Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 096

Friday, March 18 2005

• Re: Purim Question
• Re: Relationship of Science to Torah
• fallibility or non fallibility of chazal
• Re: Crispy Matzos
• Re: Brisker Philosophy?
• RE: Relationship of Science to Torah
• RE: Psak in Hashkafa
• Re: fallibility or non fallibility of chazal
• conflicting opinions
• marbim bsimcha
• Definition of a Lav
• Re: Definition of a Lav
• Fwd: Demons in the Talmud

On Areivim, Saul Mashbaum asked whether one is permitted to color one's
beard for Purim.

The issur of dying hair is that of beged ishah (Yoreh Deah 182:6) and
beged ishah is permitted on Purim if done in the spirit of holiday joy
(Orach Chaim 696:8).

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
Phone: (718) 951-1254  Fax: (718) 228-5150
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

S & R Coffer wrote:
> On  March 14, 2005 1:05 PM Daniel Israel wrote:
>>>S & R Coffer wrote:
>>>six regular days. For instance, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah documents
>>>a machlokes between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua regarding the month
>>>of creation. The shakla vitarya goes on for close to two blatt and in
>>>addition to MB, several other episodes are introduced into the machlokes
>>>such as leydas and meesas Avos, pekidas Sarah, Rachel and Chanah,
>>>Yetzias Yoseph, Yetzias Mitzraim etc. ...

>>I find this a very interesting example to pick.  You will note that the
>>halacha actually comes out that the world was created in Nisan.  But
>>clearly our nusach ha'tefilah goes according to the view that the world
>>was created in Tishrei (well, Elul, technically).  So I would say that
>>this is a clear indication that what is being discussed is not a literal
>>historical description.

> Maybe but you haven't addressed my issue. If Maaseh Bereishis is indeed
> not historical, than what is it doing stuck in amongst several other
> historical episodes? Doesn't that seem strange? How is it that the
> Gemara would document a machlokes between two tanaim regarding several
> historical issues, insert one that was not historical, and carry on as
> if all the episodes were the same?

Well, my understanding is based on the Ein Ya'akov which, as I recall,
discusses the difference between the world being created time of din
or rachamim. So I would say the whole thing has to do with the spiritual
(for lack of a better word) qualities of certain days and times, which is
a concept we see elsewhere. (I would connect it, for example, to Avraham
Avinu's making matza for Pesach before there was a yetzias mitzraim.)
In this sense MB apparently has a "spiritual" connection to certain dates.
This doesn't actually require things to happen on those dates. IOW,
the Gemara's point here is not about the dates themselves, but din and
rachamim. For the historical examples this is connected to the literal
date. For MB this is connected to some intrinsic thing about the nature
of creation, which makes it appropriate to connect it with that date.

I don't feel I've expressed this too well, but I wanted to send an answer.
I hope I did the concept justice.

>>>Really? Says who? Certainly not the Rishonim. If you are referring to the
>>>Tiferes Yisrael, you cannot bring a raayah from him or from anyone for
>>>that matter that was influenced by the modern day scientific dogma.

>>You realize how circular this is.  By this arguement, no one who
>>disagrees with you can possibly be cited.
>>Clearly, no one who has never
>>heard of modern science can possibly have an opinion on how to reconcile
>>scientific findings and traditional sources.

> any way predicated on it. The medrash must have a peshat regardless of
> the findings of modern day science. Thus, any peshat in the medrash that
> uses modern day science as an indispensable component of its elucidation
> is necessarily un-provable for the original author of the ma'amar Chazal
> was not aware of this science.

I would say the medrash probably contains more than one concept.
The "author" of the medrash is an ambigous concept. The souces of a
particular medrash may include a mesorah m'Sinai. In which case the
author of the particular text need not necessarily have realized all
the implications of what he was saying. (Better, he may not have been
aware of all the possible valid chidushim implicit in his statement.)

That is, I might agree to your "unprovable," but unprovable is not the
same as wrong.

>>Also, you also know
>>"modern day scientific dogma."  How come you haven't been influenced?

> Two reasons. First and foremost, because Hashem saved me. (I'm not being
> facetious) He sent me Rabbeim that gave me (what I believe to be) the
> proper hadrachah in hashkafa.

But, again, I can simply answer my Rabbeim, at least some of who would
disagree with you, did the same for me.

> The second reason is that originally, when Darwin proposed his theory,
> very little information was known about geology and fossil finds by the
> "other side". People like the TY just took for granted that everything
> the scientists were saying was true and formulated a response based on
> this assumption. Today, we know that there are many inconsistencies in
> the theory of evolution and thus it is easier for us to contend with
> the anti-Torah claims of science.

Well, I think that the second half of this is simply false. Most
of the anti-science claims I have heard advanced betray a terrible
misunderstanding, if not ignorance, of science. But even if I grant your
arguement, this would disqualify the TY, but not contemporary talmidei
chachamim, who can learn _all_ the science and make up their mind.
And they are far from unanimous. Again, unless you spike your sample by
declaring anyone who disagress to be, de facto, not a talmud chacham.

>>If those who agree with you are capable of maintaining objectivity, how
>>do you know that those who disagree can't also maintain objectivity?

> I know neither. I don't know if people who agree with me are maintaining
> their objectivity, and I don't know that people who disagree with me are
> not maintaining their objectivity. You are bringing up an essentially
> epistemological dilemma for which I have no answer. All I can tell you
> is that this is my opinion; accept it or reject it...its up to you.

But, and this is the heart of the discussion, if I reject it am I a kofer?
Or just wrong? Or simply someone who holds by a different shita, and
we don't know for sure who's historically right?

Furthermore, and I meant to include this in my original reply, it seems
to me if we admit that the TY may have been influenced by non-Torah
science of his times, then we must admit the possibility that Chazal
were sometimes influenced by non-Torah "science" of their times, Greek
philosophy in particular. And I can't see rejecting Greek philosophy
as anti-Torah. And, with regard to today, I sometimes think that certain
people in the frum world are very influenced by non-Jewish fundementalism.
In the US, it often takes the form of wanting to make sure to be "more
frum" than the Evangelicals. As in, if they read MB literally, we can't
appear less "pro-Bible" then them, so we have to read it literally too.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>		1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
   Engineering				Tucson, AZ  85711

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 Gershon Seif wrote
> The Ramchal writes in Maamar Haagados that when chazal presented us with
> medical information, their intention was not about the medical facts. The
> medical information conveyed in shas was just a levush to convey sisrei
> Torah therein. ...  If the information seems faulty, it shouldn't bother
> us because their intent was not about the information.

> 1) We see clearly that the Ramchal holds that in certain cases, chazal
> conveyed information that is not scientifically accurate.

> 2)Does this Ramchal imply that unless there is some good explanation
> which is part of our mesorah(as in this case of transmitting sisrei Torah)
> then we are to assume that all the information is accurate?

I would imagine so. Why not?

> 3)The Rambam in hilchos dayos culls medical advice from shas, halocho
> l'mayseh. Does the Rambam argue against this Ramchal?

Not at all. Firstly, the Ramchal says nothing regarding medicine. He
discusses the "natural sciences" which does not have to necessarily
apply to sound medical advice. Second, the Rambam could have very well
agreed with the Ramchal and only added things in the Yad that he felt were
legitimate as opposed to allegorical. Third, there are Rishonim that state
that not all of the medical advice brought down in the Gemara was meant
to be followed. Rather, the Gemara was just listing certain seemingly
outrageous refuos in order to establish that one who follows them is
not transgressing the prohibition against following in the darkay emoree.

> Would anyone
> venture to extend this machlokes (if you learn that there is one) to the
> issue of fallibility of chazal?

My personal belief regarding the infallibility of Chazaal is that everyone
is fallible as is demonstrated over and over again in the Gemara where
one amora holds one way, the other another way, and after a long debate
one admits that he was wrong or is roundly "shlaged up". But at the time
of the chasimas HaMishna, and at the time of the chasimas haTalmud, there
was a special siyata dishmaya (ruach hakodesh?) which infused the authors
of the Mishna/Talmud with a spirit of infallibility for the purpose of
documenting Torah she'baal peh for all future generations. This is why
you will never find Rishonim, or even Gaonim arguing on shas.

Best wishes
Simcha Coffer

In a message dated 23/02/2005 15:23:42 EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> On scj(m), we were discussing www.softmatza.com. Just like what it sounds
> they would sell. It's under the auspices of Rabbi Mordechai Maslaton of
> the Keter Sion Torah Center in Booklyn.
...
> 1- Anyone know whether Ashkenazim are permitted to use it?

There is a POTENTIAL Halachic probelm with non-cripsy matzos
AIUI - our crispy matzos obviate the need to worry about gebruktz
{Matza shruyah}
OTOH, even if soft Matzos were kosher, it would likely re-introduce
a TRUE halachic concern - not just a chumra nor a minhag - re: these
Matzos coming into contact with water

LFAD crispy Matzos are a classic chumra that allows for a kula -
i.e. that since we are SO makpid to bake the Matzos until they are 100%
dry and crisp that we have zero concern for any flour not being baked -
unless there is a fold-over, etc.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In a message dated 23/02/2005 22:16:08 EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> It's not Brisker to work with hashkafic matters at all. RYBS was not
> quite being mainstream Brisk when he endulged in philosphical speculation.

I'm not so sure about this. Rav Yerucham Gorelick was very much into
Hashkafah - although indeed he did eschew mussar. And Rav Gorelick was
a talmid of Rav Velvel Brisker.

I don't think Rav Gorelick himself consider "hashkafah" as equated to
philosophy, although I am not so good at making this distinction myself.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

S & R Coffer wrote:
> Well, my understanding is based on the Ein Ya'akov which, as I recall,
> discusses the difference between the world being created time of din or
> rachamim.  So I would say the whole thing has to do with the spiritual
> (for lack of a better word) qualities of certain days and times, which
> is a concept we see elsewhere.  (I would connect it, for example, to
> Avraham Avinu's making matza for Pesach before there was a yetzias
> mitzraim.)  In this sense MB apparently has a "spiritual" connection to
> certain dates.  This doesn't actually require things to happen on those
> dates.  IOW, the Gemara's point here is not about the dates themselves,
> but din and rachamim.  For the historical examples this is connected to
> the literal date.  For MB this is connected to some intrinsic thing
> about the nature of creation, which makes it appropriate to connect it
> with that date.

> I don't feel I've expressed this too well, but I wanted to send an
> answer.  I hope I did the concept justice.

Your peshat is amazing! But I'm still not backing down :-) as follows.

I would like to develop your idea a bit more and perhaps lend some further
clarity to the Gemara. (the following is based on Maharal and Rav Dessler)

The Maharal explains that at the beginning of creation, Hashem introduced
certain spiritual effluences into the very fabric of time. Rav Dessler
explains that the proper perspective on time is not to view ourselves
as stationary and time as a dimension that flows past us; rather time
is a medium and we are constantly in motion traveling through this
medium. This medium however, is not linear, it is circular (in the sense
that it continues to progress in ever-widening concentric circles -
my peshat). That is, we continue to pass through exactly the same time
that we did the year before. Thus, we are experiencing exactly the
same revelations of yetzias metzraim that klal yisroel experienced at
the exodus, or revelations that they experienced at matan Torah etc. we
just don't have the spiritual sensitivity to experience them at the same
level that previous generations did.

Keeping this in mind, we can understand our Gemara here in precisely
the same context as you explained above except for one thing. You need
original time. Without Hashem introducing these especial effluences
(hashpaos and giluyim) into original time, it wouldn't make sense to
associate a particular revelation with a particular time. The Gemara is
obviously going with the idea that all of these episodes occurred at a
certain time and thus, the time must have originally been auspicious
for these episodes to happen. Thus, it would seem that the same idea
would have to be applied to MB. Saying merely that for some unknown
reason Tishrei (or Nissan) corresponds to the hashpaos of MB but with an
entirely different mechanism than the one described in the Gemara is a
highly tenuous peshat in the Gemara and takes it entirely out of context
(to my mind).

>>>>Really? Says who? Certainly not the Rishonim. If you are referring to the
>>>>Tiferes Yisrael, you cannot bring a raayah from him or from anyone for
>>>>that matter that was influenced by the modern day scientific dogma.

>>>You realize how circular this is.  By this arguement, no one who
>>>disagrees with you can possibly be cited.
>>>Clearly, no one who has never
>>>heard of modern science can possibly have an opinion on how to reconcile
>>>scientific findings and traditional sources.

>> any way predicated on it. The medrash must have a peshat regardless of
>> the findings of modern day science. Thus, any peshat in the medrash that
>> uses modern day science as an indispensable component of its elucidation
>> is necessarily un-provable for the original author of the ma'amar Chazal
>> was not aware of this science.

> I would say the medrash probably contains more than one concept.

I'm not sure what you mean.

> The
> "author" of the medrash is an ambigous concept.

Not in this case. "Said Rabbi Abahu, this (vayehi versus yehi) comes to
teach us that Hahem created worlds and destroyed them". Nothing ambiguous
about this memra *or* its author.

> The souces of a
> particular medrash may include a mesorah m'Sinai.

Not really. Medrash is primarily Chazal darshining (employing exegetical
treatment to the verses in the Torah) the pesukim. But even if sometimes
you would be correct, that is, sometimes Medrashim are based on mesora,
in this case you are not for the medrash continues "said R' Pinchas,
the reasoning of R' Abahu comes from the pasuk vheenay tov meod etc." It
is obvious from the context of the Medrash that R' Abahu was interpreting
the pesukim the way he understood them, not transmitting an oral tradition
from Sinai.

>  In which case the
> author of the particular text need not necessarily have realized all the
> implications of what he was saying.  (Better, he may not have been aware
> of all the possible valid chidushim implicit in his statement.)

> That is, I might agree to your "unprovable," but unprovable is not the
> same as wrong.

You are definitely right but you missed my point. I'm not saying
that an old age universe is the wrong peshat in this medrash. I am
simply saying that if you want to prove the old age of the universe
by advancing a source that interprets this Medrash to mean an old
universe, you must bring a proof from a Torah source that was unaware of
evolutionary theories and yet maintained the antiquity of the universe
as a peshat in this medrash. Otherwise, you will always be plagued with
the gnawing feeling that the reason the source was saying this peshat
in the medrash was because he was reconciling his ideas of science with
Torah by *introducing* this peshat into the medrash whereas had he not
been exposed to the science, he may never had interpreted the medrash in
that fashion. Bringing the TY as a source for interpreting this medrash
in terms of billions of years is just begging the question.

>>>Also, you also know
>>>"modern day scientific dogma."  How come you haven't been influenced?

>> Two reasons. First and foremost, because Hashem saved me. (I'm not being
>> facetious) He sent me Rabbeim that gave me (what I believe to be) the
>> proper hadrachah in hashkafa.

> But, again, I can simply answer my Rabbeim, at least some of who would
> disagree with you, did the same for me.

I don't know what you mean by "answer". I wasn't challenging you. You
asked me how it is that I could say that people before me were influenced
by scientific dogma and I was not. I answered you, that's all. Had I
challenged your position by stating that the overwhelming numbers of
gedoley yisroel do not hold of evolution/billions of years, then your
above sentence would be more in context.

>> The second reason is that originally, when Darwin proposed his theory,
>> very little information was known about geology and fossil finds by the
>> "other side". People like the TY just took for granted that everything
>> the scientists were saying was true and formulated a response based on
>> this assumption. Today, we know that there are many inconsistencies in
>> the theory of evolution and thus it is easier for us to contend with
>> the anti-Torah claims of science.

> Well, I think that the second half of this is simply false.  Most of the
>   anti-science claims I have heard advanced betray a terrible
> misunderstanding, if not ignorance, of science.

Really? What's wrong with the Anthropic Principle as a strong disproof
that the universe could not have just evolved? Or what's wrong with the
Cambrian explosion as disproof for evolution? How about origins? How
did life originate? How did multi-cellular organisms arise? How did
the genetic code originate? How did complex organ systems develop? How
did the irreducibly complex components of nature evolve? How about the
mathematical improbabilities of random mutation to supply the variation
that Natural Selection requires to act upon? And here is (in my opinion)
the greatest disproof of evolution... Why is there such a lack of
transitional fossils? These are just some of the many questions that
plague evolutionary scientists. I challenge you (or anyone on Avodah
for that matter) to show me how these questions "betray a terrible
misunderstanding, if not ignorance, of science".

>  But even if I grant
> your arguement, this would disqualify the TY, but not contemporary
> talmidei chachamim, who can learn _all_ the science and make up their
> mind.  And they are far from unanimous.  Again, unless you spike your
> sample by declaring anyone who disagress to be, de facto, not a talmud
> chacham.

No but I know of no Talmidei Chachamim that support the theory of
evolution. Can you please supply me with some (current) names?

>>>If those who agree with you are capable of maintaining objectivity, how
>>>do you know that those who disagree can't also maintain objectivity?

>> I know neither. I don't know if people who agree with me are maintaining
>> their objectivity, and I don't know that people who disagree with me are
>> not maintaining their objectivity. You are bringing up an essentially
>> epistemological dilemma for which I have no answer. All I can tell you
>> is that this is my opinion; accept it or reject it...its up to you.

> But, and this is the heart of the discussion, if I reject it am I a
> kofer?

CHS'V!!! (I hate that word. I only apply it to Reform rabbi's who are
atheists)

> Or just wrong?  

I think.

> Or simply someone who holds by a different
> shita, and we don't know for sure who's historically right?

I prefer "wrong" :-)

All kidding aside, I might characterize our debate using your third
definition if the ramifications of our conclusions didn't matter
that much. However, in our case, I believe that caving in to currently
accepted scientific attitudes exposes our youth, indeed our entire nation,
to an infiltration of foreign ideologies that undermine our holy Torah
(I sound like a Jewish fundamentalist) and thus, I think we need to
get to the bottom of this and see that actually there is no room to
stray from klal yisrael's mesorah (on any level, Torah or science),
a tradition that we have collectively preserved for thousands of years.

I would like to point out that I am not implying that due to religious
considerations we must ignore scientific evidence and opt for Mesorah. On
the contrary, we must *investigate* the scientific claims and if they
fail the litmus test, we must proclaim it at the tops of our lungs
without shame.

> Furthermore, and I meant to include this in my original reply, it seems
> to me if we admit that the TY may have been influenced by non-Torah
> science of his times, then we must admit the possibility that Chazal
> were sometimes influenced by non-Torah "science" of their times, Greek
> philosophy in particular.

Can you illustrate your point please? I am not aware of any times when
Chazal were thus influenced. In fact, Chanukah represents the ultimate in
the Jewish rejection of Greek ideology. We still celebrate Chanukah today,
an ode to our rejection of the false gods of materialism etc. (here I
go again with my fundamentalism)

>  And I can't see rejecting Greek philosophy as
> anti-Torah.  And, with regard to today, I sometimes think that certain
> people in the frum world are very influenced by non-Jewish
> fundementalism.  In the US, it often takes the form of wanting to make
> sure to be "more frum" than the Evangelicals.  As in, if they read MB
> literally, we can't appear less "pro-Bible" then them, so we have to
> read it literally too.

You may be shocked by this but I believe that us frum Jews should have
taken up the fight to protect the Torah against the blandishments of
science a long time ago. We should have been the leaders. The fact that
the Christians are at the forefront of these issues is, in my opinion,
a perpetual reproach against us.

Very best wishes
Simcha Coffer

>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 Eli Turkel wrote
>>There is no psak in hashkafa

>[Simcha Coffer wrote]
>Who says? How do you know this? (I've seen this quoted on Avodah several
>times)

When I was learning in Yerushalayim I asked R' Avigdor Nevenzahl,
"The same way once someone asked a question to a Posek and received an
answer he's required to listen to the psak. Does the same hold true by
a hashkafic question?" He told me that hashkafa is also a psak. (As
a humorous aside, he said that one would be hard pressed to find a
qualified Posek to decide between R' Yisroel Salanter's and the Chazon
Ish's respective hashkafos on bitochon.)

MSS 

S & R Coffer wrote:
>My personal belief regarding the infallibility of Chazaal is that everyone
>is fallible as is demonstrated over and over again in the Gemara where
>one amora holds one way, the other another way, and after a long debate
>one admits that he was wrong or is roundly "shlaged up". But at the time
>of the chasimas HaMishna, and at the time of the chasimas haTalmud, there
>was a special siyata dishmaya (ruach hakodesh?) which infused the authors
>of the Mishna/Talmud with a spirit of infallibility for the purpose of
>documenting Torah she'baal peh for all future generations. This is why
>you will never find Rishonim, or even Gaonim arguing on shas.

This is a well trod topic.

1) Disagreement between amoraim is not inherently related to the issue
of infallibility. See the classic statement of eilu v'eilu in Rashi
Kesubos 57a. As the Maharal points out in Baer HaGolah - halacha is
something which has to be decided amongst alternatives. The rejected
views are not necessarily mistakes. In contrast agada can maintain its
multidimensionality.

2) Do you have any source for your chidush? There seem to be three basic
views of the authority of Chazal. Kesef Mishna (Maamirim 2) states that it
is possibly the result of being universally accepted. Chazon Ish rejects
this and says they are authoritative because of their vast superiority
based on Ruach Hakodesh. Rav Shlomo Fisher allows for different types
of authority based on different traditions of what was accepted by a
particular group. None of these views state or indicate that there was
a unique flow of siyata dishmaya or ruach hakodesh at the close of the
Mishna or Talmud.

3) In fact there are disagreements with Shas - on issues that are not
directly connected with halacha. For example the Me'or Einayim Chapter
35 notes a widespread disagreement of rishonim with the reckoning of the
length of the Egyptian exile found in chazal. See Ramban Shemos (12:40)
The Maharal and the Ksav V'Hakabala (on this verse) strongly criticize
the Ramban and other rishonim for their deviation from the truth of
Chazal. We are not dealing here with mere alternatives to chazal - but
rejection of their historical understanding by rishonim. There is also
the famous interpretation of Menashe M'Ilya (a student of the Gra) who
gave an alterantive interpretation of the first mishna in Bava Metzia -
which disagrees with the gemora.

Daniel Eidensohn

Simcha Coffer writes
> There can't be more than one legitimate opinion when we're dealing
> with facts. I assume this to be true because I see no other logical
> conclusion. Perhaps you can illustrate to me how it would be possible
> for two factually exclusive things to be simultaneously real? (e.g. how
> can the world be 6000 years old and also billions of years old. How is it
> possible that at least one of these opinions is not true?) ...

First of all Scgroeder, based on special relativity, claims that the
world can be both 6000 years old and several billion years old depending
on what frame of reference you are working with.
Second, more generally the Gra claims that Elu v-elu applies even to
factual arguments and gives the example of the machloket in the gemara
about exactly what happened with Pilegesh Be-givah. Essentially in that
case the truth also depended on how one viewed the case.

More to the point, since we don't "know" the absolute truth we have to
give credence to a scientific theory that is the basis of thousands of
scientific works in many different fields.
This is what Rambam did with regard to briat ha-olam where he at least
considered the possibility of reinterpreting many pesukim and sayings
of Chazal

<(RET) There is no psak in hashkafa ----
Who says? How do you know this? (I've seen this quoted on Avodah several
times)>

R. H. Schacter says this in his speech.
As others have pointed out many achronim also discuss the issue of the
age of the universe and also that chazal seem to have made scientific
mistakes (based on Greek science) without calling the other side kofrim
or toim.

There is an interesting article in Tradition Summer 1992 by Shnayer
Leiman. Maharil Diskin issue a ban of learning secular studies in
EY. E. David Friedman counters that since this issue has been debated
for many centuries R. Diskin has no right to take one side and ban the
other side. He is entitled to his opinion and nothing more than that.

<Primarily because of the differences between sfardic and ashkenazic
customs. Once the Rama appended his notes to Shulchan Aruch, it became
universally accepted. >

This is simply not true. The Rama was never completely accepted by
Adhkenazic Jewry.
The various commentators, Magen Avraham, Taz, Schach etc argue with
Rama. Even in later generations there are stories of R. Chaim Soloveitchik
and others disagreeing with the Rama.

Certainly, I see no grounds for any posek today to make decisions on
hasgacha issues on behalf of other communties and to call them kofrom
or toim. As R. Schacter points out the job of a posek is to defend his
own position and not to attack others.

Unless you wish to throw out of the fold all religious scientists I
strongly suggest we be more inclusive in what we accept. World wide known
religious physicists are not going to be swayed from all the physical
evidence of a billion year old universe by calling them names.
Galileo was threatened with much more by the church and never truly
changed his beliefs.
I see the present stands as replaying the middle age struggle between
the church and science which science won. The only difference is that
the rabbis don't have the power that the church had.

As Gil Student has stated clearly he checked with gedolim before taking
on Slifkin's books and these gedolim stressed the difference between
various communities and the inability of one community to impose its
will on other communties.

I have no doubt that if I went to R. Elyashiv then my sons would not
have gone to hesder yeshivot and to university. Bottom line is that
when it comes to haskafa I listen to other viewpoints which I consider
authentic Judaism.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
-- 
Eli Turkel

maybe it's possible to explain the idea according to a diyuk that
it doesn't say marbim or for that matter mametim simcha but rather
b'simcha therefore the object of the sentence is not written. what is
it talking about?

it seems that it is talking about the jew himself vlachan the kavana
is 2 types of avoda as seen from the eating of matzo on pesach and the
eating of chometz the rest of the year the first is the idea of bitul
the second is the idea of tokef in your avoda

maybe this is rhe idea in marbim and mametim

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> I believe the complete list is: "lo", "hishamer/shamor", "pen", and
> "al"."Bal" is Talmudic Aramaic, and does not exist in the Torah.

No, not in Chumash, but see Yeshaya 26:10.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[I was still in error, either way. -mi]

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> No, not in Chumash, but see Yeshaya 26:10.

And several times in Tehillim (e.g. 93:1).  So it's not Talmudic, but did
come into Hebrew after Moshe Rabbenu's time.  I'm trying to remember
whether it appears in the Mishna, though.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

 From YHE's "AGGADA" list. A blatant attempt to start -- or in this case
revive a much visited -- new topic.

-mi

------------------------------ Original Message ------------------------------
Subject: AGGADA -18: Demons in the Talmud
From:    "Yeshivat Har Etzion Office" <office@etzion.org.il>
Date:    Thu, March 17, 2005 8:38 am
To:      yhe-aggada@etzion.org.il
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
      ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
                  UNDERSTANDING AGGADA
                  By Rav Yitzchak Blau

The htm version of this shiur for easy printing is
available at:
    <http://vbm-torah.org/archive/aggada/18aggada.htm>

...
     In  the  case of zuggot, no demonic forces exist  in
even  numbers  but  the  popular  belief  that  they   do
sometimes created that very reality.   People who ate  an
even  number of a given food became convinced  that  they
would  become  sick and this resulted in a  psychosomatic
illness.   The  gemara  provides an excellent  proof  for
Meiri's theory.  The gemara suggests that only those  who
show  excessive  interest in the zuggot are  affected  by
them.  According to Meiri, those who show little interest
in  zuggot will not experience the psychosomatic  impact.
Of  course,  Meiri would still have to  explain  why  the
gemara advises a person to show a bit of caution.

     Why  did  our sages not simply tell the masses  that
these beliefs were false?  Perhaps because they knew that
such a campaign would require great energy and had little
chance  of  success....

Copyright (c) 2004 Yeshivat Har Etzion.
All rights reserved.

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


[ 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         ]