Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 96

Wed, 17 Aug 2016

• 1. Re: Emunah, intelligent design, scientific processes (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: intelligent design (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: silk-screened sifrei torah (STAM) and megillot (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Legions ()
• 5. Re: How to teach emuna (Marty Bluke)
• 6. intelligent design (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: intelligent design (Micha Berger)
• 8. Pesukim LeShemos Anoshim (Isaac Balbin)
• 9. Re: Legions (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Legions (H Lampel)
• 11. May one eat a salad at non-kosher restaurants while on the road? (Professor L. Levine)
• 12. Re: Pesukim LeShemos Anoshim (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Legions (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Legions (Zev Sero)

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 08:34:25AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: There *are* answers to that question, but it seems to me that the postulate
: that the universe always existed is more elegant, because it does not
: invite such questions to begin with.

To continue my earlier point. This is only true if the person assumed
that the cause of the universe is a normal temporal cause-and-effect
relationship. However, since we're talking about the cause of the
universe, and therefore of time. The First Cause isn't earlier in time
than the 2nd cause.

BTW< string theory, if it ever pans out and becomes an actual theory,
might remove the singularity from the big bang, and allow for time before
it. Back to debating scientists who believe in an eternal universe.
If string theory pans out in a way that versions that have this
implication are validated.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 10:07:37PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: To echo some of Micha's remarks Kant rejected any proof by design...

Kant formalized the general disinclination toward proof of metaphysical
claims that had been going on for a while. His problem wasn't with the
argument from design in particular.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics

And if one reads MmE with RACarmell's footnotes, enough of REED's
ideas come from Kant to make a strong argument that he was a Kantian.

I discussed in the past his position that both time and nature are
more reflective of how man perceives the world (since Adam, and
people who are not up at the level of neis) than of what's really
out there. Very Kantian.

Whereas:
: Rav Dessler goes in the opposite path condemning rationality and
: intellectualism. Only a torah scholar can reach the truth. Therefore
: everyone should subject himself to the Torah giant and not attempt to
: reason for himself.

is very non-Kantian. Kant would have you rely more on will and on first-hand
experience. (See the Stanford encyc entry, above.)

Here is a quote from MmE 1:75, taken from RACohen's "Daat Torah"
at <http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf>:

    Our Sages have already told us to listen to the words of our rabbis
    - Even if they tell you that left is right. Furthermore a person
    should not think, G-d forbid!, that they have certainly erred just
    because someone so insignificant as himself has perceived that they
    erred. But rather [one should say that] my understanding nullified
    as the dust of the earth in comparison to the clarity of intellect
    and Heavenly support they have (siyata d'shemaya).

To fill in RAC's ellision:
    We have an important halachic principle that one beis din can not
    nullify the ruling of another beis din unless it is greater than the
    first in wisdom and number. Otherwise it is likely that that which
    he thought that he perceived is merely an illusion and distorted
    understanding of reality.

And RAC concludes:
    This is Daat Torah in the Rubric of Emunat Chachamim.

(This was written in response to the usual question about where was daas
Torah in the Holocaust.)

However, as seen on pg 8, RYBS also often talked about the obligation
lehitbatel lerabbo, and clearly RYBS didn't dismiss the value of
independent thinking.

There is nothing there about not attemptiong to reason for oneself. Only
that one should refrain from blog and social media norm of deciding that
the rabbis are idiots because the obviously correct answer is something
else. Rather, assume they have a so much more clear understanding, my
opinion is valueless. But they can still be wrong, and at times I may
yet be right. But the odds are against the value of 2nd-guessing.

I like RAC's continuation:
    Perhaps it is important to realize that a bad outcome doesn't
    necessarily prove the advice was bad. Sometimes the unexpected
    does happen, which no one could have predicted. Sometimes surgery
    must take place but the patient dies of an allergic reaction to
    the anesthesia. That doesn't mean it was a mistake to perform the
    necessary surgery, it just means that we are not always in control
    of the consequences of our seemingly wise decisions or even that we
    can always foresee all the possible results. [42]

    42. The Gemara derives a very important article of belief when it
    addresses the issue of Torah leaders making mistakes. In Gittin 56b,
    the Gemara records the famous encounter between R. Yochanan b. Zaccai
    and the Roman general Vespasian during the seige of Jerusalem.... One
    of the answers tendered by the Gemara is most enlightening: the
    verse in Isaiah 44 says, "He turns wise men backwards and makes their
    thinking foolish." In other words, it was the Divine plan that the
    Temple be destroyed, and therefore Hashem deliberately prevented
    R. Yochanan from making the wise request which would have saved it
    from destruction.
    
    We ordinary mortals, who are not blessed with the wisdom and insights
    of Chazal, cannot make such pronouncements regarding any specific
    episode or rabbinic advice. Nevertheless, we should take to heart
    the essential message that there are times when the Divine Will
    obscures an individual's wisdom.
    
    In his Mipeninai HaRav, R. Herschel Shachter quotes Rav Soloveitchik
    as having expressed this sentiment also.

All of which is consistent with these words by REED.

In any case, I am unhappy with the habit in some circles of pinning
every yeshivish idea with which they disagree on REED. If nothing else,
he was a mussarnik, not yeshivish. But I fear you were a victim of
someone who spun this quote from MmE with this jaundiced eye.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 06:05:35AM -0400, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote:
: > With silk screen, the person is rolling out the letters in order.
: > With printing, the whole amud is made at once.
: 
: Is that really the case when silk screening? ...

You can watch the process yourself: https://youtu.be/WvFED55xhv8

It is rolled from side to side, but apparently multiple rows at once.
What I thought I remembered was a tiny roller that made a row. (Which
would still be far faster than saferus.

In either case, what R' Abadi is really doing (as opposed to that broken
memory) would still be no /worse/ than a manual printing press, which
the AhS apparently said would be okay.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar

On 8/16/2016 6:57 AM, Jay F.  ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:
> Hebrew words that end in -on are masculine in  gender, and masculine
> words usually form their plural by addin -im, but  words that end in
> -on form their plural by adding -oth as a rule, one  says ra`ayonoth
> and sh`onoth and xalonoth.


R' Zvi Lampel responded:

I  guess

evyonim
gilyonim
xivyyonim
divyonim
rimonim
tsidonim
rishonim
acharonim
kadmonim
shemonim
esronim
onim
beinonim
tachtonim
shonim
nechonim
nevonim
bonim
nidonim
aronim
armonim
almonim

are  all exceptions?

Zvi Lampel




>>>>>
 
Some of the words RZL chose as counter-examples to the "rule of  the --on 
ending" are not good examples.
 
1. Yes there is a city called Tzidon, but an inhabitant of that city is a  
Tzidoni and "Tzidonim" is the plural of Tzidoni.
 
2.  I think "onim" is a plural verb form, not the plural form of a  noun 
(what would the noun be, "on"?).  If there is a noun that refers to  "one who 
answers" then that noun would be "oneh."
 
3. The singular of beinonim is beinoni, not beinon.
 
4. Shemonim is a multiple of shemoneh, not of shemon.  (I don't think  
there's a word "shemon.")  Similarly, shonim is a plural form for  shoneh.  
Bonim is the plural of boneh.
 
5.  Finally, the plural of aron is aronos, not aronim.
 
Still, you make a good case that "--on" words do not necessarily end in  
"--onos" in the plural.  If there is rule, it has many exceptions.
 
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160817/926403b9/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Efraim Yawitz wrote:
"My whole point was that the "Kuzari Principle" at its most basic level is
only about a shared history rather than specifics of religious belief.  I
see nowhere in Tanach that at any point
there was a difference of opinion about the beginnings of Am Yisrael, only
about what that obligated the individual in."

Actually if you look in Tanach the revelation at Sinai is basically ignored
until Nechemia. The Neviim while mentioning yetzias mitzrayim never mention
matan torah at Har Sinai when exhorting the people to follow Hashem and not
worship Avoda Zara. Yirmiyah, Yeshaya, Yechezkel, who gave constant mussar
to the Jewish people to follow Hashem and the laws never once say to the
Jewish people remember Matan Torah at Har Sinai and keep the mitzvos. It
seems that this was not the foundational event that the Kuzari proof claims
it was.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160817/84e7074a/attachment-0001.htm>

> In any case, I am unhappy with the habit in some circles of pinning
> every yeshivish idea with which they disagree on REED. If nothing else,
> he was a mussarnik, not yeshivish. But I fear you were a victim of
> someone who spun this quote from MmE with this jaundiced eye.

The book "Strictly Kosher Reading" is by Yoel Finkelman. I tried
some searches on him and only found that that he has a PhD from Hebrew
University and teaches in Bar Ilan and also teaches Talmud and Jewish
thought at Midreshet Lindenbaum. Otherwise I know nothing about him.
In his book his references are to Strive to truth because that is the
English version. He obviously knows Hebrew and I would assume he read
the original Hebew.

The book (I personally enjoyed) discusses the popular literature among
charedim (mainly American). He has for example one chapter on books on
parenting. He shows that while the books claim to be based on ancient
Jewish ideas they are in fact mainly based on modern psychological trends
and similar to general culture books on the topic.

In the chapter under discussion he talks about books on theology. He
distinguishes between books aimed at "insiders" and those aimed at baale
teshuvot and other "outsiders". While some stress the idea of "emunah
peshuta" most stress that Judaism (as distinct from other religions)
is based on scientific proofs. In this chapter of some 30+ pages he
brings briefly R. Dessler which he brings as being as opposition to
basing things on science which is not reliable but rather relying on
Daas Torah. This is not a study of the thoughts of REED and again this
occupied a small portion of this single chapter.

...
>> We ordinary mortals, who are not blessed with the wisdom and insights
>> of Chazal, cannot make such pronouncements regarding any specific
>> episode or rabbinic advice. Nevertheless, we should take to heart
>> the essential message that there are times when the Divine Will
>> obscures an individual's wisdom.

> In his Mipeninai HaRav, R. Herschel Shachter quotes Rav Soloveitchik
> as having expressed this sentiment also.

I believe that the great majority of talmidim of RYBS were taught that
ultimately every talmid has to think for himself and not just accept
blindly what his rebbe and certainly not other great rabbis say

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:53:32AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:                                In this chapter of some 30+ pages he
: brings briefly R. Dessler which he brings as being as opposition to
: basing things on science which is not reliable but rather relying on
: Daas Torah. This is not a study of the thoughts of REED and again this
: occupied a small portion of this single chapter.

DT,which he equates with emunas chakhamim. IOW, he tells you to believe
because of mesorah, not science.

REED:
:>> We ordinary mortals, who are not blessed with the wisdom and insights
:>> of Chazal, cannot make such pronouncements regarding any specific
:>> episode or rabbinic advice. Nevertheless, we should take to heart
:>> the essential message that there are times when the Divine Will
:>> obscures an individual's wisdom.

Me, paraphrasing R' A Cohen's footnote:
:> In his Mipeninai HaRav, R. Herschel Shachter quotes Rav Soloveitchik
:> as having expressed this sentiment also.

RET:
: I believe that the great majority of talmidim of RYBS were taught that
: ultimately every talmid has to think for himself and not just accept
: blindly what his rebbe and certainly not other great rabbis say

Which is not what REED or RHS are actually talking about. REED was
arguing against standing in judgement of one's rebbe. "[N]ot to say,
G-d forbid, that they certainly erred". It is a misquote to take 
his statement of bitul of my daas to the rabbis as a denial of
automous thinking when the paragraph is about denying dismissive
thinking.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every child comes with the message
mi...@aishdas.org        that God is not yet discouraged with
http://www.aishdas.org   humanity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Rabindranath Tagore

There is a Minhag (Shelo Hakadosh and others) that before completing
Shemoneh Esreh, one says Pesukim which relate to one?s name in that they
start they start with the first letter of the name, and end with the last
letter. This is for the Yom HaDin after 120 years unless Geula occurs
before then.
What does the Minhag say, if anything, about the name Zelig (which is
Asher, I believe). I haven?t seen a Pasuk that starts with a Zayin and ends
with a Gimmel. Does one use a Pasuk which has Zayin and Gimel as a word
together in the middle? I have seen answers that state that if the child is
named after one person, then say one Pasuk which starts with the first
letter of the first name and ends with the letter of the second name.
However, others say if the parents only use the first name, for example,
then this doesn?t apply. I realise that these things are not likely the
most important things in the world, but it has occurred twice now, where
two of my grandsons were named after my father a?h who was Shaul Zelig
HaCohen.

Of RZL's list of 22 words, RTK challenged 7.   An 8th is "almonim", which
is the plural of "almoni".

Also, "xivyonim" is very modern slang, so why should we accept that it's
grammatically correct, and  is there even such a word as "divyonim"?

-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

On 8/17/2016 9:33 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> .. "xivyonim" is very modern slang, so why should we accept that it's
> grammatically correct, and  is there even such a word as "divyonim"?
>
Both are in Melachim Beis, 6:25 (kri and ksiv of the same word). All I 
did was a data search.  I probably messed up the transliteration of the 
first.

Zvi Lampel

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis


Q. May one eat a salad at non-kosher restaurants while on the road?


A. Rav Belsky, zt"l ruled that one may absolutely not eat a salad at a non-kosher or vegan restaurant. Here are several of the reasons:

  1.  Maris Ayin - eating in a non-kosher restaurant gives the impression that one is doing something forbidden.
  2.  The knives used to cut the salad may be soiled from non-Kosher use and that would make the salad non-kosher.
  3.  Even if the knives were clean, if they were used to cut 'sharp' or spicy vegetables, they will transfer the non-kosher taste from previous usage.
  4.  Many vegetables need to be checked for insect infestation in order to be considered kosher.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160817/6b007f5a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/08/16 21:34, Isaac Balbin via Avodah wrote:
> What does the Minhag say, if anything, about the name Zelig (which is
> Asher, I believe). I haven?t seen a Pasuk that starts with a Zayin
> and ends with a Gimmel.

The LR told my uncle Zelig to say Tehillim 112:4, from which one may
learn that the correct Yiddish spelling is with a kuf, not the German
gimel.

(In German a G at the end of a word turns into a K sound.  It used to be
the fashion in Yiddish to spell German-derived words as close to the
original German spelling as one could get, presumably to show off ones
mastery of that language.  But for the last century or so Yiddish has been
spelt phonetically except for Hebrew-derived words (and the communists
eliminated even that exception), so the Kuf ending is more appropriate.)

Beis Shmuel (as cited in Kav Noki) gives the first spelling as zayin ayin
lamed yud kuf, followed by variants omitting the ayin or turning the kuf
into a gimel, as well as suffixes such as "-man", "-in".  In footnote 18
the Kav Noki says that Mahari Mintz has a long discussion about this and
concludes that since neither the ayin nor the kuf/gimel substitution has
much affect on the pronunciation the get is kosher either way.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22275&;pgnum=152


-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

On 17/08/16 09:43, H Lampel wrote:
> On 8/17/2016 9:33 AM, Zev Sero wrote:

>> .. "xivyonim" is very modern slang, so why should we accept that it's
>> grammatically correct, and  is there even such a word as "divyonim"?

> Both are in Melachim Beis, 6:25 (kri and ksiv of the same word). All
> I did was a data search. I probably messed up the transliteration of
> the first.

The ketiv is "xari-yonim", "pigeon sh*t", while the keri is "div-yonim",
"that which flows from pigeons".    Either way, the base word is "yonah",
which is well known to be both masculine and feminine.

"Xivyon" (pl "xivyonim") is a modern slang word.

-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

It seems to me that the traditional attitude is that foreign words have
no gender, but since Hebrew grammar requires one each writer is free to
assign them one as he pleases, with no expectation of consistency.  Thus
the rishonim felt free to wrote of "tallethoth" or "tallethim" as they
liked, because "talleth" (with a tzere, not the chirik that modern Hebrew
has given it) is inherently genderless.  Similarly with "ligyon".


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



_______________________________________________
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.)