Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 064

Wednesday, June 7 2006

• wages of a doctor
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Tsimtsum kipshuto
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• RE: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• RE: Avodah V17 #61
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Taking Parasha Sheets
• Re: Taking Parasha Sheets
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Tzimtzum KePeshuto
• Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous
• Re: Taking Parasha Sheets

In a new sefer Shulchan Shlomo (3 vol) on Refuah is brought the opinions
of RSZA on medical issues. He seems to hold that a doctor can accept high
wages based on schar batalei that they are required to be in the hospital.
clinic etc

RMF (YD #4 -52) allows doctors wages on the premise that a Jewish patient
prefers a Jewish doctor and so there is a built in accdeptance that he
will pay the fees necessary to get a jewish doctor

 -- 
Eli Turkel

R. Arie Folger asked:
>Finally, I have a little request to our more astronomically versed
>chaverim: could someone either compile or point to a short list of key
>astronomic terms and their definition in layman's terms, relevant to
>'ibur hachodesh and 'ibur hashannah? I will be very grateful being able
>to familiarize myself with it in preparation for my Rosh haShannah daf
>yomi shi'ur. (that gives the volunteers a few months to prepare)

The last daf yomi cycle, when we got to Rosh Hashana I bought the
English sefer Kuntres D'Shmaya by R. Alex Schutz from Kiryat Sefer in
Israel. The 60 page booklet is available in Canada and the States. It
explains technical terms, has basic graphs and pictures, and even goes
over some of the sugyot in the gemara.

Then there's the astronomy for dummies version :-) Get the video or DVD
on astronomy from www.standarddeviants.com

BTW one of the few times in my life I was ever floored (make that shocked)
was seeing the peyrush of the Chazon Ish on the Rambam's Hilchot Ibur
haChodesh. Pages of equations in spherical trigonometry. And I didn't
understand a single line !

KT
Josh

[Micha:]
> The L Rebbe adds two axis to this:
> + Tzimtzum could be taken (1) literally (2) or figuratively; and
> + It could be taken as referring to (a) Atzmuso or to (b) His Or.

Interestingly, Maor VShemesh in the beginning of Bareishis says based
on Eitz Chaim and Emek Hamelech that there were two tsimtsumimm- the
first one of Atsmus and then the second one of Or.

  M. Levin

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> RAMiller posted sample months, and figured out that
> even with three centuries to average over, the error
> would be almost 2 chalaqim.
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n160.shtml#12>

On the one hand, RMB quotes me accurately. On the other hand, I sort of
retracted that post 3 days later.

Some history: The discussion on this topic back then had lasted so long
that a deadline was called for. Only a day or two after that deadline,
R' Jonathan Ostroff submitted a post which was rejected (due to being
after the deadline), so he sent it privately to me and a few other
listmembers. Upon reading it and reviewing his calculations, I wrote an
apology and retraction, which I sent to that small offlist group.

Now that the discussion has reopened, I'll share my comments from
that time.

I thank R' Jonathan Ostroff for alerting me to the life
and work of a Greek astronomer named Hipparchus. According to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus_%28astronomer%29> he lived
around 190 BCE to 120 BCE. This is long before the Gemara, a few centuries
before the Mishna, and well within the period of Bayis Sheni.

Until reading about this man, I had forgotten how fanatical the
ancients had been in their record-keeping of astronomy. It turns out
that Hipparchus observed a solar eclipse in the year 141 BCE, and was
able to find Babylonian records of another eclipse 345 years earlier.
Their records established that 4267 lunations elapsed in the 126007
days and 1 hour (3024169 hours) between these two eclipses. He did the
arithmetic, and showed that those 4267 months average to the famous
figure of 29.5 days and 793 chalakim:

29.5 days * 4267 months = 125876.5 days
126007 days - 125876.5 days = 130.5 days
130 days 13 hours = 3133 hours = 3383640 chalakim
3383640 chalakim / 4267 months = 792.979

At first, I was skeptical, for two reasons: (1) This figure of 3024169
hours can't possibly be exact; it is surely rounded to the nearest hour,
and is quite possibly off be even more than that, given the quality of
the clocks of that era. (2) The figure is probably off by even more
than that, if they were unaware of the time difference between Bavel
and Greece; granted that there were no standard "time zones" back then,
but regardless, it still takes some time for the sun to get from Bavel
to Greece.

But when I did the calculations, I realized how insignificant this time
is when averaged out over 4267 lunations. It turns out that Hipparchus
had an acceptable range of error of almost FOUR hours!!! Any figure from
3024167.11 hours to 3024171.06 hours, when divided by 4267 lunations and
rounded to the nearest chelek, will yield the famous figure of 29.5 days
and 793 chalakim.

Again, I thank RJO for setting me straight. I had no idea that the
ancients' records were so accurate, and over such a long period of time.

SUMMARY: I had been among those who found it difficult to imagine that
Chazal's duration of the lunar month could have be obtained by any
means other than Revelation. We now see that it was not only *possible*
for the scientists of their day to come up with that figure, but that
scientists even more ancient DID come up with that figure.

Akiva Miller

On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 03:43:23AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: SUMMARY: I had been among those who found it difficult to imagine that
: Chazal's duration of the lunar month could have be obtained by any
: means other than Revelation. We now see that it was not only *possible*
: for the scientists of their day to come up with that figure, but that
: scientists even more ancient DID come up with that figure.

My point is that Hipparchus's number had to be wrong. He
was averaging over 345 years, which means that had he been accurate,
his result would have been around cheileq and a half shorter than one
lunation would take in his day. (The values were from moving avgs of
around 3 chalqim to 0 chalaqim too long, an average of 1-1/2 chalaqim
of error due to the earlier months in his sample.)

Instead, his result was 15 sec or so too long, or off by 16-1/2 chalaqim
from his methodology if it were carried out perfectly.

And on Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:31:37AM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Wouldn't it be likely, considering the systemic drift, that any reasonably
: close estimate will be almost precise at some point in history?

What I think makes my observation about those 16-1/2 chalaqim significant
isn't simply that the answer was correct at /any/ point in history, but
that the point in history in which it's most correct was a fotuitous one.
The number history claims Hipparchus had reached experimentally was first
accurate to the nearest cheileq 500 years or so after his lifetime --
just when the Sanhedrin established the fixed calendar. IOW, just as
it was most critical to have accurate calculations, the number laying
around was most accurate.

I find that astounding. Given that, which do you think is more likely?

1- Hipparchus computed the molad from a pair of eclipses. Then he presented
this number in sexigecimal (1/60, 1/60 of that 1/60, etc..), even though
none of those numbers are involved in the measurement. And the number
happened to be wrong, but serrendipitously, the most useful number for
our purposes.

Or:

2- Hipparchus had a number for the molad he got from the Babylonians,
who were known for using sexigecimals (60 sec/min, 60 min/hour, 60
min/deg, etc...) The Bavliim got it from us during Galus Bavel, which
would also explain why they went to the Metonic (19 year) leap cycle
during our stay there. We got it, as the Mekhilta says, leMosheh miSinai.

I find the latter to be compelling enough so as to suggest the Mekhilta
is literal. You need not. In either case, the RBSO certainly intervened in
providing us the value of a cheileq in a manner more visible than usual.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On June 3, 2006 Micha Berger wrote:
> According to the Rambam, Moshe Rabbeinu was the only one who received
> devarim as nevu'ah. Every other nevu'ah was through chazon, visions,
> that needed interpreting.

> Was RDL "stretching" the truth for the greater good when he told this
> fellow that nevu'ah is only in Hebrew? Or is he basing himself on someone
> who is choleiq with the Rambam? I don't know of anyone, but that doesn't
> prove much.

IMO, the Rambam means that although the Navi certainly experienced his
communication from Hashem in Hebrew, the legend was nebulous and required
interpretation as opposed to Moshe's experience.

I can't imagine anything different because all of Tanach is in Hebrew and
Chazal make countless diyukim/drashos based on the etymology of Tanach.

Simcha Coffer

On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:44:15AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: IMO, the Rambam means that although the Navi certainly experienced his
: communication from Hashem in Hebrew, the legend was nebulous and required
: interpretation as opposed to Moshe's experience.

Yesodei haTorah 7:4, "Hedevarim shemodi'im lenavi bemar'eh hanevu'ah,
derekh mashal modi'in lo... kemo hasulam.. kemo hachayos shera'ah
yechezqeil, vehasir hanafu'ach... vekhen she'ar hanevi'im, yeish meihem
omerin hamashel upisrono kemo eilu, veyeish meihem omerin hapisron
bilvad."

However in the Moreh, he speaks of mar'eh, of words spoken within the
mar'eh, and of words (like those to the young Shemu'el) where the navi
doesn't directly experience anything abnormal (Moreh II:42).

Does his kelal in YhT mean "almost always"? How else to avoid the
contradiction?

In any case, it gives the possibility that whenever nevu'ah is through
speech, the speech is Hebrew. Thus answering my original question.

-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 June 4, 2006, CBK wrote: 
>>: Actually, the Chovos haLevavos (shaar haYichud) disagrees with you. He
>>: maintains that anytime you can add to something or subtract from it,
>>: it does not have the true qualities of infinity...

> This is not born out by the simple mathematics of infinity. The set
> of all whole numbers is infinite. Subtract from that, all of the even
> numbers and the remainder is still infinity. The inverse is also true. An
> infinite set (e.g. all negative numbers) can be added to any number
> (rational or irrational) and the sum is still infinity.

Which is why I said that the CL maintains that the *true* (as opposed
to mathematical which defines empirical or at least conceptual based on
empirical reality) definition of *infinity* as applied to the Boreh is
'indivisibility'.

Simcha Coffer 

From: "Kohn, Shalom" <skohn@Sidley.com>
> I had understood Tzimtzum as a simple metaphor for the following 
> problem --
> Hashem's presence "fills the world," so how could there be room for
> anything else? Two objects cannot be in the same space at the same time.

I had been trying not to comment on this thread, but the chance of 
disagreeing with both RYGB and RSC in one post is too good to pass up.  Here 
are two options:

1. In the beginning of H. Yesodei HaTorah the Rambam describes God as
necessarily existing, while everything else exists only contingently.
For example, if Hizkiyahu had become Mashiah God would still be the same,
but where would the subscribers of Avodah be?

Now, the Rambam explains there that God not only generated the world,
He also sustains the world. How He sustains the world depends on what
the world is like (this is arguable; see Ibn Ezra's introduction to
Sefer Kohelleth for someone who disagrees, and Klah Pithhei Hachmah
#86 for someone who agrees). One possible view of Tsimtsum is that it
represents the abandonment of other possible ways the world could work -
- at the level of laws of nature and laws of hashgaha, not at the level
of historical phenomena.

2. Rabbi Dessler has an essay on what he calls "fields of choice".
He says that there are some crimes so beneath one that one doesn't even
choose not to do them, and some acts so above one that one doesn't
choose to do them. He argues that the basic work of mussar is to
raise one's field. Arguably the "location" of one's field is closely
related to one's consciousness of God (see the Rambam's discussion of
hashgaha and nevuah in part II of the Moreh Nevuhim, and see MN I:1).
Someone who is acutely aware of God would find it very hard to sin.
Another possible view of Tsimtsum is that it represents God playing hide
and seek in order to insure that we have free will.

I remember once explaining to a Baptist friend that he didn't really
believe that "every word in the Bible is literally true". I gave him
a few examples, my favorite being "the children of Israel encamped on
God's mouth (al pi hashem yahanu bnei yisrael)". He finally admitted
that he didn't mean "literally true" literally.

Analogously when kabbalists say "tzimtzum kipshuto" they don't mean
it literally. One plausible distinction is that option #1 above is
"kipshuto" because it describes things as they are, and option #2 is not
"kipshuto" because it describes our perception of things.

Incidentally, one of my rebbeim every so often would say "tzarich
lrakez, ki bidvarim kaeleh assur lit'ot." I never quizzed him about what
precisely the issur is, but there is a middle ground between permissible
discussion of incorrect views and kefirah. My own bottom line is that
(at the very least) what can be translated into philosophy is permissible,
but I have no source for that.

David Riceman 

On June 5, 2006, Micha Berger wrote:
> I once was given the mashal of tzimtzum being like a slide. (Remember
> slide shows?) By blocking parts of the light, a slide can make a picture
> on the wall. Nimshal: The light is Hashem's shefa, the slide is tzimtzum,
> selectively blocking that shefa, and the picture on the wall is you,
> me, the galaxy, space, time, and every other nivra. IOW, creation is
> through the removal of the potential for things and attributesHashem
> does NOT want to exist.

I like the mashal until the final sentence. It doesn't make sense. If
'Creation' is the 'removal' of potential, said potential must have existed,
at least conceptually, before the 'removal' process. That doesn't work with
Beriah yesh may'Ayin.

> And so, if everything could exist nothing would exist,

I don't follow the pathway from the postulate to the conclusion.

 and thus the yeish
> of the universe is from the ayin of the Ein Sof. Thus bringing us to L
> acosmism. 

Entirely lost at this point. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that L Acosmism
'really' exists.

From my exposure to L Chassidisim, the cosmos are, in a sense, more real
than the supernal worlds inasmuch as they represent their 'raison deter' (an
idea fully developed in the Litvishe velt by Rav Dessler). This idea,
vis-a-vis the LR sichos, is a ubiquitous one. In fact, it is the mainstay of
his mehalech to Avodas Hashem.

Simcha Coffer

Why is it okay to take parasha sheets from shul on Shabbat? 

Shavuot afternoon, we were walking home, and we saw a copy of the Chicago
Jewish News Guide that they put out once a year. We hadn't gotten a copy
yet, and this one was sitting atop a newpaper box. My partner wanted
to take it, and I wasn't sure whether we could. After all, wouldn't
it be a kinyan? But then, so is taking a parasha sheet from shul.
So I don't know. I thought I'd toss the question out here and see if
anyone has seen the question addressed in the past.

Among the answers I've heard are:

* If you're a paid up member of the shul and the parasha sheets were
dropped off before Shabbat, then you have partial ownership of them
already.

* If you are only getting use of the sheets on the Shabbat (or Yom Tov)
on which you take them, it's okay.

The second one was stated by someone without any source, and it seems
unlikely to me, but I don't know.

Lisa

On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 02:36:16PM -0400, Lisa Liel wrote:
: Why is it okay to take parasha sheets from shul on Shabbat? 
...
: * If you're a paid up member of the shul and the parasha sheets were
: dropped off before Shabbat, then you have partial ownership of them
: already.

The sheets are hefqeir, and there is no qinyan in picking up hefqeir.

-mi

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:01:45AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: It's not. That's precisely my point. The concept of infinity as
: applied to mathematics is not the concept of infinity as applied to the
: Creator...

I suggest that rather than using the translation "infinite", which then
requires defining an infinity different than that of Cantor's transfinite
numbers, we use the word Absolute.

The basic problem is one step earlier. The hotel can be divided into even
rooms and odd rooms, or rooms 1-10 and all other rooms, etc... Hashem
can not. Therefore, one can't say He retracted from part and yet leaving
the full Infinity, since we can't deal with parts.

-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

On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 03:55:14PM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: Well, here's were I diverge from RYGB. The Zohar of "Man pnei ha'Adon -
: zeh Rashbi;" can in no way be used to justify lishonos such as atzmus
: u'mahus....

Agreed. No more than declaring the BHKQ similarly. After all, the context
is being yotzei re'iyah bedi'eved, when reaching the Har haBayis was
impossible. RSBY is being compared to Har Habayis, not the Borei.

-mi

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 07:55:17PM +0200, Minden wrote:
: About "sheve shabboses temimes", the actual question is - how comes
: nobody ever thought that was to be understood like that before R' Yankev
: Pollak? Did all the tannoem, amouroem, ge-ounem, rishounem, and lots of
: achrounem break the law year after year?! Hard to believe.

And on Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 02:08:21PM +0200, R Arie Folger wrote:
: RMB wrote:
:> 1- Shiv'ah neqi'im? If bedikah is somewhat after sheqi'ah, the whole
:> day could be lost. There are other examples from taharos.

: ??? That proves RDSchoemann's point. Min hadin, the last day need not
: be complete, it is just because of the strnigency of karet that we wait
: until evening...

So, if we wait to temimos alst chumrah, both question disappear.

However here, what motivates the chumrah isn't kareis, but the lashon
hapasuq.

-mi

> Why is it okay to take parasha sheets from shul on Shabbat?
> Among the answers I've heard are:
> * If you're a paid up member of the shul and the parasha sheets were
> dropped off before Shabbat, then you have partial ownership of them
> already.
> * If you are only getting use of the sheets on the Shabbat (or Yom Tov)
> on which you take them, it's okay.
> The second one was stated by someone without any source, and it seems
> unlikely to me, but I don't know.

The paper or sheet are made available to the public with the "intent of
distribution." The expectation [and hope] of the publisher/distributor is
that someone, anyone, will take a copy and read it/keep it. Considering
the number of parasha sheet copies printed and distributed to shuls,
one could assume that the intent was to distribute to the shul's members
as well, rather than just donate it to the shul's library.

Allowing others to take your [former] property is classic Hefqer. The
person who claims this property is being Zokhe from Hefqer. While there
are questions whether one could be Mafqir property on Shabbos, there
are no issues in claiming such property. There is no prohibition against
Metziah on Shabbos, either, if you would rather consider the possibility
that the distributor was engaged in Aveidah MiDa'as rather than Hefqer.
In either case, there shouldn't be an issue with taking the paper or
Parasha sheet.

The Halakhos surrounding gift giving on Shabbos and its application to
items that are Tzorkhei Shabbos are limited to the giver, because from the
giver's perspective a transaction is being made, one that may resemble
a sale, and a sale is prohibited because of a gezeirah d'Rabbanan that
it may lead to writing. Qinyan itself is not inherently forbidden though.

Jacob Farkas

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


[ 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         ]