Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 7

Fri, 22 Jan 2016

• 1. Re: How big was Og Melech Habashan? [was: takanot by chazal] (Marty Bluke)
• 2. ashkenazin and yerushalmi (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Halacha as a System and Deriving halachah for new situations (two subjects for the price of one!) (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Inifinite Value of Human Life (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Hezekiah seal (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Will the real Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha please stand up? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: ashkenazin and yerushalmi (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: free will (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Will the real Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha please stand up? (Zev Sero)
• 10. free will (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Will the real Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha please stand up? (Arie Folger)

R' Micha Berger wrote:
"The gemara, Berakhos 54a, requires making a berakhah on seeing the stone
Og lifted and attempted to throw on top of the Jewish People. Implying he
could pick up a stone comparable in size to the encampent in the Midbar,
3 parsa'os by 3 parsa'os.

And on the next amud (54b) we learn that Moshe was 10 amos high, held a
axe 10 amos long, jumped 10 amos high -- meaning a total height of some 30
amos (give or take Moshe's arm holding the axe) -- and he hit Og's *ankle*
taking him down. Something in the ballpark of 45 feet above the ground!"

The Chafetz Chaim (Orach Chaim 218) takes the first gemara quite literally.
However, the Maharsha comments on this story "zar hu" that the story is
bizarre. The Maharsha then proceeds to quote a Rashba who interpreted the
story allegorically and the Maharsha himself offers a different allegorical
interpretation.

On one of my trips to the US I bought a fascinating book called, The
Physics of Superheroes, which explains many of the basic principles of
physics using examples from comic book superheroes. One of the superheroes
that he discusses is Giant Man, his power being that he could increase his
size when needed. In his discussion in the book he points out that the size
that a person could grow to is limited by the strength of materials
(particularly bone) and gravity. A person's size is ultimately limited by
the cube square law as R' Micha pointed out and therefore based on the laws
of physics Og could not have been that big.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160119/fd53d9f9/attachment-0001.htm>

<<RRW introduced us to the idea/theory/shitah that the minhag and pesaq of
Ashk reflects the fact that more of benei EY ended up in Ashk (via Rome or
the greater Provence - Languedoc region). Whereas Seph is more exclusively
Babylonian, and therefore closer in practice to the Bavli and geonim.

And indeed Nusach Ashk, where it differs from Seph, most often matches
nusachos found in the Y-mi >>

In some parts of the tefilla Nusach ashkenaz reflects some ancient EY
versions.
However as a generality Prof. Chaim Soloveitchik strongly objects to much
influence of EY on Ashkenazi practice.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160120/48a2a47b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 7:56pm EST, R David Riceman wrote:
: 2a. Halacha is a "chronologically monotonic historical process" determined
: by God.

: This also can't be true. There are innumerable cases where later rishonim
: reject the opinions of earlier rishonim or even geonim because they
: conflict with the later rishon's construal of the gemara. It still
: happens, though my impression is less frequently, among aharonim.
: Certainly the biur haGra on SA does this occasionally.

: RMB associates this opinion with "Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and any other rishon
: we've discussed in dozens of prior iterations, except the Rambam".
: Again this can't be true because all of these reject some of their
: predecessors' opinions based on their reading of Hazal.

Actually, you are quoting me at a time when, as I said, I hadn't gotten
a handle on what was meant by monotonic.

Second, you have to distinguish between three sorts of rejection:

(1) X and Y were both proposed by predecessors and equally supported until
now, but I find X inferior to Y. This is consistent with monotonicity.

(2) Belief that X is wrong, not even within eilu va'eilu. This is actually
also consistent with monotonicity. We're saying the halachic process
heads in one direction, and that X was an error and doesn't even belong
within the process.

(3) Y is my own chiddush, but I still believe that the existing pesaq
of X is inferior to Y and should not be halakhah. This is clearly not
monotonic, as I am unwinding previous consensus even while saying that
the earlier pesaq is part of the process.

Now that I know what monoronic means, I would now say the reverse -- the
Rambam's halachic process is unique because he is the one who believes
halakhah is historically monotonic. There is no room in his "eilu va'eilu"
for ideas that don't fit his reading of the earlier source. He will
assume others were wrong, type-2 rejection, rather than type-3.

(Whether rishonim vs chazal, or even the Rambam's tendency to take a
liberal read of the gemara when the gemara takes a very non-literal read
of the mishnah. Thus trying to preserve the original.)

But because there is type-2 rejection, the effect is more subtle than
just rov rishonim reject predecessors' opinions and the Rambam won't.
The effect is actually reversed -- the Rambam's rejection ends up
more vehement.

And still there is power to precedent, there is some tendency toward
monoticity lekhol hadei'os. It's just a tendency, as there are other
factors that can outweigh precedent when actually using shiqul hadaas
to pasqen.


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:37pm EST, he continued:
: Halachists think in rubrics but vote in case law.  I cited the din
: that each member of the court must have a unique source to convict
: someone of a capital crime.

Very true, and I appreciate your making a point of it.

There is also my pet issue, which I hinted at above -- halachacists work
in tendencies, weighing pros and cons when it really is more like deciding
whether that apple is more red that that orange is orange, rather than
working in hard rules that are more amenable to algorithms. This is why
one needs shiqul hadaas (note the common use of a weighing metaphor),
exposure to how a poseiq thinks through shimush, and dare I use the word
-- being plugged in to mesorah.

Monotonicity would be a hard rule. Giving weight to precedent one
factor among many.

Case law is where the various rubrics meet and have to be weighed against
each other. And in different cases, even ones that seem similar prema
facae, the conflict may play out differently.

...
: One of the recurring themes in Tosafos is that minority opinions in
: Hazal are never discarded.  The rubrics are always viable.  The
: question is whether there's another way to construe any particular
: precedent so it doesn't contradict the current case.

Although, following consensus is itself also one of the rubrics.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:02:10PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
:> ... when you discussed saving chayei sha'ah on Shabbos, I believe
:> it was besheim R' Henkin that you said that human life has
:> infinite value. And therefore there is no less reason for chilul
:> Shabbos for chayei sha'ah than for chayei olam.
:> ...
:> Or do we mean lav davqa infinity, just "very very large"?
...
: "Infinity" MUST NOT be taken literally here. IT MUST mean "very very
: large". Nothing is infinite except Hashem. Finished. End of story.

Actually, it's not clear Hashem is infinite, as that would be a positive
attribute of G-d.

Aristo did not believe in the possibility of an actual infinity, a
completed set of infinite size. To him, "parallel lines meet at infinity"
and "parallel lines never meet" are the same thing. And "[a]s an example
of a potentially infinite series in respect to increase, one number can
always be added after another in the series that starts 1,2,3,... but the
process of adding more and more numbers cannot be exhausted or completed."

For that matter, that's what infinity is etyomologically; it's a statement
of *not being* finite, not of *being* something. More importantly, the
same could be said of the qabbalistic term "Ein Sof."

The Rambam's theology fits that. Hashem's Omnipotence doesn't mean that
He has Infinite Power, but that power isn't even a relevant concept.
He is Absolutely One, which is quite finite, actually. It's His
effects that are infinite.

Leopold Kronecker (19th cent) was the first mathemetician of note to
treat infinity as though it were a number, leaving to Georg Cantor
to produce a whole theory of transfinite numbers (yes, numbers, in
the plural).

So, given we live after their day, let's assume your assertion is
valid, although I still wouldn't take it as a certainty...

Perhaps the infinite value of human life is part of being betzelem
E-lokim, bidemus ha-Ein Sof.

: But if you need a more legalistic answer, I'll point out that if human life
: really did have infinite value, then saving that life would trump avodah
: zara, which of course it doesn't. Saving a life doesn't even trump arayos.
...

Arguably, and the Maharal IIRC makes this argument, the problem with
gilui arayos, avodah zara and shefichas damim is that they undercut
Torah, Avodah and Gemilus Chassadim. I am unclear whether it's Torah's
development of ruchnius that is uprooted by arayos's fixation on gashius
that are opposits, leaving murder as the un-chessed. Or if gilui arayos,
which is caled in the Torah "ki chesed hu" (at least among siblings)
that is destructive chessed, and Torah's development of a person's
seikhel, his person-ness that is the opposite of murder. In any case,
it is assumed in Yoma that they are opposites: It asks why bayis rishon
was destroyed, and says because it had AZ, GA and SD. But bayis sheini,
where they were osqim in Torah, in mitzvos, and gemillus chassadim,
why was it destroyed? Because of sin'as chinam.

The three yeihareig ve'al ya'avor only take
priority over one's own life because of their role in giving life its
value.

: (I'd mention murder too, but that could lead to headache-inducing circular
: logic.)

Murder has to be one of the three YvAY because if it weren't we would
argue "chayekha qodmin". (As R' Aqiva does in the case of two people
in the desert with only enought water for one.) Thus we can break the
circle of reasoning without headaches.

There are different ways of explaining why, when confronted with bandits
who say, "turn one of you in or you will all be killed!" we do not
turn anyone over to them. In general, why halakhah is deontological
-- interested in making sure you do the right thing, rather than
consequentialist -- interested in maximizing the outcome. (Or IOW:
deontology minimizes the number of killers; consequentialism looks to
minimize the number killed.)

One way is to invoke hashgachah peratis, and say that it's my job
to do what's right because whatever they get in their life will be
tuned by HP regardless of my choices.

But the rishonim who do not believe in universal HP (or at least universal
to all people) can't use that answer.

Another way, which I suggested before, is to give life infinite
value. And therefore one life is equal in value to the whole group's,
making consequentialism impossible -- all outcomes are equal.

This *might* even be the meaning of "kol hameqayem nevesh achas ma'alim
alav ke'ilu qiyeim olam malei". Within Adam laid the possibilities of
all of humanity, so we cannot say that all 7.3bn of us today are more
morally valuable than he was then. And if that is true of post-sin Adam,
that's true of every human being.

(I am assuming the Parma manuscript of the Mishnah, the Kaufman
manuscript of the Y-mi and the autographed Rambam are correct when
they do no mention Yisrael in that quote. See also standard text for
Mishnayos, Y-mi and Rambam today. "MiYisrael" is a distinctly Bavli
artifact. FWIW, the Qur'an's version [5:32] is "On that account:
We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person -
unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the
land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life,
it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity." So whomever quoted
the mishnah to Muhammad didn't say "Yisrael".)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 09:47:08AM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: From wikipedia (shekel)
...
:>As with many ancient units, the shekel had a variety of values depending on
:>era, government and region; weights between 9 and 17 grams, and values of
:>11, 14, and 17 grams are common. A shekel is a gold or silver coin equal in
:>weight to one of these units. It is especially the chief silver coin of the
:>Hebrews.

: The shekel was common among western Semitic peoples ...

So, given this, I need clarification on your original claim (Areivim,
Jan 14, 11:07am IST) and whether you would still assert it:
> It is also of interest that all the Chashmanoim coins were bronze
> (or lead). Silver coins were the ones issued in Tyre by nonJewish
> sources. So the weight of the half-shekel coin use in the Temple
> was not set by Chazal but by outside sources. Indeed archaelogists
> have found near the western wall Tyrian half shekel coins.

Couldn't Anshei Keneses haGedolah's sheqel been the one in use
by one particular Western Semitic People, and not a coin?

In any case, I don't think the premise is correct. I Maccabees 15:2-9
records Aintiochus giving permission to mint coins to Shimon Kohein
Gadol who served as governor. And the British Museum even has specimens
of the silver sheqel of Simon Mabbabaeus.
http://www.kesefsilver.com/image/cache/data/simon_shekel_1-600x600.jpg
The letters over the cup are shin-gimel (right-to-left, of course;
the W denoting someone's shinayim is the shin, the backward gamma is
the gimel). Generally taken to mean shanah gimel.o

Also, archeologists believe the cup itself is a one omer cup,
a reference to mon, and from Whom wealth originate.

From John Hyrcanus onward we only have copper coins. But that has to
do with the shift of power from the Saleucids to the Greeks. Only a
few vassal cities in the Roman empire were allwed to coin in
silver.
(Read from
https://books.google.com/books?id=84NPAAAAYAAJ&;lpg=PA228&pg=PA229#v=onepage
published 1894.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:56:25AM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
: In a well known song, Mordechai Ben David Ish Werdiger recounts how Rabbi
: Yishmael Ben Elisha offered ketoret in the Holy of Holies... a Gemara in the
: first chapter of Berakhot.
: 
: Anyway, in Gittin 58a, the Gemara tells the story of how Rabbi Yehoshuah
: Ben Chananya redeemed from captivity a young lad who would later become
: Rabbi Yishmael Ben Elisha.
...
: A) RYBE lived and worked before the Churban (if so, when was he kohen
: gadol? Does he figure in any external lists?), and had been captured
: decades before the Churban. (Ancillary question, when did Rabbi Yehoshuah
: Ben Chananya live?).

R Yeshoshua ben Chananiah was niftar in 131 CE. He sang in the BHMQ
(Eirakhin 11b). We know from Avos 2:8 that he was onew of R Yochanan
ben Zakkai's 5 prise talmidim. And he often is in machloqes with R'
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. Might have even been chavrusos, as Ymi Chagigah
77b have them learning Tanakh at Acher's bris, and they are the once who
sneak their rebbe out of Y-m to Vespasian. That estimate of the date of
his petirah is because he is niftar shorly after following Hadrian y"sh
from EY to Alexandria, and thatwas in 130. (Medrash Rabba and Chullin
59b each have him fielding diferent questions from Hadrian.) Mind you,
that would mean he was killed after he eft Israel!? Did he return?

So he could well have had other contemporaries who were old enough to be
protagonists before churban bayis and lived through Hadrian's conquest.
A holocaust survivor having to live through a second holocaust -- not
a happy generation. No wonder R' Aqiva's laughter stood out.


: B) Jewish Action Magazine once featured an article arguing that the Beit
: haMikdash, though very heavily damaged, still stood for another few
: decades, until Hadrian had it fully destroyed. During those decades, the
: sacrificial service continued...

It didn't even need to stand. Avodah began before the walls went up,
with just curtained marking the various areas. Could be avodah continued
after.

However, I thought that from churban bayis until Bar Kokhva, there was
no Avodah, and it restarted with BK's attempt to build bayis shelishi.
Probably a machloqes hahistorians.

: Churban as a young lad, and later became kohen gadol in the half destroyed
: Temple. Assuming RYBE doesn't show up in any pre Churban lists of high
: priests...

What about Elisha? This is the gemara where the kohein gadol's two
children are enslaved and stuck in the same room by their respective
masters to produce beautiful children together.

: C) Trei RSBE havei. Needs proof, obviously.

I'm not so sure you need that much proof; Yishmael and Elisha were names
that ran in the family.

More likely, when he asks mei'achorei hapargod about the gezar din it
wasn't YK and he wasn't the KG. Invoke either piquach nefesh (if they were
to learn there was a way to save themselves) or hora'as sha'ah, as needed.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 01:02:07PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: In some parts of the tefilla Nusach ashkenaz reflects some ancient EY
: versions.

As well as other pesaqim. And, for that matter, a geneological map
of the Jewish People shows that of Sepharadim and Edot haMizrach,
Ashkenazim are closest to other Jews from the Roman Empire,
rather than those from the Sassanid Empire (Bavel)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543766/

    The population genetics of the Jewish people
    Harry Ostrer and Karl Skorecki corresponding author
...
                                               Nearest neighbor-joining
    analysis robustly supported shared origins of most Jewish populations
    with clearly discernible European/Syrian/North African and Middle
    Eastern branches....

As for R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's position, I found this
http://5tjt.com/interview-with-professor-haym-soloveitchik-by-
rabbi-yair-hoffman

   YH: I have been told that in your second volume you challenge the
   widespread notion that the cultural roots of Ashkenaz are in Eretz
   Yisrael and claim that early culture of Ashkenaz was Babylonian from
   the outset.

   DS: That is correct. That Ashkenaz has a Palestinian component was
   already noted long ago by the Baalei Hatosfos. We have, for example,
   Torah and haftorah readings that do not conform to what the Bavli says,
   but with what we find in certain midrashim, i.e. those that originate
   in Erets Yisrael. This idea was taken up by Chochmas Yisoel in the
   nineteenth century. It then receded from view and was brought back and
   foregrounded some thirty years ago. By now, it is an academic truism.
   Having a Palestinian component is one thing, claiming that early
   Ashkenazic culture was Palestinian is another. I didnt understand the
   claim in the 1980s and still dont. I have registered my objections
   in print only now, for reasons that I explain in the book.

So it looks like he is objecting to a more extreme form of the claim.
Not that Ashk is a richer mix of EY and Bavel, but attacking the idea
that Ashk is a continuation of EY in particular.

In fact, RHS might even support the thesis as presented on list. And
if not, what he attributes to Tosafos and supports isn't all that far,
from our outsiders' perspective.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:15:31PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: Nadav Shnerb has an interesting chapter on hardening Paro's heart. I will
: attempt to shorten his presentation.
: Basic question: A pistol is pointed at someone's head and he is told to
: commit some crime - does he have free will? The average person would
: certainly say he had no choice. How about torture?

Does this relate to the machloqes about what we mean when we say 
mal'akhim have no bechirah chafshis? See RGS's summary of
Sifsei Chaim on the subject at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n015.shtml#02

Not mentioned was a machloqes I had noted, where the Rambam says that
mal'achim has no ability to choose even in principle. They're robots
following programming. And yet the OS (Hilkhos Teshuvah "HaKol Tzafui,
veheReshus Nesunah") says it's that they have no choices to make, since
everything is so obviouse -- which implies they could make choices,
if they had any worth making.

Back to human beings, REED has his famous "nequdas habechirah".
Translation from Michtav meiEliyahu available at
http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/FreeChoice-point2.html
Leshitaso, free will only enters in conscious decisions, and it is only
decisions where the two sides are roughly balanced that forces themselves
to consciousness. REED likens it to a battle front. My choice not to
pocket a cup when I see one in the store isn't bechirah chafshi because
the desire to do so never enters my conscious mind. The majority of
a person's actions, he writes, are NOT free will.

(And then the goal in self-development is where the nequdas habechirah
moves with each decision you make.)

In this model, which fits how my own thinking looks like from the inside,
the difference between choosing not to fly and choosing not to get shot
is one of degree, not kind.

...
: Today most scientists no longer accept Freud that each person has some
: subconscious that can't be identified that controls many of man's actions.

You sure about that? They might not agree with Freud -- or R Yisrael
Salanter, who spoke about der dunkl decades before Freud -- about
what it's like. But the idea of thoughts we aren't self-aware of
being a major factor in our decisions has not AFAIK been retired.

: Rambam states that bet din can beat a man to give a get because the person
: really wants to divorce his wife but his desire (yitzro) overcomes him.

: The standard way of understanding this is that every Jew has an inner
: desire/soul to keep mitzvot and only this person doesn't recognize it and
: so beating uncovers the subconscious wish to do the "right" thing. Shnerb
: rejects this on the basis that if so one can make this claim about every
: action of a person that his subconscious really wants the opposite of his
: actions and there is no way of disproving such a statement. Rather the
: interpretation of the Rambam is that every Jew wants to be part of the
: Jewish people (especially in the old days). Therefore the bet din has the
: right to say that belonging to the Jewish people includes divorcing his
: wife and they beat him until he admits to this fact.

I suggested a few times a slightly different understanding. Beqitzur:
a gett me'usa is one which the ba'al has no desire to give. If that
desire exists, but is outweighed by other desires, he would not choose
to give it. However, the gett would still not be me'usah. So all
BD has to do is expose devarim shebaleiv to action.

: A "nafka mina" between the two is what if the Jew says he has no desire to
: be part of the Jewish people and no care for halacha...

Another difference (not lemaaseh) is their ability to explain why
the same compulsion, if not performed by BD or by their request, would
produce a gett me'isah.

....
: However in this case it is no longer clear why G-d hardened Paro's heart.
: Now Paro listened to Moshe but Paro should still be punished because G-d
: knew that Paro in his heart still wanted to punish the Jewish people.

I like Seforno's answer. Par'oh didn't merit being saved by a miracle.
Therefore, Hashem made him emotionally untouched by the miracles. Notice
that the first time it's Hashem doing the chizuq or hikhbid, it is well
after the nissim outstrip the ability for the chartoumim to imitate
them. So Par'oah has no way to fool himself, there was no balance in
his reality keeping free will honest.

From that perspective, Hashem was preserving Par'oh's free will, not
robbing him of it!


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 01/21/2016 06:41 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>
> More likely, when he asks mei'achorei hapargod about the gezar din it
> wasn't YK and he wasn't the KG. Invoke either piquach nefesh (if they were
> to learn there was a way to save themselves) or hora'as sha'ah, as needed.

He didn't ask mei'achorei hapargod; the "ish levush habadim" did.
I assume that's a reference to an older KG, if not Aharon Hacohen.
I don't know what the "pargod" is, but it's clearly not something
physical, so if he *had* ventured there he wouldn't have to have been
a KG on YK.

But the RYBE in gemara Brachos went into the physical Kodesh Hakodoshim
on YK, with the ketores, so either he lived before the churban, or there
was avodah after it.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

: Today most scientists no longer accept Freud that each person has some
: subconscious that can't be identified that controls many of man's actions.

You sure about that? They might not agree with Freud -- or R Yisrael
Salanter, who spoke about der dunkl decades before Freud -- about
what it's like. But the idea of thoughts we aren't self-aware of
being a major factor in our decisions has not AFAIK been retired. >>

Out of my field of expertise. However, I understood the argument of Shnerb
was that
if there is no way to know the subconscious then it is meaningless to it
being
a factor in our decisions.  You can make any comment you want about the
subconscious and there
is no way to verify it or to deny it.

i.e. a theory that cannot be checked is a worthless theory.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160122/16fcb72d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> R Yeshoshua ben Chananiah was niftar in 131 CE. He sang in the BHMQ
> (Eirakhin 11b). We know from Avos 2:8 that he was onew of R Yochanan
> ben Zakkai's 5 prise talmidim. And he often is in machloqes with R'
> Eliezer ben Hyrcanus. Might have even been chavrusos, as Ymi Chagigah
> 77b have them learning Tanakh at Acher's bris, and they are the once who
> sneak their rebbe out of Y-m to Vespasian. That estimate of the date of
> his petirah is because he is niftar shorly after following Hadrian y"sh
> from EY to Alexandria, and thatwas in 130. (Medrash Rabba and Chullin
> 59b each have him fielding diferent questions from Hadrian.) Mind you,
> that would mean he was killed after he eft Israel!? Did he return?
>

This argues for Rav Yehoshua ben Chananya having been an adult before the
Churban, while Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha was then a lad who was captured,
and whom RYBC freed.

<SNIP>


> : B) Jewish Action Magazine once featured an article arguing that the Beit
> : haMikdash, though very heavily damaged, still stood for another few
> : decades, until Hadrian had it fully destroyed. During those decades, the
> : sacrificial service continued...
>
> It didn't even need to stand. Avodah began before the walls went up,
> with just curtained marking the various areas. Could be avodah continued
> after.
>
> However, I thought that from churban bayis until Bar Kokhva, there was
> no Avodah, and it restarted with BK's attempt to build bayis shelishi.
> Probably a machloqes hahistorians.
>

Good enough. It means that paam achat nichnasti lehaqtir qetoret lifnei
velifnim happened not before, but decades after the Churban.


> What about Elisha? This is the gemara where the kohein gadol's two
> children are enslaved and stuck in the same room by their respective
> masters to produce beautiful children together.


Weren't those the children of RYBE, in which case they would have been
carted off as family members of leaders of the rebllion, or otherwise been
victims of teh Hadrianic persecutions and/or the aftermath of the Bar
Kokhba rebellion.

And if the above reconstruction is correct, one of the questions on the
elegy Eleh Ezkerah (which I previously mistakenly referred to as the far
more historically easy Arzei HaLevanon Adirei Torah), namely that Rabbi
Akiva was killed together with a Rabbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol, but decades
after the kohanim gedolim were out of business, would be resolved: that
Rabbi Yishmael Kohen Gadol may have been the RYBE who possibly served as KG
during the Bar Kochba rebellion, as the 'avodah had been reinstated (or
never terminated, whichever).

Yasher koach,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/

* Kann man die Religion des anderen korrekt wahrnehmen? ? Zur Woche der
Br?derlichkeit
* ???? ???? ????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???
* Ist Pessach f?r die Vergangenheit oder die Zukunft?
* Frag den Rabbi ? Wie backte man Mazzot in der Bibel?
* Frag den Rabbi ? Seit wann und warum bedecken j?dische m?nner beim gebet
ihr haupt?
* A Critique of Liberal Orthodox Approach to Halacha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20160122/518216e9/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.)