Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 148

Monday, March 6 2006

• RE: Finished reading MOAG
• Re: Gem
• Re: Gem
• Why does the Torah go into such great detail about the construction of the Mishkan?
• Source needed: Sheker has no feet
• economics dilemma
• Re: Source needed: Sheker has no feet
• Re: Lashon Harah
• Re: Chazal, science, and halacha
• Chazal, science, and halacha
• Astronomy
• Re: Astronomy
• sources for understanding perameters of baal tosif
• K'Omrom - B'Omrom?
• Re: Lashon Hara
• Origin of Evil
• Re: Origin of Evil
• RE: Chazal, science, and halacha

(Since the thread was moved to Avoda, I'm reposting there):

>>> Moreover, R. Danny Schoemann reports that the talmidim were
>>>told the same at Kol Torah.

>> Once again the context is not given. A p'sak without a context is close
>> to meaningless.

>R. Danny, could you please provide the context?

Sure! I love repeating this story. :-)

In Yeshivas Kol Torah in 1982 there were 2 - 3 dozen chutzniks. Some
of them arrived with srugis (and were privatly told to conform),
others came from chassidishe homes, and a few of us Yekkes in between.
The first year chutznicks were in Rav Y Portnoi's shiur. (AFAIK this is
still true, BTW.) Those were the "good old days" when the RY, RSZA zt"l
would give still give "shiur kloli" once a week, and 3 times a week he
gave "shiur gimmel".

Once a week we were treated to our own chutznik va'ad. The mashgiach,
R' YY Borodiansky shlita (who is married to RSZA's daughter) would give
us a mussar/hashkofa shiur at a level (he assumed) we could relate to. I
still can recall some of the ones about tefilla.

The last va'ad before our first Bein Hazmanim he was talking (IIRC)
about how we represented the Yeshiva wherever we went, and were expected
to behave ourselves accordingly.

He then went on to say that not everybody keeps the high kashrus levels
of the Yeshiva, nevertheless, after having discussed this with RSZA and
gotten his blessing, he was informing us that we were allowed to eat at
these people's homes. He left it up to us to decide who we would rely on,
not delineating any parameters.

Based on his modus operandi, this was probably prompted by a private
question on the matter, and he wanted to make sure we all had the same
information.

Hope this Helps
- Danny

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:53:09AM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself.
: Evil is simply the absence of God...."

: Great theory, but against an explicit possuk in Yeshayo 45:7 - I form
: the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
: LORD do all these things. (Translation from http://answers.com/Isaiah-45 )

There is no darkness without an empty space to be dark. Thus, the pasuq
doesn't necessarily refer to a choshekh that is a nivra, but to HQBH's
creation of that space.

Similarly, did HQBH create ra, or did He create the empty "space", ie
tzimtzum, and therefore it de facto exists? Certainly the language of
kelipos, some nogah ("translucent"), some that block more Or, implies
that ra is caused by something blocking shefa, not an entity of itself.

Of course, the Gra who insists choshekh is a nivra, probably has something
similar to say about ra.

The Ramban asserts that there is no evil without sin. (Including aveiros
of previous gilgulim.) Thus, all "evil" is really misunderstood din.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

With regards to the "gem" that RSB sent to Areivim, the punch-line being:

"Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself.
Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold --
a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did
not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as
does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does
not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes
when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

Great theory, but against an explicit possuk in Yeshayo 45:7 - I form
the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these things. (Translation from http://answers.com/Isaiah-45 )

 - Danny

The Torah goes into tremendous detail about the construction of the
mishkan not once but twice, once the command and once the actual
building. The obvious question is what is this coming to tell us? Why
does the Torah give so much detail here when most mitzvos get almost
no detail. Just a few examples
1. tefillin has 1 vague pasuk from which we can understand little
2. The torah says don't do melacha on shabbos and never defines melacha
(in Torah Shebicsav)
3. The torah says many times to shcecht but never explains what shechita
is. In short, most mitzvos have very little in teh Torah Shebicsav,
most of teh mitzva is expounded in Torah Shebaal Peh, the contruction
of teh mishkan on the other hand has tremendous detail in the Chumash.

What makes this even more troubling is that the construction of the
mishkan was a horaas shaah. The mitzvah ledoros is to build the Beis
Hamikdash, if so why does the Torah go into all this detail about building
the mishkan?

I have not found a good answer for this. Any answers would be appreciated.

I'm looking for the source of the "vort" that Sheker (Shin-Kuf-Reish)
has no feet - as opposed to Emes that can stand.

Thanks
- Danny

>> ...   the driver told the economists that there was recently a
>> shortage of a certain item and his friend was the only person in town
>> who had it in stock. This friend decided not to raise the price. What
>> do the economists think of that?

> Way to little information.Was it a short term shortage? Was it a staple
> or medicinal item? Did he expect the present value of future profits
> based on enhanced reputation would exceed the short term loss?...

I agree with Joel. The key issue is what kind of item we are talking
about. If it is a luxury item I see no problem with raising the price
of a fancy car because of a shortage. If it is a basic item it is
problematical.

Essentailly this is the economic problem of a monopoly. A company like
Microsoft always has to justify why it is not a monopoly and its prices
are "reasonable" because Windows is essential to a modern society. OTOH
if a company makes a specialized product aand they have a monopolly and
charge $10000 for their special software no one cares

--
Eli Turkel

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 10:55:39AM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: I'm looking for the source of the "vort" that Sheker (Shin-Kuf-Reish)
: has no feet - as opposed to Emes that can stand.

Shabbos 104a part of a sequence of vertlach on the shapes of the
letters. Although it's overstatement -- raglayim ein lah, aval regel
yeish. One "leg" per letter as opposed to the two of each letter of
"emes". And in truth, a successful lie is one that has an element of
truth.

-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      

RM Feldman wrote among other things :
> I also note that various talmidim of RAL have told me that RAL
> disagrees with the whole approach of the CC to codify lashon hara
> as strict halacha. In his opinion, apparently, this is more of a
> moral issue than halachic and is therefore more flexible than strict
> halacha. RAL apparently believes that people are often too concerned
> with hilchos LH and not enough concerned with possible damage which
> may occur by their withholding information...

This is very important. Too often, the withholding of imformation causes
more damage than the revelation of the information. Could you provide
us with some mkoros on this issue from RAL and his talmidim?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 12:46:08PM -0600, Kohn, Shalom wrote:
: Inasmuch as none of the views endorsed in the gemara is consistent with
: a rotating earth and a solar system, I asked:
: "Is there anyone who now denies that the earth turns on its axis?"  
: Does anyone still believe that the sun goes above the sky or below the earth?

RMMS's essay was already mentioned. But I disagree with RMBluke's summary:
> He based it (in most scientists opinions erroneously) on the theory
> of relativity.
> In other words the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the Sun revolves around
> the Earth.

IOW, to RSK's questions, the answers are:
No. RMMS does not deny the validity of the description of the universe
such that the earth spins.
Yes. RMMS also does not deny the validity of the description of the
universe in which everything else spins the other way, plus is subject to
a global gravitational field canceling out the effects of that angular
momentum.

RMBluke, cont:
> The standard Charedi answer for that Gemara is that Chazal hid deeper
> meanings in statements like these describing the world. The scientific
> facts make no difference, since chazal were not talking of such facts,
> rather deeper metaphysical truths.

And the same could be said of any ma'amar chazal. However, what about
pesuqim -- such as "shemesh beGiv'on dam"?

> Has anyone posed this gemara to those who condemn other science at
> variance with Talmudic statements?

I think that was RSK's very point!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 "Kohn, Shalom""<skohn@Sidley.com>
> ..Is there anyone who can provide a coherent defense of the
> gemara in Pesachim in light of the infallibility doctrine? 

Without getting involved in the evaluation of the Gemara's presentation,
without apologetics or defense in view of current scientific doctrine,
is there anyone out there who can give a clear and understandable
explanation of what the Gemara Pesachim is actually saying, in detail?

Zvi Lampel

> AE maintained that there are
> no absolute frames of reference in space and thus, although we may be
> using heliocentric models to calculate the motion of the heavenly bodies,
> who knows...maybe the earth is kavua?

Does anyone here have enough knowledge of Quantum Theory to answer this
question? Is it possible that by doing different calculations that one
can prove that an Earth-centric model of the solar system is correct?

I've heard in the name of both R. Akiva Eiger and the Shita Mekubtzes
that the when the gemara uses the terminology (in the "their chachamim"
vs. "our" chachamim discussion) "Nirin divreihen m'divrainu" (their words
appear more correct than our words) the gemara actually means Their words
"appear" correct but really are not. In other words, what appears to be
based upon calculation and scientific investigation is not necessarily
the reality. Has anyone else heard this or knows where to find it?

cbk

On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 01:30:35PM -0600, CBK wrote:
:>AE maintained that there are
:>no absolute frames of reference in space and thus, although we may be
:>using heliocentric models to calculate the motion of the heavenly bodies,
:>who knows...maybe the earth is kavua?

: Does anyone here have enough knowledge of Quantum Theory to answer this
: question? Is it possible that by doing different calculations that one
: can prove that an Earth-centric model of the solar system is correct?

QM isn't relevent to this.

According to relativity, it is just as correct to say the earth spins
way and the universe spins the other. So it's not that one is correct
OR the other, both are.

However geocentrism creates a more complicated model of the universe;
once that involves harder formulas to solve, and a strange gravitational
field to account for the effects that in other models would be identifies
as angular momentum.

Just as valid, yes, but circumlocuted. Thus there is a reason why
a scientist will use the heliocentric -- and even that revolves around
another point, which in turn revolves ... -- model.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Anyone have any sources they can point out to me in regards to the
parameters for baal tosif.

I'm especially interested in how it interacts with modern day psak
halacha.

for instance, I can understand that chazal w/ a sanhedrin had the
ability to enact law, but what about today.  

How does the concept of safek de'oraita l'chumra, safed d'rabbanan
l'kula play into it.

and any other thoughts....

Last year, for the first time in my experience, I heard someone repeat
the posuk of "Vayehi K'omrom Aylav Yom Vayom." (Esther 3:4) with both the
kri of "K'Omrom" and the ksiv of "B'omrom". I have layned for many years,
and heard megilla in many shuls and several yeshivos, and this was the
first time I've ever encountered this practice. When I asked the ba'al
koreh, he replied that his rebbi (in YU, I believe) layned this way,
and that he had once heard a tape of the megilla with this repetition. He
thought that it was based on the Minchas Shai, but I have not been able
to find this. I was wondering if anyone on this list had ever heard of
such a practice and whether there are authoritative sources for it. The
fact that the famous article by Rav Breuer discussing Lifnaihem/Bifnaihem
and Laharog/V'Laharog does not mention B'omrom/K'omrom further supports
my assumption that the minhag is to layn the kri of "K'omrom" only.

A freilichen Purim!
Ari 
 --
Ari Y. Weintraub, M.D.
Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care
University of Pennsylvania Medical Center
aweintra@umaryland.edu

[R Moshe Feldman:]
>   (Although I sit just a few rows back from RAL, I don't like bothering
> him too much.)

Rav Wolbe ZTZL said regarding a Talmid Chacham: "Never leave him alone!"

Moved from Areivim:

Brent CBK (is this Toby's son?):
> Hashem didn't create evil itself, He created room for it to exist.
> He created the potential for evil. 

You're contradicting pshat in the navi? Most (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Metzudos)
treat "ra" as a created entity; only Radak on the page says it's the
absence of tov/shalom. Which doesn't quite fit your model.

> Hashem created/caused the shviras hakelim (breaking of the vessels)
> from which came the klipos.

Ah, I see - you're doing it based on a 16-th century theory of the
creation of evil. Aliyas hadoros, of course.

In any case, even if it's through shevirat hakeilim, can you say that
Hashem didn't anticipate it? Even that way, Hashem created evil through
the process of shevirat hakeilim. Either that, or you are forced to
say that Hashem didn't know the keilim were too weak. One has to assume
that it was intentional. The keilim were created by Hashem, the Or was
created by Hashem - where did the evil come from to enclothe the klippth?
Some other Power (h"v)? It had to have been created by Hashem. If Hashem
created flawed keilim that became the dross that enclothes the klippoth,
is that not stuff that was created by Hashem? So we're back to the
words of the navi. ...Borei ra`.

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

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:07:23AM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> Hashem didn't create evil itself, He created room for it to exist.
:> He created the potential for evil. 

: You're contradicting pshat in the navi? ...

:> Hashem created/caused the shviras hakelim (breaking of the vessels)
:> from which came the klipos.

: Ah, I see - you're doing it based on a 16-th century theory of the
: creation of evil....

My point was just that somehow, these rabbanim found a peshat in the
navi. So, agree or disagree, one can't consider the notion of evil as
an absence rather than a beryah bifnei atzmah as a "non-starter".

I fail to understand what beri'ah of choshekh HQBH could have had the
navi write about in the first part other than the beri'ah of not-yet-lit
space. So, by parallel...

One also has the kol man de'avad rachmanah of R' Aqiva, which would seem
to necessarily include every act of beri'ah as letav avad.

I wrote something similar to RBK's position, except that I defined the
evil as the "shadow" left behind the kelipos, not the kelipos themselves.
The kelipos seem to be used more like the "ru'ach shetus" that leads
to cheit. They're described as sources of motivation, not actions or
their effects.

Thus, the creation of evil was the act of tzimtzum (whatever that is),
leaving behind pockets empty (at least seemingly) of His Tov. Tzimtzum
at least buys me a few centuries before descriptions of sheviras hakeilim.

But now that I'm in way over my head on Qabbalah, I invite RYGB to chime in.


When we discussed this back in v7n94, RMPhyllostac teased:
> I just read Rav Schwab on this part of davening (Rav Schwab on Prayer - 
> Artscroll - starting on p.259).
> He also addresses creation of choshech, as well as other matters, very 
> interestingly....

But I do not recall what RSS said, nor have ready access to the
seifer.


And last August, v15n70, I posted on the subject of Izhbitzer thought,
which I do not understand whatsoever, in which evil and free will are
only states of mind. Any event or action (even human action) could
only exist if He Desired it, and therefore is really tov. It's only
when one think you'res rebelling that there is cheit -- in the thought itself.

When I saw this, I understood RYGB's comments about aveirah lishmah in
a new light-- or more accurately, the choshekh of perplexity.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
micha@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> I admit that astronomers today maintain a heliocentric universe but AE
> maintained that there are no absolute frames of reference in space and
> thus, although we may be using heliocentric models to calculate the
> motion of the heavenly bodies, who knows...maybe the earth is kavua?

This is a fallacy and a misrepresentation of the Theory of Relativity.
The overwhelming majority of scientists today classify geocentrism as
pseudoscience.

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


[ 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         ]