Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 079

Sunday, January 1 2006

• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Re: Divrei Yoel on Chanuka - Questions re Nusach etc..
• Vort on Chanukah
• Fw: Divrei Yoel on Chanuka - Questions re Nusach etc..
• Re: Xmax and Assimilation
• Re: Three steps forward
• Re: Three steps forward
• Re: Three steps forward
• Bugs
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Re: Three steps forward
• Re: Three steps forward
• Re: Xmax and Assimilation
• Re: Divrei Yoel on Chanuka - Questions re Nusach etc..
• person in "wrong body"
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)

[RHM:]
>     "The Rambam does write (Moreh Nevuchim, 2: 25) that even some
>     seemingly fundamental philosophical convictions need not be considered
>     inherently sacrosanct to Jewish belief. Should incontrovertible
>     physical evidence to the contrary be discovered, he explains,
>     then p'sukim seeming to indicate otherwise would simply have to be
>     understood figuratively, like p'sukim that refer to Hashem, chalilah,
>     as having physical form."

You correctly said "incontrovertible evidence". Big bang cosmology (and
much of the sciences of origins as opposed to operational science) is not
incontrovertible. For example, one amongst the many untested foundational
assumptions of big bang cosmology is the cosmological principle which
nobel laureate Steven Weinberg says hangs like a DARK CLOUD over the
theory. As the Rambam says in MN:II:15 Aristotle did not have a "hochacha
gemura bli pikpuk", otherwise we are to take the pesukim kepeshuto (in
addition to their deeper meanings). Untested foundational assumptions,
vast extrapolations plagued by stubborn anomalies and undiscovered
hypothetical entities needed to save the theory from disconfirmation do
not constitute incontrovertible evidence.

KT ... JSO

> "Haneiros halolu.al yedei Kohanech Hakdoshim - Vechol Shmonas Yemei
> Chanuka".  Pshat in these lines - which don't really connect.

They don't. First we declare why we light the candles. Then we say
what they're for.

> Nowhere else in Nach or the Seder Hatefila are Kohanim labelled as
> "kedoshim". Why here?

In the intro to Birchat Kohanim, they are called "kohanim am kedoshecha".

> Also "V'ein lonu reshus lehishtamesh bohem".
> Why is this davar halocho included in the tefila?

It's not a tefilah, it's a declaration of what we're doing. These nerot
are not for giving light (as are nerot shabbat, e.g.), or for any other
practical purpose, but rather lehodot ulehalel.

> And what is the connection between "lirosom bilvad" and "k'dei
> lehodos"?  What has one to do with the other?

Their purpose is that we will see them and focus on the nissim, and
praise Hashem. The declaration negates any other purpose that we might
think they have.

> "Al hanisim v'al hanifloas she'osiso..al yedei Kohanecho". The nissim
> were by the RBSO - not the Kohanim.

They (apart from the nes of the oil) were *not* directly by the RBSO,
they were through the kohanim, and to the outside observer appeared
to be entirely bederech hateva, just like nes purim. The nes shemen
was completely different, of course, but even it was done through the
kohanim who found the oil and lit the menorah.

> "Ravto es Rivom". "Riv" is something that happens between humans.
> How can this refer to HKBH?

That's precisely the point. We say the same thing on Purim - "harav
et rivenu". It's our riv, but He takes it up on our behalf, and that
is a great wonder, for which we praise Him.

> "Danto es dinom" also needs explaining.

Again, we say the same thing on Purim. Instead of having to do our
own justice, Hashem did it for us, or at least that's how we perceive
it, even though on the surface it appears that we did it all ourselves.
And on the next line in both cases, "nakamta et nikmatam" / "vehanokem et
nikmatenu", he has no question? Or did you just not bother to quote it,
since it's the same question each time?

> According to the Gemoro [Shabbos 21b], "Mai Chanuka", the Nes Chanuka
> was the Pach Shemen".
> Why does it not get any mention at all in "Al Hanissim"?

Because "al hanisim" was not written by the same people who wrote that
piece of gemara. Why the gemara emphasises the shemen and ignores the
military victory and the chanukat habayit is a subject with a lot of
discussion. It's not impossible that the failure of Julian's attempt
to rebuild the BHMK played a part. Or that people in EY and in Bavel
emphasised different aspects.

> "Temeim beyad tehorim, Reshoim beyad tzadikim, etc etc" Why is that a Nes?
> Why should Temeim and Reshoim be stronger than Tehorim and Tzadikim?

Look around the world - how does it usually happen?

> Explanation of the Gemoro "Lesho'o acheres kovum Yom Tov.."
> Why did they wait a year - and not celebrate immediately?

They did celebrate immediately, but that was not a decision to do it
again every year. We see the same thing on Purim. When the nes happened,
they immediately celebrated. Then they decided to do it again every year.
Not every celebration is repeated every year. The chanukat hamishkan
is not celebrated every year (though there's a fairly recent minhag of
remembering it), and the chanukat bayit rishon has no zecher at all -
it happened once, vezehu.

> Midrash Tanchuna [[Tetzave] relates that the lights in the Menorah in the
> BHMK sometimes burned for a whole year.
> So why the big 'trask' about this happening for 8 days?

I'm not familiar with this medrash, but does it mean without being
refilled? Without seeing it, I'd guess that it means the kohen would top
up the oil every day, without putting out the flame. And that, of course,
is not a miracle.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I believe this is said in the name of R Boruch of Mezhibuzh, though I'm
not 100% sure.

The mishna in BK says "hiniach chenvani nero bachutz, chayav. R Yehuda
omer, bener chanukah patur". (I think this is the only mention of
chanukah in mishnayot.) Chenvani otiyot Yochanan. Yochanan Kohen Gadol,
who served in the Kehuna Gedola for/until 80 years, became a tzeduki,
and put his fire in the machta outside the Kodesh Hakodashim, rather than
inside as the Chachamim ruled it should be done. For this he is chayav.
But R Yehuda says that he was niftar from gehinom by the zechut of his
son Matityahu and his grandsons, who lit the ner chanukah.

Of course, historically this makes no sense, because the Yochanan KG who
became a tzduki was not Matityahu's father, but one of his descendants.
But it's still a nice vort.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Comments from a Satmar friend

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "aa"
To: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: Divrei Yoel on Chanuka - Questions re Nusach etc..

This Year a chelek Sheini of Divrei Yoel Chanuka was published. So even
when you finish the first one, you won't be bored.

Just interesting, my brother made a Bris yesterday, and somebody mentioned
a question from Divrei Yoel on a "Yosifin" that says that before going
to war, Yehuda relayed the Psikim that a Kohen Moshiach Milchama must
say before a war: "Mi Huish Hayoorei Vharach Haleivov etc." The Rebbe
asks that since Chazal tell us that the Shemen Hamishcha was amongst
those things that were NIGNAZ after the first Churban, how is possible
that Yehuda was a Moshiach Milchama?

Sitting by the table was somebody considered as a 'Yadon', who doubted
that a Moshiach Milchama needed Shemen Hamishcha. I checked Rambam
Hilchos Klei Hamikdosh 1-7, and found that Moshiach Milchama is one of
the three who are Nimshach with Shemen Hamishcha. When he still claimed
that it probably is not ME'AKEV, I looked in the Frankel Rambam, and
other Mekoros that discuss if its ME'AKEV or not. One of them is Minchas
Chinuch, and the one who asked the question then recalled that the Rebbe
is quoting a Minchas Chinuch.

On the way out, this person told us that he knows from personal experience
that from Divrei Yoel you can become a Talmud Chacham. He expanded:
"People considered me a Yodei'a Sefer (people like to talk to him, he
knows a lot, especially in unusual subjects), but I never really studied.
except for the Rebbes Tora's ((by following up mekoros and verifying
the questions), and this made me a 'scholar'."

My father related that the Debritziner Rav Z"l told him once, that in
the early years after the holocaust he used to attend the Rebbe's Sugya
shiurim in Yeshiva. Once the Rebbe said a long deep pilpul, answering
a series of Kashyas and Shitos, as his usual style. The Debritziner Rav
then asked a "Klutz Kashya" (he meant a strong Kashye), which destroyed
the whole Binyan. The Rebbe was quiet for a few minutes and thinking,
then he started a "whole new mehalach that LO KUREV ZE EL ZE" (nothing
to do with the earlier pilpul) that perfectly answered all Kashyas. The
Debritziner Rav said that he was stunned from such a Geones and Charifus,
done in short minutes.

Zechiso Yugein Uleini.

S & R Coffer wrote:
>When the Gra was a youth, he started breaking minhagim left and
>right based on a Yerushalmi here, a Bavli there etc. He would say,
>"minhag is osiyos gehinom". 

The above statement was made by Rabbeinu Tam in Sefer haYashor.

If you have a source that the Gra said it also - would greatly appreciate
the citation.

Daniel Eidensohn

In Avodah V16 #78, RRL asked:
> What do you do for Maariv? Before "Ga'al Yisrael" also? Hashkivenu, et.
> al. are a ge'ulah arichta, so by this logic, you shouldn't have an
> interruption there either.

As I previously wrote in response to Micha's first post on the topic:

RMB:
> What about stepping back before "Ki sheim H'..." for minchah and mussaf?

me:
> Yes, I step back before the SHaTZ finishes Qaddish.
> I also step back before [chatzi] Qaddish before ma'ariv (small "m" in
> continuation of RMB's notation :-))/Maariv (your way of writing it).

Your Q re what we say after birchas Gawal Yisrael being a hefsaiq might
better be expressed as a Q upon our saying Qaddish between that b'racha
and the Amidah ;-), but to answer your Q, if what we say, from Hashkivainu
through Qaddish, isn't a hefsaiq because it's all considered part and
parcel of the concentration upon g'ula, my stepping back before the end
of Qaddish is no different than my stepping back before the beginning
of the Amidah shel Shacharis, as both stepping-back actions are done
during the g'ula "block" of t'filos.

Shabbas Shalom, Gut Chodesh, Gut Chanukah, and all the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager

R' Micha writes:
> Is anyone maqpid to take three steps back before the final sentence
> of ge'ulah, so that there is full semikhas ge'ulah letefilah -- no pause
> between "ga'al Yisrael" and the three steps forward?

There is a discussion in several places in hilchos tefila, if halicha is
considered a hefsek. The Mechaber in OC 104:2 writes that one shouldn't
move from his place while in Shmona Esra. In the next se'if the Rem"a
writes, that even though the halacha is that even if a snake is around
his legs one shouldn't be mafsik while standing Sh"E, one may however
walk to a different place to get rid of the snake. The MA explains the
reason for this heter, because we don't find that walking should be
considered an hefsek, but shelo l'tzorech [walking] is ossur. The MB
puts it that shelo l'tzorech, walking is considered a hefsek "k'tzas",
IOW even for no good reason, walking is never considered a full hefsek.

Now from the Rem"a in siman 111 that one may answer amein after ga'al
yisroel, is mashma that hefsek bein ge'ula litefila is slightly easier
than a hefsek in middle of sh"e. Considered that walking even in the worst
case - shelo l'tzorech k'lal , is never considered a full fledged hefsek,
it's therefore mistaber that taking the three steps forward should be
sufficiently tzorech, it shouldn't be considered a hefsek bein ge'ula
letfila.

The Aruch Hashulchan (98:7) writes however, that the three steps should be
taken before tzur yisroel. Could be that the AhS held that this halicha
isn't considered tzorech.

> What about stepping
> back before "Ki sheim H'..." for minchah and mussaf?

The MB (111:1) writes that even by minchah and musaf, one shouldn't
be mafsik after hashem sefosay, but makes no mention about ki sheim
hashem ekra.

Kol Tuv,
- Avigdor Feldstein

From: Russell Levy <russlevy@gmail.com>
> What do you do for Maariv? Before "Ga'al Yisrael" also? Hashkivenu,
> et. al. are a ge'ulah arichta, so by this logic, you shouldn't have an
> interruption there either.

Which reminds me. I recently davvened in the BHMD of Rav Dushinsky shlita
in Jm and noticed that the Shatz concludes the brocho 'Hamaariv Arovim'
silently [like many do with 'Oheiv Amo Yisroel'].

I then saw that the Nussach Dushinsky siddur [by Miller - who happens
to be a Dushinsky Talmid] writes to do so.

I have since been searching for a source - but haven't found one.
The Likutei Maharich has nothing on this.

Anyone?

SBA

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Iceberg and cabbage are NOT a problem. Also, the bugs are not big black
> dots waiting to be discovered. And, finally, the central issue is not
> if this vegetable or the other does/does not have bugs, it's if the
> cleaning process can be relied upon to the extent of not needing bedika.

One metzius issued raised by Rabbi E. Eidlitz during a visit here, is that
often the lettuced (Romaine hearts, etc) checked here in California, may
not show any bug, but when checked a few days letter in NY or Baltimore,
they do show some infestation. Unless something gets into the packaging,
I would guess that there are bugs too small to be visible to the eye
here, but grow enough in the few days of shipping cross country. If I
understand correctly they would by mutar here since they cannot be seen,
but assur when they can be found with a clsoe checking,

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> You correctly said "incontrovertible evidence". Big bang cosmology (and
> much of the sciences of origins as opposed to operational science) is not
> incontrovertible. 

I didn't posit this Rambam to argue the validity of using "preponderance
of evidence" reasons for allegorizing the "Yimei" portion of the Sheshe
Yimei Breishis. That is a different argument. But just to address
that for a moment... you constantly choose to reject it all since it
isn't "incontrovertible" using twists and turns of scientific data and
twist and turns of classic writings of Rishonim and Gedolei HaAchronim.
I do not. You have your reading of the sources backing my view and I
have mine. But as I say, that is a separate argument.

What I was really thinking about is another point mentioned here some
time ago which brought out fire and brimstone against RNS's position on
the Mabul. I disagreed with RNS's need to allegorize the Mabul because
his "absence of evidence in the geological record" is not the same as
conclusive evidence. He never the less made a very controversial comment
at the time. He said that in a Machlokes between Metzius and the Torah
narrative, Metzius wins. This is in large part what I think got him into
trouble here with many of us, but more importantly I believe that it
precipitated investigation into his published writings which ultimately
resulted in the Cherem on his books.

But in fact according to the Rambam, Metzius DOES trump the Torah in
the sense that if "incontrovertible evidence" is discovered any time in
history which counters a literal reading of the Torah, then from that
moment forward it must be taken allegorically.

What this also means is that even you have argued so vigorously for your
position, if presented with incontrovertible evidence of an ancient
universe, ... even you must reject the literal interpretation of the
Sheshes YiMei Bereishis.

To my mind the evidence of an older universe is as close to
incontrovertible as possible.

HM

Concluding Go'al yisro'eil silently is rather recent, but when did people
start not to answer Omein?

The older minneg is, unless I'm mistaken, to get in place for shumenesre
when the sha"tz is at Tehillous le-eil elyoun, i. e. to get in position,
but not (necessarily) by going three steps (v. Mahre"l). In fact I
think, before church-style rows of benches were introduced in mid 56th
century, it was common to get up from one's bench at the wall or around
the almemer and go to one's shtender, often in the front of the shul,
however many steps it took. For minche and maaref, the point is when
the sha"tz starts kaddesh.

S & R Coffer wrote:
>>When the Gra was a youth, he started breaking minhagim left and
>>right based on a Yerushalmi here, a Bavli there etc. He would say,
>>"minhag is osiyos gehinom".

> The above statement was made by Rabbeinu Tam in Sefer haYashor.
> If you have a source that the Gra said it also - would greatly appreciate
> the citation.

Nohing official enough for Daas Torah. I heard it on a R' Avigdor
Miller tape.

Simcha Coffer 

In Avodah V16 #78, RSBA quoted a question from Divrai Yoel:
> Nowhere else in Nach or the Seder Hatefila are Kohanim labelled as
> "kedoshim".

"Kohanim, am q'doshecha, ka'amur" is said by the SHaTZ just before birchas
kohanim, and NB the lashon of the viduy as brought down in Maseches Yuma
Pereq 4 (and BT Yuma 41b in the Vilna edition).

All the best (including wishes for an enjoyable "Zos chanuka[s
hamizbaiach]"!) from

 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Someone asked:
>> Do you have any mareh makomos that I could look up?

  in response to:
> It is my understanding that many/most poskim will permit an abortion
> based on a psychiatric determination that failure to do so will endanger
> the mother's life, even if there's nothing physically wrong with her.

See Shut Bnei Banim, by (listmember?)R' Yehuda Henkin who is very meikel in
the first 40 days.

         MikeW

It seems to me that one should distinguish between two kinds of scientific
statements by Chazal:

A) Statements about the nature of nature as they observed it
B) Statements about the history of nature as they understood it (ie,
the age of the universe).

The "A" statements must be reconciled with our current views of the
nature of nature, either by saying that they were wrong, that we are
wrong, that nature has changed, or that we are understanding them wrong.

The "B" statements need no reconciliation for they are not incompatible
with scientific reason. Why not? R. Dovid Gottlieb demonstrates with
typical clarity how the idea of God creating the universe 5766 years ago
with an appearance of being much older should not bother us rationally:

<http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/AGEOFTHEUNIVERSE.htm>

Channkah Sameach,
Alexander Seinfeld

"R. Alexander Seinfeld" <seinfeld@daasbooks.com> wrote:
> R. Dovid Gottlieb demonstrates with
> typical clarity how the idea of God creating the universe 5766 years ago
> with an appearance of being much older should not bother us rationally:

Of course it shouldn't. It is as logical to say the world was created
yesterday as it is to say that it was created 5766 years ago. Both
statements are logical. But are they believable?

In that vein there are philosophical schools of thought that are quite
logical and just as impossible to disprove. Bishop George Berkely posited
the idea that there is really no physical universe. He said that since
it is impossible to prove physical reality because we can only do so
through indirect means via the 5 physical senses, it can therefore be
concluded that it is just as logical to say that there is no "out therea"
and that evrything is just a dream of God... and there is no such thing as
physical matter. Can you disprove otherwise? Would you know of existence
at all if you did not have any of the five senses?

If however you assume that there is a physical reality and that God
did not intend to fool us with a lot a false cues about the age of the
universe, then it is mnore reasonable to say that data supporting an
older universe should be judged as exactly that and not just as "made
to look that way".

HM

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


[ 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         ]