Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 099

Monday, March 21 2005

• Re: fallibility or non fallibility of chazal
• Re: Crispy Matzah
• age of the universe
• Re: special and general relativity
• Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• fallibility or non fallibility of chazal
• Re: drush is drush
• Re: Tefillin Parshiyos and pesaq
• Re: On the Akeida
• Re: It recently became kefira
• Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• Re: Uprooting Torah
• Re: going round in circles
• RE: Uprooting Torah
• Re: Uprooting Torah

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 Daniel Eidensohn wrote
> 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.

Interesting. This is precisely the Rashi that I always quote in defence
of my view. I enjoin you to look at Rashi again. He specifically states
that when two amoraim are arguing in a sevara, it might be possible to say
elu v'elu because although one sevara may make more sense, with a slight
change in circumstances the other sevara would gain ascendancy. Thus,
there is room for both sevaros (akin to what the Ritva says in chagiga)
However, if they are arguing factually, "chad meenayhoo mishaker" that
is, one is (inadvertently) misrepresenting the truth and therefore elu
v'elu would be impossible to say.

> 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.

Although they may be. In fact, the Maharal's shita is that subsequent
to Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, we do not necessarily say elu v'elu in
halachic matters at all.

> In contrast agada can maintain its
> multidimensionality.

Agreed

> 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.

Ok, here we go. The Rambam in his hakdama to the Yad states as follows:
"All of the things that are found in Talmud Bavli, all of Klal Yisroel are
obkigated to follow...since all of these things found in the Talmud were
agreed upon by the entire yisroel, and the chachamim of that generation
that considered and judged...comprises the entirety of talmedei chachmim
that existed in that generation, and they had a direct mesorah (ish mpee
ish as the Rambam delineates a bit earlier).

There are different ways to understand this Rambam. R' Elchonon (Kobetz
Shiurim chelek beis kuntris divrei sofrim siman beis) contrasts this
Rambam to the Rambam in Hilchos mamrim and brings a ra'ayah to his thesis
that if ALL of the talmedei chachamim of a generation come together
and decide something and it is accepted by all of klal yisroel, it has
the same din as a beis din of shiv'im and cannot be contravened. (Rav
Elchonon rejects the explanation of the kesef mishna) This is one peshat.

The second peshat is the kesef mishna's peshat. You have differentiated
his approach from that of the Chazon Ish's but I believe you may have been
hasty in your conclusion. The KM states that klal yisroel collectively
undertook not to argue on the ammoraim. TheChazon Ish *appends* to
this that this could not have been simply because we were "doing them
a favour"; thus, the reason must be because we understood that any
subsequent generations were simply not great enough to reach a greater
level of understanding in the truth than the previous generations whose
conclusions were attained with a great hashgacha pratis and effluence of
ruach hakodesh (due to their piety). Essentially, this was the approach
I was trying to express with a few refinements as follows:

The Doros HaRishonim states that Rabbeinu Hakadosh had special siyata
dishmaya to compose the Mishna and he quotes the Gemara that form Moshe
Rabbeinu to Rabbeinu HaKadosh there was never a man who encompassed within
himself Torah ugidula (power) in one personality. The purpose of having
these character traits was to ensure the universal acceptance of the
Torah by the entire klal yisroel and this feat was accomplished a third
time during Rav Ashi's generation. (the Gemara states that Rav Ashi also
encompassed the trait of Torah ugdula bimakom eched) The Doros HaRishonim
spends almost two entire volumes on this phenomena and bringss many proofs
that Rav Ashi, for instance, was the recipient of an immense amount
of siyata dishmaya. Not the least of these ra'ayos is the fact that he
"ruled" uniterupted for 60 years, much longer than any other amaorah did.

My approach is basically a synthesis between the Doros HaRishonim and
the KM/Chazon Ish. I have much more to say on this inyan but I won't
bore you with the details.

> 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.

It is late and I've spent 4 hours posting today. My wife has just put
her foot down :-) I'll try and respond tomorrow. Until then...

Best wishes
Simcha Coffer

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>
> From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
>> 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

> The special soft Matza are made in special ovens, which are made of
> stone and very hot. My FIL who was a Mashgiach in his youth, told us
> how the matzot were made. I was impressed by the steps taken to ensure
> a kosher matza.

Hmm. I just came across the Pri Megadim/Sifsei Daas at the end of
Yoreh Deah 97. In the course of defining "a big oven of 12 esronim",
one theory advanced is: big enough to cover the bottom with a 12-esronim
(60 lb) dough to a thickness of 1 tefach, since matza is 1 tefach thick.

1 tefach! Can you imagine how that would cook? It would clearly give
a different meaning to a kezayis - tear off a chunk that looks like an
olive's bulk; none of this figgerin' that so much area of a 1.5-mm matza
equals one kezayis.

That's as of 1772, in Galicia and Germany.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Simcha writes:
>> 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.

> I'm embarrassed to say but I've never gone through Gerald Schroeder's
> book. However, from what I've been told, he is using the *general* theory
> to explain the disparity in the time factor. This would not constitute a
> universe that *simultaneously* exists for 6000 years and 15 billion years;
> rather, there is a framework (which is unaffected by the gravitational
> forces influencing the flow of time) from which time flows at a natural,
> undisturbed rate....

Special relativity deals with the difference in time between two systems
that are in motion. For example time may advance by 1 hour when viewed
from a stationary position on earth but a clock on a particle moving
close to the speed of light would measure only a second. Both systems are
correct and one cannot distinguish between them. In our case Schroeder
postulates that a few billion years as measured on earth are identical
to 5765 years as measured by a G-d system moving much faster.

The general theory of relativity reinterprets gravity as changes in
space-time and has no relevance to our topic.

Without getting into details the special theory of relativity shows that
one can have many equally valid systems all measuring time differently.
The key point is that there is no "true" or "false" way of measuring
time but many different but valid ways of measuring time.

[Email #2. -mi]

> The theory of evolution is not a science per se. In science...

I did not discuss evolution but the age of the universe. For those
interested I highly recommend the book "The big bang" by Singh. Besides
giving the history he discusses how one measures distances to stars and
consequently the age of the universe.

In any case my view of Elu Velu says that when there is no psak from a
Sanhedrin or something accepted by klal yisrael then one accepts the
psak of his local rabbi. In particular this applies to both sides,
I certainly am not objecting to those who accept R. Elyashiv and his
haskafa viewpoints as their personal psak. However, since there was no
"nimru ve-gamru" other viewpoints are equally valid. If Simcha prefers
the Maharil Diskin that is fine. However, for those that don't agree
with that psak that is also fine.

My main objection is against those that try and impose their viewpoints
on others.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:32:17PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Without getting into details the special theory of relativity shows that
: one can have many equally valid systems all measuring time differently.
: The key point is that there is no "true" or "false" way of measuring
: time but many different but valid ways of measuring time.

Definitely. And, as RET writes, in special relativity Einstein addresses
the relationship between time, space and mass in two frames of reference
that are moving at a constant velocity (speed and direction) compared
to eachother. In general relativity the theory is expanded to include
gravity and acceleration (which turn out to be the same thing).

Both measures are equally true; it's not that one is "affected" and
the other not. Any more than my rightis the true right, and the right
of the person facing me is "affected" and distorted.

Howerver, I disagree with his earlier paragraph:
:                                                  In our case Schroeder
: postulates that a few billion years as measured on earth are identical
: to 5765 years as measured by a G-d system moving much faster.

I suggest reading R' Morris Engelson's book. He shows that it's general
relativity that accounts for the frame of reference in which creation
took 6 days. And in fact, shows that the ratio of 15 billion years to
6 days in within range of the dilation caused by the energy density at
the time of the symmetry breaking. IOW, the amount of energy at the time
the big bang coalesced into the particles and forces we know and love
today would cause just the right amount of time dilation to collapse
15 billion years when measures as te mass fanned out into 6 days. IOW,
had Hashem not changed His "clock's frame of reference" kavayochal from
the end of tohu vavohu until Adam's creation, it would be exactly 6 days.

As I posted earlier in this discussion, RME wrote an update essay
in which he notes that the current 12.7 to 13.3 billion yr estimate
also matches string-theory based computations of the energy density.

This removes the arbitariness of saying that in some frame of reference it
was 6 days and justify why that frame was used.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

R Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>>> I was not aware that Rav Kook explicitly endorsed evolution. Please let
>>> me know where he did so.

>> Allowing and endorsing are different things.

> I don't think he is even allowing it. He is saying it is possible to
> reconcile with the pesukim - kinda like the Rambam on kadmus...

I don't know how you see that in a paragraph that poetically links the
slow unfolding of beri'ah implied by machshavahan and qabbalah with
evolutionary theories.

-mi

[R Simcha Coffer:]
> 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.

Your understanding suggests that at the time of chasimas hashas, all
the conclusions were infallible through ruach hakodesh or a special
siyata diShmaya. How about considering the following alternative
explanation? Even if chazal were fallible, their maskanos were
binding. That too would explain why none of the gaonim or rishonim
challenged their conclusions. One case in point I offer is the famous
mayseh of tanur shel achanoi. Even though the bas kol told them that R'
Eliezer was "correct", the psak went like their "faulty" svara. I think
this chazal shows us the authority of chazal despite the knowledge
that even at the moment of their conclusions, they can be technically
"wrong". The halachic process isn't concerned with absolute truth. That
was the whole point of lo bashamayim hi. Adaraba, "truth" and the cosmic
reality is defined by halacha. One famous example of this is that woman
who had an ailment that was considered a treifa according to the rama
but the mechaber paskened it wasn't a traifa. She was advised to move to
the town of the shaagas aryeh who in that case ruled like the mechaber,
and she lived many more years.

There's a huge nafka mina between the way we're understanding things.
According to my understanding, nobody ever said chazal were infallible. It
just doesn't matter. Regarding halacha, which is an area where they told
us how to act and is binding, we will follow them. But in an area that
they never asked us to do something, if we find an error, it shouldn't
upset us.

R' Shimon, I just read a post where you expressed that in hashkafa, there
are clear gedarim and we are bound to chazal. My rebbeim were inclined
to say similar things. But what about science? Is that hashkafa or
halacha? Why must we agonize to defend a position that chazal weren't
claiming to be authorities about? ...Or were they...? I know the
famous story about the Chazon Ish who gave accurate advice to a brain
surgeon. And we know the Gra knew many sciences. ... Many have said that
he knew all this through the koach of his Torah. Kol halomed Torah lishma,
zoche l'dvarim harbeh. Do you feel that if this is true of the Gra (but we
would need some source to prove infallibility in the Gra's knowledge of
science), kal vachomer chazal were experts in all areas of science? What
about rishonim? Didn't some rishonim say that the earth is at the center
of the universe? Are we obligated to accept that? Do you have sources to
say this view about chazal or rishonim's knowledge of science is binding?

[Email #2.
Note: Hirhurim is written by RGS. -mi]

I just saw this on the hirhumrim blog:

R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky (Emes Le-Ya'akov al Ha-Torah,Gen. 1:1, 5761 revised
edition pp. 15-16):

As an aside, we learn from these words of the Ramban [on Gen. 1:1], and
in particular from what he concluded in the continuation of his words on
verse 8, that everything that exists in the creation in the entire world,
including the sun, the moon and all the heavenly hosts, are not called
"heavens." The "heavens" are only things that have no physical bodies,
such as angels, hayos and the merkavah. However, anything that has a
physical body is included in the name "earth" in verse 1...

These words of the Ramban are what carried me when we saw men descending
from a space ship on a ladder onto the surface of the moon. I thought to
myself: "What would the Rambam, who wrote that the moon has a spiritual
form, answer now?" I thought that at that point Kabbalah defeated
Philosophy, and comforted myself with the words of the Ramban...

We are forced to say that what the Rambam told us in these chapters
[Hilkhos Yesodei Ha-Torah, chs. 1-4] is neither ma'aseh merkavah nor
ma'aseh bereishis. Rather, he wrote those four chapters from his deep
mind and from his knowledge of secular wisdom, i.e. not from the wisdom
of Torah but only from Philosophy... and the Rambam only wrote these
as an introduction to the Mishneh Torah while the main part of the book
begins with chapter 5...

 -- It seems that Rav Kamenetsky was of the opinion that even though
we can certainly say about the Rambam that he learned Torah Lishmo,
and chazal say "kol halomed Torah lishmo, zochech l'dvarim harbeh", this
does not guarantee that everything he comes to understand will be correct.

 --If I recall correctly, the Biur HaGra on the halochos which have to do
with the supernatural, rails against the Rambam and how his cursed
philosophy caused him to deny the existence of shaidim. So we've also
got the Gra saying that the Rambam was a human being with flaws.

B'kavod,
Gershon Seif

herb basser wrote:
> Drush pure and simple: its not describing anything-- it has no sense of
> creating through agency of these things-- its art, not blue prints....

Then derashah is not derashah. What you are describing is different
in kind to the process by which we get dinim, or the points made in
midrashic stories.

And in fact, the word refers to a full spectrum of ideas from the more
"blue print"-esque Chazal's usage that I was thinking of when I wrote
my comment, to your LOR's Shabbos morning "derashah", to chassidishe
vertlach.

If this derashah, or to be more exact, remez (since it's based on
notrikon) is chazal's I would NOT assume it made it as simple poetic
concept without thinking of the reprecussions of how the rest of the
pasuq would work.

One can't simply come up with an idea, shoehorn it into a pasuq, and
call it Torah. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. The derashah format
isn't simply an open license.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

Back on Mar 4th, R Arie Folger wrote:
> RMB mentioned repeatedly the well know tefillin dating back to Qumran
> and even to the 'Hashmonaim, some of which are in accordance with Rashi
> and some of which with RT, while others follow a third interpretation.

> RMB, could you perhaps post a link to some material on these tefillin? In
> which museum can they be seen, what descriptive paper has been published
> on the subject and is publicly readable on the internet? Thank you

My "impeccable" source is an Olameinu article I read sometime in the
early to mid 70s. For those who don't know, Olameinu is a monthly aimed
at school aged children produced by Torah Umesorah. Which is why it took
me so long to give up on finding a better reply than the following.

*The* source is Yigal Yadin's book:
     Yadin, Y. "Tefillin (Phylacteries) from Qumran [XQ Phyl 1-4])"
    (in Hebrew), Eretz-Israel 9 (1969):60-83 and plates.

R' Jon Baker participated in an scjm conversation on the subject,
maybe he can chip in.

BTW, the third interpretation is found in Qumran, I don't think it's
found among Chashmonai relics. Which is quite relevent, as the Qumran
sect were clearly not Perushim.

Also, the Qumrani tefilin weren't always square, although all were
rectangles. Again, I believe the Hasmonean tefillin show all signs of
having once been square and painted black.

-mi

PS: The people at karaite-korner.org have a hard time explaining why
the Qumtan community, who they consider "brother Saducees", would wear
physical tefillin at all rather than keeping the message on their hearts
and minds.

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

From: Mendel Singer <mendel@case.edu>
>>I need help with a source. Some time during the past 2 years I read a
>>D'var Torah that stated that the Akeida came (in part) to teach us and
>>the world that sacrificing children is Assur.
>>Does anyone know the sources for this?

> Wow! I knew someone who taught part-time in a Reform hebrew school
> and was told that he had to teach about the keidah without mentioning
> G-d. He was told to teach it as Avraham Avinu wanted to sacrifice his
> son like everyone else, but he resisted and that was what was so great
> about him. What you're saying is different, but close enough to recall
> that story.

Oh Vey Zmir!!!

This has Nothing to do with what I wrote. Sounds like another attempt
to distort Mesora.

The source I'm looking for is connected to what is brought in Melachim
where Melech Mo'av (IIRC) sacrificed his son, and Israel were punished
for this.

What I'm asking for is the exact opposite of what you present.
Hashem is ordering the world that sacrificing of Children is Assur --
not Avraham!!!! (something that for some reason human kind didn't learn
as they were still sacrificing to the Molech...).

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 01:24:07AM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: I am NOT saying that halacha CANNOT be normative after the Gmara What
: I am ASKING is how can you tell for sure that a specific Halachah is
: normative after the Gmara....
: and if your answer is itself a machlokes, then how can you make a case
: for normative BELIEFS that are post-Talmudic since they too might be
: subject to the same Machlokes

: I am not calling for POSSIBLE paradigms, I am calling for a DEFINITIVE 
: paradigm.

But like any other machloqes, the pesaq I follow is one I will be treating
as normative.

But in any case, there is no system of pesaq unless the issue has
pragmatic impact. In the case of beliefs, it would be only when the error
would label someone (according to the pesaq of the assessor in question)
a min/meshumad, apiqoreis or kofer as per the dinim of lo ma'alim,
stam yeinam, acceptability as a geir, or anything else that impact the
behavior of the assessor..

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

At 10:21 AM 3/21/2005, [Micha] wrote:
> > I don't think he is even allowing it. He is saying it is possible to
> > reconcile with the pesukim - kinda like the Rambam on kadmus...

>I don't know how you see that in a paragraph that poetically links the
>slow unfolding of beri'ah implied by machshavahan and qabbalah with
>evolutionary theories.

I'm not talking about the source in "Orot HaKodesh" - I'm talking about
the one in the "Igrot" - the one in OhK is really no ra'ayah at all.

YGB 

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:30:49AM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote:
: Speficially, Sotah 9:9, where we read of the abolition of the eglah
: arufah. Meforshim offer two explanations: (a) The murderers became well
: known, and so there was not a case of complete doubt, and so one couldn't
: do it; and/or (b) Murders were more brazen and acted publicly. (Eglah
: arufa is done only when there is complete doubt as to the identity of
: the murderer).

The gemara gives both.

: Neither is completely satisfying. And I don't see how (a) (b) and (c)
: are accomplished here -- unless doing the eglah arufah when there is
: not complete doubt is a torah violation.

The Ramban and the Abarbanel say that the egla arufa is a kaparah for
the city's negligence in not setting up a more lawful setting.

It is hypocritical to bring an egla arufa where there is little chance
of tightening up society and reducing the homicide rate. It's therefore
both bal tashchis and midevar sheqer tirchaq.

Also, egla arufa only applies to cases where there is a significant
measure of uncertainty. (The Sefas Emes on Par' Shofetim points out we
don't know the Jewishness of the victim!) The pasuq is clear that egla
arufa is associates with intentional murder, but about not being sure
if there was one or not. As the number of intentional murders goes up,
the uncertainty about whether it was murder or some other form of killing
goes down.

The Rambam (Moreh 3:40) and Rabinu Yosef Bechor Shor say the purpose is
to help reveal the murderer's identity. As the Rambam points out, it
serves to publicize the case, the location of the murder, what the
victim looked like, etc...

Once society turns the bend, publicizing murders does more to create
copy-cats than scare off other offenders. (Similar to the elimination
of capital punishment.)

: Then more questions arose in 9:10 when we read that the ma'aser confession
: was abolished....

A false confession is prohibited. So, when demai became a problem, requiring
the vidui would create more false viduiim than valid ones.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:19:18PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
:> You realize how circular this is.   

: I would like to point out that the "concentric circles" mental model
: of historic/Jewish time is not such a good one...

You do realize that's a non sequitur. This quote was talking about
circular reasoning: someone suggested that another invoked consensus
of authority by defining away the acceptability of those baalei mesorah
who disagreed (as being "influenced").

On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 11:19:18PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: A better mental model is a spiral, going down like a spiral staircase,
: in which you keep reaching the same place, but a little further down,
: as you go round and down the spiral. I am thinking "down" because of
: yeridas hadoros and our usual way of thinking: the beginning is at
: the top of the page and then you go down as you get closer to the end.

: It would also be possible to visualize the spiral as going up, if you
: think of it as getting closer and closer to the era of Moshiach.

I would think that given the giants and dwarves model, it's an upward
helix, with each subsequent revolution of the helix less far above the
previous helix. Each generation adds to the progress to moshiach, but
with each year we add less and less.

BTW, RSC may have used the words "concentric circles", but he didn't
mean actual circles. No "quantum leap". As he writes in reply on Sun,
Mar 20, 2005 at 09:27:37AM -0500:
: Concentric doesn't have to necessarily mean that the outer circles are
: not joined in any way to each other. Here's a simple experiment. Take a
: pen, put it to paper and start drawing a circle. When you get close to
: the end of your circle, begin widening it thus causing the commencement
: of one (ever-widening) concentric circle...

That's not a set of circles, it's a spiral. Technically, a spiral is
where the radius changes, a helix (or coil) is where the center changes
perpendicular to the circle, and a seashell is when they both change.

I agree with RnTK's assessment that Jewish time is both linear and
circular, and therefore with her helical model. See my machashavah vort
(pg 1) at <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mikeitz.pdf>.

-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

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:30:49AM -0500, Sholom Simon wrote:
: Speficially, Sotah 9:9, where we read of the abolition of the eglah
: arufah. Meforshim offer two explanations: (a) The murderers became well
: known, and so there was not a case of complete doubt, and so one couldn't
: do it; and/or (b) Murders were more brazen and acted publicly. (Eglah
: arufa is done only when there is complete doubt as to the identity of
: the murderer).

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org] 
> The gemara gives both.

> The Ramban and the Abarbanel say that the egla arufa is a kaparah for the
> city's negligence in not setting up a more lawful setting.
...

Perhaps you can explain why these reasons, which are not mentioned in
the Torah, forced(allowed) Chazal to uproot a mitzvah doraita?
Would the Eglah be brought if conditions returned to normal?

KT
Joel Rich

On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 10:15:49PM -0500, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Perhaps you can explain why these reasons, which are not mentioned in
: the Torah, forced(allowed) Chazal to uproot a mitzvah doraita?

No! I'm not arguing batlah ta'am, batlah mitzvah.

Rather, that the problems of midevar sheqer, bal tashchis and multiplying
copycat murders satisfies the requirement that the gezeirah laaqor
davar min haTorah besheiv ve'al ta'aseh must be to protect a more chamur
de'oraisa. Which other deOraisa is most relevent depends on the ta'am
for eglah arufah.

Alternatively, the shift in odds towards outright might well take the
metzi'us out of the case where eglah arufah is a chiyuv.

: Would the Eglah be brought if conditions returned to normal?

Sure. Just as a beis din in such a situation would return to the lishkas
hagazis and restore dinei nefashos. This is actually necessary, since
otherwise they would be eliminating the deOraisa altogether, which would
violate another of R' Chaim Brisker's criteria for allowing aqirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel 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         ]