Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 206

Tue, 11 Oct 2011

• 1. Re: kosher switch (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Palm Fronds Harder to Find for Sukkot (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. Re: From the cRc regarding schach (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 4. Re: : Re: Brisker Chumeros and Shammuti Chumeros (Chana Luntz)
• 5. Re: Question for Gerim or those who teach them (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Succah Decorations That Were Made For Non Jewish Holidays (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: Succah Decorations That Were Made For Non Jewish Holidays (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Malachim & mistakes (hankman)
• 9. Tosafos's "Proof" of the Area of a Circle (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: rules (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Question for Gerim or those who teach them (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: rules (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: rules (Liron Kopinsky)
• 14. Re: Malachim & mistakes (hankman)
• 15. Re: Why we eat on erev YK? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: pairs and red (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: ribis and being elevated? (status??) (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: [Areivim] second day of yom tov (Micha Berger)
• 19. Re: When Was The World Created - When do we say Birchas HaChama (Micha Berger)

On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 12:01:23PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> At some point, the probability gets to be a small enough miut that it's
:> ignorable.

: Why?  If at any given point, you still have only a 50% chance of getting a
: head?  

If brushing one's hair is pesiq reishei for pulling hairs out, it's
not because we consider the odds of uprooting each hair as a separate
risk.

AIUI, the odds add up.

: > IOW, I don't think being goreim something that rov of the
: > time violates an issur is any more mutar than geramah of a vadai.
: 
: Well clearly there is such a concept - that is precisely the din of psik
: resha....

Only if pesiq reishei requires specifically a vadai, and not a ruba
deruba. Which is a rephrase of my earlier statement. How do you know that?

IOW, you're assuming that Mike the Headless Chicken disproves the idea
that actually cutting off a chicken's hard would be a pesiq reishei!

...
: The reality is that if this is your only option, you put up with things not
: working on shabbas as smoothly as they do on weekdays...

But it must work with enough reliability for my "sure enough" standard
to be met.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

R' DW:
RTK - I sympathize with your husband's situation, but having entered into an
agreement with customers in which he knowingly took on risk (despite his
having thought that the risk was small), what possible justification is
there for reneging on that agreement?
--------------------


that Chicago had this same problem, and the local poskim did allow the price
to be raised. Maybe R' HM could advise?

KT,
MYG

R' Dorron Katzin (quoting the CRC):
? The reeds are placed perpendicular to the schach support-beams rather than
parallel to the beams.? 
------------------


the support beams? Is it because of the shittah that a line of "light" all
across the sukkah makes it pasul - if so, then as long as there is anything
dividing it should be ok. Not to mention that lots of sukkahs don't have any
support beams...

KT,
MYG

I wrote:
> > Problem I am having with all of this is the explicit Rema in Orech
> > Chaim siman 596 si'if 1 "there are places which have the custom to
return
> and to
> > blow thirty blasts ... and after one has been yotze with this *shuv
> ain
> > l'tokeia od bechinam* 

...

And RZS replied:

> IMHO the "thirty extra kolot" doesn't mean davka thirty, but whatever
> the minhag is. 

The problem with that is that the Magen Avraham understands it as being
davka 30 "so as to make up the 100 blasts" something he quotes in the name
of the shla, as does the Mishna Brura.  In addition, the Darchei Moshe gives
a fuller explanation of the minhag yeshanim which is the source of the Rema,
and there he explicitly states that these are blowing are ?? ???? ???"? ?'
????? ??"? ?' ????? ???"? ?' ?????, ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????:
 
Ie it seems to me that the Rema etc have fixed the minhag at 30 (or in the
case of the Sephardim 31, given the extra teruah gedola that is mentioned in
the Shulchan Aruch there, but which the Mishna Brura rejects as not the
Ashkenazi minhag (note, it is on this one that the explanation is given
regarding confusing the Satan)).

But even were there to be a community where the minhag was some extra, that
is not what RMB and others on this list are describing.  What they are
describing is the baal tokeah doing extra blowings, that everybody agrees
have not been done except recently (ie minhag avoseinu they aren't) but
which are done to fulfil all possible rejected shitos, not to mention some
new Brisker combinations to combine shitos.

> Only after the local minhag has been fulfilled, and
> there are no more tekiot shel mitzvah, and now someone wants to blow
> just stam because he likes blowing, or because it's a seasonal sound,
> shelo leshem mitzvah klal, that is not allowed.

Part of the reason that I struggle with this as an explanation, is the
discussion of this shvus in rabbinic literature.  You see, the major place
this shvus is discussed is in relation to women.  And the classic
understanding, as per Tosphos, is the only reason why one is able to blow
for (or women can blow) on Rosh Hashana, is because of nachas ruach
d'nashim. And indeed, as I mentioned previously on this list the Baal HaItur
holds that men can't in fact blow for women after they have fulfilled their
obligation, and therefore they have to go and blow for eg sick women
*before* they hear in the shul.  The Rosh and the Tur disagree, but that is
either because they hold that nachas ruach d'nashim is enough to override
the shvus, or because they hold that, although women are patur from mitzvas
aseh shehazman graman, there is in essence a form of mitzvah if they do in
fact perform the mitzvah, and this is enough to overrule the shvus.  Note
that the distinction between these two opinions appears in the machlokus
between the Shagas Arieh and Rav Moshe Feinstein as to whether one is
permitted to take a shofar through a reshus harabbim d'orisa on Rosh Hashana
(obviously which is not shabbas) solely in order to blow for a woman.  The
Shagas Arieh holds no, it is one thing for nachas ruach d'nashim to push
aside a rabbinical shvus, as per Tosphos, but it is not enough to push aside
carrying through a reshus harabbim d'orisa.  RMF however holds that indeed
one can carry a shofar through reshus harabbim d'orisa (eg to a hospital)
just to blow for a woman, and that the minhag has always been this way, and
that the reason allowing this is that there is really a form of mitzvah
involved in performing mitzvos aseh shehazman graman for/by women even
though they are ptur from the Torah.

But nobody says, oh well, the minhag is for women to hear, therefore,
without other important concepts like nachas ruach d'nashim, or a genuine
form of mitzvah, we would just gaily ignore the shvus - despite the minhag
being widespread and very ancient, nothing like a mere local shul minhag.
> --
> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Regards

Chana

RZS writes:

> Behashgacha pratit as I read this there is a ger in the room with me,
> so I asked him.  He was taught to say all the brachot exactly as he
> would say them after.   As far as kiddush and havdalah, he would hear
> them from other people.


Thanks and for RYS's response later:
 
> Legufo shel inyan, I can see why you would have a question about birkot
> hamitzvot,

Yes, I agree that one is obvious and what started me off on this.

> but I don't understand why birchot hanehenin or shevach
> would even be a question; even if a nochri has no intention of converting,
> why should he not say brachot?  Surely he too is obligated to thank and
> praise Hashem for all the good that He does.

Well something in a recent teshuva of Rav Moshe I was reading on brochos
(Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim Chelek Shishi siman 2 - it is in the new volume of
teshuvos that have recently been published) seemed to suggest (not directly,
but indirectly) that it might be problematic.  The point being that if there
is no schar in a non Jew performing a mitzvah (leaving aside the 7 mitzvos
bnei noach and possibly a couple of others) which is one of the things he
discusses, and there are potential issues about assisting them performing
mitzvos that involve kedusha, it made me wonder what about saying HaShem's
name in a way that, because not required, would seem to suggest it is
l'vatala or lo l'zorech?  Ie it doesn't sound like, from the discussion,
that an absence of schar also necessarily means an absence of issur
(otherwise presumably a non Jew could go around saying the Shem HaMeforash
with impunity, not to mention the whole question of keeping shabbas).  So
while even if you say that a non Jew is obligated (or at least permitted) to
praise HaShem for all the good that He does, that doesn't have to be done
using shem and malchus (and surely in fact the only reason one would indeed
teach a non Jew to use that formulation is because of the need to practice
so that once he/she converts, he/she gets it right) so mightened the use of
shem and malchus beforehand, or at least the teaching of it, be violating an
issur?

My instinct was that nobody worried about this in practice - and I can see
the argument for a tzorech, ie chinuch, in the case of a potential convert
(but on the other hand, couldn't most of the problems be solved by saying
the brochos, including birchas hamitzvos, with their correct form but just
absent shem and malchus, and in reality the praise etc element would still
be there) so then I wondered.
> 
> --
> Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment

Regards

Chana

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=1089

If a decoration was manufactured specifically for a Non Jewish 
Holiday may one use it to decorate their Succah?  The Chassam Sofer 
(OC 42) says it is permissible since we hold that it is Hazmana 
B'Alma, merely preparation to use for the non Jewish purpose. Hazmona 
even for avodah zara does not make the item forbidden.  Additionally 
the sale of the item is considered a bitul or nullification of the 
intent of avodah zara.  Lastly it was not intended to be avodah zara 
or to serve the avodah zara, it is only decorative.

The Shevet Halevi (2:10) says that even if it is written on the box 
that it is made for the Non Jewish Holiday it is 
permissible.  Moreover he adds that since it was made by a machine 
and not a person, a machine cannot have intentions for avodah 
zara.  (Moadim L'Simcha)

While most poskim do not have any objections, the Halichos V'Hanhagos 
says that Rav Elyashiv holds it is a "Davar Michuar", it is ugly to 
bring these decorations into the Succah, although it does not say 
that he assurs.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/8788c7f1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:41:54AM -0400, Prof. Levine quoted from Revach:
> The Shevet Halevi (2:10) says that even if it is written on the box that 
> it is made for the Non Jewish Holiday it is permissible.  Moreover he 
> adds that since it was made by a machine and not a person, a machine 
> cannot have intentions for avodah zara.  (Moadim L'Simcha)

I'm wondering why the Moadim LeSimchah's statement is relevant. I thought
the only consecrations by a non-Jew to AZ that has any halachic chalos
is the AZ itself (for a Jew, it requires worship before we consider the
idol to be AZ) and taqroves. And a snowflake window decoration isn't an
offering to Yeishu.

This is saying that not only is it mutar if a person made the Xmas
decoration, but it wasn't even made by a person?

I also find it interesting that Revach didn't find a citation for saying
that the kinds of decorations we would use in a Sukkah are made for the
civil Xmas, not the original religious holiday. (You know, the holiday
the US allows within "church vs state" featuring the fat guy in a Coca
Cola uniform.) I could see arguing that the decoration is derekh Emori
rather than full-blown AZ.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RMB wrote:

While we're open to that amud, I'm more impressed with the proto-calculus
in the previous Tosafos, in their proof that the area of a circle is
pi * r ^ 2. (See also my hesped for R Dr Eliezer/Leon Ehrenpreis, where
I open describing my first-impression of REE -- his using this Tosafos
to open the teaching of calculus. I give the proof in English.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/08/r-dr-eliezer-ehrenpreis-zl.shtml>)

CM notes:

I too liked this ?proof.? I quoted the word proof, because part of the
detail is missing. We of course make the ?right? assumptions to fill out
the proof automatically since we know the answer. The piece of the proof
that is lacking (though of course true) is the assumption we all make that
the resulting hypotenuse of the triangle (after you cut and ?roll out? the
circle) is in fact a straight line forming the third edge of the triangle.
We need to prove that it in fact turns out to be a straight line and not
some other curve enclosing the area, leaving you without a triangle as
assumed by Tos. What needs to be added is that the length of all the
strings as you move inward to the apex are all 2*pi*r (or pi*r for the half
triangle) so that these lengths vary linearly and this is what guarantees
the fact that the ?hypotenuse? is actually a straight line as assumed and
not some other curve.

Kol Tuv veChag Sameach

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/1150778a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:06:25AM -0400, hankman wrote:
:> While we're open to that amud, I'm more impressed with the proto-calculus
:> in the previous Tosafos, in their proof that the area of a circle is
:> pi r ^ 2. (See also my hesped for R Dr Eliezer/Leon Ehrenpreis...

: I too liked this "proof." I quoted the word proof, because part of
: the detail is missing. ....                           The piece of the
: proof that is lacking (though of course true) is the assumption we all
: make that the resulting hypotenuse of the triangle (after you cut and
: "roll out" the circle) is in fact a straight line forming the third
: edge of the triangle. We need to prove that it in fact turns out to be
: a straight line and not some other curve enclosing the area...

And in fact, when it comes to ellipse this assumption is not true, and
the parallel "proof" would give you the wrong area for an ellipse.

The area of an ellipse is pi * a * b, where a and b are the two radii.
Not that when a = b, i.e. the ellipse is a circle, we have pi * r ^ 2.

But calculating the circumferance is a very complex thing.
(4 * a * E(sin(phi)), where a is the axis that runs through both focci
and the center, E is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind,
and phi is the angle of exxcentricity of the ellipse. And don't ask me
to translate all of that, because I can't.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 10/10/2011 4:00 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> are there rules of warfare in the torah other than
> not to cut down one's enemies trees?
> eg, sheva nations?
> do we give them the option to accept 7mbn?
> amalek?
> suicide pills? if one believes (high probability
> of torture?)
> torturing suspects (againn, if imminient danger
> is present??)

There are rules of warfare other than not cutting down fruit trees.  A 
book was published recently called Torat HaMelech which apparently deals 
with those subjects, many of which are far from politically correct.  
The book has not been translated into English, so far as I'm aware.

We don't know who the 7 nations are any more, because the Assyrians 
mixed up all the nations by transplanting entire populations hither and 
yon.  Rabbi Meir Kahane ztzvk'l wrote, based on the Abarvanel, that 
since the reason for the different laws regarding the 7 nations was 
because they honestly believed the land was theirs, and would therefore 
never give up on trying to get rid of us, that there might be grounds 
for applying the laws concerning the 7 nations to the Palestinian Arabs, 
albeit rabbinically.

Amalek.  It's an interesting question.  Is the mitzvah of eradicating 
Amalek a mitzvah on each Jew, or on all Jews as a nation?  And is the 
mitzvah to kill any individual Amalekite or only to wipe them out en masse?

Suicide is murder.  Not only does the possibility of torture not make it 
permissible, but to the best of my knowledge, even the certainty of 
torture doesn't.  Even if you're actually *being* tortured.

Torturing suspects, again, to the best of my knowledge, is not even 
mentioned halakhically.  It would come down to whether torture is 
effective, I suppose.  If you could save Jewish lives by torturing 
someone and you didn't do so because it offended someone's 
sensibilities, that would be a Very Bad Thing.  Even if you believe that 
torture doesn't result in usable information, I don't see any reason it 
would be forbidden halakhically, other than the possibility of a chillul 
Hashem.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/0aa7205a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/10/2011 1:00 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 10:19 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> When somebody is becoming a ger, ie in the period between having decided
>> to pursue conversion, and the actual mila/tevila, is one 
>> encouraged/taught to:
>>
>> a) Notsay brochos (while presumably being taught when to and what to say
>> in preparation for the occurrence of the conversion)?
>>
>> b) Say brochos without shem and malchus?
>>
>> c) Say brochosin their entirety(presumably mishum chinuch)?
>>
>> Is a distinction made between  brochos over mitzvos and other forms of
>> brocha (ie nehnin, shevach)?  How about matters such as Kiddush and
>> havdala?
>
> Behashgacha pratit as I read this there is a ger in the room with me,
> so I asked him.  He was taught to say all the brachot exactly as he
> would say them after.   As far as kiddush and havdalah, he would hear
> them from other people.
>
> Legufo shel inyan, I can see why you would have a question about birkot
> hamitzvot, but I don't understand why birchot hanehenin or shevach would
> even be a question; even if a nochri has no intention of converting, why
> should he not say brachot?  Surely he too is obligated to thank and
> praise Hashem for all the good that He does.

That doesn't mean the nusach would be the same, though.  Elokeinu means 
*our* God.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:24:53AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> There are rules of warfare other than not cutting down fruit trees.  A  
> book was published recently called Torat HaMelech which apparently deals  
> with those subjects, many of which are far from politically correct.   
> The book has not been translated into English, so far as I'm aware.

OTOH, there is another sefer, one that has the advantage of not being
R' Aharon Lichtenstein and the other RY and Ramim of YHE and numerous
other yeshivos hesder, which is available in print or as a free PDF 
hosted on Google Docs.

Given the heat it generated, the problem is far worse than PC-ness,
it's considered by these rabbanim to be halachically wrong in ways that
would have people killed.

Anyway, see <http://bit.ly/derechHamelech>, Derekh haMelekh by R'
Ariel Finkelstein, pgs 93-142 are a conscious rebuttal to Torat
haMelekh.

Both books focus on the halakhos of killing, rodef, non-combatants, etc...

More along the same lines as bal tashchis, there is the chiyuv to dig
latrines, the laws of eishes yefas to'ar. Can anyone think of more?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

>
> Even if you believe that torture doesn't result in usable information, I
> don't see any reason it would be forbidden halakhically, other than the
> possibility of a chillul Hashem.
>
> Lisa
>

Tzaar baalei chayim?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/446ecb10/attachment-0001.htm>

I minor addition to my previous post that I should have added in the first
place. Clearly the unraveling process from the circle with a cut down one
radius to the open triangle stretches the straight radius of length R to
the length of the hypotenuse. What guarantees that this stretching of the
areas of the circle does not also impose a curve on the previously straight
radius. The answer of course is is the linearity I pointed out in my
previous post.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111011/7d63c2a7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:03:53PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: But how does eating on the 9th serve "as if we fasted"?
: Or maybe more to the point, what are we supposed to be thinking about as we
: eat?

I think it should be considered an opportunity to practice eating in
order to live a life of avodas Hashem, rather than living to eat.

Through such practice, we would hopefully get to the point where we
can similarly sanctify the satisfaction of all our physical needs. Not
just sleeping, but sleeping in order to have the energy to do His
Will. Etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:59:25AM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: 1. why did peretz stick his hand out? (and more importantly, why did
: the midwives put a red string around his hand??)

Bekhorah, in both cases.

: 2. why red string by yericho (yehoshua)/
: why red string by azalzel??

And the red wool used in the sprinking of the parah adumah water.

: why red by marking bechorim for maaser???

And the parah adumah itself.

See Yeshaiayh 1:18.

Adom, the color of dam, related to the adamah, and the lowest color in
the rainbow, represents gashmius, according to RSRH. It's the counterpart
to tekheiles.

Thus the navi calls sin "adom".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:04:13PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RHB:
>> when the gemarra states that a few people are eleveated in status,  
>> (eg, king, etc) their sins are forgiven, what does this mean (eg what  
>> does it apply to?) dinei mamonis (if he charged a fellow jew ribis is he  
>> patur?) dinei shamayim? etc,
>
> I think it refers to habit....

Agreed, I just want to tie in REED's "nequdas habechirah" model for
thinking about the role of hergel to change one's soul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 03:28:16PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> "Hachaziku minhag avoseichem biydeichem" is the what, not the why.  The
>> letter told the Bavlim to keep doing what they had already been doing,
>> but the reason it gave was that perhaps due to future persecution they
>> would make a mistake in the cheshbon.

> Here's my problem with this.  There are a number of ways in which Yom  
> Tov Sheni is treated, l'halakha, as Safek Yom Tov.  But if we're doing  
> it as minhag avoteinu, and we *haven't* made a mistake due to  
> persecution, then it isn't a safek at all, is it?

It's a din derabbanan to preserve a minhag caused by the frequency of a
safeiq. Therefore, even when it's not a safeiq, /some/ of the dinim are
designed to require actions like those caused by the commemorated safeiq.

> And in truth, we don't really hold that it's Safek Yom Tov, otherwise,  
> the first day would be Safek Yom Tov as well....

OTOH, they couldn't legislate a weakening of the original deOraisa,
because it's a taqanah, not a gezeira, nor is it besheiv ve'al ta'aseh.

...
> My second problem is the idea of "minha avoteinu b'yadeinu" trumping  
> bracha l'lo tzorech and the like...

Why? We make berakhos on dinim derabbanan, and Ashk make berakhos on
minhagim.

This is only a problem in your hypothetical situation that we were still
in actual safeiq, and I thought you agreed it couldn't be reality.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:42:07PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: So, if the world is created on RH or on RCh Nissan, why is the timing of
: Bichas HaChama, apparently not synchronised with this benchmark?

The gemara's machloqes (RH 10b-11a) is between R' Yehoshua and R'
Eliezer, and the rule is to hold like R' Yehoshua -- the world was
created in Nissan.

Tosafos (RH 27a "keman matzlinan") has R' Tam saying that the world was
beMachashavah in Tishrei, and this is "zeh hayom techilas maasekha". This
is the beri'ah where "alah beMachashavah livros shenayim, ulevasof lo
nivra ela [adam] echad" (contrasting Gen 1 & 2, Eiruvin 18a). Then the
actual maaseh was in Nissan.

The words "hayom haras olam" could well mean that the gestation period
of a world is 6 months. "Haras olam" was in Tishrei, but the yelidah
was in Nissan.

Thinking as I type this it hits me... this implies that according to RT,
the sheishes yemei bereishis are beMachashavah, just like the "zakhar
unqeivah bara osam" that he holds was the "alah beMachashavah". This
could accord with the Rambam in the Moreh 2:30, which says the days are
6 steps of logical implications, not causality and time.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 206
***************************************

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..."