Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 080

Saturday, December 21 2002

• Horuyot 13a
• Re: Chelek is right up your alley
• Creation Every Day
• And also our donkeys
• Re: And also our donkeys
• Re: And also our donkeys
• A ready-made universe?
• Dvar Hashem me'Yerushalmi no. 4
• charity
• Dira ba'Tachtonim
• Why are we here? (was: Dira ba'Tachtonim)
• Re: Why are we here? (was: Dira ba'Tachtonim)
• Re: Dira ba'Tachtonim
• Re: Creation Every Day
• Re: Creation Every Day
• Re: charity
• Re: Creation Every Day
• Re: charity
• Re: Creation Every Day
• Shema Yisrael
• Yerei Shamayim
• Lehani'ach Tefillin
• age of the universe

> In a message dated 12/17/2002 11:45:56 AM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
>> Eleven people were hanging on a rope under a helicopter, ten men and
>> one woman. The rope was not strong enough to carry them all.

> See Sugia Horiyos 13a, S"A Y"D 252:8,9 and Klei Nosi'im also see Tarkei 
> Tshuva Y"D 157 S"K 51.

Before drawing practical conclusions, see discussions in Iggerot Moshe.

At 12:32 PM 12/18/02 -0500, wrote:
>the aggadatah is soo wild.any interesting insights on Hashem coming down 
>as an old man?......the whole Sancherev and Dovid stories are metaphors 
>for what?....

Imagine how much more meaningful a yeshiva education would be if they 
would do some of this material!

I agree with you about the bestseller - Chelek has no good English stuff - 
but it would have to be a mix of Maharahsa and Maharal.

On the old man thing, the Rambam spends a lot of time in the Moreh 
explaining (and it seems he and the Kabbalists concur on this one, 
although in slightly different ways) that nevuah (prophecy) is an 
image-based thing (intellectual according to the Rambam and experiential 
according to the Kabbalists). The analogy is the signal received by your 
TV which becomes an image upon the screen of the cathode ray tube as 
pixels are activated by the pulsations.

The nevuah is the signal, and the navi's rigorously trained mind is the 
screen.

That's why no two nevi'im prophesied in precisely the same way - different 
screens, different arrays of pixels.

Moshe Rabbeinu's nevuah was purely verbal - because he had to receive the 
Word precisely, with no reflection of his own perception.

The imagery involved is evidently because a picture makes something alive 
and gives it a greater impact.

So Hashem's attitude is portrayed to the Navi - or, portrayed to us by 
Chazal, for similar graphic results - by an image: An old man, a young 
warrior, etc.

Hope that helps!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

This question has been bothering me for a while. We say in birchos kerias
shema that Hashem creates the world every day and we bring proof from
the passuk (Tehillim 136:7) "Le-oseh orim gedolim ki le-olam chasdo".
Since the assiyah is in the present tense it must mean that Hashem
continuously creates the world. But look at the whole perek. It's all
in the present tense! Even the parts about Par'oh, Sichon, the Emori,
etc. Are we to believe that these are also continuously being done?
If we redefine history in such a sense (fourth dimension-type thinking)
that anything in history is considered the present, then we are saying
that Hashem created the world at one time and not really continuously.
Any thoughts?

Gil Student

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Here the brothers think they're about to become Tzafnas Panei'ach's
> slaves, and they add that they're concerned that also their donkeys
> would be confiscated.

This 'chamoreinu' business has worried me for years too.

The Ramban seems to explain it - that by taking away their only means of
transport and shipping - their donkeys - (and them being under arrest),
there was no way for the grain and food to be sent back to their families
in Kenaan - which was their main concern

[Next paragraph added in a 2nd email. -mi]
I see that the Peirush Hatur Hasholem and Rabeinu B'chayeh also explain
it thus.

BTW did anyone else notice the Midrash saying that the hunger was
only in 3 countries - besides Mitzrayim - Palestina, Arabia and Pankia
or Pinkia. One fo the meforshim (I don't have the Midrash before me)
explains that EY is called Palestina by the nations.

(And IIANM he brings this from the Biur RMD. Would that be by Mendelson
von Reform? )

R' Micha wrote:
> Here the brothers think they're about to become Tzafnas Panei'ach's
> slaves, and they add that they're concerned that also their donkeys
> would be confiscated.

R' Shlomo wrote:
> This 'chamoreinu' business has worried me for years too.

I have no explanation, but it reminded me of something that has bothered
ME for years. In Sefer Yonah, Hashem says to Yonah, "You took pity on
the kikayon that grew in a day and died in a day, and I shouldn't take
pity on a great city like Nineveh, that has more than 12,000 people in
it and many animals?" ("Ani lo achus al Nineveh ha'ir hagedolah asher
yesh ba harbeh mishtem esreh ribo adam...uvehema raba?") That "and many
animals" is anti-climactic, to say the least.

Toby Katz

From: T613K@aol.com
>                      ... In Sefer Yonah,  Hashem says to Yonah, "You took
> pity on the kikayon that grew in a day and died in a day, and I shouldn't
> take pity on a great city like Nineveh, that has more than 12, 000 people in
> it and many animals?"  ("Ani lo achus al Nineveh ha'ir hagedolah asher yesh
> ba harbeh mishtem esreh ribo adam...uvehema raba?")  That "and many animals"
> is anti-climactic, to say the least.

See Rashi, who explains "... yesh ba harbeh mishtem esreh
ribo adam asher lo yodu bein yemino usolom = refers to the children,
and "uvehema raba" refers to the adults...

SBA

Motya Gofman wrote:
<<Why would this be considered a lie on Hashem's part to create an
already mature world? Rav Miller explains that Hashem wanted the world
to function from the very beginning. In order to do that the world had
to already be running at full speed?>>

The history of the earth includes many previous eras, such as that of the
dinosaurs. To say that plants and animals were made in their final, adult
form is one thing, but to say that the world was made with a ready-made
history of previous cycles of life and death is far more difficult to
justify. What are all the fossilized skeletons doing in the ground?

It seems highly unreasonable to posit that all evidence of previous
eras is a false and misleading depiction of history – especially since
there are authentic explanations that render such difficult positions
entirely unnecessary. See Ramban and Rav Dessler for an excellent example
(as explained at length in my book The Science of Torah).

Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com
-- 
Zoo Torah is a non-profit educational enterprise that offers a series of
books, programs for both adults and children, zoo tours, and South African
safaris, all on the theme of Judaism and the animal kingdom. For more
details and a taste of the experience, see www.zootorah.com.

Dvar Hashem me'Yerushalmi no. 4

(Normally I only send these to the list that is available for subscription
at www.yerushalmionline.org. However, since this is such "a vichtige
yedi'ah" I am spreading it more broadly; please forgive me if you happen
to see it twice! Feedback is helpful - it spurs me to get around to this.)

Eruvin 58b-59a (DYY for Shabbos, 16 Teves, Dec. 21-Sun., 17 Teves,
Dec. 22)

The Yerushalmi is discussing the reason that tefillin are not worn on
Shabbos and Yom Tov. The Yerushalmi first cites a derasha: "V'shamarta
es ha'chukkah ha'zos me'yamim yamima- v'lo leilos" (this pasuk, in Shemos
13, is in one of the parshiyos of tefillin). Both Prof. Leiberman and R'
Chaim Kanievsky here insert [Yamima - prat l'Shabosos v'Yomim Tovim]. The
Gemara subsequently darshens "V'hayu lecha l'os - me she'trichin os,
yotz'u Shabbosos v'Yomim Tovim."

The Gemara then asks - did we not already derive this from Me'yamim
Yamima?

The Gemara answers with a fundamental principle from R' Yochanan: "Kol
mila d'lo mechavara mesamchin lei min asrin sagin." - Anything that is
not clear we sustain from many places.

The Nimukei Ysoef at the beginning of Ha'Chovel in Bava Kama explains (in
the name of the Ra'ah): Anything that we know to be true, but it is not
clear to us what source in the Torah is its basis; permission is granted
to anyone to expoound it and bring support from the Scripture. Even
though normally a person cannot expound a gezeira shava on his own,
unless he received it from his Rebbe, that refers to an entirely new
gezeira shava, i.e., in the ayin tachas ayin or shor tachas shor gezeira
shavas there in BK, there must be a kabbaala that the din is mammon;
once there is such a kabbalah; however, anyone can propose a gezeira
shava such as tachas-tachas.

As Prof. Lieberman notes, however, "lo mechavra" in Yerushalmi generally
means an asmachta; i.e., the issur on tefillin on Shabbos is not d'orysa
mamash. This is also evident from the continuation of the sugya, where
the permissibility of wearing the teillin on Shabbos to save them is
dicussed in light of whether the issue is mechuvar or not; nevertheless,
R' yochana's principle itself can have both meanings - something which
is not explicit in Torah - whether it is because it is essentially a
mesorah, yet neverhteless a d'orysa; or because it is an asmachta -
is to be sustained from many places.

Other examples of this abound, such as the Bavli's discussion of how we
know an esrog is the pri eitz hadar of th pasuk, etc.

BTW, there will probably not be a DHM"Y next week, as I am giving several
major shiurim next Thurs.-Shabbos.

Those in the vicinity, please join us at our regular Sun. night shiur
this week as we continue on the topic of Office Parties and discuss the
moshav leitzim aspect. Contact me for more information.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

In our shul we have a question. Several rabbis that were asked avoided
answering the question. If anyone can provide references it would be
appreciated.

There is a gentleman (though rather pushy) who comes to the shul almost
every morning to collect tzedaka (in our shul it is rare though in many
shuls it is by the dozen). After giving hin from the shul pushka several
times someone inquired in the local social services depratment. They
said that they know him well and that he is not really in poverty and
uses the money from the shul to buy liquor.

1. Should one still give him tzedaka
2. If not - can one tell others about him not to give tzedaka
3. if yes - can one make a public announcement in shul not to give
him tzedaka

kol tuv,
--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 12/19/2002

In my shiur yesterday at Ohr Somayach I posed the query what HKB"H's
tachlis was in creating the world. I know there are multiple answers
on numerous levels, and for that particular shiur I was goingto use the
answer "to create a Tzelem Elokim." One boy, new to the class, wearing a
knit yarmulke, clean shaven, with an Abercrombie&Fitch sweatshirt answered
"for dira ba'tachtonim."

I looked at him for a moment and then decide to ask: "Are you a
Lubavitcher?" He answered affirmatively.

I do not believe we ever discussed here this "Story," but it is very
important to understanding Chassidus, Chabad, of course in particular. I
am sure one of our resident Chabad Chassidim can correct my imprecisions,
but it runs something like this:

The Rebbe Rashab (I think) was once explaining why HKB"H created the
universe and noted the Medrash that says "Nisaveh HKB"H leeheyos lo
Dira ba'Tachtonim." He continued (forgive my tzubrochene Yiddish):
"Un oib du vilst freggen, fahr vohs hoht ehr gehaht a ta'ivah? Oif a
ta'ivah kehn mihr nisht freggen kashyos."

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 04:02:44PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: In my shiur yesterday at Ohr Somayach I posed the query what HKB"H's
: tachlis was in creating the world. I know there are multiple answers
: on numerous levels, and for that particular shiur I was goingto use the
: answer "to create a Tzelem Elokim" ...

What's wrong with the answer given by the Ramchal and assumed in the
intro to SY -- to have a recipient to whom to be tov?

Yes, as He Himself is the ultimate tov, giving a Tzelem E-lokim is a
consequence of that. But I consider that step 2...

And, as posted earlier this week, step 3 is that our TE requires
Gevurah on his part.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

At 11:43 PM 12/19/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>: In my shiur yesterday at Ohr Somayach I posed the query what HKB"H's
>: tachlis was in creating the world. I know there are multiple answers
>: on numerous levels, and for that particular shiur I was goingto use the
>: answer "to create a Tzelem Elokim" ...

>What's wrong with the answer given by the Ramchal and assumed in the
>intro to SY -- to have a recipient to whom to be tov?

Wrong?!

C"V!

>Yes, as He Himself is the ultimate tov, giving a Tzelem E-lokim is a
>consequence of that. But I consider that step 2...
>
>And, as posted earlier this week, step 3 is that our TE requires
>Gevurah on his part.

There are many aspects to the right answer.

That, elsewhere in the Ramchal, is also part of the answer (his third, 
deepest and highest level of understanding):

The tachlis of the beri'ah is to demonstrate that multiplicity is not a 
contradiction to yichud.

YGB

In a message dated 12/19/02 11:39:50 PM RYGB sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> The Rebbe Rashab (I think) was once explaining why HKB"H created the
> universe and noted the Medrash that says "Nisaveh HKB"H leeheyos lo
> Dira ba'Tachtonim." He continued (forgive my tzubrochene Yiddish):
> "Un oib du vilst freggen, fahr vohs hoht ehr gehaht a ta'ivah? Oif a
> ta'ivah kehn mihr nisht freggen kashyos."

I'm not a Chabad Chosid, but that's basically the line as I remember it.

The written source for the expression is in a printed series of lectures
he gave, entitled, "Yom-Tov Shel Rosh Hashana 5666" 1905-6 CE, in the
first lecture, delivered on the second night of R"H of that year.

The "Dira B'Tachtonim" view as the expression of Chabad Chassidus is as
old as the Tanya.

Raffy

Gil Student <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Since the assiyah is in the present tense it must mean that Hashem
> continuously creates the world. But look at the whole perek. It's all
> in the present tense! Even the parts about Par'oh, Sichon, the Emori,
> etc. Are we to believe that these are also continuously being done?
> If we redefine history in such a sense (fourth dimension-type thinking)
> that anything in history is considered the present, then we are saying
> that Hashem created the world at one time and not really continuously.

I'm not exactly sure what problem you are having but let me take a stab
at it.

I do not belive that it is contradicory to believe that the world was
created all at once and is constantly being created each moment. I think
one must take the two creations as applying to different things. The
concept of Yesh MeAyin reffers to material creation absent of time. The
"Big Bang". That is, all matter and energy were created in a single
moment. The creation was not only a material one but was also a creation
of nature itself. That moment needed the simultaneous creation of the
space time continuum, meaning the constant renewal proccess of a moment to
moment newly created universe of time, or it could not have moved forward.
Creation in the second sense is the constant renewal of the space time
continuum. IOW each moment we move forward in time is a newly created
moment without which there would be no existence at all. Once created
nature with its necessary counterpart, time, followed its "nature"
observing the laws of nature and has evolved into the universe as we
know it today.

HM

RGS <gil@aishdas.org> wrote:
: Since the assiyah is in the present tense it must mean that Hashem
: continuously creates the world. But look at the whole perek. It's all
: in the present tense! Even the parts about Par'oh, Sichon, the Emori,
: etc. Are we to believe that these are also continuously being done?
: If we redefine history in such a sense (fourth dimension-type thinking)
: that anything in history is considered the present, then we are saying
: that Hashem created the world at one time and not really continuously.

Actually, it means that "at one TIME" (emphasis added) and "continuously"
are both invalid statements, approximations us time-bound being must
use to discuss the "actions" (another time-bound word) of One Who is
lema'alah min hazman.

But those are events, where the time at which H' impacts our existance
in that way is well known.

The chiddush WRT nouns is that it's not a creation event plus a
destruction event (plus possible events each time it's modified). Rather,
existance itself is an interaction and constant. Thus the Ba'al Shem
Tov's description of amirah, or the entire atzilus approach to ma'aseh
bereishis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org            I do, then I understand." - Confucious
http://www.aishdas.org       "One can't compare hearing to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905          "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

On 19 Dec 2002 at 14:39, Eli Turkel wrote:
> There is a gentleman (though rather pushy) who comes to the shul almost
> every morning to collect tzedaka (in our shul it is rare though in many
> shuls it is by the dozen). After giving hin from the shul pushka several
> times someone inquired in the local social services depratment. They
> said that they know him well and that he is not really in poverty and
> uses the money from the shul to buy liquor....

I would think that believing the social services department (to stop
giving him money altogether) would be Kabbolas Lashon Hara. I assume
there was a hava amina and that's why the question was asked which means
(I think) that you would be allowed to be choshesh (and not give him large
amounts of money. I would think that 3 would be assur in any event. The
CC discusses this very issue but unfortunately, I couldn't find it. Bli
neder will try over Shabbos.

There's one shul I know in Yerushalayim where they actually put up a
sign asking people not to come to schnorr there and asked mispalellim
not to give them money (I don't recall exactly how it was worded, but
it was close to that).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Gil Student wrote:
> This question has been bothering me for a while. We say in birchos kerias
> shema that Hashem creates the world every day

Is that an observation about the mechanism of creation or about our
response to sleep and wakefulness?

> and we bring proof from
> the passuk (Tehillim 136:7) "Le-oseh orim gedolim ki le-olam chasdo".
> Since the assiyah is in the present tense it must mean that Hashem
> continuously creates the world.

The tense may have nothing to do with the drasha. Instead the citation
demonstrates that we are as grateful for the reappearance of the sun as
we are for the other great deeds on the list.

David Riceman

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:16:40PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I would think that believing the social services department (to stop
: giving him money altogether) would be Kabbolas Lashon Hara...

But as there is a real to'eles, why not?

After all, you need to know if you're spending money helping the
person, or if you're enabling him to continue his alcoholism.

Awaiting your mar'eh maqom in the CC,
-mi

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 09:48:01AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: The tense may have nothing to do with the drasha. Instead the citation
: demonstrates that we are as grateful for the reappearance of the sun as
: we are for the other great deeds on the list.

Which is interesting as we aren't supposed to say Hllel for it (unlike
the other items in the list), and here we're discussing its placement
in Hallel haGadol.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

Sometimes when saying Shema I would sort of skip over thinking about
the first two words, thinking them an intro to "H' E-lokeinu H' echad",
the thesis of the pasuq.

But "Shomer Yisra'el", in Tachanun, makes separate points about
"ha'omerim 'Shema Yisra'el'" and "ha'meyachadim shimkha 'H' E-lokeinu
H' echad'". So I started to think about the yesod of the two words
"Shema Yisra'el" that could be comparable in import to the rest
of the pasuq (or Qedushah).

Rus's geirus involved two parts: Ameikh ami, ve'E-lokayikh E-lokai.

The pasuq affirms the same two points.

Good Shabbos,
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

"Le'olam yehei adam yerei Shamayim baseiser uvagalui..."

I noticed the expression is on the gavra, not the pe'ulah. It's not
enough to have yir'ah. One must become a "yerei Shamayim".

On a slightly different note: The melakhos are also written as
shemos po'alim, and not as pe'ulos. The melakhah is not called
by Chazal "Qetzirah", they call it "haQotzeir". The issur is
on being a cutter -- that's not the type of person one ought be
on Shabbos.

I heard someone suggest that this is why there is no din in
shevisas hakeilim -- because they do not involve the gavra. 
However, there are tzvei dinim in amirah le'aku"m -- telling him
to do it, and getting hana'ah from something he did for you.
It is possible to be over the 2nd without the first. Even though
it doesn't make the Jew a "Qotzeir".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

Menuchah on Shabbos is not simply rest, it's a contemplative one.
Similarly, "lehani'ach tefillin". Perhaps the common menuchah is why
one os renders the other redundant. Why should we take a tool to help
us reflect on where we are, and where our relationship with HQBH stands
on a day committed to menuchah? It's as though we were saying the day
itself is insufficient.

One can view a chiyuv on two levels: 1- Ana avda deQudshah berich Hu.
One does a mitzvah simply because it's H's tzivui. However, there is
also 2- Doing the mitzvah because of what you can understand of /why/
He so commanded it.

In the case of tefillin, we Ashkenazim make a berakhah addressing each:
"al mitzvas tefillin" about the tzivui, and "lehani'ach" about the
concept of the mitzvah.

Note which one Sepharadim, who had to choose between them chose.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

The equivalence of 6 days to 15BY and the formula whereby one makes
these calculations is due to Dr. Schroeder, who was the first one to
propose this, as far as I know. Other people, myself included, have used
his formula in various ways. Some of these ways diagree in some details
with R' Schroeder, but the general idea is the same.

The "time dilation" proposal can be (and has been) attaked on both
scientific and Torah grounds. The scientific arguments are too complex
to give in a short email, but there is a way to respond. My response is
a footnote in my book about the difference between a true time dilation
and an equivalence relationship. I hold the Schroeder formula to be an
equivalence relationship and that removes the scientific objections. Not
sure, but I think that GS argues for a true time dilation. Arguments
from Torah involve the ending of the dilation process at end of Yom
Shishi. When was that? GS says it was when Adam Harishon received
Neshamah. But that introduces a problem because he received Neshamah
at 4th hour of 12 hour day, ie in hour 16 out of 24. Much too early in
sixth day to stop creation process. My resolution is that hour 16, when
Adam received neshamah is beginning of process to bring people into the
world. It turns out that GS formula shows this time to be equivalent
to 65 million years on our scale. This is exactly the time of the
Alvarez theory asteroid that destroyed most life on Earth and opened
up a niche for people. Later, when Adam was expelled from Gan Eden we
have medrash that his neshamah was modified or split into 600,000 parts,
etc and that is when process of dilation stops. This is the time when we
start counting the years by looking at age of Adam when Seth is born (130
years), then Enosh, Kenon, etc up to 600 years for Noah mabul and 1656
total for first ten generations. We do not count the time when Adam was
in the Gan Eden. When was expulsion? No exact time in Torah (that I can
find), but very close to Shabbos. We know from Rashi on veyahulu... beyom
hashvii... Did Hashem do melahah on Shabbos? per R'Shimon, it only looks
that way because HE knows time to a hairsbreadth and could come close
to Shabbos. We also have the ten creations bein Hashmoshos in Pirkey
Avot. One is the script for the Torah. But Torah is the instrument and
also blueprint (some say now DNA) for the world (this is a 5763 year
old world at this time). But the primordial Torah written in fire upon
fire is older by 974 generations. This is start of creation some 15 BY
ago. So how much time before actual end of yom shishi was the switch to
normal time? Using Schroeder formula it is easy to find that a bit over
3 seconds of dilated time is equivalent to 6000 ordinary years. But 3+
seconds is one heleq. A heleq has important Maaseh Breishis kabbalistic
implications. Thus, the duration of month per Rabban Gamliel which we
give as 29d + 12H +793h comes to 765433 haloqim which can be written as
765432+1. Where is the extra (+1) heleq from? It is the remainder from
yom shishi. Furthermore, modern science shows that the duration of the
month was indeed one heleq longer than now, about 6000 years ago.

Many interconnections here, which fit very nicely. Either lots of
coincidences, or there is a reason for it.

Morris Engelson 

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]