Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 081

Monday, December 23 2002

• shikkur shnorrer
• re: charity
• Re: charity
• Re: charity
• Re: Avodah V10 #80 "and many animals"
• animal suffering
• Re: animal suffering
• age of the universe
• Re: animal suffering
• Re: animal suffering
• Re: charity
• tzedakah
• Re: shikkur shnorrer
• Re: Avodah V10 #64 Adon olam
• Re: Shema Yisrael
• Re: Why are we here? (was: Dira ba'Tachtonim)
• Re: Why are we here? (was: Dira ba'Tachtonim)
• Re: Creation Every Day
• Response re Genetics
• Adon olam
• Re: tzedakah
• Re: Avodah V10 #80
• Continuous Creation

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject: charity

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.

>>>>

Our Rov - who is a real softy - would probably show the gemoro about
'...afilu sus lirkov olov v'eved lorutz lefonov...'  to justify keeping this
shikkur shnorrer happy..

SBA

R' Eli turkel asked about <<< 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. >>>

First, let me applaud his diligence in researching the situation rather
than presuming something or other.

Now, may I suggest a alternative to the options listed: Consider
confronting that man with the information that you got from Social
Services. Perhaps he has a reasonable response! Or maybe it will convince
him to look elsewhere, without publicly embarrassing him. OTOH, maybe he
deserves a public embarrasment, but this should certainly not be done
before giving him a fair hearing.

y'yasher kochachem, and tizku l'mitzvos

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

See: Yoreh Deah 251:1-2. Someone who barges in to a shul during tfilla
and starts shnorring while people are daavening and thus ruining kavanah
or worse, pestering them during Shmone Esreh would seem to me to fall
in the category of avaryan b'meizid or avaryan l'hachis. Ergo as per
the Beer Heitev (YD 251 s"k bet, that it is ASSUR to give him tzedakah.

Josh

On 20 Dec 2002 at 15:35, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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?
...
> Awaiting your mar'eh maqom in the CC,

Hilchos Lashon Hara Klal 6, the Haga'a at the end of s'if 11. With 
thanks to my neighbor RYP who found it for me. 

-- 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.

In Avodah V10 #80 I wrote:
>  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.

I received the following communication, off-list:

Pardon my nitpicking, but 12 ribo is 120,000 people.

I was mistaken, and appreciate the correction.

[Email #2. -mi]

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> 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...

That's not a satisfying Rashi.  (Can I say that on Avodah?)

[Email #3 -mi]

We have Bereishis 43:18, Yosef's brothers: "that we be taken as slaves
along with our donkeys."

We have Yonah 4:11, Hashem: "should I not take pity on Nineveh the great
city in which there are more than 120 000 people...and many animals?"

And in private correspondence someone wrote to me:
At Mei M'rivah, the Jews complain about imminent death by thirst of
"anachnu uv'ireinu." It seems to be a pattern of concern for animals
as well as self.

Now I'm wondering: are there any more examples of this pattern in Tanach?

Toby Katz

There's been much discussion of concern for animals in Tanach, but I
am veering off to a somewhat different topic: how do you explain the
suffering of animals? That humans suffer can be explained in moral ways.
That animals suffer at the hands of humans can also be explained: bechira,
choosing evil. But how explain a world in which animals suffer at the
hands (claws, teeth) of other animals, or of Mother Nature?

Once I read something by a non-Jew who wrote that he had lost his faith
in G-d because he could not answer this question: Why did G-d create a
world in which cats play with mice? I have seen my own cat play with
a mouse, a scene at once amusing and horrifying. What is the answer to
that goy's question?

I can, BTW, imagine reasons that G-d might want us humans to witness
animals' suffering. If cats played with mice only in the presence of
human witnesses, I could find reasons, lessons to be learned. It is the
contemplation of all the suffering that goes on in the animal kingdom
out of sight of humans, without any possible reference to humans, that
leaves me puzzled. And I say this even though I have no love for animals,
indeed feel quite squeamish around them in that frum way so typical of
many FFB's from the shtetel. [I love the cat that lives on my porch
but can't bring myself to pet him!]

Toby Katz

From: T613K@aol.com
> ...But how explain a world in which animals suffer at the hands (claws,
> teeth) of other animals, or of Mother Nature? ...
>         I have seen my own cat play with a mouse, a scene at once amusing
> and horrifying.  What is the answer to that goy's question?

That mouse was probably the gilgul of someone who was cruel to animals...

SBA

The apparent dichotomy between the 14 billion years since the "big-bang" 
origin of the universe according to modern science and the "week" of 
Divine creation described in the Torah is not really resolved by some of 
the hypotheses recently mentioned on this list.   The "finished" earth 
thesis favored by the late Lubavitcher Rebbe and by Rav Avigdor Miller 
has some obvious problems that have been mentioned.   The "stretched" 
time thesis of Dr. Gerald Schroeder is also problematic.  I am not aware 
of any physicist working in relativity theory who supports his ideas. 
 Dr. Schroeder's kiruv efforts for Aish Hatorah may be salutary in 
helping people take the Torah seriously, but these ad-hoc 
rationalizations are not likely to lead to the truth.   Schroeder's 
modus operandi was particularly evident in his earlier book, "Genesis 
and the Big -Bang", where he posited a special moving reference system 
for the Creator whose relative velocity was sufficiently close to the 
speed of light as to make the 6 "days" of creation in His frame 
equivalent to x billion years in our reference frame.  This totally 
arbitrary, ad-hoc, and theologically suspect association of the Creator 
with a particular velocity - based on Einstein's "special relativity" 
theory - has more recently been replaced by an argument based, 
allegedly, on the "general relativity" theory.   Now we have a time 
system with a geometric progression; "days" 1,2,3,4,5, and 6 are 
associated with 8,4,2,1,0.5, 0.25 billion years, respectively. Besides 
the suspect definition of time in his progression of creation "days", 
Schroeder has not clearly drawn the connection between the events 
described in the Creation story and their occurrence in earthly time.   
The latter objection could also be raised against other theses that 
consider a creation "day" to be an era of variable duration or actual 
days following a very long prehistory (the era of "tohu va'vohu").   I 
don't know of a totally satisfactory solution to the problem.   One 
approach takes the Torah's description to be largely poetic and 
evocative in nature; where antipagan polemic is more important than 
scientific accuracy.   Another approach focusses on the "modern" 
cenozoic history of the earth after the last major "catastrophic" impact 
65 million years ago (the "tohu va'vohu" period).   Additional 
information about the earth's history may yet improve our understanding 
of the Creation story.

Yitzchok Zlochower

On 22 Dec 2002 at 9:08, T613K@aol.com wrote:

> I can, BTW, imagine reasons that G-d might want us humans to witness
> animals' suffering. If cats played with mice only in the presence of
> human witnesses, I could find reasons, lessons to be learned. It is
> the contemplation of all the suffering that goes on in the animal
> kingdom out of sight of humans, without any possible reference to
> humans, that leaves me puzzled. 

If you can understand the reason for that suffering in the presence 
of humans, then why not without reference to humans? After all, if WE 
were the cause the animals' suffering, then we would have to change 
our behavior to avoid causing that suffering, i.e. not allow 
ourselves to be seen by animals. Because animals suffer whether 
within or outside our presence, we may learn that sometimes suffering 
in this world does not seem to have a reason other than its decree by 
the Borei Olam. An answer to "it's not fair."

-- Carl (who generally throws the glue traps into the garbage with 
the mice still attached rather than directly causing the mice's 
death)

Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Zell, Goldberg & Co.
Telephone 972-2-571-5030 Fax 972-2-571-5031 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459

mailto:cmsherer@fandz.com      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

It was a mistake to bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq. 
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon P, Haaretz, December 24, 1995

In a message dated 12/23/02 5:00:33 AM EST, cmsherer@fandz.com writes:
>> If cats played with mice only in the presence of
>> human witnesses, I could find reasons, lessons to be learned. It is
>> the contemplation of all the suffering that goes on in the animal
>> kingdom out of sight of humans, without any possible reference to
>> humans, that leaves me puzzled. 

> If you can understand the reason for that suffering in the presence 
> of humans, then why not without reference to humans? After all, if WE 
> were the cause the animals' suffering, then we would have to change 
> our behavior to avoid causing that suffering, i.e. not allow 
> ourselves to be seen by animals. Because animals suffer whether 
> within or outside our presence, we may learn that sometimes suffering 
> in this world does not seem to have a reason other than its decree by 
> the Borei Olam. An answer to "it's not fair."

The suffering of mute creatures with no moral aspect is not an answer to 
"it's not fair"; it only sharpens the question.

> -- Carl (who generally throws the glue traps into the garbage with 
> the mice still attached rather than directly causing the mice's 
> death)

Toby Katz (who should have killed the mouse outright rather than let the cat 
play with it, but was too squeamish)

On 22 Dec 2002 at 13:58, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> See: Yoreh Deah 251:1-2. Someone who barges in to a shul during tfilla
> and starts shnorring while people are daavening and thus ruining
> kavanah or worse, pestering them during Shmone Esreh would seem to me
> to fall in the category of avaryan b'meizid or avaryan l'hachis. Ergo
> as per the Beer Heitev (YD 251 s"k bet, that it is ASSUR to give him
> tzedakah.

But I think RET's problem was not with when the man came to ask but 
what he did with the money. If he asked at an appropriate time (e.g. 
during Psukei d'Zimra) I don't think that would be an issue.

-- 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.

> There is a gentleman who comes to the shul almost every morning 
> to collect tzedaka  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....

Carl answered
"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. "

Our shul's policy is that that the shul (as a shul not individuals)
gives money to anyone who comes to shul or 1-2 times. After that they
check the person out to see if he really needs the money. I don't see
why that is Lashon Hara to check out if a person is a fraud.

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 12/23/2002

On 22 Dec 2002 at 14:59, SBA wrote:
> Our Rov - who is a real softy - would probably show the gemoro about
> '...afilu sus lirkov olov v'eved lorutz lefonov...'  to justify
> keeping this shikkur shnorrer happy..

But if the story is true and he really is spending the money on 
liquor, then you could be enabling him to harm himself.

-- Carl

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> We open "Adon olam" by speaking of how H' was Melech before He created
> anything, and will be Melech even after everything is completed.

> How is this possible, doesn't it contradict "ein melech belo am"?

Don't remember if anyone responded to this, but the answer to your
question is in Adon Olam itself.

Adon olam asher molach beterem kol yetzir nivrah--He reigned [was a king]
even before anything was created.

Le'eis na'asah vecheftzo kol azai Melech shemo nikrah--but only when
everything was actually made--le'eis na'asah vecheftzo kol--when potential
(His intention, plan) was actualized, only then was He actually CALLED
a King (azai melech shemo NIKRAH). Well, obviously, you can't be CALLED
a king until there's someone there to do the calling.

Toby Katz

In Avodah V10 #80, MBerger wrote:
> "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).

I think of them as an intro. to the main themes, but I wouldn't accord
them less attention any more than I would do so for the first few p'sukim
of P' Ha'azinu merely because those p'sukim were an introduction to
what follows.

 From my ba'al-k'riyah standpoint, they stand on their own as much as the
2nd half of the posuk does.

> Rus's geirus involved two parts: Ameikh ami, ve'E-lokayikh E-lokai.
> The pasuq affirms the same two points.

Hmmm, I would infer both points from HaShaim Elokainu (emphasis on "our,"
now including Rus and previously including her mother-in-law and the rest
of Am Yisroel).

I look at "Sh'ma Yisroel" as a wakeup call, as our way of expressing
ourselves to those [other members of Am Yisroel] around us in an emphatic,
audible fashion. The words we say in Tachanun imply that we want to note
both our connection to Yisroel (and the other Avos), a point we make in
the Mon/Thu stanzas, and our status as/desire to be a "goy echad boOretz"
(as well as our "goy kadosh" imperative), and the asmachtas to "Shema
Yisroel," "H' Elokainu," and "Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh" don't seem to be
more than that.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

RYGB wrote:
>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."

Isn't there a different answer given in the Tanya?  I only have a fuzzy
memory of it.

Micha wrote:
>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?

Because it requires defining HKBH.

Gil Student

On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 11:27:42AM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
:> 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?

: Because it requires defining HKBH.

How can one answer "Why did H' ...", as in our case "... create the
world?" without defining HQBH? Whatever the imputed motivation, it
defines Him as one who has that motivation.

Thinking about my post, I prefer RSS's version to the Ramchal's. It's
easier to define chessed than tov. Particularly WRT H' yisbarach. Look
in the archives for Euthyphro's Dilemma. Either H' defines good, and
therefore His choice is arbitrary, or He is subject to an absolute
definition of good, making Him non-primary.

I ducked out of the dilemma by defining "tov" in terms of His plan. Thus
moral tov and functional tov (as in "this is a good program") merge in
meaning. Moral "tov" is being as functional at your purpose as possible.

But then in this case, my acceptance of the Ramchal's position would be
circular reasoning. H's purpose in creating the world can't be defined
in terms of a concept -- tov -- that itself is defined in terms of
that creation.

Rather, H' created the world to have recipients of His chessed. Tov is
defined as that which makes one a better recipient.

BTW another possible out is that "HaTov shimkha". Hashem's essence is
"tov". It's neither a choice He makes nor imposed. It's what He is.
One has to explain why "sheim" is being used for essence when the usual
meaning is our perception of Him. (A name is how something is called
from the outside. As RSRH points out, similar to the Hebrew word "sham".)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
lamatiolamatiolamationnn

Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.

The whole first half of hallel hagadol is like that, all about maaseh
breishis.

DR

R' Josh Backon challenged the position of the Rav in Chicago I cited
on eye-color and mamzeirus from the abstract he cited at the end of
this e-mail.

Here is the Rav's response: 
> Looks to me like there are slight variences in darkness and lightness of 
> shade, but not a change in color from brown to blue or blue to brown. 
> Eye color is only one method of gene detection.  There are many more 
> sophisticated methods particularly with regard to blood types etc.  The 
> general idea is the same, one can only get the genes from the parents.  If a 
> gene absent from both parents appears in her offspring, it had to come from 
> another source. 
			  ---------------------------

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> 
>> He is trying to prove that your theory about eye color and mamzeirus is 
>> not correct... 

From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL 
>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query_old?uid=9152135&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b 

>>>    Entrez medline Query 
>>>    Arch Ophthalmol 1997 May;115(5):659-63 

>>>Eye color changes past early childhood. The Louisville Twin Study. 
>>>     Bito LZ, Matheny A, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Carino OB 
>>>    Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 

>>>    OBJECTIVE: To determine whether eye color changes after 6 years of 
>>>    age. DESIGN: Longitudinal data on eye color were obtained from the 
>>>    Louisville Twin Study, Louisville, Ky. Twins (n = 1513 [individuals]) 
>>>    were assessed at least once and most twins (n = 1386) were examined on 
>>>    2 or more occasions. Parents of twins were also examined at the study 
>>>    inception, 128 of whom were assessed again from February 1989 to 
>>>    October 1993. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Eye color was assessed at each 
>>>    examination by matching the iridial coloration of the subject to 1 of 
>>>    15 painted glass eye anterior segments, similar to those in artificial 
>>>    eyes, mounted on a circular disk. The spectrum ranged from light blue 
>>>    (1) to dark brown (15). RESULTS: Among whites (n = 1359), the eye 
>>>    color of 3.8% to 8.6% of the sample twins became 2 U or more darker or 
>>>    2 U or more lighter during 3- to 9-year intervals between 6 years of 
>>>    age and adulthood (> 18 years, < 24 years). Among identical 
>>>    (monozygotic) twin pairs, there was a high degree of concordance in 
>>>    eye color (r = 0.98 [P < .001]), while in fraternal (dizygotic) twin 
>>>    pairs, the concordance was less pronounced (r = 0.49) and decreased 
>>>    with age (r = 0.07). Among the sample of the mothers of twins, 9% had 
>>>    irides that lightened by 2 U or more during the follow-up period. 
>>>    CONCLUSION: Most individuals achieve stable eye color by 6 years of 
>>>    age. However, a subpopulation of 10% to 15% of white subjects have 
>>>    changes in eye color throughout adolescence and adulthood in the eye 
>>>    color range that can be expected to reflect changes in iridial melanin 
>>>    content or distribution. These data also suggest that such changes in 
>>>    eye color, or the propensity to such changes, may be genetically 
>>>    determined. 

>>>    Publication Types: 
>>>      * Twin study 
>>>    PMID: 9152135, UI: 97296666 

On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:42:46AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Adon olam asher molach beterem kol yetzir nivrah--He reigned [was a king]
: even before anything was created.
: 
: Le'eis na'asah vecheftzo kol azai Melech shemo nikrah--but only when
: everything was actually made--le'eis na'asah vecheftzo kol--when potential
: (His intention, plan) was actualized, only then was He actually CALLED
: a King (azai melech shemo NIKRAH)...

It doesn't say "ein niqra melekh..." but rather that there is actually
no melekh (or Melekh).

Second, according to the Gra, the expression has to do with the
distinction between melekh and mosheil. A melekh not only rules, but
part of the definition is the willing acceptance of the ruled.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 23 Dec 2002 at 8:42, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Our shul's policy is that that the shul (as a shul not individuals)
> gives money to anyone who comes to shul or 1-2 times. After that they
> check the person out to see if he really needs the money. I don't see
> why that is Lashon Hara to check out if a person is a fraud.

ASKING isn't speaking Lashon Hara. But hearing the answer might be an
issur (the Chafetz Chaim has a whole argument that hearing Lashon Hara
without accepting it is still an issur). BELIEVING the answer without
seeing it for yourself is Kabolas Lashon Hara. And doing something to harm
an individual based upon what you have heard and believed is an issur.

The yungerman whom I asked to help me find the quote in the CC last 
night (who is likely one of the two biggest experts in this area in 
our neighborhood) told me that Motzei Shabbos he rode back from 
Mattersdorf with a taxi driver who told him a horror story. It seems 
that the driver had picked someone up who was going "collecting," had 
driven this person around all day and evening, and finally, at 1:30 
A.M., the guy went for "one last stop" in Geula. An hour later, the 
driver realized that the "collector" had disappeared without paying 
the fare (which they had agreed would be based on the hour and not on 
distance; the fare was several hundred Shekels). Obviously, this is a 
tremendous Chilul Hashem, and the yungerman attempted to soothe the 
driver's feelings. But the driver went on....

He remembered one of the addresses to which this "collector" had gone,
an address in Mattersdorf. The driver went to the building, found the Rov
whom the collector had gone to see and told the Rov his tale of woe. The
Rov remembered the "collector" and said that he himself had given the
man NIS 200, which is a substantial sum for someone who comes to your
door off the streets. The driver asked the Rov to see what he could do
about collecting his fare. The Rov agreed to try.

A week or two later, the driver went back to the Rov. The Rov told the
driver that the "collector" had come back for more money - and that the
Rov had thrown him out of the house.

We were left to figure out the basis on which the Rov apparently was
m'kabel Lashon Hara (for the driver to say it to the Rov and for the
Rov to hear it would have been allowed, because there was a toeles - the
Rov was going to try to recover the driver's fare if the driver's story
turned out to be true). The only thing we could think of was that when
the Rov confronted the "collector" the "collector" admitted his fraud -
and refused to pay up.

I'm not a posek (but there are poskim you can call to ask this question -
look at the front of any Chafetz Chaim published recently in Israel). But
it seems to me that it would be assur to believe the social services
without at least confronting the schnorrer with the information and asking
him if it's true. If he admits that it's true, you know what to do. If
he denies it, then I don't think you can bar him from coming in and only
those who saw themselves that he was drinking (and money is fungible so
I don't think it matters if it's your money or someone else's) would be
allowed to believe the social services people. KNLA"D.

-- Carl

In a message dated 12/21/2002 10:36:18 PM EST, Gil Student writes:
> 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"....
> 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? ...

Maybe the perek means that everyone thinks in the present tense, and that the "world" consists of the sum of all of our thoughts. 

David Finch

On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 02:41:48PM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: Maybe the perek means that everyone thinks in the present tense,
: and that the "world" consists of the sum of all of our thoughts.

Seems to jibe with an idea I saw beshem the Alter of Navardok.

When we say "bishvili nivra ha'olam" we're speaking of the world in which
we live. This is the sum of our perceptions of the world. In this sense
each person lives in their own world. (Shades of Bishop Berkley?)

I invite RYGB to correct my understanding of the Alter's position,
and RSC to correct what I said about Bishop Berkley.

However, as I am soon leaving the country for the week, and am unsure
of whether I will be able to reach the tools I use to moderate Avodah,
this list will probably be quiet during that time. My apologies.

Areivim is on a different server, one on which it was easier to
delegate running the list. But, that one's buggy.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]