Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 207

Tue, 30 Nov 2010

• 1. Just one Hashem in Heaven (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 5. yibum (was:Tamar's theatrics) (Simi Peters)
• 6. Re: Tamar's Theatrics (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Self Esteem (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Tamar's Theatrics (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Klal Yisrael - one people, many tribes [was: Self Esteem] (T613K@aol.com)
• 13. self esteem (Eli Turkel)

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 03:42:58PM EST, R Shmuel Weidberg wrote Areivim:
: It has always bothered me when we say that Hashem is in heaven,
: because as far as science is concerned up contains outer space. And it
: seems that it is meant literally when we say that Hashem is up,
: because we say that the Shechina does not come below ten tefachim.

: It occurred to me that the current scientific view is that what is
: beyond the limits of the big bang is undefined, and that fits in very
: well with how we say that the word Makom when used as a kinui for
: Hashem means Hashem is the location for the world. Which would mean
: that wherever you are an you point up, and you go beyond the limits of
: sky to the edges of outer space, you are pointing to a place where the
: shechina has more of a presence than it does here.

: I hope that made sense. I am just not sure if there is any point in
: justifying anything with the big bang according to the shitta that
: sheshes yemei bereshis is literal days. So flame away.

(Well, the mod won't let you flame, but polite arguing is okay. Now,
taking off my moderator hat...)

I think that the origin is the broadness of the word shamayim.

The "-ayim" suffix can mean a number of things. A pair, as in "yadayim",
or something that needs measuring rather than counting, like "mayim" and
"chayim". (But not spatial dimensions -- orekh, rochav, qomah... Can't
say why.)

But in the case of shamayim, all derashos about eish+mayim aside, I think
it's sham+ayim, yeilding "thereness". There, as in not here, a place I
am not at. Thus shamayim is a term referring to places I can't reach.

Whether because it's a "place" beyond the physical spatial sense, or a
place I can't reach due to gravity.

Calling Hashem HaMaqom is also "place" beyond the physical spatial sense,
so I'm not fully disagreeing with that part of RSW's post. What I would
disagree with is the notion that it's more of a kinui than sheim havayah
as understood literally as "Cause of Existence".

Rather, maqom, like shamayim, is a broad enough concept to look like a
homonym for at least two smaller ones.

Last, I think the Shechinah is most present in the yeitzer hatov, in
the qol demamah daqa, far more than in the majesty of space. It's one
thing to say that Hashem is Infinitely Large, and associate Him with
the cosmic. It's far more to note that He is also Infinitely Dense, that
Hashem can pay intimate attention to every point in that cosmos. Even to
individual little beings out on a typical planet 2/3 of the way out on
one of the arms of a boring little galaxy among the trillions out there...

That's Kol maqom she'atah motzi Gedulaso shel HQBH, sham atah motzi
anvanuso...

And this is the resolution of the paradox:
    Kevodo Malei olam
    Mesharasav sho'alim zeh lazeh
    "Ayeh *MEQOM* kevodo?"
Didn't we just say His Kavod is everywhere? Yes, but where it is most
tangible is where there is something that can sense that Presence. The
G-d who all through the Hagaddah is repeatedly called "Maqom" is the
G-d who completes Yetzi'as Mitzrayim with "veshakhanti besokham".

So I don't see Maqom as a physical-cosmic thing. I see the name as
referring to His providing potential. And nothing in the cosmos has the
quantity of potential of someone who -- betzelem Elokim -- has bechirah
chafshis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:00:33PM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
:> 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.

The problem I have is that "revelation" (to my mind) refers to the
spectrum of bas qol, ruach haqodesh, nevu'ah, MRAH's nevu'ah...
that which we refer to as the unique national *revelation* at Har Sinai.

    "'Chokhmah bagoyim' -- taamin,
    'Torah bagoyim' -- al taamin."

There is an epistomological difference between that we know through
Inspired Sources and which we know through science. Yes, they have much
in common -- both tell us about the Borei. But they aren't fully in
common. It's not that chokhmah and Torah are really the same thing; not
if we're talking "which are we more sure of?" questions. They shouldn't
just be blurred into one under any label for this kind of conversation.

:> 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...

"Gives credibility" yes. I didn't say all-or-nothing statements. I said
"gives far too much relative surety". And our limitations are in common
whether speaking of chokhmah or Torah, so there is no reason to think
error is more likely to be in one area than the other on that account.

I presume you accept anything in the scientific domain that is well
supported and doesn't raise experimental problems. That, for you, is
sufficient proof for accepting a scientific theory. You wouldn't reject
it because it doesn't fit mesorah, for example.

So, if something in mesorah is well supported within TSBP and doesn't
raise problems internal to Torah, why not afford it the same credibility?
Why does science stand in the face of a conflict with mesorah, as long
as it's sound on scientific grounds, but TSBP doesn't stand in the face
of a conflict with science, as long as it's sound on mesoretic grounds?

That is the lopsidedness toward giving more credance to science that I
see in your position.

:> 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 ...

Yes, such changes are possible. But I would expect to find flaws in
the mistaken understanding of the Torah that wouldn't work qua Torah.
Either that, or one must accept that Torah is incomplete, less than
temimah. So, shemesh begiv'on dam can change from its old meaning --
I'm just demanding a higher threshold for doing so.

...
:> 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.

I suggest you learn the Maharal. You are assuming a consistency to reality
that the Maharal is saying fails for miracles. Not internal/subjective
vs external/objective. But conflicting realities. If even within physics,
different frames of reference can have conflicting descriptions of reality
(Was the train ever entirely inside the tunnel?), why can't metaphysics
assert the same thing on a grander and more fundamental scale?

: 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

v) I have no way yet to reconcile the data. The data is too compelling
to let go, but still appears to conflict. Good enough for the conflicts
between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Heck, we use QM to design chips
which compute relativistic effects of the GPS sattelite in order to correct
for it and no my location. And yet the two conflict fundamentally when you try
to model gravity.

Why not accept all the data as compelling and postpone the answer?

: - all 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...

Actually, this isn't true of (ii), since the Maharal proves his point that
this is how nissim work from things like the medrash about makas dam,
"shemesh beGiv'on dam" (and only in Giv'on) and other cases. Which is
why I proposed the possibility. He gives mesoretic basis to a theory
of miracle which -- with no appeal to anything but what I called above
"Torah" (in cotrast to "chokhmah") -- would imply something about
the mabul.

As I said, meanings can change within mesorah, even without giving
science greater epistomological weight, greater credance.

Actually, I think more people would find (v) more palatable than (ii).
I just emphasized (ii) because I'm not "most people.

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:08:03PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: 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.

This is central to RAYK's thought on this topic, and he has much positive
to say about evolution because of it.

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:04:35PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> 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.

You skip over my "more importantly", and therefore deal with what I
would call a quibble. The Radaq says a yom can be a year, so I'm not too
bothered with when he says it could be a day. Bereishis pereq 2 refers
to all of maaseh bereishis through Gan Eden as a single yom. (Rashi even
includes the beri'ah yeish mei'ayin before the week of placements.)

I would suggest that there are times yom means a point in time, and
that's what the Radaq is speaing of where.

But I mentioned the possibility that "yom" is literally something other
than day to buttress a more important point. The key issue, AISI, is
not whether maaseh bereishis is literal or allegory, or the mabul is
global, just shy of global, local, or allegoric. It's whether we have
justification to be non-mesoretic about it.

Then we can argue what the mesorah says, although history has proven
that gets us nowhere -- we'll agree to disagree at some point.

...
> 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...

Except that maaseh bereishis EVEN IF WRITTEN LITERALLY can not be
understood literally. Anything you read in it that seems like a literal
description of history is a misunderstanding. That's a mishnah. All we
can touch in it is derashah.

We don't have this issue with the mabul, unless we can show that
nissim are also transrational even beyond the Maharal's hard-to-imagine
description of them.

But again, I am not discussing correct peshat. I am discussing correct
history. Which involves knowing how to relate to the TSBP vs other
indications, and nothying about peshat vs allegory vs derashah vs any
particular mode. AISI, it's just an issue of the modes TSBP supports vs
those TSBP doesn't support.

I can't argue with you what the TSBP supports, because what appears to
me to be clear statements by sources as diverse as the Rambam and REED
as showing that maaseh bereishis doesn't give the universe an age are
ones you dispute. (Even when I cite rishonim whose peirushim on the
Rambam who read it as I do. Or we ignore this paradoxical use of yom
by Rashi. Or Rashi's clear use of the two-creation model we generally
associate with the Ramban. Or we discuss REED's source for saying the
Ramban's "days are 24 hours" wasn't means to the exclusion of them also
being something longer. Or we look at R' Schwab's meqoros. Or...)

But unlike many others in this discussion, I'm not citing these sources
to say that Bereishis 1 is pure allegory. Rather, to say that Bereishis
1 is incomprehensible literally, and the effect of that within the set
of ideas we can understand is pretty close to that of allegory. A day
is 24 hours IN A WAY, but also 13 bn years IN A WAY, as per REED's take
on the Ramban. Yom doesn't mean what we think it does not because of
literal vs allegory but because we can't think its real meaning.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On 29/11/2010 6:53 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>  The Radaq says a yom can be a year

Sigh.  I haven't got the patience to go through the rest of your
invalid arguments, but I can't let this one pass by.  *No, he doesn't*.
It is simply a sheker.  Read the very page that you cited; it couldn't
be clearer.  It says (as everyone knows and agrees) that "yamim" can and
often does mean a year.  It makes no such claim about "yom".

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

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> Sigh.  I haven't got the patience to go through the rest of your
> invalid arguments, but I can't let this one pass by.  *No, he doesn't*.
> It is simply a sheker.  Read the very page that you cited; it couldn't
> be clearer.  It says (as everyone knows and agrees) that "yamim" can and
> often does mean a year.  It makes no such claim about "yom".

Before you call something a lie... I am waiting for you to prove that
a word and its plural mean different things. That's an artificial
distinction that you need to show. Until then, I feel free to assume
that if yamim achadim can be years, than yom can be a year...

(And speaking as a human being: I think calling a contradictory opinion
to your own a "lie" just weakens the listener's belief that there is a
sound argument behind the bluster.)

You still ignore issues like the use of "yom" in Bereishis 2:4 to describe
that the previous pereq told us took a week -- or an unstated amount
of time plus a week. So even if we established the Radaq, it wouldn't
impact the greater point about yom.

AND, even if we established that you were correct about yom (including
the yom asher hu lo yom velo laylah), we still didn't impact my original
point -- that the issue isn't which is the literal meaning of yom,
but which intent is the mesoretic one. If yom literally meant day,
but numerous rishonim say here it means "stage in causal process" --
I don't care if that's literal or allegorical. And if yom literally
meant day, but the whole concept of yom/day WRT the period in question
is unfathomable by humans, I similarly don't care.

That was my whole reason for pointing out that one can argue yom means
something other than day by denying literality or by insisting on it. To
show that both get you to the same point.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

See the Malbim's commentary on Torah on the mitzva of yibum.  He 
distinguishes between a yibum-like custom that pre-dated matan Torah (Yehuda 
and Tamar), the mitzva of yibum after matan Torah, and hakamat shem 
be'nahala (Rut and Boaz).

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters 

On my suggestion that:

: Why didn't she say something like, "Keep your collateral. I am Tamar. I
: tricked you because I was tired of waiting for Shelah." But she didn't.

R' Micha Berger asked:

: What is wrong with Chazal's assumption, that this is a textbook case
: of someone trying to avoid being "malbin penei chaveiro" [MPC] (Sotah
: 10b, BM 58a-59a)?

I apologize. I should have made my point more clearly, which is that if she
had revealed herself to Yehudah immediately, then she would not have been
embarrassing him *at* *all*. She could have left it totally in his hands
how to deal with the situation, and he could have spun it however he'd
like.

I suppose Yehudah would have felt that he was being manipulated and used,
but still - he could have chosen to gamble that she would not become
pregnant and that no one would ever know anything. And if she would indeed
turn out to be pregnant, well, we have a few months to figure out what to
do.

In every respect, coming clean at the beginning would have been better for
all parties, rather than continuing the subterfuge and hoping no one finds
out. Especially for a tzadekes who is willing to allow herself and her
unborn child to be sentenced to death, wouldn't she have considered how
this thing is going to play out? These questions are what led me to guess
that the answer is that she kept silent specifically because of the fear
that if she was *not* pregnant, then she'd have to do this all over again.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.67%!
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cf43d087bf3044a834st04vuc

At 05:02 PM 11/29/2010, R. Micha wrote:

>2- 
>http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/11/rav-dessler-yeshi
>va-should-deny-self.html
>(a/k/a <http://bit.ly/eWfrDd>.
>
>
>2- Monday, November 29, 2010
>    Rav Dessler: Yeshiva should deny self-esteem to those not fully
>    involved in Torah study
>
>    What follows is a partial translation of Rav Dessler (Michtav M'Eliyahu
>    3 page 355-357 by Prof. Low. I have modified the translation in a
>    number of places - in particular the last line.
>
>         The Frankfurt school supported an educational system in which the
>         students were exposed to the study of secular subjects and later
>         went on to universities. At the same time it paid attention to
>         the strict observance of all the mitzvot. The advantage of the
>         system was that the vast majority of its adherents stayed Orthodox
>         and carefully observed the ordinances of the Shulchan Aruch,
>         despite the fact that they were exposed to a general non-Jewish
>         intellectual environment.It is true that they [the Frankfurt
>         School] benefited in that the number of defectors from mitzvah
>         observance was small. The price paid for this was that few, if
>         any, Gedolei Torah emerged from such an educational system. On
>         the other hand, their weltanschauung was somewhat imperfect
>         as far as the complete acceptance of the Torah point of view
>         is concerned. Whenever there was a conflict between sciences
>         and Torah, they resorted to a strange combination of the two,
>         as if the two systems can be combined as a unity". Therefore,
>         exposure to non-Jewish ideas affected to some extent the purity
>         of their faith in the absolute truth of Torah, resulting in
>         strange compromises.

I posted the following comment about this post.

What I find strange about R. Dessler is that his father made sure 
that he had a secular education, since his father had studied in Kelm 
where secular studies were part of the yeshiva curriculum.

I have no idea on what he bases these assertions. "On the other hand, 
their weltanschauung was somewhat imperfect as far as the complete 
acceptance of the Torah point of view is concerned. Whenever there 
was a conflict between sciences and Torah, they resorted to a strange 
combination of the two, as if the two systems can be combined as a 
unity". Therefore, exposure to non-Jewish ideas affected to some 
extent the purity of their faith in the absolute truth of Torah, 
resulting in strange compromises."

Would he say that the same thing happened to the Rishonim who studied 
secular subjects?

Yitzchok Levine


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101129/8a273672/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:52:51PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I apologize. I should have made my point more clearly...
: In every respect, coming clean at the beginning would have been better
: for all parties, rather than continuing the subterfuge and hoping no one
: finds out...

Thanks. That IS more clear.

On a tangent, a little chassidishe vertl of my own invention:

Recall Chazal's statement about parah adumah (and other mitzvos)
which require tying the ezov and some erez together with a sheni
tola'as. Ezov, the lowly grass, representing anavah. Erez, the
tall and powerful tree, representing the people who stand larger
than life.

    Tzadiq kaTamar yifrach -- when a tzadiq blossoms like Tamar,
        placing another's kavod ahead of oneself
    k'erez baLvanon yisgeh -- he will grow mighty like a cedar
        in Levanon

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 29/11/2010 7:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 06:53:04PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Sigh.  I haven't got the patience to go through the rest of your
>> invalid arguments, but I can't let this one pass by.  *No, he doesn't*.
>> It is simply a sheker.  Read the very page that you cited; it couldn't
>> be clearer.  It says (as everyone knows and agrees) that "yamim" can and
>> often does mean a year.  It makes no such claim about "yom".
>
> Before you call something a lie... I am waiting for you to prove that
> a word and its plural mean different things. That's an artificial
> distinction that you need to show. Until then, I feel free to assume
> that if yamim achadim can be years, than yom can be a year...

Since when is "yamim" meaning year the plural of "yom"?

At any rate, the Radak does not say what you claim he says.  Surely
you must at least recognise that.


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

On 29/11/2010 7:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> (And speaking as a human being: I think calling a contradictory opinion
> to your own a "lie" just weakens the listener's belief that there is a
> sound argument behind the bluster.)

The lie is the claim that the Radak says something, when he simply
doesn't.  Even if you think "yom" can mean a year, you can't put it
in the Radak's mouth.

  
> You still ignore issues like the use of "yom" in Bereishis 2:4 to describe
> that the previous pereq told us took a week -- or an unstated amount
> of time plus a week.

Fine.  No, it doesn't.  Rashi is very very clear on this.  It means
the first day and not a minute longer.  Everything that happened from
the second day on came *after* the "yom asos H' Elokim eretz veshamayim".
All it takes is looking at Rashi and taking him at his word without any
agenda.

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

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:15:01PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> Since when is "yamim" meaning year the plural of "yom"?
>
> At any rate, the Radak does not say what you claim he says.  Surely
> you must at least recognise that.

The Radaq's Seifer Shorashim makes this comment about yamim under the
entry "yom'. I have no idea how could can reach the conclusion that he
isn't discussing the word yom. To reiterate the reference: In the Radaq,
see <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/radak/radak03.pdf> pg 136, middle of
amudah 272, starting with "Aval qasheh".)

Or are youy engaging in misdkirectio by objecting to my use of an example
the Radaq doesn't give ("yamim achadim") in language as though he doesn't
make the same overall point?

The Radaq next discusses "yom" as a synonym for "eis", a point in time
rather than a duration.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:26:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> You still ignore issues like the use of "yom" in Bereishis 2:4 to describe
>> that the previous pereq told us took a week -- or an unstated amount
>> of time plus a week.

> Fine.  No, it doesn't.  Rashi is very very clear on this.  It means
> the first day and not a minute longer...

Yes, the pasuq is very clear that Adam was made on "yom asos H' Elokim
eretz veshamayhim", named the animal on that yom, gets a wife on that
day, eats from the eitz hadaas on that day. Look at the events that
pasuq introduces. Fine, it's literally the first yom... but was Adam
formed from the mud on the first day?

Rashi still doesn't mention yom in his commentary -- no yom, no "not
a minute longer". What Rashi does speak of is the haskhalah, which is
beri'ah yeish mei'ayin before everything in place. There is no indication
this was on day 1 rather than before day one -- and in fact Rashi on
1:1 says (like the Ramban) that is was before. Not even during any yom
of the previous pereq.

So, Rashi says "yom asos shamayim va'aretz" is the period that includes
the time period from before the yom echad, before tohu vavohu (again, see
1:1). And we know from the parsashah whose events it describes that we
are now being told that yom is when man is created and commits the first
cheit. The the only way to understand that is if the "yom" is a period
previously described as taking a week.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

 
From: Micha Berger  <mi...@aishdas.org>
i

>>   "In yeshivos today  there
is literally a pandemic of low  self-esteem..... 
 
 
   ....he said simply it is
a serious  problem in the litvishe yeshivas but not in the chassidic
or  Sefardic ones.  He said it is an inherent result of the  elitist
philosophy that if you are not the best in learning you  are nothing.... 
   In the chassidic and sefardic yeshiva systems it is  possible
to have self-esteem in ways other than being the top  guy in learning.


.....What follows is a partial translation of Rav Dessler  (Michtav 
M'Eliyahu
3 page 355-357 by Prof.  Low....

The Frankfurt school supported an educational  system in which the
students were exposed to the study of  secular subjects and later
went on to universities. At the same  time it paid attention to
the strict observance of all the  mitzvot. The advantage of the
system was that the vast majority  of its adherents stayed Orthodox
and carefully observed the  ordinances of the Shulchan Aruch,....
...The price  paid for this was that few, if
any, Gedolei Torah emerged from  such an educational system.....
 
   
 ....The Lithuanian Rashei Yeshivah, on the other hand, set as  their
main objective to educate Gedolei Torah, discouraging all  contact
with the intellectual world outside the  yeshiva.....They were well
aware of the price they had to pay  for this because they knew
that many yeshivah students were not  able to deal with this
extreme lifestyle and would [and in fact  did] leave religious
observance.....



>>>>>
It is part of the incredible Hashgacha Pratis we see throughout the sweep  
of Jewish history that the Ribono Shel Olam created a wondrous  world that 
contains both Yekkes and Litvaks, both Sefardim and  Chassidim, not to 
mention many other shevatim.  
 

How many goodly creatures are there here!  
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,  
That has such people in't! [--RWS]


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


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101129/fe79cda8/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Just noticed this haskoma that Rav Reuven Feinstein gave to
  "Bringing Out the Best" by Rabbi Roll. The book describes how to
  build self-esteem based on the wisdom of the Alter of Slobadka. What
  is interesting is Rabbi Feinstein stating, "In yeshivos today there
  is literally a pandemic of low self-esteem. An outcome of this most
  horrible condition, is that once a person has achieved a state where
  self-worth and self-value are diminished, that person is literally open
  to all foreign pressures, both within and without our community. Once
  those pressures are given free reign, the outcome is without exception,
  negative.">>

I wonder if "artscroll" type gedolim stories contribute to this phenomena
but setting up standards for perfect gedolim that very few can obtain.
Once in high school most students realize they are not up to the standards
in these books.
Perhaps a better model would be the Netziv who was not a child prodigy
but became a gadol relatively later in life by emphasizing hasmada.
I also note that when the argument arose over the leadership of Voloshin the
ultimate decision was to stress Sinai over a sharp mind in line with
the gemara about choosing a rosh yeshiva.

-- 
Eli Turkel


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 207
***************************************

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..."