Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 117

Wed, 12 May 2010

• 1. yom yerushalayim (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Chana Luntz)
• 3. brit (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Length of Archeological Ammah (Alan Rubin)
• 5. borders of Israel (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: borders of Israel (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: no smokers for my daughter (Micha Berger)
• 9. Donor Kids and Adoption (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: no smokers for my daughter (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 13. Re: Length of Archeological Ammah [Avodah V27#116, msg 10] (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: "The Great Miracle of the Volcano Shutdown " (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Length of Archeological Ammah [Avodah V27#116, msg 10] (Michael Poppers)
• 16. 14th ikkar? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

On yom yerushalayim , the 28th of Iyar and Shmuel HaNavi
see Rabbi Ari Kahn
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48918497.html

-- 
Eli Turkel

> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 03:31:24 -0400
> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> Subject: 
> Message-ID: <4BE3C1CC.8080...@sero.name>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> 
> Chana Luntz wrote:
> 
> > And further, it would seem from Kesuvos 48a that the Beis Din is
> > empowered, in the absence of a husband, to go down onto his property
> > in order to provide sustenance for his wife, such sustenance to include
> > a required provision for adornments
> 
> Actually this is incorrect.  "A woman whose husband is gone, and the
> BD appropriates for her food and clothing and furniture and rent, they
> do not appropriate adornments for her, for she has no husband for whom
> to adorn herself."   http://mechon-mamre.org/i/4113.htm#8

Although the Rambam then goes on to state that where the husband becomes a
shoteh or a cheresh, they do appropriate adornments for her - and while it
does not seem to be in the hilchon mamre version of the Rambam, the Beis
Shmuel and the Chelkat Mechokek, amongst others, appear to have a version
which adds the words "ki aina chayevet lyiyot l'olam b'lo tachshitim" - ie
she is not required to spend the rest of her life without adornments (or
alternatively they are adding this in as the explanation of the second part
of Rambam, but from the way they phrase it, it seems to me that that
actually was in their version of the Rambam).

And not everybody appears to agree with the Rambam's reason (ie "for she has
no husband for whom to adorn herself").  I note that the Haflah wonders on
that reason of the Rambam, as what is the difference between the case of a
husband who goes out m'daas (ie goes intentionally to midinat hayam) and one
who goes out shelo midaas (ie becomes insane).  He prefers the explanation
he understands from Rashi on 48a (and which fits better with the explanation
given in the gemora itself when it justifies the practice of a beis din
going down onto the husband's property as being because "dlo niche lei
dtinavul" - ie we assume he would not want his wife to become repulsive),
namely that where somebody goes to midinas yaham, we can assume that if he
didn't leave tachshitim behind for his wife, he doesn't care whether she
becomes repulsive, and hence would protest the forced taking of his property
for this purpose, and so while we do still allow beis din to go down onto
his property to ensure that she does not starve, we do not for this.  But in
the case of one who becomes insane, and so does not have the capacity to
protest the use of his property, the beis din does what is right.

> The same psak is in Shulchan Aruch EH 70:5: "But they don't give her
> the means to adorn herself". 

But again in Shulchan Aruch EH 70:6 he poskens that if the husband becomes a
shoteh or a cheresh, they do give her the means to adorn herself.

>  Evidently either we pasken like R Chisda
> rather than R Yosef, or else we accept Rashi's reading which reverses
> the "kol sheken".

The Beis Yosef says explicitly that we posken like R' Chisda (and the Beur
HaGra says this is because Rav Chisda was the Rebbe of Rav Yosef).  The Taz
explains the difference between the two cases as being that in the case of
the husband going to midinas hayam, the power of the beis din to go down on
his property is only based on a tnai beis din, and that the tnai beis din
only extends to mezonos and not to tachshitim.  (I *think* what he is saying
is that the power to go down onto a person's property when they are still
assumed to be compos mentis, just happen to be away, is an extraordinary
power with very limited application, whereas the power when a person is not
longer able to run their own affairs is a much more general power of
attorney, allowing beis din to do much more of what needs to be done).

In any event, it would certainly have been better if instead of my using the
example of a husband going away to midinas hayam, I had used the example of
a husband who becomes insane and is in no position to appreciate his wife's
tachshitim, as the same point could have been made, without entering into a
complicated machlokus.

But I think that as you can see, leaving aside the Rambam's justification
for Rav Chisda's position, the general thrust both of the gemora and later
commentators is that tachshitim are not just for the delectation of the
husband (nor are they about, to use RMB's phrase, being sexually alluring),
but are part and parcel of, in the words of the gemora, the woman "not
becoming repulsive".  And it is something that is significant enough that it
is the subject of a machlokus as to whether, even when the husband is compos
mentis but just away, a beis din should have the power to confiscate
property to ensure their provision.  The fact that the majority position
holds to limit beis din's power vis a vis other people's property does not,
it seems to me, undermine the fundamental understanding of Chazal into the
importance and desirability of cosmetics even in the absence of the husband.

> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you

Regards

Chana

Question - where is the concept of brit used

1. Brit Ben Habesarim
2. Brit Milah
3. Brit Sinai
?
RYBS speaks of Brit goral forming the Jewish people even unwillingly in Eygpt
and brit yeud  at Sinai

what other britot are there?

-- 
Eli Turkel

Micha Berger reported

> All in all, you see the basic pattern... R' Chaim Na'eh's ammah is
> slightly above the archeological range, but possibly within the margin
> of error. The CI's shiurim are well beyond the evidence.

Not an unexpected result. And there is also archeological evidence for
the size of the olive indicating that present day figures for the
kezayis are many times beyond the evidence. (See Rabbi Slifkin's
recent article)

Alan Rubin

<<More so, we lean a couple of blatt later at the begining of pere 2 of the
Y-mi, that lands that weren't conqured in the days of Ezra but were part
of EY by the days of the tannaim are also not subject to demai.

Which would seem to put to rest ideas that growth of Israel's borders
today would impact the range of lands covered by mitzvos hateluyos
baaretz.>>

I recall that there is a machloket whether the days of Ezra is to
be taken literally or includes conquests of the Chashmanoim.
Historically we know that the Jews in the days of Ezra lived
in a small setllement in the environs of Jerusalem. Just looking
at the numbers listed in Ezra are very small to inhabit a country.
There is no way that this land extended way up north to Acco and beyond.

On in the days of Alexander Yannai did the borders reach these cities.

BTW forgive me for coming in the middle but is there anyone who bases
the halachic borders on todays population. In Israel it is weel
accepted that the southern Negev does not take out terumot and maaserot
with the discussion only being exactly where to draw the line but
certainly Eilat is outside the  mitzvos hateluyos
baaretz territory


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 02:44:00PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I recall that there is a machloket whether the days of Ezra is to
: be taken literally or includes conquests of the Chashmanoim.

Obviously this gemara in Demai assumes the former.

: Historically we know that the Jews in the days of Ezra lived
: in a small setllement in the environs of Jerusalem...

But we don't know how large of a colony they were granted. As you write:
: at the numbers listed in Ezra are very small to inhabit a country.

: There is no way that this land extended way up north to Acco and beyond.

But6 they could have been granted reshus to grow that far, as needed.

...
: BTW forgive me for coming in the middle but is there anyone who bases
: the halachic borders on todays population...

Tzitz Eliezer 3:23 discusses the number of days Yom Tov one must
observe in Eilat.

Leshitas haRambam, it's one day because the messengers could have
reached there had Elat been settled at the time.
Leshitas haRitva, it's one day because any place that was settled
contiguous to EY has qedushas EY!

I also recall R' Riskin showing us, the students of his HS, a halachic
essay by R' Meir Kahane. He concluded that current settlement can redefine
the borders. From what I vaguely remember (I learned the article in HS),
it seemed pretty lomdish to the bachur-I-once-was. But that's all I can
say about that.

If you can, see also Simchas Kohein (of RRCohen of Djerba) OC #157.

There is also good survey by R' Chaim Steiner about the southern halachic
border <http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=3030&;cat=224>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:58:12AM +0300, Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
: The Tosafos Yom Tov (in his commentary to Mishnah, Berachos 4:1) also asks 
: this question, and he answers that it is called minchah because it is the 
: time when the sun retires ??? when there is menuchas hashemesh.

The Yerushalmi (Berakhos 4:1) relates the zemanei tefillah of Minchah
to the Qetores. (In particular, on erev Pesach, when the afternoon was
busy so the Qetores was pushed as early in the afternoon as possible.)
That discussion is the Tosafos Yom Tov's source (not that I saw the TYT
inside, but it /is/ on the same mishnah). Minchah gedolah is because
that is when the sun starts its decline.

Making the name a reference to the time of day would be consistent to
the names of the other two daily tefillos.

I don't see how one argues that arvis, which the gemara calls a "reushus"
(whatever is meant by that), is more mandatory than minchah. Tzarikh iyun.

And not every minchah was voluntary -- e.g. the tamid (Bamidbar 28:4),
as we say in qorbanos, the mussaf for Shabbos (v. 9) and RC (v. 12).
For that matter every (?) animal qorban included "soles leminchah".
So the voluntary nature of those other menachos isn't inherent in the word
"minchah".

About RLK's citation of R' Hai Gaon about Shema and Shemoneh Esrei being
seperatable WRT maariv...

The Y-mi makes it clear that many were nohagim to say Shema after
Shemoneh Esrei for Maariv. This places it more "beshokhbekha". Our
practice, like our saying Ashrei before Shemoneh Esrei at Minchah,
is to daven from within the context of learning. Whether or not that
is a distinct reason from semichas Ge'ulah leTefillah, or whether the
learning by Maariv must be bedavqa Ge'ulah, is a machloqes rishonim.

But the arguable nature of semichas ge'ulah letefillah in maariv may
explain why the Gra's position of omitting extra tefillos is not minhag
Yisrael.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

From Avekesh blog, a different issue
<http://www.avakesh.com/2010/05/cigarettes-may
-contain-pig-blood-and-is-smoking-like-dringing.html>

    An Australian researcher recently reported that some, so far mostly
    foreign, brands of cigarettes contain pig hemoglobin (blood).
    Is this a potential problem?

    Turns out there are discssions in classic poskim about similar issues.

    Chayei Adom (127:3) mentions that snuff tobacco contains yayin
    nesech as an additive. Many poskim take up the question of smoking
    on Pesach. The Magen Avrohom Orach Chaim (467:8:10) prohibited using
    tobacco during Pesach because it was soaked in beer and this view is
    accepted by the Maharam Shick (Orach Chaim 242), who suggested that
    the beer additive regains its chometz status even when it is smoked
    (see the Rosh's commentary at the beginning of the third perek of
    Pesachim), and is also quoted by the Mishneh Berurah (467:33).The
    Beis Meir, R. Chaim Sanzer in Divrei Chaim (Yoreh Deah 20) and R.
    Shlomo Kluger in Tuv Ta'am VeDa'as (3:1:131)contend that tobacco is
    nifsal meachilas kelev ("not fit for a dog", Pesachim 45b) and is not
    considered prohibited chometz. The Beis Meir suggests that ingestion
    by smoking may be considered drinking in halacha. The Magen Avraham
    (210:9) discusses whether or not a bracha is required when smoking
    "Tabak." The Minhag Yisroel Torah (210) cites the K'sav Sofer who
    says that based on the shaila posed by the Magen Avraham, R' Mordechai
    Banet, prior to smoking a cigarette, would make a shehakol on another
    food item with the intent to include the cigarette as well. However
    this is not a common practice in our days. The Aruch HaShulchan
    (Orach Chaim 467:17) points out that tobacco in his times was no
    longer soaked in beer.

    In conclusion, these reports need to be investigated and may pose
    real kashrus problems for smokers.

Sounds like the sichah keshtiyah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:53:28AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote to Areivim:
: I guess you are assuming that biological siblings are going to end up  
: mating and that their offspring will therefore be mamzerim. But is it the case
: that the offspring of a brother and sister are mamzerim? ...

Yes, they would be mamzeirim, even if it was beshogeig. The question I
have is whether AID, even where the donor is Jewish, actually produces
a halachic sibling. Isn't it like the question WRT surrogacy, whether
the surrogate or the egg donor would be the halachic mother?

Anyway, this cheshash WRT accidentally marrying a sibling is one cited
in the literature on halakhah and adoption. So if they are sibling, I
guess this would be the same problem.

But I don't understand how rov wouldn't apply -- it's a mi'ut delo shekhichah
that the girl just happens to meet her biological brother.

: know the answer to this question -- especially if the brother and sister  
: do not know that they are brother and sister.

An agunah who remarried because beis din told her she could assume her
husband was dead could also produce a mamzer. It has nothing to do with
guilt; which makes sense to me, as the mamzer himself isn't guilty in
any case.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> The burden of proof is on those who would forbid something, not
> on those who would see it remain permitted.

I accept the logic of this statement, but I question whether or not it can be applied to the current discussion.

RZS's logic (IIUC) is that if something is firmly in a certain category,
strong forces must be brought to move it to another category. Examples of
this would include taking objects which are not muktze and making it assur
to handle them, or taking certain vegetable which may be eaten on Pesach
and instituting a minhag to avoid eating them.

But if one's question is whether this object falls in the category of
muktze, or whether this food falls in the category of kitniyos, then this
concept of "chazakah" does not apply. One cannot say that "soybean oil has
a 3300-year chazaka of being allowed on Pesach and the burden of proof is
on those who would say that it is kitniyos," because no one is suggesting
that its status is to be changed. Rather, its status is being *determined*
- What has its status been all along? Was it included in the minhag or not?

In our case, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the status of smoking
is being, or ought to be, changed. No one is saying that a hundred years
ago, smoking WAS mutar, and that we (which sanhedrin?) are trying to forbid
it. Rather, everyone agrees that there are halachos against doing dangerous
and unhealthy things, and there are various views about whether or not
smoking is covered by those halachos.

Some say that the dangers of smoking are real, but are not sufficiently
severe or immediate to be included in these halachos. Others say that
smoking *is* dangerous enough to be forbidden, and always has been
forbidden, except that this information was not known until recent decades.
Various sorts of logic can be used for either of these views. I have heard
Rav Moshe Feinstein brought for *both* of them: His published teshuvos (as
I understand them) say that HaShem would not have allowed so many tzadikim
to be nichshol in this if it were assur, and that this is evidence that it
is mutar even today. Others claim that if RMF had been aware of recent
research, he would have admitted that smoking was assur allong, even for
those unfortunate tzadikim.

In conclusion, in contrast to what RZS wrote, I do not think that either
group has a burden of proof the change the status of smoking, but that both
are trying to determine what its status has been all along. As it has been
phrased in other threads: Is everything allowed except that which is
expressly forbidden? Or is everything forbidden except that which is
expressly allowed?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
A Reverse Mortgage?
Near 70? Find out how much money you can get from a reverse mortgage.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4bea877399bc248fbd4st01vuc

Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
> Shalom uBracha All,
> 
> I am looking for a source that Mincha (the Tefillah not the offering) is 
> voluntary and not a chiyuv. I know we say this regarding Maariv that it 
> is reshus. I am asking because of the following Kedushas Levi:
> 
> 
> Kedushas Levi to (Bereishis 24:63)
> 
> [...]
> We are obligated to pray the shacharis prayer because Hashem returns our 
> souls to us [in the morning], and in these prayers we say [before the 
> Shemoneh Esrei] the prayer of Emes V?Yatziv (Hashem is true and 
> steadfast), and we thank Hashem for all His many favors, such as the 
> shining sun.
> 
> We are obligated to pray the evening prayer because we are now giving 
> over our soul to Hashem for safekeeping as a trust [when we sleep], and 
> we believe that the Blessed Creator is faithful and trustworthy to 
> return this soul with which He was entrusted, and therefore we say Emes 
> VeEmunah (Hashem is true and faithful).
> 
> However we are not obligated to pray minchah. It is voluntary, and 
> therefore it is called ?minchah,? which means ?gift? or nedavah."

Having seen it inside (thanks to R David Roth) it's clear that he's not
talking about halachic obligation but about the moral obligation that a
person has to thank and praise and pray to Hashem when He does something
for him.  It's obvious that a person ought to thank Hashem in the morning
when he has received his soul back, the sun has risen, and he has been
given a whole new day.  And it's also obvious that when a person is
about to deposit his soul with Hashem for the night, he ought to declare
his trust in Hashem and pray to Him.  But in the middle of the day, it's
not obvious what should trigger a sudden urge to pray.  What has Hashem
done for a person just at that moment?  Mincha is not in return for
anything in particular, it's "just because", and so it's called a gift.

The fact that the midday "gift" is halachically required, whereas the
evening obligation is not, i.e. a person is halachically permitted to
be a kefuy tovah in the evening and not thank Hashem for the day,
doesn't change this.  (Cf the other thread about morals.)

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

>
> But the arguable nature of semichas ge'ulah letefillah in maariv may
> explain why the Gra's position of omitting extra tefillos is not minhag
> Yisrael.
>

I heard R' Yonasan Sacks (of YU) speak in LA a few months ago and he said
that he thinks we have a Kaddish before Maariv Shmone Esrei davka to be a
hefsek to show that we hold Maariv is "reshus" (whatever that means) and
therefore not required to be connected to Geula.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100512/e39c7538/attachment-0001.htm>

Michael Poppers wrote:
>  > Taking a dirham of 64/72 of 3.205 g, or 2.85 g, yields a revi'is of
> 77 ml, and therefore an etzba of 1.924 cm and an amah of 46.176 cm.... <
> Could you review onlist the source(s) for the equations between those 
> different measures? Thanks!

The ratio is simple:  An amah is 24 etzba'os.  A revi'is is 10.8 cubic
etzba'os.  And the Rambam says that a revi'is is a volume of water that
weighs 27 dirham.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 10:09:10AM -0400, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
: As someone who originally criticized the volcano/liver transplant
: story in an Areivim thread, I'd like to note that I have no problem
: with the basic story itself; my problem is with the way it was told.
: Just think if the thrust of the story had been to inspire people not to
: give up hope no matter how dire things seem to be and to keep on doing
: what you think is important rather than fall into despair and depression.
...

Here's are excepts of (a teaster for) what I wrote on the subject
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/05/backgammon.shtml>:
    The following is probably fiction, but is certainly possible.

    Picture a salt truck in February 2008, running down a Manhattan
    street, its mechanism scattering salt behind it. One particular
    piece of salt is sprayed out of the back of the truck, balances on a
    pebble embedded in the asphalt for a moment...

    ... and falls to the left. There it enters a weak spot in the street,
    a crack where water accumulates. The salt and its effect on freezing
    water accelerates the growth of that crack.On May 1st 2010, a Nissan
    Pathfinder bounced over the crack. Something fell out of place in
    the crudely made incendiary device in the back of the truck. The
    effects were scary, but no one was harmed.

    ... and the salt falls to the right. The SUV doesn't get jarred, and
    the device remains functional. In this world -- Explosion, fireball.
    Possibly hundreds of lives ended or people maimed. The number of
    people whose fate would have permanently altered for the worse would
    have been large.
    ...
    In chess, the players have full control of all the events on the
    board. The player who plays a stronger game and avoids mistakes will
    inevitably win.

    In backgammon, there is an element of chance -- the moves are not
    entirely under the payers' control. And yet still, the better
    player is far more likely to win. And if it's a full tournament, so
    that no one die roll is all that important, the better player will
    certainly win.

    Similarly, G-d can work out the outcome He wants even without
    asserting full control over the events.

    It could have been my mythical grain of salt. But if not, it was
    something else. Every event is the product of a large number of
    causes, pieces that fit together and combine to make it happen. Free
    will determines some of them, G-d's unwillingness to let us see Him
    tweak nature fixes others, but many of them seem to just come down
    to what Mayor Bloomberg thinks is "chance".

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

    This is a distinct issue to how we respond to these glimpses of the
    Divine. Here?s another relatively recent event, as told in
    BeChadrei Chareidim and translated by the author of the Dreaming of
    Moshiach blog:

        The Great Miracle of the Volcano Shutdown
    ...
    The problem here is one of perspective. It is exciting to be the
    one who won the lottery. But as an outsider, I know that someone
    is bound to win, and can't be amazed that one particular person I
    hadn't heard of before won rather than another.

    "[N]ot even one patient was able to fly into Belgium for the very
    needed healthy liver transplant due to a volcanic eruption in
    Iceland." How tragic! But that story is ignored.

[Stuff I wrote here already ellided.]

    R' Yosef-Gavriel Bechhoffer forwarded (with his agreement to its
    sentiment) an anonymous comment that adds that this ideological flaw
    (or the one he specifies in his variant on the above observation, to
    be more correct) is not just abstract, it has day-to-day
    consequences. He writes:

        I happen to think we in our generation, and especially from an
        educational standpoint our young people, are more in need of
        examples of tziduk hadin and moving forward in life despite
        disappointment, loss and suffering, than we are in need of
        further gushes of chicken soup for our already
        entitlement-ridden souls....

Note this is pretty much RJCK's point, IIUC.

    The point I'm trying to make is a subtle but important one -- THE
    DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEEING THE HAND OF G-D IN AN EVENT, AND BELIEVING
    ONE CAN SECOND-GUESS HIS MOTIVATION FOR IT. This is easier to remember
    when the results are tragic, since we have no motivating desire to
    assume Hashem is cruel. But if we can not understand the tragic,
    we can't claim to understand happier outcomes either.

    And so, when we crossed the Red Sea and the Egyptians drowned, the
    angels wanted to sing praise to the A-lmighty. Hashem stops them,
    saying "the works of My 'Hands' are drowning in the sea, and you
    are singing songs?" However, the Jews themselves did sing Hashem's
    praises, we repeat the song daily as "Az Yashir".

    A difference in perspective. The angels' song would be claiming to
    understand why G-d saved the Jews, and ignoring their ignorance of
    why He did not extend Compassion and Patience to the Egyptians. FOR
    US THE RECIPIENTS OF HIS LARGESS, HOWEVER, GRATITUDE IS APPROPRIATE.
    GRATITUDE DOESN'T REQUIRE KNOWING WHY, OR CLAIMING TO UNDERSTAND
    HIS PLAN.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

RZS noted:
>>> Taking a dirham of 64/72 of 3.205 g, or 2.85 g, yields a revi'is of
>>> 77 ml, and therefore an etzba of 1.924 cm and an amah of 46.176 cm....

Private MP:
>> [private MP] Could you review onlist the source(s) for the equations
>> between those different measures? Thanks!

> The ratio is simple:  An amah is 24 etzba'os.
> A revi'is is 10.8 cubic etzba'os {hereafter "ce" --MP}.
> And the Rambam says that a revi'is is a volume of water that
> weighs 27 dirham.

(For some pertinent WWWpages, see 
http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-109.htm , 
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/pesachim59/pesachim21.htm , and 
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n146.shtml#08 ....)

and R'Micha noted privately:
> The metric system is set up ...           [s]uch that
>    1 cc (a/k/a cm^3) = 1 ml
which means (to reword what RZS noted privately, so any mistakes
are mine :)) that when we talk of a r'vi'is containing 77ml, we're
talking of a volume bounded by 77cc, hence one ce is equivalent to
77/10.8=>approximately 7.13cc and that, applying the cube root to each
side, one etzba is approximately 1.925cm. Thanks!

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

a leitz blogger  makes the folowing  point-----

what is the fundamental principle of faith that defines Orthodoxy?

Clearly, most people would say TMS - Torah Min Hashamayim. Yet that is 
very vague and insufficient. Christians also believe in TMS, and so do 
Kairites. The real fundamental of Orthodoxy is in fact that Torah Shebal 
Peh AS INTERPRETED BY CHAZAL, is ultimately Min Hashamayim (even if not 
from Sinai). 

It's not for nothing that we are called followers of Rabbinic Judaism. And 
it's also not for nothing that in the recent Science and Torah fight, the 
Chareidim and Gedolim were most concerned about the perceived (or perhaps 
real) attacks on Chazal's infallibility and authority.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the Chareidim don't care about 
interpreting the Torah literally. They probably don't even care about an 
ancient earth or evolution. What they really care about is Chazal, because 
they recognize that our entire religion (or at least our version of it) is 
completely and utterly based on Chazal's interpretation of Torah SheBaal 
Peh.

---- the premise  seems to be true.  so here's the takeoff on the question 
he asks:   why does the RMBM  not include unassailing emunas chachamim [ 
ie  total submission to their daas tora]   as one of the ikkarim of the 
faith?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100512/2dd4c46f/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 117
***************************************

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..."