Volume 33: Number 32
Fri, 27 Feb 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:06:24 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:54:32PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Not if there is one future *which we can change*.
What does change mean?
That the state was X at time t[0], and Y at time t[1]. In order to
change a moment, you would have to have a meta time, kind of like saying
the state was X at time t[1][0], and Y at time t[1][1]. And if we have
multiple versions of t[1], we're back to my rebbe-chaver RJL's suggestion
that the medrash requires multi-universe theory.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:49:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On 02/26/2015 02:33 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> : The second luchos had the exact same text as the first.
>
> First, that depends on how we resolve Shamor veZakhos.
How so? It doesn't matter how we resolve it, whatever was on the first set
was on the second set. There is no possible doubt or machlokes about that.
> The second luchos were only "vayehi sham im H' 40 yom ve40
> laylah... vayikhtov al haluchos eis diverei haberis aseres hadevarim"
> (Shemos 34:28) and "kemikhtav harishon, eis aseres hadevarim." (Devarim
> 10:4)
Exactly: Kamichtav harishon. QED.
> Notice that Shemos implies that the second luchos were written by
> Moshe, not HQBH.
What!? Where does it imply that?! The Torah says explicitly that Hashem
wrote the second luchos. How can you see an implication otherwise?
What could possibly make you think the subject of "vayichtov" is Moshe,
when Hashem said He would write them?
> This is then connected to the Yalqut (#392) which distinguishes between
> the luchos in that the first were "maasei E-lokim heimah" (Shemos 32:16)
> and seen from both sides (v 15). The second luchos were hewn by Moshe
Yes, this is well known. What has it got to do with the writing? The Torah is
very clear that Moshe took some physical stones (Rashi specifies sapphires),
carved blank luchos out of them, and took them up for Hashem to write on
them an *exact copy* of what He had written on the first luchos.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:53:16 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
On 02/26/2015 02:27 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> Yet apparently the people in Canaan spoke the same language that
> Avraham did,
What makes us think so?
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Simon Montagu
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:55:07 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> On 02/24/2015 05:04 PM, Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:
>
>> the Hebrew-speaking Canaanites who invented the alphabet, but they spoke
>> the same language that our ancestors did, because our ancestors
>> learned it from them
>>
>
> They did no such thing. The Kenaanim were Bnei Cham, and thus did not
> speak Leshon Hakodesh (or any Semitic language).
I don't see how that follows. The Hittim were also B'nei Ham, but the
Hittite language is Indo-European. Romanians are Slavs, but speak a Romance
language.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150226/7c9ff825/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:25:14 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:03:17PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
:: How so? It doesn't matter how we resolve it, whatever was on the first set
:: was on the second set. There is no possible doubt or machlokes about that.
: See the Ramban on Yisro 20:8 -- both were in the first luchos, and
: the second contained only zakhor.
R Yaakov Kaminecki was medayeiq from Rihal's zemirah "Yom Shabbason" --
"zehirin leshomero avos ubanim, chaquq bishnei luchos avanim" that R'
Yehudah haLevi held that both read "shamor". Similarly he mentioned in
Shacharis we say "ushnei luchos avanim horid beyado, vekhasuv bahem
shemiras Shabbos". So it implies both said shamor, whether alone or
along with zakhor.
The Ramban's opinion is consistent with the Beis haLevi's. The shamor
version of the 10 diberos flew up to heaven before the luchos were
broken, and so Moshe was commanded only to reproduce zakhor.
However, Rashi Devarim 5:12 d"h "shamor" quotes the Mekhilta which says
zakhor was one the first luchos, and shamor on the second.
Last, but far from least, BQ 54b-55a discusses why the first diberos do
not contain the word "tov", but the second diberos did.
R' Shmubal bar Nachum says it's because "ho'il vesofan lehishbaer".
And R' Ashi adds, "ch"v pasqah Tovah miYisrael".
So this gemara implies that the first diberos (w/ "zakhor") were on the
first luchos, and the second diberos (shamor) on the second. The same
as the Mekhilta quoted by Rashi.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger There's only one corner of the universe
mi...@aishdas.org you can be certain of improving,
http://www.aishdas.org and that's your own self.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Aldous Huxley
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:27:41 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:16:08PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >That the state was X at time t[0], and Y at time t[1]. In order to
: >change a moment, you would have to have a meta time, kind of like saying
: >the state was X at time t[1][0], and Y at time t[1][1]. And if we have
: >multiple versions of t[1], we're back to my rebbe-chaver RJL's suggestion
: >that the medrash requires multi-universe theory.
:
: Not so. Multi-universe theory is of course one possible way to see this,
: but I'm suggesting another possibility: A single future that is fixed
: at any given moment, but can be changed to some other form...
If the future changes, in what dimension does it evolve? Time?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:16:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?
On 02/26/2015 03:06 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:54:32PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Not if there is one future *which we can change*.
>
> What does change mean?
>
> That the state was X at time t[0], and Y at time t[1]. In order to
> change a moment, you would have to have a meta time, kind of like saying
> the state was X at time t[1][0], and Y at time t[1][1]. And if we have
> multiple versions of t[1], we're back to my rebbe-chaver RJL's suggestion
> that the medrash requires multi-universe theory.
Not so. Multi-universe theory is of course one possible way to see this,
but I'm suggesting another possibility: A single future that is fixed
at any given moment, but can be changed to some other form. Perhaps
right now the future is that the twig I'm looking at will grow leaves
in a few months, and then lose them a few months later, and that is the
only future that currently exists, but if I decide to pluck the twig
then that future will no longer exist, and another future will replace
it, one in which the twig is lying on the ground and turns into compost
and all those leaves never grow in the first place, but a seed falls into
that compost and grows into something else. These two possible futures
don't *have* to both exist simultaneously in some potential space;
especially in a determinist universe it could be that only one of them
exists at a time.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:08:48 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On 02/26/2015 03:03 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> : >Notice that Shemos implies that the second luchos were written by
> : >Moshe, not HQBH.
> :
> : What!? Where does it imply that?! The Torah says explicitly that Hashem
> : wrote the second luchos. How can you see an implication otherwise?
> : What could possibly make you think the subject of "vayichtov" is Moshe,
> : when Hashem said He would write them?
>
> Because the rest of the sentence is about someone being up on the mountain
> with H' and not eating. The subject of the sentence is Moshe.
I don't understand; Hashem said explicitly that He would write. Then
it says "vayichtov"; how can there be even a hava-amina that this implies
He didn't do what He said, when it can *just as easily* be read with
Hashem as the subject, doing exactly what He said He'd do?
> And besides, what about the Yalqut?
What about the Yalkut? It doesn't contradict the pasuk. It can't.
> : Yes, this is well known. What has it got to do with the writing? The Torah is
> : very clear that Moshe took some physical stones (Rashi specifies sapphires),
> : carved blank luchos out of them, and took them up for Hashem to write on
> : them an *exact copy* of what He had written on the first luchos.
>
> Actually, both pesol and kesivah. See the Yalqut.
No, *not* kesivah. I don't believe the Yalkut can possibly say otherwise.
It's impossible.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:31:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?
On 02/26/2015 03:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:16:08PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >That the state was X at time t[0], and Y at time t[1]. In order to
> : >change a moment, you would have to have a meta time, kind of like saying
> : >the state was X at time t[1][0], and Y at time t[1][1]. And if we have
> : >multiple versions of t[1], we're back to my rebbe-chaver RJL's suggestion
> : >that the medrash requires multi-universe theory.
> :
> : Not so. Multi-universe theory is of course one possible way to see this,
> : but I'm suggesting another possibility: A single future that is fixed
> : at any given moment, but can be changed to some other form...
>
> If the future changes, in what dimension does it evolve? Time?
The future can be seen as a property of the present. It has one shape at
any one time, but that shape can change. It's not what *actually will*
happen, it's a determinist *projection* from the current state of the
universe of what it will be at some future time.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:34:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:31:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >If the future changes, in what dimension does it evolve? Time?
:
: The future can be seen as a property of the present. It has one shape at
: any one time, but that shape can change. It's not what *actually will*
: happen, it's a determinist *projection* from the current state of the
: universe of what it will be at some future time.
So you're saying Moshe saw a forecast, one that could change, and based
on assuming that no one else could change the future, he decided to act
on the *forecast* that the Mitri would never have a redeeming kid?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507 parts to offer. - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: via Avodah
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:44:08 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?
In a message dated 2/26/2015 3:34:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mi...@aishdas.org writes:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:31:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Not so. Multi-universe theory is of course one possible way to see
this,
> : but I'm suggesting another possibility: A single future that is fixed
> : at any given moment, but can be changed to some other form...
: >If the future changes, in what dimension does it evolve? Time?
:
: The future can be seen as a property of the present...
So you're saying Moshe saw a forecast, one that could change, and based
on assuming that no one else could change the future, he decided to act
on the *forecast* that the Mitri would never have a redeeming kid?
Micha Berger
>>>>>
Honestly I think you guys have gone from philosophy to science fiction.
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150226/cc2e3012/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:03:28 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Walls of the Beis haMikdash
A friend posted on facebook a picture of one of the many Corinthian Capitals
found at Har haBayis. (Translation, a top of a pillar that looks something
like this sample <http://j.mp/182Wlt0>
http://eagle.wbcoll.edu/
rfoster/index_files/I_J_Pics_files/Jerusalem_files/Temple_Mount_files/Corin
thian%20Capital.JPG
Josephus speaks about the Herodian version of the BHMQ having them.
I replied that these columns must have come from one of the azaros or
the rest of Har haBayis, since they're the wrong color. (See above
picture, the color is typical J-m stone.)
But the gemara (Sukkah 51b, BB4a) says the bayis itself was either built
of shaysha and marmara (Rabbah), or of kichla, shaysha and marmara.
For some reason, that's usually rendered blue, yellow and white
marble. However, shayish is usually white marble or alabaster -- white
either way. And marmara is still a used word, meaning "equater marble"
-- white with straight gray lines.
In any case, Herod originally made it textured in order to hold cement
and guilding, but the rabbanim of the time asked him not too. As it
was, it resembled the waves of the sea.
At this point in the FB conversation, my friend suggested the optical
illusion that would cause those "waves" to look like they're moving.
But it requires the walls be blue, white and yellow. See
http://www.opticaliillusions.com/Optical-Illusion-spinning-spirals.jpg
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:30:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?
On 02/26/2015 03:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:31:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >If the future changes, in what dimension does it evolve? Time?
> :
> : The future can be seen as a property of the present. It has one shape at
> : any one time, but that shape can change. It's not what *actually will*
> : happen, it's a determinist *projection* from the current state of the
> : universe of what it will be at some future time.
>
> So you're saying Moshe saw a forecast, one that could change, and based
> on assuming that no one else could change the future, he decided to act
> on the *forecast* that the Mitri would never have a redeeming kid?
I'm saying 1. That this is *one possible* model of time, an alternative
to the multiple universe model; 2. It's not at all necessary to suppose
that nobody else could have changed things, in fact this model supposes
that anyone could have changed it in any number of ways. If we were to
follow this model, we would say that Moshe's only concern was the future
that then existed, not any hypothetical future that someone might one day
have created.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 18:22:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On 02/26/2015 02:33 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> This is then connected to the Yalqut (#392) which distinguishes between
> the luchos in that the first were "maasei E-lokim heimah" (Shemos 32:16)
> and seen from both sides (v 15). The second luchos were hewn by Moshe
> "pesal lekha ... vekasavta al haluchos." (34:1)
On the contrary, #392 seems to emphasise that the two sets of luchos
were the same, even to the fact that the material for the second luchos
was not natural stone but was made by Hashem just like the material for
the first ones. The difference between them -- in who actually carved
them -- is discussed in #396 and #397. But these re-emphasise that
the writing on the second luchos was Hashem's.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: David Wacholder
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 00:03:38 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
Torah Shleima volume 22 page 125-127 discusses whether the Etzba Elokim
wrote the words on the Luchos Shniyos. Midrashim say that the Chet Ha?eigel
created a major crisis in the relationship of Hashem and the Bnei Yisrael.
Hashem was such an angry partner that the bride?s friends tore up the
Kesuba. When Hashem broke the Luchos on the 17 of Tamuz, only Moshe
Rabeinu?s intercession saved the situation. When the Luchos Shnios were
given, all agree that there was some keeping of distance, some coolness.
This ambivalence is expressed by contrasting the pre-Cheit closeness ? I
carried them on eagles? wings ? with the post-Cheit mixed emotions. Thus ?
Moshe you provide the stones. The specific text said that Hashem was not
overly excited to write the Luchos Shniyos, so either He wrote it the same
as First luchos with Etzba Elokim, or demonstratively had Moshe Rabeinu
participate in the writing. I was referring to Ana Nafsha-I kthavith
Yehabith as the first opinion, and the dissenting opinion Ana Notarikon
kthavith Yehabith ? I dictated the words to my scribe and signed my name on
it, a less enthusiastic endorsement. De facto there is lesser Midath Hadin
if the Scribe was assigned to copy it.
This would be an early version of Tanchuma.
The first two Dibros were heard directly by all of Klal Yisrael.
The Luchos were repeated in Parshas Va?Eschanan. Keeping the searing
experience of Har Sinai fresh is foundational to keeping the Torah. To that
end Moshe Rabeinu repeated it in Arvos Moav. The intent is that the Bnei
Yisrael continuously renew and experience Maamad Har Sinai.
Ramban Maharal and Ibn Ezra discuss Luchos Shniyos.
--
David Wacholder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150227/ed80516e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:05:45 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] majority rule
<<<<I always thought that the majority rule is directly connected to
"acharei rabim l'hatos". That doesn't answer the question of whose vote
gets counted, but "rabim" seems to clearly look at the quantity of voters,
not their brainpower.>>
From a shiur I heard today (summary) bt R. Avraham
According to Tosafot the machloket between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel was a
meta-argument whether one follows the majority of people or the majority of
brainpower.
By definition this can't be resolved and so there was a need for a "bat
kol".
One can explain this gemara either according to a pluralistic view or one
that says there is only one truth and both positions exist.
i.e. the gemara states that we pasken like Bet Hillel because they listened
to the other side.
Does this mean that both sides are right and we pasken like Bet Hillel as a
pragmatic way giving them credit for middot - or does it mean we pasken
like bet Hillel because they were right. Since they analyzed the other side
of the argument they were more likely to come to the truth.
Ramban and R Hai Gaon disagree whether even within a bet din one follows
the physical majority or else brainpower (in Hebrew the legs or the heads)
. We pasken like the Ramban that we follow a physical majority, i.e. a bet
din of 1 talmid chacham and 2 students, the two students can outvote the
teacher. Sometimes this is even correct because the students listen to the
teacher but reject his reasoning while the teacher ignores the students.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150227/9b950f8d/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
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.)