Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 27

Mon, 17 Feb 2014

• 1. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. 30 Adar I (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Time for the Deceased (was: Why does Moshe use logical...) (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Sephardiot Wearing Tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: When BD Errs, Who Brings the Sin Offering, (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: When BD Errs, Who Brings the Sin Offering, AKA, the MaHaRal that will not go away (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Time for the Deceased (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Postnup Parties Get Happily Married Orthodox (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: 30 Adar I (Micha Berger)
• 11. Would You Rather be a Master or Son (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 12. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Kenneth Miller)

On 2/13/2014 10:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:29:28PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> It's more like a blind person who doesn't know what color shirt I am
>>> wearing. Even if someone who did know the color told him what the color
>>> was, he still wouldn't know anything but a bunch of content-free words.
>> That's an issue of his knowledge.  Not of the reality.
> And the nimshal... Just as we knwo that if the blind man thinks he
> knows what he's talking about, he's wrong, we can also know that
> anything about physics-less time we think we understand is wrong.

You keep saying that, but you haven't given any reason for it. Plus, 
your analogy is off.  A blind man lacks the capacity to really get sight 
(assuming that he's blind from birth, of course).  Whereas you haven't 
established that we lack the capacity to understand what time is for the 
dead.  Just that lack the *knowledge*.  Perhaps we lack the capacity as 
well.  But that's not necessarily the case.

Furthermore, you haven't established that time for the deceased is 
"physics-less".  And unless you've been dead, I'm not sure how you would 
know.

> We know this much about the reality -- it's something we can't know.

No, we really don't know that at all.  You claim it.  We know this much 
about the reality -- it's something we *don't* know.  Not "can't", but 
"don't".

> Similarly, I am arguing that we can't in principle know how time
> works without space and the rest of physics. Thereofre, any
> theory that can be understood could be ruled out by that argument.

But your argument isn't based on anything but bald assertion.  You don't 
know enough about what time is after death to make such a claim.  You 
don't know what space is after death, either.  You assume there isn't 
any, but that's also a bald assertion.  I believe that if you had 
anything *but* bald assertions here, you would have produced them by now.

>>> We know that if times exists outside of physics, it's something as
>>> outside our experience as color for someone blind from birth.
>> I'm sorry, but that's not true.  It *could* be something outside of our
>> experience, but then again, maybe it isn't.  We don't know. Maybe we
>> *can't* know.  But that means that we also don't know if it's time
>> *exactly* as we know it.
> We know that the only time we've experienced is one with space, angled
> by our velocity, and curved by mass and energy.
<sigh> No, we do not know that either.  That's the current conjecture in 
physics.  It's a theory.  And it doesn't account for everything.  That's 
why scientists have had to conjecture dark matter and dark energy as 
well, both of which are defined as "something we can't detect, but which 
must be there in order to make the math work for our current model."


> We know that the dead
> soul doesn't inhabit space, doesn't have mass, and therefore has no
> velocity or energy either.

Not to be repetitively redundant, but no.  We do not know that the dead 
soul doesn't inhabit space.  My daughter is upstairs in her bedroom.  I 
can't see her from here.  But just because I can't see her in this room 
doesn't mean I can conclude that she isn't in a room.  You have no 
*idea* whether the dead soul inhabits space.  You may know it doesn't 
inhabit *this* space, but perhaps it inhabits space on the other side of 
a "curtain".

> I am focusing on the relativity bit of my argument, because I don't
> think you share Kantian postulates on which REED's position about time
> rests.

Boy howdy do I not.

> Not because relativity and time is more primary, but more likely to
> come to some kind of common language.
>
> (Kant proves
"You keeping using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it 
means."  I don't share Kant's axioms.  Which means that his "proofs", 
which are only proofs within his system, based on his axioms, are no 
more proven than his axioms are.

>
>>> And in fact, I didn't try to prove we don't know what time is, but that
>>> we can't. If the blind man thinks he knows what the color description
>>> means, he's wrong. We can rule out his misunderstanding.
>> Again, that's a personal judgment on your part...
> And despite the above, what's so bad with m posting my own beliefs about
> the answer to a raised question?

Nothing.  So long as you label them as your personal beliefs.  But I was 
under the impression that we didn't do that on the Avodah list. Was I 
mistaken?  I mean, it's your list, so the rules can be whatever you 
decide, but I thought that Avodah was for discussions with Torah 
sources.  And before you say it, just because REED is a Torah source 
doesn't mean that your metaphysical conjectures which riff off of him 
are citations of a Torah source.

But the biggest problem I see is that you keep using phrases like "We 
know" and the like, when we really don't.

> But it's more than "block time" too.
>> How do you know? ...
> Because block time is also a physics theory, describing the universe as
> a 4D sculpture that only seems to man to be a 3D movie because that's
> how our perception works.

I read Flatland, too.

>> Disagree.  We don't know anything of the sort.  There is a current
>> theory that space and time are related, but it's never been proven...
> Not proven? It's so well established, the fact is used in engineering.
> The GPS (SatNav) system has to adjust for the difference in rate of time
> between the sattelits and the receiver.

That may be consistent with the model of spacetime you're talking about, 
but it's consistent with other models as well.

> Before that, it was measured in space travel, seen in spectra of objects
> moving away from us (doppler shift), etc...

There are numerous theories about the cause of red shifts.  I agree that 
the consensus of the majority is that it's caused by objects moving away 
from us rapidly, but as you know, truth is not the result of a majority 
consensus.  At least not outside of the Sanhedrin.

Lisa

On the topic of time, as experienced by neshamos of dead people, R' Micha Berger wrote:

> But time can't flow for them in the way it does for us because we
> know that time-flow for us is intimately related to our being in
> space. And both REED and Kant agree that time's arrow is
> phenomenlogical, and not really part of the universe that's "out
> there". This idea that time is a single line at all, even beyond
> the subject of experiencing past-present-future says more about
> post-sin people than about time.
> But in any case, Einstein closed the door on the idea of applying
> our experience of time to metaphysics.

I object, first of all, to the mentioning of Rav Dessler and Immanuel Kant
in the same breath. I don't mind citing philosophers when they explain an
idea that would otherwise be difficult to understand. But to rely on them
for an understanding of HaShem's Realm? Where's the hava mina that their
guesses are any better than mine? Rav Dessler z"l can tap into mesora and
revelation; Kant cannot.

Einstein is worthless here too. When he teaches me about relativistic
effects, I believe it. Not because he tapped into revelation, but because
I'm confident that if I had the resources to build my own GPS system, it
would fail without incorporating relativity into its calculations. It's all
about experience. If I am able to replicate the scientist's experiments,
then I'll rely on him even if I don't actually do so.

But Einstein never said anything about what dead people experience. And if he did, it would be mere guesswork. 

> It's more like a blind person who doesn't know what color shirt I
> am wearing. Even if someone who did know the color told him what
> the color was, he still wouldn't know anything but a bunch of
> content-free words.
> We know that if times exists outside of physics, it's something as
> outside our experience as color for someone blind from birth.
> And in fact, I didn't try to prove we don't know what time is, but
> that we can't. If the blind man thinks he knows what the color
> description means, he's wrong. We can rule out his misunderstanding.

I think you're going too far. The neshama of a dead person is not a god,
chalila. It is a creation. We on earth cannot perceive or understand what
kind of existence the neshama experiences in shamayim, but I think it is
safe to say that shamayim is some sort of framework which is bound by
whatever rules Hashem chose to design. And I see no evidence that it is
impossible for those neshamos to experience sequential time the same way we
do.

> And the nimshal... Just as we know that if the blind man thinks he
> knows what he's talking about, he's wrong, we can also know that
> anything about physics-less time we think we understand is wrong.
> ...
> We know that the only time we've experienced is one with space,
> angled by our velocity, and curved by mass and energy. We know that
> the dead soul doesn't inhabit space, doesn't have mass, and
> therefore has no velocity or energy either.

Just because we don't interact with neshamos the same way that we interact
with physical bodies, that does not prove that they are totally outside the
realm of physics.

I often think of Rav Elya Lopian's comparison of tefillin to a radio: He
said that the same way that a radio can receive transmissions but only if
all the wires are intact, so too, tefillin are able to receive kedusha but
only if all the letters are properly written. I extrapolate on that, noting
that radio transmissions are very much a function of the physical world,
despite how intangible they are. We are totally unaware of the zillions of
radio waves going through our bodies at this very moment, each modulated on
its own frequency, and each capable of producing a crystal-clear output, if
only we had the proper equipment. So too, it is not beyond my belief to
consider the *possibility* that the kedusha which tefillin receives and/or
broadcasts, is a manifestation no less physical than radio, and that we
might be able to measure it if we only had the proper equipment.

Extending that extrapolation even further: Given that radio waves do exist
in this world, and kedusha waves *might* exist in this world, I see no
reason to rule out the *possibility* that neshamos exist in this world
also, and that they experience time the same way we do.

> I am focusing on the relativity bit of my argument, because I don't
> think you share Kantian postulates on which REED's position about
> time rests.

Yeah, you got that right. But if Rav Dessler based his thoughts on Kant's
postulates, then I'm willing to consider the possibility that I've been too
much of a hard-liner against such philosophers. Please enlighten me. What
did Kant say that Rav Dessler found so compelling? Is it something that I
might be able to find in Rav Dessler's writings?

> Kant believed that time is phenomenological, it is part of the
> world as humans experience it more than what is really out there.
> REED's position (MmE vol II pp 150-154, "Yemei Bereishis veYemai
> Olam", which I discuss at 
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/rav-desslers-approach-to-creation ) is
> less extreme, but he does consider linear time and time's arrow to
> be products of the human condition and time as we experience it is
> far short of the reality, a consequence of the cheit of the eitz
> hadaas. Adam's seeing the world min haqatzeh el haqatzeh refers to
> the ends of time.

I must confess that I wrote this entire post before looking at the
Aspaqlaria articles that you referenced. (Note to RLL: That's where he
explained the phrase "block time".) I do see that you put a lot of work
into it, and I plan to print it out and learn it over Shabbos. But at first
glance, it seems that he got his ideas from Ramban, Rambam and the Gemara,
and not from Kant. But I'll try to learn it more carefully over Shabbos.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

If someone dies on 30 of Adar I when is the yahrzeit in an ordinary year.
A similar question applies to born on 30 Adar I and when is the bar mitzvah

I have some seen some articles but none of them bring source.

Can anyone bring some posek who discusses the issue

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140214/23b08370/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:32:01PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> You keep saying that, but you haven't given any reason for it. Plus,  
> your analogy is off.  A blind man lacks the capacity to really get sight  
> (assuming that he's blind from birth, of course).  Whereas you haven't  
> established that we lack the capacity to understand what time is for the  
> dead...

Look at the mashal to the blind person. He doesn't know what site is,
and we're asking him to understand color. We don't know what existence in
olam haba is like, but we're going to make deductions based on assumptions
that their time is like ours?

> Furthermore, you haven't established that time for the deceased is  
> "physics-less".  And unless you've been dead, I'm not sure how you would  
> know.

Skipping ahead to a related quote:
> Not to be repetitively redundant, but no.  We do not know that the dead  
> soul doesn't inhabit space.  My daughter is upstairs in her bedroom.  I  
> can't see her from here...

I need to demonstate logically that olam haba (to speak Rambam; shamayim
in Ramban-speak) isn't a physical location?

Pretty much every rishon has done that. Not just for G-d, but for
mal'akhim and neshamos -- any thing that has no chomer. Yesodei haTorah
pereq 2. Also, much of the Moreh cheileq 1. The idea of physical location
without chomer would have been as unthinkable to the Rambam (or the
Kuzari, or the Ramban...) as my own assumption that the suggestion
wouldn't be on the table.

Jumping back to where I was:
>> We know that the only time we've experienced is one with space, angled
>> by our velocity, and curved by mass and energy.

> <sigh> No, we do not know that either.  That's the current conjecture in  
> physics.  It's a theory.

Fine, the experimental data is sufficient to make the point. Your GPS
works because your time moves at different rates (relative to others')
based on your velocity, acceleration and how much gravity you are subject
to (relative to theirs).

The fact that there is no one universal clock for all physical processes
is an experimental finding, regardless of the theory. And more data
pours in to confirm this point.

>> And despite the above, what's so bad with m posting my own beliefs about
>> the answer to a raised question?

> Nothing.  So long as you label them as your personal beliefs...

Well, the fact that is begins "From: Micha Berger" in the header tells
you that much. Anything I write is what I believe is true. I am not
going to pretend I believe it any less just because you don't share
my belief.

>> But it's more than "block time" too.

>>> How do you know? ...

>> Because block time is also a physics theory, describing the universe as
>> a 4D sculpture that only seems to man to be a 3D movie because that's
>> how our perception works.

> I read Flatland, too.

But you don't reply, you just acknowledge already knowing the
concept. (And Abbott doesn't discuss time in his exploration of more
dimensions.) Also, look at the work Paul Davies, a philosopher who has a
number of books (most on the popular level, on the nature of time. Most
famously "Time's Arrow". I think he coined the phrase "block time".

There is also a dispute fundamental to those in the field (proof: I've
heard of it :-) between "a-theory" in which the flow of time is logically
priory, and "b-theory" in which block time is. The debate is framed in
terms of truth of prepositions and tenses. See a discussion at
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TheBThe

>> Not proven? It's so well established, the fact is used in engineering.
>> The GPS (SatNav) system has to adjust for the difference in rate of time
>> between the sattelits and the receiver.

> That may be consistent with the model of spacetime you're talking about,  
> but it's consistent with other models as well.

But all of them require linking time to concepts that require both
chomer and space. Because that's the data, not the model.

> There are numerous theories about the cause of red shifts.  I agree that  
> the consensus of the majority is that it's caused by objects moving away  
> from us rapidly, but as you know, truth is not the result of a majority  
> consensus.  At least not outside of the Sanhedrin.

... because the Sanhedrin determins law, not Truth. <grin++>


On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 01:50:11PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: > But time can't flow for them in the way it does for us because we
: > know that time-flow for us is intimately related to our being in
: > space. And both REED and Kant agree that time's arrow is
: > phenomenlogical, and not really part of the universe that's "out
: > there". This idea that time is a single line at all, even beyond
: > the subject of experiencing past-present-future says more about
: > post-sin people than about time.
: > But in any case, Einstein closed the door on the idea of applying
: > our experience of time to metaphysics.

: I object, first of all, to the mentioning of Rav Dessler and Immanuel
: Kant in the same breath. I don't mind citing philosophers when they
: explain an idea that would otherwise be difficult to understand. But to
: rely on them for an understanding of HaShem's Realm? Where's the hava
: mina that their guesses are any better than mine? Rav Dessler z"l can
: tap into mesora and revelation; Kant cannot.

But REED is tapping into Kant! He mentions in one of his maamarim on time
not this one, in late cheileq 1) that he is basing himself on a German
philosopher, and R Aryeh Carmell (the meivi la'or) names Kant specificly.

I therefore feel justified in lumping the two together, if R Dessler's
shitah is a conscious variant on Kant's theme.

BTW, do you object when people deduce the Rambam's meaning by clarifying
the point in Aristotle he is basing himself on? What if it's not a guess,
but the Rambam informs you he is using Greek philosophy for this particular
issue?

: Einstein is worthless here too. When he teaches me about relativistic
: effects, I believe it. Not because he tapped into revelation, but because
: I'm confident that if I had the resources to build my own GPS system, it
: would fail without incorporating relativity into its calculations...

Which is all I'm using Kant and Einstein for. To show that descritions
of how time in the physical universe works in the opinion of those
philosophers and physicists I find compelling are specific to the
physical universe. That physical time can't have a close analog in
non-physical existence.

And indeed R' Dessler goes further and says that much of what we think
is physical time is actually post-eitz hadaas existential time!

(See for yourself: MmE vol II, "Yemei Vereishis viYmei Olam" pp 150-154,
tin particular the last section -- "Zeman: Qevi'as Mahuso". See if you
agree with my understanding.)

R' Dessler doesn't speak of after death, but in addition to Bereishis
1 and Adam qodem lacheit, he does cite (p 153-145) Niddah 30b, which
says that a baby before birth sees from the end of the world until its
[other] end. But when hes born, he enters the hiding caused by time,
the unity of creation speaking the Unity of the Creator is concealed,
and only the present seems real. In the world of action (olam haasiyah),
every moment is fixed by the action. Every moment following the Torah
adds some light to his mahus, and similarly ch"v in the reverse. Through
his free will [thus connecting this definition of the time to the one
in the opening of the lecture] he establishes his nature, thereby giving
a flow to time.

...
: I must confess that I wrote this entire post before looking at the
: Aspaqlaria articles that you referenced. (Note to RLL: That's where he
: explained the phrase "block time".) I do see that you put a lot of work
: into it, and I plan to print it out and learn it over Shabbos. But at
: first glance, it seems that he got his ideas from Ramban, Rambam and
: the Gemara, and not from Kant. But I'll try to learn it more carefully
: over Shabbos.

I would say that REED gave an explanation of the the gemara, the Ramban
and the Maharal (not the Rambam so much) using Kantian terminology.
As implied above, I don't see it too different than getting clarity on
Emunos veDei'os or the Moreh (or Yesodei haTorah) by studying Aristotle
to get /their/ philosophical framework. (The Rambam may not always
agree with Aristo, but he is definitely playing on Aristo's field.)

The essays I would start with are
vol I, pp 304-312
vol II, "Yemei Vereishis viYmei Olam" pp 150-154 (as above)
vol IV "Zeman veHishtalshulis) pg 113

(There arel also my takes at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/rav-desslers-approach-to-creation
.shtml
    (also as above)
http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/beshalach.pdf (REED on the Maharal on
    nissim)
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/rav-dessler-on-reality-and-perception )

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 10:24:43AM +0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: ie it is noteworthy that those tannaim who restricted or prevented women
: from performing mitzvos aseh shehazman grama (Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda)
: also had a much more limited definition of what such mitzvos were,
: excluding tephillin and tallis, while those who permitted them to generally
: perform mitzvos aseh shehazman grama had a more expansive definition.

I agree it is interesting. *Maybe* this is because none of the tannaim
would feel comfortable promoting a sevara that was too far from mai ama
devar. Since many women were indeed doing many of the MASG, the plausible
machloqes was only reshus vs chiyuv, not issur.

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 03:40:38PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: In the case of the Rema, while I have not seen anybody do a systematic
: study of the nature claimed by Rav Ovadiah for Maran, my sense is that
: there are many many more cases where Ashkenazi practice is against
: the Rema...

The nearest I can think of are the more traditional Yekkes, but they're
more using the Rama as a proxy for his rabbeim. Stil, their fealty to
the Maharil and Rama as Minhag Ashkenaz compares.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

R' Micha Berger cited:

> So, here's the Y-mi reference - Sanhedrin 11:3 (vilna 55b). It
> returns us to the data point of a zaqein mamrei.
> R' Zeira (FYI: R' Ze'ira, with an ayin, in Y-mi) says that a ZM
> is only chayav if he is horeh la'asos or he was horeh without
> mentioning la'asos or not, but then ve'asah.

I couldn't see the distinction, but then RMB brought:

> R' Hunah: is someone was melameid halakhah (as opposed to horeh)
> and afterwards a case came up -- do what he taught. But if he
> himself had such a case before teaching, then we do not follow
> what he said.

It sounds similar to how lawyers and judges don't like to give their
opinions on theoretical examples, but only on actual cases. Tell me if I'm
understanding Rav Hunah correctly:

If someone is teaching a shiur in practical halacha, this is not the same
as someone (even the same person) ruling on an actual case. If a teacher is
giving a shiur, he is talking only in general terms. It is the
responsibility of the listener to apply that knowledge to cases that he
might encounter, and the teacher is relieved of any responsibility for any
mis-application that arises. For example, if the teacher teaches that "In
such-and-such a case, the halacha is this," then he is exempt from any
possibility of being a Zaken Mamre, even if students act on what he taught.

However, if someone is actually paskening a specific case, and someone acts
upon that psak, this is the case where the posek could be subject to the
halachos of Zaken Mamre. In such a case, the listener is relieved of any
responsibility for his actions, and (I suppose) is even forbidden from
exercising any personal judgment of the situation; his only responsibility
is to follow the posek's psak. This fits nicely into my understanding of
Tziv'os Hashem, and how we *must* follow the General's orders as relayed to
us by the captains (the poskim).

If the above is correct, then it has important implications for the concept
of "Daas Torah" nowadays, as it is popularly understood: Even if someone
considers the psak of a gadol to be binding (despite the lack of Real
Semicha), it is my responsibility to be sure that the situation in front of
me is indeed the one that the gadol paskened on. If the gadol was merely
teaching his views on the situation, then he isn't subject to Zaken Mamre,
and the listener cannot defend himself that he was "just following orders",
because there weren't any orders to follow, and the soldier may have
mis-applied the general ideas to the specific situation.

Is this what Rav Hunah is saying?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Best Dividend Stocks 2014
Six solid dividend stocks to give your portfolio an income boost.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52fe2ea31aa062ea20b2dst03vuc

RMB:

<<The Penei Mosheh says this if because he is nogei'ah bedavar. Someone 
cannot pasqen on his own case. If the person is himself involved, it's 
not a real pesaq. Only if he is teaching others does limud rise to the 
level of hora'ah both in terms of authority and if that authority is 
abused -- zaqein mamrei.>>

How does this fit with Pesahim 100a "lo zazu misham ad shekavu halacha 
k'r' Yosi"?

David Riceman

On 2/14/2014 11:22 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:32:01PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> You keep saying that, but you haven't given any reason for it. Plus,
>> your analogy is off.  A blind man lacks the capacity to really get sight
>> (assuming that he's blind from birth, of course).  Whereas you haven't
>> established that we lack the capacity to understand what time is for the
>> dead...
> Look at the mashal to the blind person. He doesn't know what site is,
> and we're asking him to understand color. We don't know what existence in
> olam haba is like, but we're going to make deductions based on assumptions
> that their time is like ours?

Of course not.  But we *are* going to acknowledge that it might be.

>> Furthermore, you haven't established that time for the deceased is
>> "physics-less".  And unless you've been dead, I'm not sure how you would
>> know.
> Skipping ahead to a related quote:
>> Not to be repetitively redundant, but no.  We do not know that the dead
>> soul doesn't inhabit space.  My daughter is upstairs in her bedroom.  I
>> can't see her from here...
> I need to demonstate logically that olam haba (to speak Rambam; shamayim
> in Ramban-speak) isn't a physical location?

As R' Akiva said in his email, "I think it is safe to say that shamayim 
is some sort of framework which is bound by whatever rules Hashem chose 
to design."  I think it's a little presumptuous to assume things about 
that framework, including insisting that it must be different from ours 
in *every* way.

> Pretty much every rishon has done that. Not just for G-d, but for
> mal'akhim and neshamos -- any thing that has no chomer. Yesodei haTorah
> pereq 2. Also, much of the Moreh cheileq 1. The idea of physical location
> without chomer would have been as unthinkable to the Rambam (or the
> Kuzari, or the Ramban...) as my own assumption that the suggestion
> wouldn't be on the table.

I think my problem is with the concept of "unthinkable".  It's clearly 
thinkable.  Relativity was unknown to the Rambam, but it surely wasn't 
"unthinkable".  If I could get into a time machine and go back to meet 
him, I bet I could explain it to him fairly easily.

>>> And despite the above, what's so bad with m posting my own beliefs about
>>> the answer to a raised question?
>> Nothing.  So long as you label them as your personal beliefs...
> Well, the fact that is begins "From: Micha Berger" in the header tells
> you that much. Anything I write is what I believe is true. I am not
> going to pretend I believe it any less just because you don't share
> my belief.

And my saying that it's not the case is equally acceptable, since it 
begins with "From: Lisa Liel".  Right?

>> But it's more than "block time" too.
>>>> How do you know? ...
>>> Because block time is also a physics theory, describing the universe as
>>> a 4D sculpture that only seems to man to be a 3D movie because that's
>>> how our perception works.
>> I read Flatland, too.
> But you don't reply, you just acknowledge already knowing the
> concept.

And I've since then read your article in Aspaqlaria (thanks to Akiva).  
Paul Davies is one person.

> There is also a dispute fundamental to those in the field (proof: I've
> heard of it :-) between "a-theory" in which the flow of time is logically
> priory, and "b-theory" in which block time is. The debate is framed in
> terms of truth of prepositions and tenses. See a discussion at
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#TheBThe

We're still disagreeing about the meaning of the word "proof", I see.

>
>>> Not proven? It's so well established, the fact is used in engineering.
>>> The GPS (SatNav) system has to adjust for the difference in rate of time
>>> between the sattelits and the receiver.
>> That may be consistent with the model of spacetime you're talking about,
>> but it's consistent with other models as well.
> But all of them require linking time to concepts that require both
> chomer and space. Because that's the data, not the model.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V20NO1PDF/V20N1BUE.pdf

No, it's one conclusion.  Even General and Special Relativity aren't 
without detractors in the physics community.  But they're swimming 
against a dominant paradigm, so you don't hear a lot about it.

>
>> There are numerous theories about the cause of red shifts.  I agree that
>> the consensus of the majority is that it's caused by objects moving away
>> from us rapidly, but as you know, truth is not the result of a majority
>> consensus.  At least not outside of the Sanhedrin.
> ... because the Sanhedrin determins law, not Truth. <grin++>

Disagree. ;)

Lisa

Redirecting to Avodah to pre-empt the Areivim moderators claiming there is
too much Torah content:

RSZ on Areivim wrote referring to a case of the Fink or Swim blog about a
woman whose husband and parents conspired to keep his multiple sclerosis
diagnosis from his wife from before the marriage and for two years or so
after (he went and had shots at his parents) and where I commented that it
seemed from what Rav Fink said almost like a textbook case of mekach taus:

>> Surely any beis din can make this psak, just like in any case where news
>> of an agunah's husband's death arrives.  But there is one thing that may
>> prevent such a psak, and would have prevented ROY or RMF from issuing one
>> too.  According to Fink or Swim, after she found out about the fraud there
>> was "a period of attempted reconciliation".  If that means what I think it
>> means, then surely it constitutes a retroactive acceptance of the marriage's
>> validity (gamrah da`tah), and now she needs a get.


And I replied

> I wouldn't have thought so. If you buy a widget and it turns out that 
> it is completely different from what it was billed as being, you might 
> spend a period of time trying to work out if you can find a use for it 
> in its current form before deciding that you cannot without 
> invalidating the mechach taus. I would agree that if she had then 
> lived happily with him for a period of time after learning the truth, 
> that would be different, but there is no suggestion of that, just that 
> she then took the time to work out whether or not he was indeed "fit 
> for purpose" before concluding he was not.

And RSZ further replied

> The difference is "ein adam oseh be'ilaso be'ilas znus", which surely
> applies in even greater measure to a woman. So if there were relations,
> then we must assume that, knowing the truth about >him, she nevertheless
> consented to be his wife. In addition, we have the general presumption
> of "tav lemeitav tan du",

I don't think you can have it both ways. Either "ein adam oseh be'ilaso
be'ilas znus" or "tav lemeitav tan du". - A "tan du" woman, as the
gemora makes explicit both in Yevamos 118b and Kesuvos 75a quite happily
commits adultery (that is, as per the gemora, how she deals with the
incompatibility problem - ie she has the man in question as a husband
and she also has a lover to deal with her physical needs). If so,
then such a woman is not going to worry merely about znus.

For those who want the relevant wording, here it is - from Yevamos 118b,
but Kesuvos 75 is virtually identical:

?? ???, ???? ??? ????: ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????. ???? ???: ????????
????, ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??. ?? ??? ???: ????? ????, ????? ????? ???
??????. ?? ??? ????: ?????? ????, ?? ???? ????? ??????. ???: ????? ?????
?????? ???????.

Come and hear, that Resh Lakish says: tav l'mesiv tan due milmetav armelu
[it is better to live as two bodies than alone]. Abaya says: that even
if her husband is the size of an ant a woman still takes her seat among
free (chosuva) women. Rav Papa says, even if her husband works with the
flax /guards vegetables [ie not choshuv work] she is not embarrassed to
call him over the threshold of the home and sit next to him, and if he
is ugly/comes from a tainted family she doesn't even require lentils in
her pot, and it was learnt in a braisa, all of the forementioned (kulan)
are mezana [commit adultery], and they hang them [ie the children of
those illicit relationships] on their husbands.

Ie as Rashi makes explicit (if it wasn't already) on Kesubos 75a that
part of the reason for such a woman being prepared to do this is because
they can then have illicit relationships and pass the mamzerim off as
the children of their husbands. Here's the Rashi in full:

????? ????? ?????? ??????? - ?? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???
?????? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? [???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???
?????? ??????].

that bedieved women will settle for husbands they would never have agreed
to lechatchila, so a woman claiming mekach ta'us has a higher-than-usual
burden.

In this case, the ta'us is so great, and the man's active conspiracy with
his parents to hide it, showing conscious of the fraud's seriousness,
is so blatant, that this presumption should >surely be overcome --
if she left immediately. But once she knew and returned to him anyway,
perhaps we say "ah, that's tav lemeitav for you, a man would have walked
away and never looked >back".

So question: based on teh tan du gemoros and Rashi - why indeed
should her having relations with him have any bearing on the matter at
all? "Returned to him" (assuming that is what she did) could of course
mean a number of different things - it could be that they went on to
present a united front as husband and wife, which might relate to the
tan du assumption, but I think you are referring to having relations,
and the gemora that deals with tan due would seem to exclude that as a
consideration for tan du.

Regards
Chana

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:06:59PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If someone dies on 30 of Adar I when is the yahrzeit in an ordinary year.
: A similar question applies to born on 30 Adar I and when is the bar mitzvah

R' Willig discusses the case, with sources, in Purim to go 5771.
http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/Purim_To_Go_-_5771_Rabbi_Willig
.pdf
(last section)

I also suggest reading the prior section, on the bar mitzvah boy
born on the last day of a 29 day Kislev, but whose bar mitzvah year
has a 30th. The machloqes there seems relevant.

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

In any language idioms are interesting and often fascinating.  
Though they are figuratively understood, the literal meaning 
can be quite instructive. One of the common meanings of 
the word ba?al is master or husband. It is idiomatically used 
often in phrases such as ba?al t?filla, master of prayer,  
ba?al midot, master of good traits, ba?al habayit, master of the house. 
Another idiom we would all want applied to us is ben Torah, son of Torah 
or choson Torah, Bridegroom of the Torah. 
Now here is what is particularly noteworthy: Though ben Torah means someone 
who has mastered learning, the expression ba?al Torah is never
used. Ba?al Torah is not used because man is never the master 
of the Torah. At best, man can only become the son or bridegroom of the Torah.
The Law is forever his master!

Regarding the creative: never assume you're the master, only the student. Your audience will determine if you?re masterful. 
Don Roff   American Writer and Filmmaker  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140216/4964219f/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> REED's position (MmE vol II pp 150-154, "Yemei Bereishis veYemai
> Olam", which I discuss at
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/rav-desslers-approach-to-creation ) is
> less extreme, but he does consider linear time and time's arrow to
> be products of the human condition and time as we experience it is
> far short of the reality, a consequence of the cheit of the eitz
> hadaas. ...
>
> Notice that according to none of these ideas do we have any notion
> of what "time" would mean to a meis. So we should start by
> admitting we don't know what we're talking about.

In RMB's discussion that he linked to, he explains more fully:

> Rav Dessler opens by defining the nature of time-as-we-know-it. In
> the first two paragraph he establishes the connection between time
> and free will. The flow of past to future is that of desire to
> fulfillment.In the section ?Havchanas haZeman?, Rav Dessler points
> out that time passes as a function of the number of experiences we
> have. When we have more experiences, we have more opportunities
> for choice, for fulfilling desires.
>
> But while man?s choice now revolves around many issues, Adam qodem
> hacheit [AQH] had only one choice, and therefore didn?t have the
> same connection to the flow of time. [pg. 151] We can not
> understand what time was like to AQH.

It seems to me that three distinct ideas are being conflated here:

a) experiences
b) choices
c) choices between tov and ra

Before I go into detail, I'll quote directly from Rav Dessler. I'll use
Rabbi Aryeh Carmell's translation. Published by Feldheim, this section is
on pages 29-30 in the volume about the parshios. (Rabbi Carmell
transliterated the letter "ches" with a "h" having a horizontal line below
it; because that is not an option in this medium, I'm using a double-h:
"behhira")

(REED begins here)

The Perception Of Time

We perceive time in relation to the number of new sensations we experience.
The more experiences we undergo in a given period of time, the longer that
period feels. A year of childhood experiences seems, in memory, a lot
longer than a year later in life, because for a child everything is new and
he is constantly experiencing new sensations.

We have seen that desires and the satisfaction of desires form the content
of a person's life. For a person whose life is governed by the laws and
guidelines of the Torah, each of these cycles presents a separate
opportunity of behhira. For each occasion, a person has to choose whether,
how, and to what extent to satisfy his desire. For such a person, whose
life is guided by spiritual goals, free will ranges over a large number of
such points. His life, therefore, contains more novelty and is incomparably
richer than that of the materialist.

This is how things are today, when good and bad are mingled in our inner
life. It is our task, in all our actions and in all our thoughts, to
discern the good from the bad and to follow the good. This is the essence
of behhira, and our perception of time is determined by these constantly
recurring acts of behhira.

Before Adam's sin, the concept of behhira meant one point only. It was only
through this one point that new attainments could be evaluated and
registered. Apart from this one point, Adam's life consisted of devotion to
truth alone, in the knowledge that the truth was all that existed, as we
have explained at length in the two previous essays. We must note that such
peaceful attachments and blissful devekut had no connection with the
concepts of change and novelty. Consequently, Adam's perception of time was
meager, looking at it from our point of view. There was room for novelty
and change only in his one particular behhira point. It is clear that his
experience of time must have been completely different from our experience
of time today. We have no way of really understanding today the joy and
bliss Adam felt in his state of complete devekut.

(REED ends here)

I have trouble following his logic.

REED himself points out that time passes even more acutely for the child
than for the adult, and the reason is because everything is new. If so,
then decisions and free will are irrelevant. Time passes not because of
decision that are chosen, but because the surrounding environment has
changed. Applying this to our discussion of how and when a neshama might
have an aliya, I would imagine that if the neshama is aware of events in
this world, and is aware of them in a sequential manner, this establishes
an experiential reality to the flow of time.

But for some reason, REED feels that experiences alone are not enough. He
must also exercize choice, and even choice is insufficient - For time to be
perceived, there must be a choice between tov and ra. Why should this be?

Adam Harishon made plenty of choices before eating from the tree: Hashem
brought every animal and every bird to Adam, and he named each one, but he
did not find anything correponding to himself. (Bereshis 2:19-20) Imagine
how many species there were! This could not have been a thoughtless
process. Rashi tells us that Adam reported the results of his investigation
to Hashem, but the words of the Torah itself - "v'lo matza, he did not
find" - proves that there *was* an investigation. Adam, even before the
cheit was surely a thoughtful person who did experience time.

Perhaps it is not a yes/no question. REED concludes that "Adam's perception
of time was meager." "Meager", meaning less than ours, but still not zero.
This is because, as REED sees it, we have many opportunities for bechira,
whereas Adam had one and only one. In contrast, I imagine that RMB would
point out that the neshama of a meis, has no opportunity for bechira
whatsoever, and therefore has no perception of time whatsoever, not even a
"meager" one.

Another section which RMB referred to appears on page 34.

(REED begins here)

It is the task of every human being to grasp these opportunities and take
the divine influences into his soul. Every moment in his life has the power
to influence him in important ways. A person likes to believe that time has
nothing to do with his inner self and effects no changes. He thinks his ego
is fixed and never changes, and that time simply passes over him. But this
concept is wrong. Our sages have stated in the Talmud that during the nine
months before someone's birth, he is able to see from one end of the world
to the other. The meaning is that he is given the ability to see everything
from the perspective of the "end point." From this vantage point he
realizes that all the manifold events in the world are one; they all exist
for the sole purpose of revealing the glory of Hashem. When a person is
born, he enters into the restricted world of space and time. But in fact,
this latter state of consciousness reflects only the world of behhira, in
which every moment that 
 passes leaves its imprint on our lives, for good or for bad, according to our reaction to the challenges posed by that moment.

(REED ends here)

This is an entirely different explanation than that above. If an individual
(such as one who is not born yet) can see all events, past and future, that
would seem to rule out any ability to experience change, and thus no
ability to experience time. If this also applies to neshamos of the dead,
that would be very relevant to the questions of this thread. But that logic
has nothing to do with bechira.

Akiva Miller

(By the way, REED points out that because everything is new, children are
more aware of the passage of time than adults are. It seems to me that
there is something which makes us even *more* aware of the passage of time
than new experiences, and that is the *lack* of experiences. Boredom slows
time very much, and makes us very aware of how slow time is progressing. I
don't know how this might be relevant to the thread, though, and that's why
I left it for this footnote.)


____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/530188349163983421ecst03vuc


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 27
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)