Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 205

Sat, 27 Nov 2010

• 1. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Meir Shinnar)
• 2. Re: Is Turkey Kosher? (Harry Weiss)
• 3. Re: Music of the Mikdash [was: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood] (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Music of the Mikdash [was: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood] (Micha Berger)
• 5. singing (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zvi Lampel)

I wrote
> : The epistemological issue is that both sources of knowledge - both
> : mesora and science/reason - both come from hashem - and are both
> : true - and you reject that monistic approach. Yes, when there is
> : a contradiction, one has to weigh the evidence - but we are used to
> : assessing and deciding between variant positions in the mesorah -
> : suggesting an imerfect understanding - and the question is why is
> : knowledge obtained by one of hashem's other ways of revelation to us
> : not included in this type of debate? ...
Micha Berger
> I see the epistomological issue differently.
>
> We know we misunderstood something. Either revelation or science. (I
> would not call science another way of revelation, that language confuses
> the issue.) Or, of course, the theories that grow around revelation,
> around the empirical data, or some combination of the two.

No, the language is deliberate to clarify the issue - because the
issue is how much credit do we ascribe to knowledge obtained by other
means - and realizing hashem reveals himself in different ways.
Micha Berger
> The question becomes which do you consider more sure?
>
> I am arguing that your approach gives far too much relative surety to
> theories that grew up around empirical data in comparison to our mesorah.
> (Again, from the very subjective measure of my own comfort zone.)

The problem is that the mesora itself both
  a) gives credibility to knowledge obtained by other means
  b) recognizes its own limitations - and that understandings can change.
Therefore, giving some surety to knowledge obtained outside of the
mesora is PART of the mesora itself...

> I am okay with theories that grow up around both, and thus knowledge
> obtained by what you call "one of Hashem's other ways of revelation
> to us" IS included in this kind of debate.
>
> But to assume we got the Torah wrong when the Torah itself has no hint
> of such...

Here is where we differ - because my argument is that the torah
itself, by giving credibility to other evidence and reason, and by
informing us of the fallibility of our understanding, gives us more
than a hint that such changes are possible.  It is this refusal to see
what is immanent in the torah that is a problem ...


>Me
> : an understanding of much of tanach - that things happened in a
> : miraculous realm that left no impact on the general physical world -
> : seems far more radical than most allegorical approaches...
>Micha
> But it passed rabbinic peer review for the past 400 years.
>Me
> : eg, a flood that affected the entire world - but left no traces that
> : it actually happened?
>Micha
> Well, given how the Maharal understands nissim, it's not surprising.
> See the 2nd haqdamah to Gevuros Hashem.
>
> Cut-n-pasting from one of those repetitions (Mesukim MiDevash for
> Beshalach, pp 1-2 <http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/beshalach.pdf>):
>
>    The Maharal... writes that rather than being an exception to
>    the rule, nissim follow their own rules. Indeed, miracles occur
>    all the time, but on their own plane of reality. This is why
>    Yehoshua requests "shemesh beGiv'on dom -- the sun should stand
>    still in Giv'on." (Yehoshua 10:13) The sun stopped for the Jews
>    in Giv'on, who were on a plane where miracles operate, but not for
>    anyone else. Literally two different realities were simultaneously
>    experienced. Not two different perceptions of the same event, but two
>    conflicting things were real, depending upon which world one occupied.
>
>    Most of us live within a world in which the laws we call "teva"
>    apply. R' Chanina ben Dosa, however, lived in a world where the
>    laws of neis applied. In this world, oil and vinegar are equally
>    flammable.... Rav Eliyahu Dessler elaborates on this principle [MmE I
>    pp 304-312]. Mekubalim speak of four olamos, each of a higher level
>    than the previous: asiyah (action), yetzirah (formation), beri'ah
>    (creation) and atzilus (emanation)....
>
>    People have two sources of information that they consider
>    absolute. The first is their senses -- sight, sound, and so on. The
>    second is their self-awareness. The senses bring us information about
>    the physical world. Self awareness brings us concepts like truth,
>    freedom and oppression. Someone mired in the desires of the senses
>    lives in the physical world. He focuses his attention on it, just as
>    everyone focuses on that which is important to them. "Every tailor
>    notices and looks at the clothing of the people in the street; and
>    similarly every shoemaker, shoes..." The man of the senses therefore
>    perceives it as more objective and more absolute than the world of
>    the self.... This is olam ha'asiyah.
>
>    However, one can rise above that to the olam ha'yetzirah. This
>    is not merely another level, but another world with its own laws,
>    laws that do not conflict with free will. Those who focus on this
>    world have no question that free will exists. To them, it is the
>    ideals of this world that are more objective and absolute, and the
>    senses, more subjective. Rav Dessler explains that this is how nissim
>    can impact one person's senses and not another's. Yetzirah is the
>    Maharal's plane of nissim, and as the Maharal noted different people
>    will perceive the miraculous differently, or not at all. And so the
>    sea split in olam hayetzirah, but not in olam ha'asiyah.
>
> If during the event people have conflicting experiences, is it such a
> big chiddush to suggest the same is true after the event? We who don't
> rise up to the level of experiencing nissim don't live in a universe
> where their evidence exists.

The maharal's theory of nissim works fine as applied to individual
nissim - but certain parts of the torah are, by pshat, meant to be
very public events that had an impact on the outside world rather than
private events  - eg, the flood.  Interepreting them as private events
is one that has the same problem that you suggest initially - it is
driven by "external" evidence rather than internal.
Therefore, whether one tries to reconcile that "external" evidence by
i) allegory
ii) theory of nissim as private events
iii) theory that events occured as a prophetic revelation, rather than
in the external world (as in one previous go round)
iv) flood was local

- alll four are driven by the same issue that you find problematic,
and no one, based purely on "internal" torah events, would ever have
argued that, say, the flood had no public world wide
manifestations..Which one you are theologically and rationally are
most comfortable with
may be one thing, but it is hard to see a real difference in the
underlying issues


Meir Shinnar

> From: T6...@aol.com
>>> I remember a shiur of Kosher tidbits on OU Radio  a  while back that
> addressed the Turkey issue (among others) and mentioned that  besides the
> simanim and the fact that it has been eaten for hundreds of years  there
> is
> one other factor.  There  was an Amora brought that  claimed to be
> familiar
> with all of the prohibited species of fowl.   Since he obviously could not
> have been familiar with Turkey, that would  indicate that it was not a
> prohibited species. <<
>
>
>>>>>>
>
> Does that mean that all New World birds are kosher?
>
>
My guess would be if it has the simanim and probably also a tradition for
several hundred years or possibly sufficient similarity to a known bird
with a Mesorah.

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 



>> "Alei asor" (pasuq 4) is a messianic reference, as the asor  wasn't 
played
in bayis rishon or sheini. <<
 

 
>>>>>
 
 
How do you know that?  I don't think that's right.
 

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



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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101124/cbb762f0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:52:32PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
:> "Alei asor" (pasuq 4) is a messianic reference, as the asor  wasn't played
:> in bayis rishon or sheini.

: How do you know that?  I don't think that's right.

The source is a beraisa by R' Yehudah in Eiruchin 13b. The kinor had 7
strings, but in yemos hamashiach it will have an 8th and in olam haba --
10. The meqoros are "Alei asor va'lei neivel, alei higayon bekhinor"
and "Hodu Lashem bekhinor, benevel asor..." -- that is the new element
of that pasuq's "shir chadash".

So you're right that I was mistaken -- it's not messianic, but even
further in the future.

(And so it is quite likely that peshat in the opening pasuq is that the
shir is about the Yom shekulo shabbos.)

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

<<Between you and me, I never understood why any shul would not sing part or
all of K. Shabbat. For the committed few, the stoic davvening works, but
consider this email I received 2 weeks ago:>>

It is a matter of personal preference. I remember reading that a grandson
(when he was little) complained that RYBS never sang zemirot while his other
grandfather, the Talner rebbe did. It seems in Brisk zemirot were recited and
not sung.

My entire family enjoys the various songs for piyutim for yamim noraim.
One year we davened at a real yeshivish type minyan with kavannah and no
songs and my family was disappointed.

-- 
Eli Turkel

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 


>>  here is RSCoffer's translation (minus his  bracketed
inserts, which I feel are not in line with the REED's intent)  from
<http://www.toriah.org/people/R-Dessler/Vol4-pages-p113.pdf>:

Time -- its existence is only within our perception. Creation  is
far more profound than our ability to grasp and far greater  than
that which is represented in our physical universe.  Consequently,
"creation" transcends any limitations of time.  The concept of
something being "beyond the limitations of time"  cannot be fully
grasped by the human intellect. Thus when  considering "beyond the
limitations of time", it is projected  into our minds as endless
periods of time. And thus it seems to  scientists as if the world
evolved over millions of  years.Question: If so, why then does the
Torah establish the  description of creation in terms of six days? <<
 
 

 
 
>>>>
 
My neighbor, R' Yakov Homnick, notes that the really interesting and  
significant thing about P' Bereishis is the Torah's claim that THE WORLD WAS  
CREATED IN STAGES.  (Exactly how long each stage took is not that relevant  and 
possibly not knowable by us.)  The Torah could have said, "And G-d  said, 
Let there be a world!  And there was a world."  It could have  been said in 
one pasuk.  
 
 

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



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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101124/32efcc1e/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote:
> "Yom shekulo shabbos" doesn't appear in Tanach.  It appears only
> once in mishnayos, in the last mishneh of Tamid, and that mishneh
> is quoted twice  in Shas.  It's a drosho on "mizmor shir leyom
> hashabbos", where the pshat clearly is a 24-hour day.  I don't see
> how you can use that as a precedent for learning pshat in an
> instance of "yom" in Tanach.

What prompted the drasha? Very simple: Psalm 92 has no connection
whatsoever o Shabbos. It's theme is rasha' vetov lo, to which the
psalmist responds starting with veAta marom ... through the end. [For
details, watch out for the forthcoming RCA Siddur.]

So, since there is no connection between Shabbos and the content of
the psalm, why does it have a superscription that mentions yom
hashabbat? To which the Mishna answers that it is about the yom
shekulo shabbat, i.e., not the weekly Shabbos, but the future,
eternal, messianic sabbatical era.

IOW, this is not a drush, but *plain* *peshat*, unless ... you want to
posit (as some Bible critics do) that there is no connection between
the superscriptions and the psalm they superscript.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On 25/11/2010 5:43 AM, Arie Folger wrote:
> RZS wrote:
>> "Yom shekulo shabbos" doesn't appear in Tanach.  It appears only
>> once in mishnayos, in the last mishneh of Tamid, and that mishneh
>> is quoted twice  in Shas.  It's a drosho on "mizmor shir leyom
>> hashabbos", where the pshat clearly is a 24-hour day.  I don't see
>> how you can use that as a precedent for learning pshat in an
>> instance of "yom" in Tanach.
>
> What prompted the drasha? Very simple: Psalm 92 has no connection
> whatsoever o Shabbos. It's theme is rasha' vetov lo, to which the
> psalmist responds starting with veAta marom ... through the end.

However, that's not pshat.  It seems to me, at least, that the pshat
is simply that this song is to be sung on Shabbos.  The mishne explains
*why* that is so.  And one can't use a drasha appearing once in the
mishne to show what a word in Tanach means.  Where is an example in
Tanach of "yom" meaning anything but a day?


> IOW, this is not a drush, but *plain* *peshat*, unless ... you want to
> posit (as some Bible critics do) that there is no connection between
> the superscriptions and the psalm they superscript.

I've never thought about it, but now that you mention it it makes sense
to me that the superscriptions weren't added by the authors, especially
by the other authors whose work David compiled together with his own
works.  Are we to believe that Moshe called himself "ish ha'elokim"?
Surely that was added by David, or even perhaps by a later editor.
Need one be a Bible critic to entertain such an idea?

But for the current purpose it doesn't matter who labelled this song
as for Shabbos.  It seems obvious that whoever it was meant the literal
day of Shabbos that comes every week.  (The lamed can mean "for" or
"about"; what I'm saying is that the pshat here is "for", while the
mishne's drasha treats it as if it meant "about".)


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

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> I've never thought about it, but now that you mention it it makes sense
> to me that the superscriptions weren't added by the authors, especially
> by the other authors whose work David compiled together with his own
> works. ?Are we to believe that Moshe called himself "ish ha'elokim"?
> Surely that was added by David, or even perhaps by a later editor.
> Need one be a Bible critic to entertain such an idea?

No, kosher source criticism is possible in Tehillim, as the Talmud
teaches eleven people (David ve'assarah zeqenim) authored Tehillim. In
the Midrash Shir haShirim and Qohelet Rabbah, we even learn of Rav and
R' Yochanan's opinion that the last ba'al hatehillim was Ezra. But
that doesn't answer the question, because we should at least believe
that holy poetry isn't arbitrary, and that the superscriptions are
meaningful.

However, how does the superscription fit the theme of the psalm? No
derasha here, simple peshat, read the content.

> But for the current purpose it doesn't matter who labelled this song
> as for Shabbos. ?It seems obvious that whoever it was meant the literal
> day of Shabbos that comes every week. ?(The lamed can mean "for" or
> "about"; what I'm saying is that the pshat here is "for", while the
> mishne's drasha treats it as if it meant "about".)

As I wrote, the content of the psalm argues against your
interpretation. Yom is surely meant metaphorically here, or as R'
Micha explains, it's an alternative meaning.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

> However, how does the superscription fit the theme of the psalm? No
> derasha here, simple peshat, read the content.

It doesn't have to.  AFAIK it simply means that this is a song to be
sung on Shabbos.   The mishne's *drasha* explains why, not what.


>> But for the current purpose it doesn't matter who labelled this song
>> as for Shabbos.  It seems obvious that whoever it was meant the literal
>> day of Shabbos that comes every week.  (The lamed can mean "for" or
>> "about"; what I'm saying is that the pshat here is "for", while the
>> mishne's drasha treats it as if it meant "about".)
>
> As I wrote, the content of the psalm argues against your
> interpretation. Yom is surely meant metaphorically here, or as R'
> Micha explains, it's an alternative meaning.

I think you're seeing things that aren't there.  Whoever wrote the
introductory pasuk simply meant that it is a song for the Shabbos day.
Not *about* Shabbos, but for it.  To be sung then.  That's what the
words "leyom hashabos" mean.  *Why* did he decide that it should be
sung on Shabbos, when it's just as applicable to any other day?
That's what the mishne comes to explain, by taking "leyom" out of its
literal meaning, and saying that it's about a "yom shekulo shabbos".
But you can't then turn around and pretend this is what the words mean,
and then further use it as a proof that when Malachi used the word "yom"
he also meant something else, and then jump to Chumash also using the
word in that same way.  You can't do that until you have a *solid proof*
that it's used that way even once in Tanach.  Otherwise your entire
edifice is built on a sand foundation.


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

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> I think you're seeing things that aren't there. ?Whoever wrote the
> introductory pasuk simply meant that it is a song for the Shabbos day.

This begs the question [assuming that is what the superscription
means, which is arguable]: why would this song be so fitting for
Shabbos, if its content is totally unrelated? Because the weekly
Shabbos is a symbol for the Eternal Shabbos, which is in turn
connected to the theme of the psalm. One way or another, you will come
back to the maleability of the notion yom, whether as a stand alone
word, or as the compound noun Yom haShabbat.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On 25/11/2010 10:53 AM, Arie Folger wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>  wrote:
>> I think you're seeing things that aren't there.  Whoever wrote the
>> introductory pasuk simply meant that it is a song for the Shabbos day.
>
> This begs the question [assuming that is what the superscription
> means, which is arguable]: why would this song be so fitting for
> Shabbos, if its content is totally unrelated? Because the weekly
> Shabbos is a symbol for the Eternal Shabbos, which is in turn
> connected to the theme of the psalm. One way or another, you will come
> back to the maleability of the notion yom, whether as a stand alone
> word, or as the compound noun Yom haShabbat.

On the contrary, it is you who is begging the question.  "Yom" almost
everywhere else in Tanach clearly means "day".  You want to claim that
there are a few exceptions, and therefore any example where the context
doesn't force us to read it one way we can read it either way.  For that
to work you have to first find one example that is indisputably such an
exception.

Once you've found one, then you've established that exceptions do exist,
and you can then argue that any other case is also such an exception.
But every example you've given *isn't* indisputably an exception; on the
contrary, the simplest read in *all* those examples is that it means a
literal day.  You can claim that it *might* mean something else, but you
can't prove it *does*; and you have to do so in at least one instance in
order for your whole edifice to have something to stand on.

Why would this song be sung on Shabbos?  In pshat, I don't have to
answer that.  It just is, because it says so.  Whoever wrote that
superscription thought it appropriate, and that's all I need to know.
Probing beyond that is not necessary for pshat; that the mishneh
finds a reason is very nice, and it's a good drasha, but it doesn't
affect pshat.  Perhaps that really is what the author meant.  Perhaps
it's even what the original author of the psalm (who is presumably
Moshe Rabbenu) meant.  But it isn't what he *wrote*; it isn't the
intended translation of his words.  Or at least, you can't prove that
it is, and the onus is on you to do so.


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

I won't relate to the larger question of the meaning of yom, since RMB
is doing a very able job. I relate only to Tehillim 92.

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> Why would this song be sung on Shabbos? ?In pshat, I don't have to
> answer that. ?It just is, because it says so.

Given I suggested a rather cogent way to understand the linkage
between the superscription and the content of teh psalm, and shown
that that is entirely in line with the Mishna, which line of thought
do you find more attractive:
* The superscription definitely means it's the designated psalm for
Shabbos, and therefore, we have no clue what links the superscription
to the psalm, as it is thematically totally unrelated to Shabbos;
* or: we follow the midrashic teaching of the mishna as peshat, since
it fits perfectly with the peshat of the thematic content of the psalm
?

You know, I am a peshat kind of guy, but I see over and over again
that much of Midrash is plain peshat. Chazal were some of the most
astute, profound students of peshat; we just have to open our eyes and
listen very tightly, because their way of expression is sometimes
cryptic.


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 05:39:33PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: You know, I am a peshat kind of guy, but I see over and over again
: that much of Midrash is plain peshat. Chazal were some of the most
: astute, profound students of peshat; we just have to open our eyes and
: listen very tightly, because their way of expression is sometimes
: cryptic.

Rashi vs Rashbam, in a nutshell.

Rashi could have penned RAF's words, but the Rashbam couldn't.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RMB wrote:

 >As for RAK's handbook, here's the quote:
     ...There are four conditions under which there is a tradition that the
     Torah is not to be taken according to its literal meaning: [181]
     1. Where the plain meaning is rejected by common experience.
     2. Where it is repudiated by obvious logic. [182]
     3. Where it is contradicted by obvious scripture.
     4. Where it is opposed by clear Talmudic tradition. [183]<

 >...But more importantly, we aren't talking about literal vs allegory.

Yom literally means era, as in "lifnei ba yom Hashem hagadol vehanora".<

Actually, Radak (Yoel 3:3 referring to Yoel 2:11) says that the "Yom 
Hashem HaGadol V'HaNora" is the day of Gog and Magog's downfall. Sounds 
like a specific (V-)day.

RMB:
 >Or a more significant example to our case, in Bereishis 2:4, the creation
era is called a yom -- "beyom asos H' E-lokim eretz veshamayim" --
not 7 of them!

 >But more importantly, we aren't talking about literal vs. allegory.<

True, we're not talking about literal vs. allegory; but about literal 
(i.e.,  peshat) meaning. But there are rules for determining correct 
literal meaning as well. Rav Saadia Gaon, the Rambam and the Ikkarim 
explicitly, and others implicitly, maintain the meaning of the word must 
be its primary meaning, unless it transgresses one of the rules you 
mentioned. There is a hierarchy of meanings that must be followed: 
Preferably primary; with cause (such as those you listed), non-primary.

This is clear from the first chelek of Moreh Nevuchim.

Here's what the Sefer Ikkarim writes.

'IKKARIM, CHAPTER 21 (pp.192-194)

"The Torah is called a "testimony" (aidus --Ex. 25:21 and Ps. 132:12). 
This is to signify that the Torah must be understood by pashtus (the 
normal meaning of its words), just as the testimony of witnesses:

"When witnesses testify, we do not say, let's tweak the time or 
interpret the testimony to keep the witnesses innocent of perjury. To 
illustrate: let's say they testified that Reuven killed Shimon on the 
first day of the week, and then their testimony is proved false. We do 
not say, let's interpret their testimony to prevent them from being 
false witnesses. Let's say that by "on the first day of the 'week' " 
they meant on the first of the seven-year sabbatical cycle (the "week" 
of years). Or let's say that by "he killed him" they meant he refused to 
give him alms, which would support him; or they meant he did not teach 
him the Torah, [which is, after all,] the true source of life in the 
World to Come. We do not say any of this because a testimony must be 
understood naturally, and if witnesses are shown to have given false 
testimony, they must be put to death, and we do not interpret their 
words in ways to save them...

Just wondering: Let's say someone refrains from melacha on shabbos 
thinking that  he's commemorating that Hashem "made the heavens and 
earth into seven seas" (yamim can mean "seas," you know---/I can prove 
it from rishonim/!) and has that in mind when he says "Ki Sheyshess 
Yamim, Asah Hashem Ess HaShamayyim V'ess HaAretz." Is he gaining the 
concept Shabbos is meant to teach? Does it matter?

Let's say, when reciting Kiddush, or davening Sh'meoneh Essray, or 
learning Chumash, he thinks that  "U-bayom HaSh'vi'iShavas VaYinafash," 
means that "during the day, the seventh sphere stopped working" 
("U-bayom, "HaSh'vi'i" shavvas VaYinafash"). Does it matter?

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20101126/7e9f0b39/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 205
***************************************

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..."