Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 203

Thu, 29 May 2008

• 1. Re: prozbul & heter iska (Michael Makovi) (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Office Coffee machine (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: omer - Rihal (zviLampel@theJnet.com)
• 4. Sign of Strength (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 5. RAYK and Post-Zionism (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Rosh Hashanah 32b "There's Hope for Everyone" (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 7. Re: Tearing toilet paper on Shabbos (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 8. Re: D'rabanan vs. D'oraita (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Ta'am of eating matzah (Micha Berger)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 14:24:08 +0300, R "Michael Makovi" <mikewinddale@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> : Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked about a Jewish-owned store that sold its
> : chametz to a gentile, but continued to sell the chametz to customers
> : over Pesach, while the sale to the gentile was still in place. RMF was
> : asked, perhaps this shows the sale to the gentile was invalid? RMF
> : answered, the guy is simply transgressing gezel from the gentile to
> : whom he sold his chametz, but this doesn't invalidate the original
> : sale for the purposes of owning chametz over Pesach.
> 
> I have an underlying question trying to understand RMF's pesaq...
> 
> When does a haaramah turn into an asmachta? It's kind of hard to believe
> that someone who does such a sale of his chameitz year after year really
> thinks he sold anything. Why is the qinyan valid?

How about Devarim Shebelev Einam Devarim.  When you make a kinyan with
sudar, kesef, shtar, and tekiat kaf (the sale I observed this year used
all four), it's hard to say "I didn't mean it"; if you appoint a shliach,
and he does all that, and then you say "I didn't mean to appoint him,
I didn't think he would really sell it", perhaps you'd have a taanah,
except what is the poor customer to do?  He bought it in good faith, and
at the very least takanat hashuk should cut in his favour.

As for the Jew being a gazlan, since we know the goy bought the
chametz in order to sell it at a profit, not in order to keep it
for himself, you're doing him a favour by selling his chametz for
him.  Of course he might want a bigger cut than the usual profit he
makes on the deal...  One might argue that the entire profit made
from the chametz sold on Pesach should be turned over to the goy,
but I guess that gets into hafka'at chov rather than gazel...

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

 


I see, though, that washing was not invoked in the coffee-shop mug
question. So, does that mean that when RHS worries about hevel in my
case (as posted here by RJR) it is implying he would also tell you not
to use that mug -- perhaps, unless washed with nosein taam lifgam?

Also, why does RHS assume there is hevel? How much steam qualifies? The
office machine doesn't actually cause boiling. But even breathing on a
cold day makes a cloud, so does 180deg water in room temperature.

Third, but also on the "how much evaporation does it take to constitute
hevel?" question: Would there be a difference between the coffee
machine, where the cup if a few inches under the spout, with restricted
airflow between them, and the hot water spigot on the water cooler,
where you aren't likely to raise the humidity around the spigot nearly
as much?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Just to be clear, my report was from a general "workplace" shiur and R'
HS did not go into any detail on reasons or clarifications of differing
apparatus, just said it could be a problem (e.g. he didn't iirc mention
what kind of cup or spigot ....he had in mind)

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Re: [Avodah] omer - Rihal
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 20:47:17 +0300


>> This also explains why it took Hillel to pasqen what to do on Shabbos

>> erev Pesach. For many years, the Saducees prevented a qiddush hachodesh

>>that would allow erev Pesach on any day but Friday.


> THANK YOU! Many works bring it as a great mystery that such a thing

> could happen - Shabbat Erev Pesach is common enough on our calendar

> that it shouldn't have been forgotten. I remembered seeing somewhere

> that somehow, history had conspired for there to be some great number

> of years without a Shabbat Erev Pesach, but I couldn't remember.
It would seem that the mysterious character behind this event is propounded
by the Talmud Yerushalmi on Pesachim (6:1) itself: Said Rebbi Avoon, Isn't
it impossible for two cycles of seven years to pass by without the 14th
falling out on a Shabbos? Why was the halacha hidden from them?--To
attribute greatness to Hillel!
Evidently, Erev-Pesach did fall out on Shabbos several times in Hillel's
near past, yet Hashem somehow caused the practice regarding the korbon to
be forgotten.--Unless one is willing to accept that Rebbi Avoon was unaware
of the historical reality suggested above. 
(Incidentally, the Ohr Someach also seems not to take this Yerushalmi into
account, and uses this incident as a source for the Rambam's principle
about the ability of a Sanhedrin to overturn a previous Sanhedrin's drash:
Hillel ultimately revealed that the reason for the previous practice was
based upon a kaballa MiSinai, not a drash-generated halacha. Until then,
the Bnei Besayra, with their objections to the drashos supporting the
previous practice, were proposing a change.)
Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080529/dd074f0c/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Saul Newman wrote: "...Dwelling in un-walled cities indicated that they
were strong, since they relied on their strength, while living in fortified
cities was a sign of weakness... People who are internally strong have no
need for such walls..."

Interestingly, in Vayikra 25:30, the phrase "in a walled city" (lo?with a vav?chomah) is written in the Torah "in an unwalled city" (lo ?with an aleph?chomah).

Rashi explains this to indicate that the law applies to a city that has no walls today, as long as it had walls when Joshua conquered Israel.

For 19 years, Jerusalem was split into two, with a wall dividing the new city from the old.

It has been suggested that the Torah here hints to events of contemporary
times when Jerusalem with its dividing wall (lo with a vav) will become a
city without walls (lo with an aleph), forever one, forever united.

Rabbi Duschensky writes that the Torah may be suggesting that while the
fortification of Jerusalem symbolized by walls is necessary for its
defense, God's help is at least as important to protect the city.   

And perhaps it can be added, that only when the inhabitants of Jerusalem
remove the walls surrounding themselves, i.e., when the religious and
irreligious come to love each other, will there be a city that is secure,
at peace, whole ? walled.

So the interpretation from "walled city" to "a non walled city" has
contemporary meaning especially for this coming Monday, Yom Yerushalayim. 
It is essential that Jerusalem never be divided.  And it's the spirit of
the Almighty which validates Jerusalem and this can only occur when we
eradicate the barriers between ourselves.

Only then will Jerusalem will be what its name means ? Yeru, Aramaic for city, of Shalom, Peace, and also, (since Shalom is one of God's Names) [city of] God. 

Only then?will Jerusalem, without internal and obstructive walls?become a unified walled city.

K.T.
ri

In a previous discussion, it was said by some that religious zionism
is challenged by the reality today, that the secular zionism, which
was supposed to become religious zionism, has instead become secular
non-zionism.

I replied that Rav Kook already predicted this would happen, but I
didn't know the source. I have found it:

Orot, Orot haTechiya, 44
Translated in Lights on Orot: Eretz Yisrael, by Rabbi David Samson and
Tzvi Fishman, pp. xvi, 225:
QUOTE
We recognize that a spiritual rebellion will come to pass in Eretz
Yisrael amongst the people of Israel in the beginnings of the nation's
revival. The material comfort which will be attained by a percentage
of the nation, convincing them that they already have completed their
goals, will constrict the soul, and days will come which will seem
devoid of all spirit and meaning. The aspirations for lofty and holy
ideals will cease, and the spirit of the nation will plunge and sink
until a storm of revolution will appear, and people will come to see
clearly that the power of Israel lies in its eternal holiness, in the
light of G-d and His Torah, in the yearning for spiritual light which
is the ultimate valor which triumphs over all the worlds and all their
powers...When the material drive surfaces, it will erupt with the fury
of stormwinds, and these are the pangs of Mashiach which will come to
refine and purify the entire world through the pains which they cause.
END QUOTE

I'm not sure if Rav Kook himself does, but his commentators relate it
to Shir haShirim Rabbah 2:14, about the gazelle that leaps behind a
mountain, seemingly gone, only to reappear later. See Page 224 in
Lights on Orot.

Mikha'el Makovi

The question was asked:
Nowadays.... I wonder if people still challenge their rebbes? ... . 

It seems to me that the more secure a rebbe (or scholar) is, the less
defensive he would be.	I have always asked my students to actively
disagree with me if they disagree. There is also nothing wrong with saying:
I don't know, but I will check sources, etc. In addition, the whole
structure of the gemara is arguing and challenging each other. 

For those who then will say, we don't have the wisdom, insight, knowledge
or ruach hakodesh of the Rishonim and Acharonim and so on, does that mean,
therefore, that we have to be automatons and cannot challenge anyone or
anything?

Once someone says: Who are you to question so and so?, it becomes personal
and can easily cause someone to become defensive. Wouldn't be more
menschlichdik to say: Your question or disagreement is interesting (even if
it isn't) but what do you base it upon?

The bottom line is that if ahavas chinam doesn't reign supreme, then HaShem doesn't reign Supreme either, chas v'shalom.

Kol tuv,
ri

On Tue, 27 May 2008 16:23:33 -0400
Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> > One person suggested that perhaps they're not connected enough to be
> > considered qeri'ah, but I don't see it.
> 
> Mechatech, not qorea`.  IIRC qorea` applies only to things that were
> separate and have been glued together, mechatech is cutting something
> into 

Biur Halachah (340:13 s.v. Ain):

<Quote>

And that which one of the Aharonim wanted to infer from this that
Kriah only applies to something which is sown and woven, a
collection of many parts, as was the case with the Y'rios, but not to
something which is one entity, like hide or paper, this is not so, for
it is explicit in the Yerushalmi that Kriah applies also to hide.  And
the Nishmas Adam already proposed this, but rejected it on the strength
of this Yerushalmi.

</Quote>

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

Was: [Areivim] Loving Israel While in Chutz

> : He mentions that there are differing positions taken by the Meshach
> : Chochma and by Rav Elchonnon Wasseramn z"l as whether gezeirot and
> : takkanot of Chazal have metaphysical import in a similar manner as
> : mitzvot de oreita.
>:
> : R' Allen Gerstl

> See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/07/safeiq-derabbanan.shtml> for
> my notes and embellishments.
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

The Rambam tells us that for a SHOGEG violation of a d'rabanan, we don't need
to do teshuva. My rabbi answered that since a d'rabanan is not an
intrinsic sin, but rather the sin is only in ignoring or defying the
words of the rabbis and rebelling against them, there is absolutely no
sin whatsoever in violating a d'rabanan b'shogeg.

Now, he said, it may be good to do teshuva anyway, because after all,
we want to keep halacha whether or not there's a penalty for
violation, and so you want to be sure you won't repeat the d'rabanan
violation, whether it is truly a sin or not. But in truth, he said,
there's no obligation to do teshuva for a d'rabanan.

First off, this is a rabbi at a Rav Kook yeshiva - which will make
sense in a moment. As R' Micha in his blog post shows, Chazon Ish was
stringent on shemita because he assumed heaven will honor it with a
bumper crop even though it is only d'rabanan. Rav Kook on the other
hand was meikil, apparently because he saw a d'rabanan as not a "real"
thing, following Sefer Me'irat Einayim, who uses shemita in fact as
the example - there will be a bumper crop only in a d'oraita year.
Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner, is is worth noting, in his haTzionut b'Ohr
haEmuna, proves that our shemita is d'rabanan from the fact that there
is no bumper crop.

Now then, I'd follow the model of a d'oraita being intrinsic reality
(and thus safek l'chumrah),
and d'rabanan being pragmatic and human (and thus safek l'kula),
following Meshech Chochmah (as opposed to Ramban, who says Chazal
decided that a safek d'rabanan l'kula; and as opposed to Rabbi Shimon
Schkop, who says Chazal decided that a safek d'oraita l'chumra). BUT,
with a modification by me:

(First, I will remark that though I don't follow Rabbi Schkop's
opinion, it truly is beautiful in its nafka mina: since Chazal decided
that a safek d'oraita is l'chumrah, this fact is itself d'rabanan.
Therefore, a safek safeka is a safek in the d'rabanan of being machmir
on a safek d'oraita - now we have a safek d'rabanan, and so we are
l'kula - in a safek safeka d'oraita!)

(I am also thus going against Rabbi Wasserman that d'rabanans have
intrinsic reality because G-d revealed them to Chazal; and also
against Shulchan Aruch haRav on yom tom sheni that the true supernal
yom tov is a reality that either G-d can connect to or Chazal can
connect to, and either way, a link is a link is a link; and also
against Chazon Ish that when Chazal propose such a link, they cannot
themselves create it, but heaven honors them by creating the link.)

(The careful reader will note I have conveniently summarized every
shita in R' Micha's blog!)

Now then, my modification to Meshech Chochmah:

I don't really like the model of mitzvot having intrinsic effects on
the universe. For example, when I eat treif, or when I put on
tefillin, I don't really think anything spiritual is happening in the
universe. Rather, it's that
1) It affects yourself - it is educational, whether in your knowledge
and intellect, or in affecting your behavior (practicing tzedaka will
make you charitable, etc., as per Sefer haChinuch).
2) It shows loyalty to G-d. As Rav Hirsch near the beginning of Sefer
Bereshit says, our deeds affect the heavens (so to speak) because G-d
sees what we are doing, and His attitude towards us changes
accordingly.

So for me, a d'oraita is not truly intrinsic reality, but only
conventionally so, using "conventional truth" as used by Rabbi Moshe
Shmuel Glasner in his hakdamah to the Dor Revi'i, that anything
decided by Chazal is not really really objectively true, but only
"conventionally true", i.e. it is true insofar only as that it was
Chazal decided, and tomorrow they can decide something else, and that
will then be "true". The only difference then is that a d'oraita
conventional truth will never change (except when Chazal or a posek
change their understanding of that d'oraita), whereas a d'rabbanan
conventional truth can change whenever we have the conditions to annul
it.

(Drashot haRan raises the question of how we can follow Chazal when
they are wrong - he says some say the mitzvot are stam, but for "we"
who say they have real effects in the world, this is troubling. The
Ran answers that the danger of disunity is greater than the danger of
following Chazal erroneously and thus causing real true damage thereby
in an intrinsic-reality mitzvah. I'd simply say that there really is
nothing intrinsic in the mitzvah, so the Ran's point is moot for me.
The only questions are
1) Education, and
2) Loyalty to G-d
Following Chazal when they are wrong obviously don't affect number
two. As for number one, I'd say that if Chazal were wrong here, it
must have been a really borderline case, without an obvious truth. If
so, then probably, there isn't much to be learned there anyway. As
Rambam says, sometimes we have to establish a norm, even though either
way (permit or forbid) is equally plausible. The law has to be
*something*, so we could really almost flip in a coin. In such a
borderline case, any educational value is likely negligible even if we
paskened correctly. And of course, Ran's answer works for me too -
that disunity is worse than real damage from error; we can view
chinuch almost as an intrinsic reality (in your mind), and we can say
that nevertheless, the danger of Jewish disunity is greater than
having a few wrong ideas.)

Therefore, there is nothing truly "intrinsic" in a d'oraita. But we
still find that a d'oraita sin requires teshuva and sometimes a
chatat, etc. I'd simply say that G-d told us that with all Torah
mitzvot, we have to treat them as real realities, and that any
violation, even in error, is still a violation nonetheless, even if
there was no rebellion and no intrinsic damage to anything. So it's
not really intrinsic, but we treat it as such, because it is so
serious.

Whereas with a d'rabanan, there is no reason to pretend it is
intrinsic - humans invented it, so why should we treat it as an
intrinsic reality? It is but a fence, a protection, to what is
"intrinsic", and as such, the only possible sin is in willfully
rebelling. A shogeg sin in a d'rabanan involves no rebellion, and it
does not involve anything "intrinsic".

Ramban says that it is Chazal who decided that d'rabanans would be
safek l'kula, and perhaps it is indeed so.
But all the same, I'd say that perhaps the Torah itself told us (in
Torah She'be'al Pe) this! A d'rabanan is invented by humans and is not
"intrinsic" (whether the intrinsic-ness is truly intrinsic like most
say or simply metaphorically so as I would have it), and so there is
no reason to take it seriously unless it is deliberate. If it is in
doubt, then we are merely concerned that you *might* do something that
*might* bring you to an intrinsic d'oraita sin - every d'rabanan is
already a safek (that you may do a d'oraita sin), and so a doubtful
d'rabanan is automatically a safek safeka!

Mikha'el Makovi

On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 12:23:00AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 09:24:29PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:>:> And no one knows the technical limitations of derashos anymore -- one
:>:> of the reasons (perhaps the lack of Sanhedrin is a 2nd) we don't in
:>:> practice make new ones even lefi haRambam.

:>: Except that
:>:    1. The Taz created a new Halacha of davening Arbis after Tzeis becuase of
:>:    Temimos

:> Not a derashah. "Temimos" is being translated.

: I  call this a distinction without a difference.

But the difference is huge! Rambam is discussing the power of beis din
to make a halakhah that didn't exist before using the middos shehaTorah
nidreshes bahen.

The Taz created a chumrah, it's unclear if he thought is was baseline din,
through reading a pasuq and getting peshat. He interpreted existing law,
and found the norm to be non-ideal. It's like the MB looking at peshat
in a pasuq and saying "ur'isem oso" would be better done with the strings
out where you could see them. A chumrah based on reading the deOraisa.

But in any case, it's not derashah in the technical sense of the word. No
gezeira shava, no kelal uperat, etc...

By using the word "derashah" loosely, you're making the Rambam say
something he didn't intend.

...
: Ataully the Same Zohar that says NOT to wear TEfilin on Hol HaMo'ed says it
: is EIDUS SHEKER al atzmo NOT To wear Tzitzis whilst reicting Shema.  If the
: Zohar is normative [I think not aiui but YOU do] then I ask mah nafsach!

Actually, I do not believe halakhah operates the way you're assuming.
The Zohar is a consideration. It's not a halakhah text, so it isn't
used to define normative, just to choose among options. But if it has
a strong argument, it may motivate stretching my set of of normative
options to choose something a poseiq wouldn't have otherwise.

After all this time, you're still trying to understand my position in
terms of algorithms. Something is "normative" or not. Black-and-white.

: See Darchie Moshe ho'oruch.  It is in effect either
:    1. Being mevateil a mitzvas Aseih by not permiting young men to wear them
:    2. If in the case of young men wearing Tallis Kattan, then the problem is
:    the Bracha.

Which has nothing to do with Shema, and thus the Zohar is irrelavent
anyway.

:    4. Maharil is in concert with about 90% of Yekke minhaggim but they
:    reject this one- why?

A major problem in our communication is that we're doin g different
projects. You're looking at theories on how halakhah works, and
rejecting the numerous exceptions as being an abuse of the system.

I, OTOH, and looking at how halakhah is made, not only as per Frankfurt
prioritization, and trying to deduce what rules exist in practice.

You're being prescriptive, I'm trying to be descriptive.

:    6. If this is  NOT a drasha then what is it and why do people follow this
:    minhag in face of Poskim [such as MB] who rule otherwise?

It's not a derashah because it doesn't create issur or chiyuv, just
minhag. And I think it just post-facto supported minhag, anyway. As you
write:
: that is true. Which is  part of my point.   The ONLY reason this drassha
: exits is AFIK becausing Taleisim [or talittot] were not readily avilalble so
: it was a limud z'chus...

:> We're also discussing whether they can be wrong, or if they define
:> "right". This is a tangent; which is okay if it doesn't leave the first
:> issue unresolved.

: Of course Hazl CAN be wrong. But we may have to accept their p'sak anyway.
: This si the yamin us'mol point.

You are making a distinction that I wouldn't, since pesaq isn't about
finding truth, it's about defining law. My "can't be right" is referring
to the same thing as your "have to accept their p'sak".

Yes, they can be wrong on the facts. I'm not sure we would accept their
pesaq even lequlah (the Gra and RAYK wouldn't), but you wrote "may"
and we'll leave it like that.

But we were talking about them being wrong on halakhah. The rav who
didn't err in procedure defines halakhah. So, if we trust that they used
the process correctly, Chazal defines "right" in the sense of correct
practice, what is halakhah. We have to accept their pesaq, because their
pesaq is halakhah.

: In YOUR universe, I would not only have to accept the p'sak of the umpires,
: but I would have to believe that they ruled correctly! ...

If their job wasn't just to apply the rule book to the game, but also
to define the rulebook in the same statement, they would rule correctly.
Their decisions would always match the official MLB rules!

...
:> In any case, Rebbe dies in 220 CE R' Hillel II died in 385, Ravina died
:> in 399. (Rav Ashi lived until 427, but the gemara persumably had to be
:> written when both were alive.) So, by the narrowest definition, there
:> were 180 years of amora'im, of which only 14 didn't have a Sanhedrin.

: But Amoraim in Bavel were w/o Semicha.  And there is LITTLE evidence that
: Hillel II ruled on 99% of the drashos in Bavel.

I'm not sure of the relevence. We're talking about authority, not whether
the authority was in practice used. I have no idea how the Sanhedrin
operated in this era. However, there was a central beis din with the
power that their decisions were that of everyone's poseiq.

So even aside from derashah or other means of legislation (again, we're
working within the Rambam who has derashos as a means of legislating
new deOraisos), Sanhedrin at that time had the power to make binding
interpretations of existing law.

And they were umps who modified the official MLB rulebook.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 08:27:06PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: BUT, if we find such things as that bread was peculiarly Egyptian, or
: that pagans were prominently involved in meat and milk, etc., can it
: be coincidence? That the meaning would be closed to most Jews of
: history is a certainly a kashya, but it does not beat the fact that
: the parallels are too obvious to be mere coincidence.

It could be common cause. Leavened cakes create a feeling of luxury
(perhaps -- consider that more a placeholder for whatever the cause is)
so Egyptians went for it and we avoid it in certain rituals.

In other cases, it could be inherent. Like the Moreh's explanation of
qorbanbos as explained by the Abarbanel. If a person has a sufficiently
personal relationship with deity, that will be manifest as an emotional
need to give. We see this in AZ, and therefore is a critical part of
avodas Hashem. And if we don't allow people to express that toward the
Borei, they would (if sufficiently spiritual) do so for AZ.

: And can we deny that most Jews of history were oblivious to the
: Gilgamesh flood story and the incredible contrast with our flood
: story, as Dr. Marc Shapiro points out? ...

Or, both are records of the same history. Or the details differ simply
because our worldviews do. Not that we set out to create a contrast.
It's there because we differ.

ChM wouldn't have us punish children for their parents' harm to someone
else's child even without Hamurrabi. His other take just makes that
easier to see the path not traveled.

But in any case, that's wandering away from the point -- the function of
mitzvos.

...
: Why G-d spelled some things out, and left others for us to just stam
: know or forget, is definitely a question. A very good one, I'll agree,
: but it is a question that I do not believe negates the fact (IMHO)
: that the Torah's mitzvot do often relate to ancient realities with
: which we are today unfamiliar with.

And here we totally left... you went back to asking why Hashem gave them
the opportunity to understand that part of the Torah, and some other
oart they gave some other era.

I'm takling about assuming a mitzvah's function can't rest on such
things. It could be misinai, it could be written into how our souls
respond. But the motivation of the mitzvah can't be to internalize an
idea not associatable to the mitzvah until millenia after the mitzvah
was legislated.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 39th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507                          reliable person?


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 203
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."