Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 366

Wed, 29 Oct 2008

• 1. Re: Is the term "He died before his time" correct? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Is the term "He died before his time" correct? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Free Will vs. Physics (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. What is Midrash? (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Noach Why Did Some Come On Their Own and Others Didn't? (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Is the term "He died before his time" correct? (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 7. Re: Noach Why Did Some Come On Their Own and Others Didn't? (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 8. purchasing shmitta produce (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Who Wrote the Zohar (Zev Sero)
• 10. Dirty diapers and brachos (Michael Kopinsky)
• 11. Re: purchasing shmitta produce (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim (Michael Makovi)

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 03:34:58PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: See RSRH's commentary on Bereshit 18;10;
: "There are two words for time, zman and eit. Zman is probably time in
: general in its duration and effect; eit designates a point in time, a
: moment either as befitting for some purpose or altogether as a fraction
: of time"

: RSRH then cites Kohelet 2:1 (davar b'ito ma tov, SM): Lakol zman, v'eit
: l'kol chefetz. "Everything requres its time, and there is a fixed,
: proper moment for every effort".

Rashi on Qoheles 3:1 "... ki lekhol davar yeish zeman kavua' matai
yihyeh". RSRH disagrees with Rashi.

RSRH is also coming from a very different place than my assumption;
which admittedly says more about my assumption than RSRH, although what
I'm saying works lefi Rashi.

I was starting with Chazal's treatment of Bereishis 47:8,28 that Yaakov
speaks of his yamim to mean his productive days, and shanim as the time
he simply marked. Then, given the philosophical distinction between
cyclic time and linear time, it seems natural to associate yamim,
denoting productive time, to be linear, and shanah, which means a
repetition, with cyclical time.

The roots of the cyclic view of time is typified by Plato, who noted
that time is measured by rhythmic repeating processes. Thus, the
linear vs cyclic distinction appears akin to time as a dimension vs
viewing time as a feature of processes.

Which then led to eis vs zeman. I could have misremembered which is
which, this far into the discussion, my confidence that I got RAKotler
correct has been shaken.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/11/miqeitz-time-and-process.shtml>
for a fuller discussion.

The gemara (Eiruvin 54a-b) explains how the Torah is compared to a fig
tree (and then again to nursing). A fig tree has figs at all eis (they
ripen throughout the year), at any zeman at which the person picks one,
he'll find food. This seems to say that zeman is not a point on a timeline
as much as getting there when you get there. And is in any case not
using the terms as RSRH explains their usage in lashon Tanakh (Chumash?).

Getting back to the original point, I think it's still possible to talk
about someone dying before their time as long as we have two definitions
of "their time". The details as to which word means which is tangential.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I was just reminded of something else, something R' Jack Love once
pointed out to me. It's tangential, but IMHO interesting.

Chazal on parashas Shemos tell us that when Moshe looked "vayar ki ein
ish" before killing the Mitzri, he was really looking into the Mitzri's
future offspring to see who would come from him. And he didn't see anyone.

RJL pointed out how odd this is at face value: Moshe shouldn't have seen
anyone else being born from this Mitzri, after all, we know what's about
to happen, and he's going to die in a few moments. Moshe must have had
the ability to see subjunctively, who would have come from this Mitzri
in that version of reality.

RJL then uses this to support Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of QM,
but that's a different subject.

The tie-in to our discussion is that it implies that there could be
meaning to "ought to"s that don't actually happen.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Now, back to free will... Perhaps the problem is simply a
> false dichotomy: we're asserting that the ability to make
> that first decision is either determined entirely by
> previous causes or part of it is random. Are they really
> antonyms?

I agree. Of course, previous experiences *are* a big factor in the current
choice, but that's not the entirety of it. There is something more. It
*appears* to be random, but that's because it's not part of our physical
universe, and not even in our ability to comprehend.

Or maybe that's just an excuse. Maybe we CAN comprehend the extra factor
which gives us this ability. I will even suggest a possible name for it:
imagination. When I choose between A and B, I'm not limited to the sorts of
results that A and B have yielded in the past. I can go beyond that, and
imagine other possible results. I can go even further, and fool myself into
imagining results which others would say are *not* possible.

I know that choices can be made even by animals. (I remember, as a child,
holding two different treats in each hand for my dog, and he would look at
one hand, then the other, and back to the first, trying to decide which he
wanted more.) But I don't know if animals are capable of imagination. (I
concede that they might have it, but we wouldn't recognize it.) In any
case, you can consider it to be a mere illustration, a mashal, a suggestion
of what the extra factor might be, which allows us to make a truly
free-willed choice.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Looking for insurance?  Click to compare and save big.
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m275X3V1wKQMi2ZDqPGrE4bTNhCAdw5TDwYsrVu274lFZZw/?c
ount=1234567890

Interesting start to a series
 
Shiur #1: What is Midrash?
by Dr.  Moshe Simon-Shoshan
 
www.vbm-torah.org/archive/midrash69/01midrash.htm
 
 
I was particularly struck by the following and wonder what it means
today:
 
 
Underlying all of these rabbinic reading strategies is a common
underlying assumption about the biblical texts, and perhaps texts in
general, that is quite different from modern conventional wisdom.  We
tend to think of texts as containing specific meanings.  The act of
reading a text is then the process of decoding this meaning and
revealing it to ourselves and others.  The rabbis do not understand the
process of reading the Bible in this way.  For them the text contains
only the potential for meaning.  In their view, in reading the biblical
text we actually generate meaning from out of the raw material that is
the Bible.  In principle any given verse can produce infinite meaning.
Indeed, Chazal tend to seek as much meaning as possible from each and
every verse.  This does not of course mean that the biblical text may
mean anything we want it to.  Quite the contrary, only rabbis who are
trained in the traditions and ways of Midrash know the proper way to
"grow" the meaning of the text.  
 
 
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081028/6df60b4f/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
>>Rabbi  Yehuda HaNasi.... As a result he  
became sick and suffered for many  years, until one day he showed pity  
on a family of young rats and was  suddenly healed.<<

>>>>
When I heard the story I  don't think they said "rats."  Maybe chipmunks, 
squirrels, raccoons,  rabbits, moles, voles, possums or other....?






--Toby  Katz
=============



**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, 
no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redi
r=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081028/cb48bea8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:14:20 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> Chazal on parashas Shemos tell us that when Moshe looked "vayar ki ein
> ish" before killing the Mitzri, he was really looking into the Mitzri's
> future offspring to see who would come from him. And he didn't see anyone.
> 
> RJL pointed out how odd this is at face value: Moshe shouldn't have seen
> anyone else being born from this Mitzri, after all, we know what's about
> to happen, and he's going to die in a few moments. Moshe must have had
> the ability to see subjunctively, who would have come from this Mitzri
> in that version of reality.

This seems to be even more evident from Brachos 10a, where Hizkiyahu
justifies his abstention from procreation on the grounds that he had
seen B'Ruah Ha'Kodesh that his descendants would be undesirables.

> Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:17:32 EDT
T6...@aol.com wrote:

> From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
> >>Rabbi  Yehuda HaNasi.... As a result he  
> became sick and suffered for many  years, until one day he showed pity  
> on a family of young rats and was  suddenly healed.<<
> 
> >>>>
> When I heard the story I  don't think they said "rats."  Maybe chipmunks, 
> squirrels, raccoons,  rabbits, moles, voles, possums or other....?

The Gemara (BM 85a) has "bnei karkushta".  Jastrow translates
'karkushta' as weasel, but Rashi translates 'huldah', which Feliks
claims is 'rattus rattus', or 'rat' in English.  Feliks may not be
correct, and in any event, Rashi may not mean the same animal that
Feliks thinks Hazal meant by the word.

-Toby  Katz

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

 
This kashrus alert came in a  kashrut.com email:  
--begin quote-- 
Pomegranates and other fruits from Israel are being marketed in Pick ?n Pay  
and other outlets. The laws of Shemitta apply to such fruits. They may be 
eaten,  but cannot be purchased with cash unless other non Shemitta items are 
purchased  together with them. They may be purchased with credit cards. 
These fruits  must be treated with respect and remnants and peels should be 
wrapped up prior  to disposal.  
--end quote-- 
Can somebody please explain what is the problem with paying cash and why  
using a credit card is OK?

--Toby  Katz
=============



**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, 
no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redi
r=
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081028/6280effe/attachment-0001.htm>

On Areivim, Jonathan Baker wrote:

> Yaari's proof seems pretty strong.  Also, if the Zohar was written
> in EY in the Tannaitic period, why on earth would they have made a
> Simchat Torah on an annual basis?  Back then, they read the Torah 
> on a 3-1/2 year cycle, which is known from numerous sources, e.g.
> the discussion of special leinings and haftarot for holidays in Tr.
> Megillah.

We know this was the minhag in EY at the time of the Amoraim, when the
discussion in Megillah 29b took place, possibly quite late in the
Amoraic period.  The gemara's question from the Tosefta might have
shown that this was the case even in the times of the Tana'im, but
only had the conclusion been like Rav, that Parshat Shkalim is in
Pinchas; since Shmuel's opinion is eventually proven from a braita
that explicitly refers to Parshat Shkalim as "Ki Tisa", we no longer
need that hypothesis, and the Tosefta can be read much more simply as
talking about Ki Tisa.



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

The gemara in Sukkah 42b says that once a child reaches an age when he can
eat grain, "marchikin mitzo'aso umimei raglav."

I understand that qualitatively, there is a difference between the tzoah of
a baby and that of an adult. I have two metzius questions:

1) When does that change actually take place? Is it actually eating grains
that affects the change, or is it solid food in general?

2) Is there really a change in mei raglayim? I don't understand why there
should be a cutoff age for this, or why the cutoff age should be the same as
that of tzoah. (Unless my factual assumption is incorrect, and there is
indeed a qualitative difference that takes place at the same time as that of
tzoah.)

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081029/dd464151/attachment-0001.htm>

T6...@aol.com wrote:
> This kashrus alert came in a  kashrut.com email:

>> may be eaten, but cannot be purchased with cash unless other non 
>> Shemitta items are purchased together with them. They may be purchased 
>> with credit cards.

> Can somebody please explain what is the problem with paying cash and why 
> using a credit card is OK?

AIUI, if you sell peirot shevi'it, the money you receive is also kadosh,
and must be spent only on food which must be eaten in its normal fashion,
not wasted, etc, just like the fruit you sold.  If the seller is a Jew
and not observant, and therefore is not likely to spend the money in an
approved fashion, then by buying from him you are being machshil him.

One way to get around this restriction is to combine the money for peirot
shevi'it with money for other purchases, just as we do with sechar shabbat.
When a babysitter works on Shabbat, you don't pay her just for those hours
on their own; instead you make sure she does some non-Shabbat work as well,
and pay for everything together, so that she is not taking sechar shabbat.
Here too, the combined amount is not ma'ot shevi'it, even though the
purchase included peirot shevi'it.

And of course if you pay by credit card then in all likelihood the
merchant will never actually get any physical money from the bank at all,
and even if he does it will represent the net sum of many purchases and
expenses over the course of a long time, and not be at all traceable to
your pomegranate.

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

The beginning of R' Micha's post is a valuable one. I think the point
of what he is saying is that while halakhah gives us the tools to
effect ourselves, we ourselves must use the tools properly. Thus,
Ramban says we can be moral wretches even with the Torah's permission.
I think derech eretz kadma latorah means that even though the Torah
tells us what is good and proper, we need to already have the desire
to follow G-d's will and have the basic ethical sense in our
conscience. In real life too, a hammer is helpful only if one uses it
properly, and a VCR manual is useful only if one actually learns it
with the intent of doing what the manufacturer says. Disingenuity will
never cease to corrupt.

But two statements of R' Micha I am too ignorant to understand, and I
wish for him to elaborate: (direct quotes)
1) "This goes to the core of my objection with this tendency among some
in "Academic O" (as RYGB calls the subtype of MO) circles to consider
halakhah a law with little or no motivational basis."
2) "This notion that it's primarily to be viewed as contract law is new,
whether in its AO or "Rambamist" forms. Although the Rambam himself
dedicates half of the Moreh cheileq 3 to an opposing viewpoint, it's
clearly the stance of people like R' Chait."

Also, the following of R' Micha, I request clarification, please:

>To my mind, it's not an issue of the value of virtue but whether a given
> halakhah is an expression of a vitue, or a tool for instilling it. In
>boh cases, though, it's not obedience as an end in itself.
>And therefore, I [R' Micha Berger] disagree with [the following which Mikha'el Makovi said]:
>
>>So while Rambam says virtue
>> is greater than obedience, I'd say the opposite, BUT, I'd say that
>> virtue is still a value, and hopefully, in the end, the moral virtue
>> will catch up to one's deed...
>>Mikha'el Makovi
>
>Both the Rambam and your depiction of REB's position are about mitzvos
>as a means to instill virtue more than expression. I see no debate.
>
>And if I did, given what I wrote above about the lack of classical support
> for a notion of halakhah-as-obedience, I would not rest comfortably with
>it. Also, as we saw from the overweight rabbi, pragmatically it raises
>more questions than it answers.
>
> R' Micha Berger

I do not understand your position.

REB is not speaking of mitzvot instilling virtue; he is saying that
halakhah is concerned with the practical temporal effects of our
deeds, because he sees the purpose of halakhah as effecting a
practical temporal sociological tikkun olam, in the same way which I
have attributed to Rav Hirsch.

Rambam, although I do not claim to fully understand the precise
nuances of his position (given the mind-boggling amount of literature
on his philosophy, I think we that anyone who does make this claim, we
may sentence him to a mental institution), he seems to be saying that
halakhah's purpose is to affect our own personal moral and rational
virtues, whether indirectly (hukim) or directly (mishpatim).

Thus, for REB, the halakhah would most certainly be davka expressing a
value, and more, be attempting to give this value practical worldly
effect. (A caveat: sometimes halakhah is itself behind the Torah's own
internal ethos. If so, then halakhah must itself be updated. But in
the end, halakhah still enshrines the ethic and seeks to give it
practical effect.)

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 366
***************************************

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..."