the Aruch Laner) who got a PhD 180 years ago from a German university. I
> only wonder when they'll start burning his sefarim. And apropos: since
> the Ramban and the RAN were both physicians (and they didn't exactly
> learn medicine in a yeshiva) I guess we'll have lots to burn this coming
> Lag Ba'Omer :-)

I remember hearing in my yeshiva days that there were certain yeshivos
that actually did remove the introductory page from the standard editions
of Aruch Laner bse it mentioned that R. Ettlinger went to university. I
don't have that edition to check if there is such an introduction and
can't vouch for the story.

Medicine at that time could be learned on one's own time and was a part
of good humanistic education. Add Chacham David Nieto to the list, I
have a copy of an article from New York Stae Journal of Medicine entitled
"David Nieto, Rabbi, scholar, philosopher and physician". It is not a very
good articel but if anyone wants I can email pdf. There is an article in
Essential Papers in Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, NYU
PRess 1992, on the Medical school in Padua and the preparatory yeshiva
that was conducted by Rabbi Dr. Conneglio in his home. The curriculum,
taught by the Rabbi, included Gemara and Halacha but also Latin, Italian,
and sciences. After one to two year, the students were eligible to take
entrance exams for medical school and some got smicha.The purpose was
to keep these students from all over Europe on the right derech.

M. Levin

RYGB wrote:
> Lice is a very good example.

> It is indeed a lack of emunas chachamim to say Chazal's position on lice
> is "untenable:"

>untenable
>adj : (of theories etc) incapable of being defended or justified [syn: 
><http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indefensible>indefensible]
><http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=wn>Source:
>WordNet  2.0,  2003 Princeton University

> Thus, "untenable" is worse than "incorrect." A position  may be tenable, 
> yet incorrect - an untenable position is so utterly incorrect as to be 
> indefensible and beyond justification. This is patently untrue of the 
> position of Chazal on lice....        And, we know that REED and R' 
> Dovid Lifshitz, both quoted here in the past, presented very cogent 
> explanations of the ruling of Chazal.

Rabbi Dessler & presumably the other rabbis have only defended the
Psak Halacha of Chazal, but they did not say that their statements were
entirely true. It is clear that the Gemara is saying that lice do not
reproduce sexually.After the Gemara says one is exempt from killing lice
on Shabbos because they don't reproduce, the Gemara asks from a Beraiso
that says in the 3'd hour of the day Hashem sits and sustains from the
the horns of oryx to the 'eggs of lice (betzei kinnim) ?( So we say they
lay eggs) The Gemara answers - That refers to a creature which is called
betzei kinnim."

It is clear that the Gemara was not aware that lice lay eggs. Otherwise
there was no question. So one can say that Chazal's position regarding
the Metzius of lice is untenable, nowadays. When they made the statement
it was quite tenable as that was the scientific view of their time, but
today it is untenable. Rabbi Dessler explicitly said that the reasoning
of the Gemara was wrong in this case as in the case of Derusah where the
Gemara says that wildcats have poison in their claws, but the Halacha
is true based on other reasons.

Yakov Goldstein

From: Alan Rubin <alan@rubin.org.uk>
>With all this learned talk about Persian genealogies, astronomical dating 
>and counting Molads can anyone explain what happened to Greek history. 
>There doesn't appear to be time in SOR for the Greek-Persian wars, 
>Marathon, Salamis, Platea then the Peloponnesian Wars. Since this period 
>starts with a Greek war against Darius and ends with the rise of Alexander 
>it appears that SOR requires us to dispense with most of classical Greek 
>history.

That's a good point. It's one of the things that irks me about the
Artscroll "History of the Jewish People -- The Second Temple Era".
They move Nevuchadnezzar down by a century and a half, but keep the
standard dates for things like Marathon and the Peloponesian Wars.

The problem only really comes into being if we assume that Persia barely
existed prior to the fall of Babylon. In the Heifetz revision, the Greek
wars attributed to Xerxes took place during the time of Nevuchadnezzar,
and that Ahasuerus I (father of Darius the Mede), whose name in Greek
transliteration was indeed Xerxes, was the king in question.

So it's not that we have to dispense with classical Greek history;
merely that it began prior to the fall of Babylon.

[Email #2. -mi]

From: Reuven Manber <xynetics@nyc.rr.com>
>I think it is futile to continue to responding to the claims of either 
>Lisa or the Bechofer's. Anyone following the exchange between them and 
>MPoppers can see that any questioning of their interpretation that SOR 
>chronology must be accepted literally, rather than allegorically or 
>figuratively is guilty of a lack of emunas chachamim. Similarly, at leat 
>according to the bechofer's, claiming that belief in the spontaneous 
>generation of lice is untenable is also a lack of emunas chachamim.

With respect to R' Reuven, I never introduced the term "emunas chachamim"
into this discussion. In my view, far more is at stake here than emunat
chachamim. It goes to the whole question of the validity of the Torah
which is in our hands today.

When it comes to lice, I'm probably just as bugged as you are (no
pun intended). The only way I've been able to understand it as being
a reasonable statement is to assume that lice were not created during
shiv'at yemei b'reishit, but only at the time of the makkot, and that even
though they subsequently reproduced normally, their origin was sufficient
for the view of Chazal to be valid. Maybe. Whatever. I hope that no one
will mistake that for being any more than a vague hava amina. <grin>

But the period of history in question is a major formative period in our
history. To suppose that Chazal are *that* off of reality really presents
a problem for us. You can pretend that it doesn't, but it really does.
The chain of transmission goes from Yirmiyahu to Baruch to Ezra, and if
Ezra came to Eretz Yisrael in the 7th year of one of the Artaxerxeses,
we have a real problem.

If the only king Xerxes reigned *after* Darius I Hystaspes, we also
have a problem. What kind of "figurative" statement could it have been
to say that Ahasuerus reigned before Bayit Sheni was rebuilt?

The issue is that the chronology of Chazal is not just something stated
in Seder Olam. It permeates the whole of Talmudic literature. How do we
trust that shechita is being taught the way it's supposed to if Chazal
can't even get something as simple as whether Esther lived before or
after the construction of Bayit Sheni right?

If it was just Seder Olam, I might still be arguing here, but maybe not.
Nicha. Let's say that Seder Olam is not meant to be taken literally (and
please, I hope no one is going to quote me later as actually supporting
that position). Why did Chazal clearly take it literally? And if they
were that credulous (earning terms used by R' Avraham ben haRambam),
how can we trust them in any way?

It's either-or, I think. I do not think it's possible at this stage
in the game to prove which chronology is correct. But we can, however,
establish certain implications of either of the two being correct, and
the chronology of Chazal being grossly incorrect and invalid casts an
enormous doubt over all of Judaism.

Now, you can try and portray me as a thumper (and never mind that I was
the one who raised the issue of lice in this discussion), but wouldn't
it be a little more honest to just try and explain how you think anything
Chazal say can be trusted if the chronology which permeates their legacy
to us is so erronious? Don't just say that maybe Seder Olam wasn't
meant to be taken literally. This isn't only about Seder Olam. Though
even if it were, I think that claim would require a bit of illustration.
I mean, how else could it have been meant to be taken? Bayit Sheni stood
for 420 years. If that's not so, maybe scholars are right about the
480 years between Yetziyat Mitzrayim and the building of Bayit Rishon
(Melachim Alef, 6:1) being a code for 12 generations of 40 years, and
that since generations are more likely to be 25 years, the time was
only 300 years, and not 480. That's not just *a* common argument, but
rather *the* accepted interpretation of that pasuk by modern scholarship.
Why is that wrong? Or is it?

>However both Lisa and the Bechofer's are not convincible by any amount of 
>evidence - since for them doubting the literal truth of SOR is doubting 
>the chachamim.

Again, I have to object to this mischaracterization. Both the
mischaracterization of this being solely about Seder Olam Rabba, and
about my view of "emunat chachamim". I just don't get what you base
Judaism on if not the reliability of Chazal.

>I should add that disagreeing with the literal truth of SOR or of the 
>Historical Aggada in the Gemara implies a lack of emunas chachamim only in 
>those chachamim who feel that Aggadata must be interpreted literally.

An unsupported (and unsupportable) claim, since historical statements
are not necessarily aggadeta. When the Mishna tells us that Hillel and
Shammai received the Torah from Shemaya and Avtalion, is that aggadeta?
Is it not meant to be taken literally? Perhaps there were actually seven
generations between the two zugot?

This is our history. And it's a consistent picture throughout the entire
literature of Chazal. I'm honestly trying to get a picture of what you
think they meant if they didn't mean it literally, but I'm failing.
And with all due respect, making wild accusations isn't helping.

>I do have one last question for the proponents of the literalness of 
>Rabbinic historical pronouncements
>Are all of them literally true or does one have any leeway in claiming 
>some of these pronouncements are hyperbole or allegory or based on 
>knowledge which is not part of Torah min Hashamayim? If some of these 
>statements are not meant literally how does one determine which are and 
>which aren't?

Indeed. How do we? We know that not all aggada is meant to be taken
literally. And the Rambam's son had some choice words about people who
take it all literally. But at the same time, it's not meant to be taken
all figuratively, either. I have no problem disputing even Seder Olam
on minor issues. I mean, the Ralbag does in his peirush on Nevi'im, so
he must have felt that it was legitimate to do so. But the framework is
absolutely assumed throughout Chazal. Creating a dark age of 166 years
blasts our claims of a chain of Torah transmission to bits.

>Since a lack of belief in the literal truth SOR is tantamount to being
>a lack of emunas chachamim according to the Bechofer's and Lisa,

Since this is an untrue mischaracterization of my views, I would hope that
R' Reuven would be courteous enough to acknowledge and retract the error.

Lisa 

In Avodah V14 #76, RYGB noted:
> As Rabbi Schwab himself wrote, the chronology of Chazal "is sacred 
> territory which only fools do not fear to tread upon" (JHiC p. 66)


I thank RYGB for mentioning "Jewish History in Conflict," a treatise
which I've never read but b'li neder intend to (an Elizabethean friend
was going to lend me his copy, but I think I'll try to purchase it
for myself as a b'day present ;-)). In re to it as well as to a recent
turn in this thread to the possibility of considering SOR as aggadita,
please see <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n013.shtml#09>
and then <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n177.shtml#10>
(actually, all of that digest, as well as the previous one,
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n176.shtml>, is worth reading
if only to see that much of this topic has been previously discussed &
how it was discussed).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In the post below R'n Lisa writes
>>Since a lack of belief in the literal truth SOR is tantamount to being
>>a lack of emunas chachamim according to the Bechofer's and Lisa,

> Since this is an untrue mischaracterization of my views, I would hope that
> R' Reuven would be courteous enough to acknowledge and retract the error.

I agree that I inadvertently mischaracterized her views and I both
apologize and retract my statement. In the rest of her post she brings up
some interesting questions which I will try to respond to in the future.

For the present I'd simply like to state that I believe it is possible
to give multiple non-literal interpretation to even historical dates
and events mentioned by Chazal without endangering a belief in the the
validity of our mesorah. The Truth of both Torah She'bktav and Torah
She"Baal Peh does not, IMHO, depend on believing that they are written
in the style of a post eighteenth century CE history text. I will try
to elaborate in a later post.

In the spirit of the SOR I'd simply like to reiterate my belief that the
Torah does not come to obscure history but to elucidate hashkafa. Just
as Daniel is not really a modern history text, neither is SOR, however
more on that later.

Regards to all.

BTW - I am truly interested in knowing which of the Greek rulers of the
180 year Greek period SNTRYK and GSKLGS are, (Number 5 and 8 in the SOR
list of the 8 Greek kings). Does anyone have any ideas?

You may well be right and I stand ready to learn and be corrected;
however, it is not how it appears to me. What we need to get is the
following, and I ask anyone who knows to share.

1. What does it mean that these are different approaches to study of
Kabbalah if they do not involve different understandings?

2. If moshol and chazon nevuah do not mean 'non-literal', what do they
mean? By non-litral I do not mean always but sometimes. R. Elyashiv
also offers semi-philosphical explanations in his seforim; so it does
not refer to that.

3. If all these approaches are really the same, why does R. Elyashiv
argue so vehemently against other approaches?

As far as what you quote, it may have not be fully understood, been
garbled in trasmission, or be short-cut, prepared response about a grave
subject to someone who was perceived as not been learned in this area. We
don't expect that every question will lead to tutorial; gedolim are busy
people who have many responsibilities and cannot be expected to educate
every questioner from the basics to their conclusion, especially in this
area. Rather, they have answers that satisfy the questioner and provide
what is needed - in halacha as well as aggadah. The same, by the way,
I believe, is true of public pronouncements, for some of them, if not
for all. The forums for complexity and subtlety are private, not public.

The article by Mordechia Pechter has long quotes and extensive discussion
of two different appraoches to Kabbala. He argues that R. Elyashiv
had manuscripts and traditions from the Gra that were different that
those of R. Isaac Chaver and other Litvishe mekubalim. He takes the
same approach as I to the concepts of moshol and chazon. It is in
"Hagro u'beit midrasho", Bar Ilan, 2003. This volume was put out for
the yohrzeit of the Gro and contains some very interesting material.

M. Levin

Has anyone brought up the view of the Ralbag in Milchamos Hashem and
possibly Ibn Ezra (Bar.1,1) that matter was eternal and the creation
means simply formation. Any coments?

M. Levin

On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 03:03:54PM -0500, Ohrchama@aol.com wrote:
: Rabbi Dessler & presumably the other rabbis have only defended the
: Psak Halacha of Chazal, but they did not say that their statements were
: entirely true. It is clear that the Gemara is saying that lice do not
: reproduce sexually....

Since RYGB mentioned that both REED and R' Dovid Lifshitz were cited
on list, it would have paid to check the archive before presuming what
they said.

RDL's answer is that the difference in science is irrelevent. Whther
kinim physically have eggs, or they have microscopic eggs, the eggs
have no halachic mamashus. The only goreim for a visibly sized kinah
is the meat they ate to get to visible size. Other scientific causes,
being microscopic, are not halachic goremim. My rebbe thereby entirely
preserves the point that chazal is making, not just the pesaq.

RYGB did not mention RAYKook, also previously discussed, who says that
changes in theory can change din -- lechumrah. Changing din lequlah
would require knowing every sevarah lechumrah and ruling them out,
and we can never know every sevarah. But RAYK is apparently willing
to say that Chazal could make a wrong pesaq because they relied on
then-contemporary theory.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice , don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

At 09:00 AM 2/6/2005, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>R' Sholom Simon asked <<< Which molad was at 8:00:00 on a Friday 
>morning?  How was it calculated? >>>

>Short answer: The molad for Adar Rishon 5765 will occur this week, on 
>Wednesday Feb. 9, at 4:56 AM and 4 chalakim. Count backwards to Bereishis 
>(about 5765 years) at a rate of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 1 
>chelek per month, and you'll see that the molad of Tishrei in the year 
>that Adam HaRishon was created, was at 8 AM on a Friday morning.

That's only because when we calculate the molad, we use that as a
starting point, whether or not there was an actual molad at that time!
You've only proven that subtraction is the opposite of addition.

BTW, my understanding is that the molad of the first Nisan, that
of Parashas Bo, was at midnight Mitzrayim time -- but when we count
backwards to that, we do not get one at midnight.

 - Sholom

On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 01:56:37PM +0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
:                      If the Bnei Yisroel in Mitzrayim had not kept up
: the tradition of pekud pekaditi, they may well not have recognised Moshe
: when he came or have believed in him.

The below is a variant of what RGD and I discussed in v4n228, 229. In
short, RGD's correction to my previous suggestion.

According to the Maharshah (as well as linguists) Hebrew has 4 labials,
letters whose pronounciation requires the lips: beis/veis, vuv (w), mem,
pei/fei - a/k/a BooWMa"F. Moshe Rabbeinu was an "aral sefasaim", IOW,
he couldn't clearly pronounce these letters. (Assuming that HKBH wasn't
talking "mitoch gerono".)

Think about it. If everyone knew the siman, then any alleged moshia'
would have simply said the words. And if only a select few had the
mesorah, they could be accused of being in a plot.

But what if everyone knew the siman, but it was fulfilled in a totally
unforeseen (and miraculous) way? Such as someone who couldn't say /p/
saying "paqod paqadti" clearly.

(My original idea was noting that "E-hyeh asher E-hyeh" avoid these four
letters, unlike the more common sheimos.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 08:52:56PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: As to the question of whether it's the mitzvah of mezuzah that protects,
: or the scroll itself, I suppose it's an interesting chakira, but I don't
: see how it makes the slightest difference...

I pointed out the difference. First, one might argue that someone who
checks the mezuzah when appropriate and relies on chazaqah is yotzei,
regardless of whether the mezuzah is kosher or not. However, even if he's
an anoos and not yotzei -- anoos Rachmanah patrei, the sechar should be
the same even so. And therefore, so would the shemirah be.

Again, I recommend hitting the archive where this was discussed at length.

-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

Sometime back I suggested that R. Y. Hillel's condemnation of views
that the world is older than 6000 yrs. as based on Kabbala is based
on only one of several existing approaches to study of Kabbala. A list
member kindly shared results of a discussion with a well known authority
on these matters who did not feel that the issue of different methods
applied to R. Hillel's statement. I therefore retract my suggestion.

M. Levin

> 1. What does it mean that these are different approaches to study of
> Kabbalah if they do not involve different understandings?
...
> 3. If all these approaches are really the same, why does R. Elyashiv
> argue so vehemently against other approaches?

There are two different subjects: what one knows, how one learns. There
could very well be a machloqes on the latter point while knowing that
each will get you to the same knowledge. Particularly if one takes a
detour frought on both sides with potential kefirah.

> 2. If moshol and chazon nevuah do not mean 'non-literal', what do they
> mean? By non-litral I do not mean always but sometimes. R. Elyashiv
> also offers semi-philosphical explanations in his seforim; so it does
> not refer to that.

Mashal could mean that both the literal and non-literal interpretations
are true.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

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


[ 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         ]