Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 178

Sun, 28 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Shelo Asani Isha (Harry Maryles)
• 3. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Shelo Asani Isha (Daniel Bukingolts)
• 5. Re: sun and moon (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: sun and moon (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: sun and moon (Hankman)
• 8. Re: Hurricanes and eruvin (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Shelo Asani Isha (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 11. Re: Sun and Moon--Rav Soloveitchik (Lampel)
• 12. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: sun and moon (Lampel)
• 14. Re: sun and moon (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: sun and moon (Lisa Liel)

On 26/08/2011 4:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>Why not open a Moreh and look for yourself.

Because I have no need to go to the Moreh.  What you say is explicitly
contradicted in the Yad, so why look elsewhere?

>>> The Rambam doesn't actually say the moon has an intellect.

>> >  Yes, he does.  Explicitly.*All*  the stars*and*  spheres are intelligent,
>> >  and they're all more intelligent than humans.  That's certainly not needed
>> >  merely to keep moving in a steady orbit, even in Aristotelian physics.

> The spheres, not the moon, planets or stars.

No.  Look, there is no room for argument, he says it explicitly.  If
your argument depends on the opposite, then your argumment is utterly
refuted before it even starts.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

Moreorthdoxy published a letter from Yitzchak Zeev Soloveichik (RAS's
grandson). RYZS says that he has heard from family members that RYBS said
SheAsani Yisroel. Does anyone have any information about this? Is it true?
I find that hard to believe.
http://morethodoxy.org/2011/08/
25/breaking-news-soloveichik-agrees-with-lopatin-accr/?utm_source=feedburne
r&;utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+morethodoxy%2FJQTd+%28M
orethodoxy%3A+Exploring+the+Breadth%2C+Depth+and+Passion+of+Orthodox+Judais
m%29
or
http://tinyurl.com/4xm5zvj
HM


Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 



Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110827/c871ef16/attachment-0001.htm>

On 26/08/2011 5:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 8/26/2011 3:42 PM, Zev Sero wrote:

>> I don't know. Shabbos is a king, after all.
>
> Pardon? I believe it's Shabbat HaMalka. Not Shabbat HaMelech.

That's malka with an alef.  King.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

In these types of matters does it even matter whether or not you have a
minority opinion supporting your stance if the whole point of your stance is
simply because of modern cultural liberal agendas? Do motives mehind the
change play a roll at all in respecting or following these decisions?

Danny Bukingolts
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110828/62422c84/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/27/2011 11:02 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/08/2011 5:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> On 8/26/2011 3:42 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>
>>> I don't know. Shabbos is a king, after all.
>>
>> Pardon? I believe it's Shabbat HaMalka. Not Shabbat HaMelech.
>
> That's malka with an alef. King.

Dear Lord.  Where on *earth* did you get that from?

Lisa

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:02:28AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Pardon? I believe it's Shabbat HaMalka. Not Shabbat HaMelech.
>
> That's malka with an alef.  King.

    "Mah yedidus menuchasakh
    ant shabbos hamalka
    bekhuin narutz leqrisakh..."?

I think the idiom refers to the Shekhinah, the sephirah of Malkhus,
as she is accessible on Shabbos.

Shabbos 119a, R' Chanina's words are written "Bo'u venetzei liqeras
Shabbas haMalkah", with a hei. I don't even think he is speaking
Aramaic for an alef to be an option.


On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 05:11:30PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/08/2011 4:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Why not open a Moreh and look for yourself.
>
> Because I have no need to go to the Moreh.  What you say is explicitly
> contradicted in the Yad, so why look elsewhere?

Obviously, the Yad doesn't contradict a recurring theme in the Moreh.
Your refusal to consult the sources doesn't deminish their evidence,
just your ability to hold "a high level Torah discussion."

What the Rambam says in the Yad is that Hashem causes the motion of the
spheres -- but indirectly. The causal chain of mal'akhim described in
YhT 2:3-8 is continued at the galgalim and kokhavim in 3:9. It's clear
from 3:8 that kokhavim here means stars, not the planets and moon. (3:8
is scientifically wrong about the size of stars in comparison to the
sun, BTW.)

>>>> The Rambam doesn't actually say the moon has an intellect.
>
>>>> Yes, he does.  Explicitly.*All*  the stars*and*  spheres are intelligent,
>>>> and they're all more intelligent than humans.  That's certainly not needed
>>>> merely to keep moving in a steady orbit, even in Aristotelian physics.

>> The spheres, not the moon, planets or stars.

> No.  Look, there is no room for argument, he says it explicitly.  If
> your argument depends on the opposite, then your argumment is utterly
> refuted before it even starts.

He says the galgalim have intellects, including the galgal of the
moon. "Kol hakokhavim vegalgalim kulam ba'alei nefesh vede'ah vehaskeil
heim..." (YhT 3:9) The galgalim are transparent spheres "hamaqifin
es ha'olam kulo, hein agulin hadur, veha'aretz tzeluyah ba'emtzah"
(YhT 3:4). That's not the moon, that's a solid object representing the
orbit of the moon.

What he says explicitly is what I wrote.

The reason for their having greater intellect is because this chain of
intellect theory requires that intellects closer to the Divine Intellect
are greater. Which is why the Rambam describes the intellects of the
kokhavim and galgalim as "me'utah mida'as hamal'akhim, ugedolah mida'as
benei adam." Just as per their positing in the chain.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are what we repeatedly do.
mi...@aishdas.org        Thus excellence is not an event,
http://www.aishdas.org   but a habit.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Aristotle

On 26/08/2011 9:50 AM, Hankman wrote:
> If however, the moon was constituted of hydrogen as is our sun today
> and the source of its own light from nuclear energy, then the
> description of becoming smaller is problematic as the entire substance
> of the moon was changed to its present non-hydrogen (and smaller)
> composition which really amounts to the recreation of a new and different
> moon and not the mere diminution of the moon.

RZS responded:

When a prince transforms into a frog, is he not the same prince afterwards?

CM responds:

Ahem - Your authority for this is a child's fairytale?

PS I noticed in your previous post you are in NYC - may you and all the chevra in NYC stay safe.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110828/fa7c507d/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero asked:

> Question: The eye of Hurricane Irene isn't expected to hit NYC
> until Sunday afternoon, but the leading edge is expected 24
> hours earlier. Does anyone have any idea whether this would
> invalidate the chezkas kashrus of an eruv, and if so from
> when?  From when the heavy rain starts?  From when one first
> notices a ruach she'eina metzuya?  Or can one assume it will
> last at least until after Shabbos?

It is difficult for me to imagine how any posek might give a general answer
to this question, that is, an answer which would apply to all eruvin
irrespective of how they are built. Some eruvin are extremely sturdy;
others are built in a more flimsy manner, though they are just as kosher,
provided they're still up. It seems self-evident to me that this is a
question to be answered only by the Rav Hamachshir of each eruv, in
accordance with his knowledge of the construction of that eruv.

After composing the above, I found the following in "The Contemporary Eruv"
(Feldheim, 2002), by listmember Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer. On page 89,
in discussing the natural wall created by a sufficiently steep river bank
or hillside, he writes:

   "It is unclear how often the slope must be surveyed. Riverbanks and
   hillsides are obviously susceptible to natural erosion and artificial
   alteration. Professional surveys are extended and expensive projects. It
   is thus impractical to survey slopes weekly. The parameters of various
   eruvin are liable to differ significantly. The hillsides and riverbanks
   into some eruvin may tend to remain stable over long periods of time,
   while in other eruvin they may be subject to frequent natural and
   artificial forces that are liable to the diminished diminish their
   gradients. It seems that the Rav Ha'Machshir (certifying rabbinic
   authority) of an eruv must set specific guidelines for every eruv
   differently, based on the specific situation in that place at that
   time."

In the footnote to the above, he talks about inspections of eruvin in general:

   "181: It is customary to inspect municipal eruvin weekly. See Yesodei
   Yeshurun, ibid., pp. 331-332 for a discussion of the sources upon which
   the custom is based. I am indebted to Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky for the
   information that there are some communities that are very stringent when
   it comes to this inspection, to the extent that when Yom Tov falls on a
   Friday and precludes an effective inspection, these communities will not
   rely on an inspection conducted on Wednesday or Thursday before Yom Tov,
   and will assume the eruv to be invalid for the following Shabbos. Thus,
   the parameters of inspections are very subjective, and it is not
   necessarily possible to extrapolate from the guidelines of the community
   with an eruv that is subject to frequent manipulation by utility
   companies, etc., to a community with an eruv that is rarely disturbed,
   and vice versa."

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e59c399e02fd924728st06vuc

On 28/08/2011 2:10 AM, Hankman wrote:
> When a prince transforms into a frog, is he not the same prince afterwards?
>
> CM responds:
> Ahem - Your authority for this is a child's fairytale?

No, a thought experiment.  The source of the example used is irrelevant.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

In Nefesh Harav, p. 107, Rav Hershel Schechter writes that the Rav said
sheLo asani nochri (instead of goy).  Dr. Arnie Lustiger cites this in his
Mesoret HaRav Yamim Noraim Mahzorim.  The Rav Davened quite loudly. If he
regularly said SheAsani Yisrael, people would have known and publicized it. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Harry Maryles 
  To: Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer 
  Cc: avo...@lists.aishdas.org 
  Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2011 6:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [Avodah] Shelo Asani Isha


	Moreorthdoxy published a letter from Yitzchak Zeev Soloveichik
	(RAS's grandson). RYZS says that he has heard from family members
	that RYBS said SheAsani Yisroel. Does anyone have any information
	about this? Is it true? I find that hard to believe.


	http://morethod
	oxy.org/2011/08/25/breaking-news-soloveichik-agrees-with-lopatin-ac
	cr/?utm_source=feedburner&;utm_medium=email&utm_campaign
	=Feed%3A+morethodoxy%2FJQTd+%28Morethodoxy%3A+Exploring+the+Breadth
	%2C+Depth+and+Passion+of+Orthodox+Judaism%29


        or


        http://tinyurl.com/4xm5zvj


        HM




        Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

        Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/ 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110828/eddd7e30/attachment-0001.htm>

Rav JB Soloveitchik on celestial bodies and their intellects (in his 
personal conversations with David Holzer, p.90-92 of Holzer?s ?The Rav 
Thinking Aloud?):

DH: "The Rambam says that the...stars and planets, or spheres) are... 
[intellects]?. What does this mean?"

The Rav: "[Frisch?] also thought this way, as did Spinoza and many of 
the Renaissance philosophers based on Aristotelian philosophy. It is 
interesting that the Rambam limited it only to those bodies above the 
moon ... and did not include the Earth as well. I myself am inclined to 
the concept that planets and stars are thinking beings. It is ridiculous 
to think that thought is limited to moving beings. Even if a person is 
immobile and has no brainwaves (EEG), we don?t really know that there is 
no thought process going on."

Zvi Lampel

On 28/08/2011 12:55 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 8/27/2011 11:02 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 26/08/2011 5:10 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2011 3:42 PM, Zev Sero wrote:

>>>> I don't know. Shabbos is a king, after all.

>>> Pardon? I believe it's Shabbat HaMalka. Not Shabbat HaMelech.

>> That's malka with an alef. King.

> Dear Lord. Where on *earth* did you get that from?

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/3130.htm#2


On 28/08/2011 2:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Obviously, the Yad doesn't contradict a recurring theme in the Moreh.

How about "Obviously the Moreh doesn't contradict the Yad"?  If there is
any difference, then the Yad is primary, so where the Yad is clear why
should I look in the Moreh?


> Your refusal to consult the sources doesn't deminish their evidence,
> just your ability to hold "a high level Torah discussion."

I'm arguing exclusively from the Yad; I don't really care what is written
in some other place.


> What the Rambam says in the Yad is that Hashem causes the motion of the
> spheres -- but indirectly.

That's not what he says.  If it's indirect then what kind of proof is it
that He exists?  If the galgal can move itself then what need has it for
a Mover?  The proof only makes sense if he is saying that the galgal does
*not* move itself, and therefore Someone must be moving it.


> The causal chain of mal'akhim described in
> YhT 2:3-8 is continued at the galgalim and kokhavim in 3:9.

Yes, I don't see how it's relevant.


> It's clear from 3:8 that kokhavim here means stars, not the planets
> and moon.

On the contrary, it reads better if we were somehow to suppose that he
is *excluding* the stars in the eighth galgal!  Then the statement about
nothing being bigger than the sun or smaller than mercury would be
easily understood.  But really that isn't a possible reading; contrary
to your claim that it's "clear" that he's only talking about the eighth
galgal, it's actually clear that he's talking about all the galgalim
and all the kochavim that they contain, without any distinction between
those we call in English "stars" and those we call "planets", "moon",
or "sun".   The language is crystal clear, and there is no possible way
to read it either as you are doing (only the 8th galgal) or as I'd like
to if I could (only galgalim 1-7).


> (3:8 is scientifically wrong about the size of stars in comparison to
> the sun, BTW.)

So the astronomers tell us.  At least if we don't adopt the reading I
suggested above, that he means only the first seven galgalim.  But I
really don't think we can read it that way, so we're left with a
contradiction between the Rambam and the astronomers, which we can each
resolve however we think best.  But we can't distort his words to suit

On 28/08/2011 2:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> The spheres, not the moon, planets or stars.

>> >  No.  Look, there is no room for argument, he says it explicitly.  If
>> >  your argument depends on the opposite, then your argumment is utterly
>> >  refuted before it even starts.

> He says the galgalim have intellects, including the galgal of the
> moon. "Kol hakokhavim vegalgalim kulam ba'alei nefesh vede'ah vehaskeil
> heim..." (YhT 3:9) The galgalim are transparent spheres "hamaqifin
> es ha'olam kulo, hein agulin hadur, veha'aretz tzeluyah ba'emtzah"
> (YhT 3:4). That's not the moon, that's a solid object representing the
> orbit of the moon.

Excuse me?  How could you possibly have missed the word "hakochavim"
when you just typed it in yourself?!  *Kol hakochavim vehagalgalim*.
How could it be more explicit?


> What he says explicitly is what I wrote.

No, it is explicitly the opposite of what you wrote.  I am flabbergasted
that you could type in the very words, and then claim they say the exact
opposite of what they say!  Is this some sort of joke?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

>  The Rambam doesn't actually say the moon has an intellect.
> RZS: Yes, he does.  Explicitly.*All*  the stars*and*  spheres are intelligent,
> and they're all more intelligent than humans.

RZSero is correct: Hilchos Y'sodei HaTorah 3:9:

"All the stars and the spheres are baalei nefesh v'deah v'haskel, and 
they are living beings, and stand and recognize Mi Sheh-amar V'haya 
HaOlom. Each one,  in accordance with its greatness and level, laud and 
praise the One Who formed them, just as the angels do...and the daas of 
the kochavim and the galgalim is less than the daas of the melachim, but 
greater than the daas of bnei adam."

It should be noted that although the Rambam found scriptural support for 
this from "The heavens proclaim the Almi-ty's glory," Rav Saadia Gaon 
before him dismissed such a literal understanding of this verse (Emumos 
V'Dei'os 2:10).

Zvi Lampel

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 10:45:12AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 28/08/2011 2:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Obviously, the Yad doesn't contradict a recurring theme in the Moreh.

> How about "Obviously the Moreh doesn't contradict the Yad"?  If there is
> any difference, then the Yad is primary, so where the Yad is clear why
> should I look in the Moreh?

Because if they look to you (sortof, you didn't actually look) like
they contradict, that means you didn't understand the Yad!

>> Your refusal to consult the sources doesn't deminish their evidence,
>> just your ability to hold "a high level Torah discussion."

> I'm arguing exclusively from the Yad; I don't really care what is written
> in some other place.

Well, if you're actively choosing ignorance, I really can't help.

>> What the Rambam says in the Yad is that Hashem causes the motion of the
>> spheres -- but indirectly.

> That's not what he says.  If it's indirect then what kind of proof is it
> that He exists?  If the galgal can move itself then what need has it for
> a Mover?  The proof only makes sense if he is saying that the galgal does
> *not* move itself, and therefore Someone must be moving it.

I showed you where he clearly says he means something else. G-d moves A,
which moves B, which .... which moves the outermost galgal, which moves...

And that's how this is relevent:
>> The causal chain of mal'akhim described in
>> YhT 2:3-8 is continued at the galgalim and kokhavim in 3:9.

> Yes, I don't see how it's relevant.

I hope the above helped, but since you're trying to understand the Yad
without studying the Rambam's machashavah as the Aristotilian physics
he tells you it's based on, I am not optimistic.

>> It's clear from 3:8 that kokhavim here means stars, not the planets
>> and moon.

> On the contrary, it reads better if we were somehow to suppose that he
> is *excluding* the stars in the eighth galgal!  Then the statement about
> nothing being bigger than the sun or smaller than mercury would be
> easily understood....

He tells you what he is talking about, the tiny twinkling things in the
sky at night.

...
> Excuse me?  How could you possibly have missed the word "hakochavim"
> when you just typed it in yourself?!  *Kol hakochavim vehagalgalim*.
> How could it be more explicit?

That's stars, as per above, not the moon. When you speak of the stars
and the things in the other galgalim, you mean stars, not astronomical
bodies as a whole.

But I'm done. You literally said you're trying to understand the Rambam
without learning him. You're reading 1% of the material and spinning it
to boot.

Bottom line: According to the Rambam, the galgalim and stars have
intellect. It's not the moon, it's the moon's galgal -- something that
has no place in contemporary astronomy. He needs the galgalim to have
intellects because they move perpetually. We don't. There is no reason to
believe the Rambam himself, with his attitude toward Torah and science,
would tell us to continue accepting his position.

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

On 8/28/2011 11:55 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 10:45:12AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 28/08/2011 2:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> Obviously, the Yad doesn't contradict a recurring theme in the Moreh.
>
>> How about "Obviously the Moreh doesn't contradict the Yad"?  If there is
>> any difference, then the Yad is primary, so where the Yad is clear why
>> should I look in the Moreh?
>
> Because if they look to you (sortof, you didn't actually look) like
> they contradict, that means you didn't understand the Yad!

Well, no.  That's actually completely backwards.  For example, there's 
no end of people who maintain that the Rambam says there won't be 
korbanot in Bayit Shelishi, based on their reading of the Moreh.  But 
it's clear from the Yad that this is not the case.  That the Rambam 
absolutely says there will be korbanot.  Otherwise, he wouldn't bring 
their halakhhot.

But since there are no transparent spheres in which the planets and the 
moon are lodged, the Rambam is obviously in error here.  I don't see why 
we need to accept the idea that the planets *or* spheres are sentient, 
let alone sapient.

Lisa


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 178
***************************************

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..."