Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 087

Thursday, September 2 2004

• RE: Age of the Universe
• Kaddish D'Rabbanan
• Hiyuv to daven in a minyan
• Re: chiyuv to daven w/ a minyan
• Re: dividing Tehillim into monthly sections
• Re: Yom Tov in the Torah
• Yevamos 4:11
• RE: Psak for hashkafa
• Re: Ikkarim (again??)
• Re: Public expression by women
• Re: Lice & Change of nature
• Re: Pi
• RE: Age of the Universe
• Re: The Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe
• RE: Age of the Universe-Spiritual Truth
• Re: Calendar year at creation

> Your answer certainly does not give a ma'amin any great comfort. If it
> works for you, so be it. If I was not frum and got your answer, I would
> probably remain not-frum.

You can't say that -- since you have no understanding of the mind-set
and worldview of a non-frum person.

IN fact, as anyone active in kirum would know, your answer would be more
problematic, since it doesn't supply *any* answer that a non-frum person
with basic (high school) scientific knowledge would find acceptable.

That's why it's important to answer these questions, and not brush them away
with "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht."

> BTW, I spoke today with a respected scientist familiar with the fossil
> record, and he said that seeing how there is no one location with a
> complete fossil record, putting it together is sheer hypothesis, and
> that therefore the record proves neither for nor against the Torah.

Appealing to Authority? Unless the "respected scientist" is respected
in paleontology or a related field it's meaningless.

As anyone familiar with pseudoscience can tell you, you can find
"respected scientists" who believe all sorts of things.

FWIW, We have continuous geological and environmental records, taken
from the same location, going back over 100,000 years.

We have biological records going back over 10,000 years.

Akiva

--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

From: "M. Kagan" <motikagan@hotmail.com>
> The practice of saying Kaddish DeRabbanan migrated over to Nusah Ashkenaz
> from the nushaot of the Hassidim in the last hundred years or so.

> As far as why Hassidim might have wanted to add the prayer, the Siddur
> Yaavetz (recently translated into English and published by Feldheim
> Books) includes a comment which might reflect the thinking of the Hassidic
> innovators. Starting from the popular conception that during the course of
> the morning prayer one ascends through the four worlds known to mystics,

Perhaps the reason is much simpler. The Gemara says the importance of
Yehe Shme Rabbah stresses the importance of Kaddish D'Rabbanan. We know
that is taken to refer to when it is said after actual learning, but
because of the stress the of the schar, it is too much of a step to say
that some learning was added to davening to enable the Kaddish D'Rabbanan.

RYE Henkin seems to hold that there is a hiyuv for the community to have
a minyan, and there is a hiyuv for a person to be part of that community.
However, if the person has good reasons why he can't make the minyan, he
is against forming other minyanim so that the person can go to minyan -
the primary hiyuv is on the community, rather than on the individual -
and he says that was the widespread practice in Europe - even large
communities essentially had one minyan.

Meir Shinnar

Ari Zivotofsky <zivotoa@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> Shaya Potter wrote:
>>Is there a chiyuv for a man to daven w/ a minyan or is it just "better".
>>i.e. one can't do certain things w/o a minyan, but is that a chiyuv on
>>the individual?

> Rav Moshe Feinstein holds it is a chiyuv even though the Shulchan Aruch
> uses the word "yish'tadel".

I do not have this first hand but I am virtually certain that RAS
held that Teffilah B'Tzibur is a Mitzvah Kiyumis and not a Chiuv.
Whe he became paralyzed and unable to attend Shul on Shabbos, his
close Talmidim offered to set up a weekly Shabbos Minyan in his hoem.
He turned it down saying that Davening with a Minyan was not as important
as maintianing one's kvius. IOW One should not be Mevatel one's kvius
in order to provide a Minyan for someone else. RAS rarely Davened with
a Minyan on Shabbos after his stroke.

If he were to have held that that Teffilah B'Tzibur was a Chiuv, it
would have no doubt trumped the Inyan of Kviah.

HM

In a message dated 8/31/2004 12:53:22 PM EDT, T613K@aol.com writes:
> [Request forwarded from my husband, R' Michael Katz:]
> Ask your chevra at Areivim and Avodah if anyone knows for sure when the
> minhag of dividing Tehillim into monthly sections began.

I can't answer this question
BUT I came up with a minhag for this time of year related to this
question....

1) During Ellul do the entire Sefer Tehillim on the monthly schedule
2) During the Asseres yemai Teshuvah use the 7 intermediate days to finish
Tehillim on a weekly schedule

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
R. Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/

In a message dated 8/13/2004 2:06:27 PM EDT, hgschild@yahoo.com writes:
> In Yalkut Shimoni Devarim (Perek 16, Remez 902)and elsewhere, it brings
> that there are three places where Yamim Tovim are mentioned in the
> Torah....paraphrased... Emor for their order, Pinchas for Korbanot and
> Reeh for the Tzibur (Aliyah L'Regel).

> There are "really" 4 counting Ki Tissa. Do any mefarshim elaborate why
> this was necessary and the meaning of the exceptions within this rule
> (as in Shofar being mentioned in Pinchas)?

what happened to mishpatim?  Or am I missing something??

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
R. Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/

Yevamos 4:11 tells us (among other things) a secnario:

Reuven, who is married to two (unrelated) women dies with no children,
has a brother Shimon.

The Mishna tells us that Shimon either marries one of the women in yibum,
or does chalitza, and then the other woman in exempt. (Shimon may not
marry both, and may not do chalitza with both).

The Gemara goes on to explain that the reason is based on psukim, that
he builds up one house, not two.

My chavrusa writes: "I would have expected the reasoning to be that he
marries one by yibum, or submits to halitzah from one, which severs all
zikah, and leaves the remaining former wives as "wives of a brother" -
once an ervah, always an ervah."

Our question is: why isn't the above logic relevant? Why does the Gemara
have to use "build up a house" ? What's wrong with my chavrusa's logic?

 --
Sholom Simon

The Ritva (Rosh Hashanah 16a sv ha-meivin) discusses the question of
exactly when and on what a person is judged throughout the year. He was
not the first to do so (see the Ramban's derashah for Rosh Hashanah)
but, uniquely, he uses the language of halachah in his discussion. Thus,
he begins with the rule that stam Mishnah and machloked in a Baraisa,
the halachah is according to the Mishnah. After reviewing all of the
relevant sources and reaching a conclusion, the Ritva ends with a
"ve-chen halachah." This is all about a matter of hashkafah!

As to the Rambam, and this is a point I make in my essay (thank you Micha
for the mention and the link), the fact that he lists 13 fundamental
principles that all Jews are required to believe and then, on the next
Mishnah and on what must have been the very same page, states that
in matters that have no practical ramifications there is no deciding
between opinions. How can the Rambam list fundamental principles of
belief and then immediately say (or so many think) that there is no
authority on matters of belief? Clearly, he did NOT say that (and, in
my essay, I cite Marvin Fox and the Maharatz Chajes as already pointing
that out). Rather, on a careful reading there is no contradiction. The
13 fundamental principles have practical ramifications (who is a kofer
and what is kefirah?) and therefore there is a need to decide among
beliefs. Regarding other issues, that have no practical ramifications,
there is no need - and therefore no process to - decide among beliefs.

It seems to me from the above that the Ritva disagreed with the Rambam
and held that even on matters of belief for which there are no practical
ramifications one can still "pasken" between views. From the Meiri that
RD Eidensohn quoted, it seems that he also agrees with the Ritva.

Gil Student
http://www.YasharBooks.com
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> Can we, or the Rambam, entertain the possibility that the Dayan haEmes
> can mete out punishment for something that isn't both an issur and
> identified by Him as such?

What do you think the issur is?

For not going to heaven see H. Teshuva 8:3, H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:8-9
which make clear that you go to heaven only if you have correct knowledge
of God. For moridin see H. Mamrim 3:1-3. Notice the loophole in 3 for
people who were brought up wrong, which may be motivated by your concern.

David Riceman

In a message dated 8/20/2004 2:41:17 PM EDT, y.blau@att.net writes:
> The debate about Rav Hershel Shachter's imagery in his talk about
> women reading the ketuba has been followed by the discussion about
> the appropriateness of a Jewish newspaper's criticizing a rabbinical
> scholar. What has been missing is any analysis of his halakhic
> reasoning. The argument that tsniut requires women to avoid a public role
> is interesting but not proven by the sources that Rav Schachter quoted.
...
> I find it difficult to find the proper balance between preserving the
> traditional Jewish family and the critical role of women within it,
> and acknowledging that women now have the opportunity be fully educated
> and to use their talents professionally....

Rav Hershel Shachter's point seems to be that women should avoid public
roles in general

I agree with Rav Schachter on 1 aspect of his point. It may be
questionable for women to perform in public IN FRONT OF MEN.

So here is a simple matrix AISI

Men performing for men - OK
Women performing for women - OK
Women performing for men or mixed - not kavod or tznius
Men perfroming for women or mixed - a problem of tzinus but a necssary
excpetion must be made when shluchei tzibbur do so in a shul etc. or a
man blowing shofar or reading megillah for women.

AFAIK the only objection to women reading Megillah for women is a da'as
Yachid i.e .The Korban Nesn'el brought down in R. Avi Weiss's defnitive
article on women doing krias megillah.

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
R. Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

 I wrote:
>What I meant to say is that a mistake in Metzeius is not Divrei Elokim
>Chaim, and likewise is not a psak just like a Tous B'dvar Mishnah or a
>Tous in a Posuk is not a Psak. See SA CM Siman 25. Likewise, if one
>should hold that there is no logical reason for the  Psak to be true, and
>had Chazal been alive today ,they would certainly  retract their Psak, who
>says that such a Psak is binding even now?

RYGB responded:
>A mistake in metzi'us is a psak, so long as it was issued by a mumcheh
>lo'rabbim, as in the case of R' Tarfon and the Alexandrian animals from
>whom the wombs were removed.

This is not true. The Gemoro Sanhedrin 33A considers the case of Rav
Tarfon's error as a Tous B'dvar Mishnah.Rav Tarfon ruled that an animal
that had a hysterectomy is Treifoh. The Chacomim overturned his Psak based
on the testimony of Doctor Todus that this is routinely done to animals
that are exported from Egypt & the animals live. Although Rashi explains
that the Gemoro calls it a Tous B'dvar Mishnah because there is a Mishna
in Chulin 54A that states this Halacha, the Shach in Siman 25 disagrees
with that interpretation because the Mishnah was not composed yet in the
days of Rav Tarfon & if it would have been, it is inconceivable that he
would not know a Mishnah. The Shach (letter Tes) interprets the Gemoro
to mean that an obvious mistake in Metzius is also called a Tous B'dvar
Mishnah. The Sfas Emes in Bchoros 28B likewise makes the same comment.

I wrote:
> Likewise, if one
>should hold that there is no logical reason for the Psak to be true,
>and had Chazal been alive today ,they would certainly retract their
>Psak, who says that such a Psak is binding even now?

I would like to add that a Psak by its very nature is different
than a Takana. A Takana or Gezaroh is legislation,while a psak is an
interpretation . If the interpretation is not tenable it isn't valid. Even
regarding a Gezaroh, when the reason for it no longer applies, although
the conventional understanding is that you need a formal Bais Din to
annul the Gezaoh. See however the Igros Moshe OC Vol.2 Siman 100 who
has a big Chiddush to explain Tosfos that permits clapping & dancing on
shabbos nowadays. He says that under some circumstances where it is clear
that had Chazal been alive, they would have annuled it, it might not be
necessary to actually require a formal gathering of Bais Din to annul it.

RYGB responded
>I am not so daring as to assert I know which psakim Chazal would have
>or would not have revoked.

But The DR that you quoted wrote that Chazal's Psak was based on the
current knowledge of their time. As he writes
>So it obvious that if Hazal were deciding then according to the current
>state of scientific knowledge, knowing that all living creature procreate,
>they would not have allowed the killing of a louse on the Sabbath or
>to eat wormy cheese just because the preceding generations had believed
>that these living creatures are generated spontaneously.

I think that if one takes the view that they would not have issued the
Psak if they knew the true Metzius, is is obvious that had Chazal been
alive, they would retract their Psak since as I explained according to
the Shach, it is considered the same as a Tous B'dvar Mishneh, which
must be overturned by either the same Bais Din or a different Bais Din.

I wrote:
>See also the Gemara Yevomos 92A where it states that if a Bais Din Paskins
>that it is past Shkiah on Shabbos( on a cloudy day) and one may do work,
>and then the sun comes out proving them wrong,it is not a Psak, but rather
>a simple mistake. Consequently, even if most of the Tzibur followed their
>error, the Par He'elam Dovor is not brought by the Tzibur, but rather
>each individual must bring his own Koborn.

RYGB responded:
>This is because the mistake contradicts the guidelines established by
>Chazal themselves.

I don't understand why you are saying that our case would be any different.
My point is that you see from the Gemara Yevomos that an error in Metzius is
not a Psak at all, which gives it even less validity than an error in
Halacha which in many cases is considered a Psak, & is goverened by the
Korban Hatzibur.

I wrote:
>Similarly if the Bais Din permits a woman to remarry based on one witness
>& she does so, and then the (presumed dead)husband walks in to Bais Din,
>the woman and her second husband must bring a korban. They are not exempt
>due to their reliance on the verdict of Bais Din, because a Tous in
>Mitzeius is not a Psak.See Rambam Shigogos Perek 14 Halacha 3.

RYGB responded:
>But that is precisely because there was only one, not two witnesses...

That is not true. In the case of two witnesses who say that the husband
died, the Halacha is even more Pashut that it's not a Psak. See the
Gemara there & also the Psak of Rambam (mentioned above).

I wrote:
>See also the Rambam's Psak (Shegogos 13 Halacha 5 & 6) that if someone who is
>fit to pasken knows that the Sanhedrin made a mistake, he has no right to
>rely on their Pasak Likula.

RYGB responded:
>That has nothing to do with metzi'us.

Based on my previous statements that a Tous in Metzius is eqivalent to
a Tous B'dvar Mishneh or a Tous against a Posuk, it now follows that if
one who is fit to Pasken is convinced that they erred in the Mitzeus
& therefore in Halacha as well, he is not permitted to kill lice on
Shabbos. However, one can say like REED that Chazal gave the psak based
on tradition, and were only offering an explanation for it based on the
science of their time,& we now must seek other reasons to explain the
halacha such as the eggs not being visible or other explanations. In
light of this view the Halacha would always remain valid.

Kol Tuv,
Moshe Schor

In a message dated 8/22/2004 6:32:58 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> But then I realized that this was not a battle between Greek avodah
> zara and Chazal's Torah. Rather, it was information learned from the
> highest leaders of the scientific world, harnessed to answer questions of
> halacha....
> Rather, we should take it as a lesson: Just as Chazal relied on the
> greatest scientists of their day, who were upshlugged by later scientists,
> we should realize that our scientists may very well get upshlugged by
> tomorrow's....

Maybe in the area of objective physical sciences, Chazal were not afraid
of relying upon Conventional Wisdom. And maybe they realized that the
paradigms could/would shift and would be just as OK with us shifting
accodring to the latest findings.

Lemashal if Chazal were alive NOW and found out that the Julian calendar
has drifedt from the Gregorian adustment to the point of 12-13 day gap -
would now be OK with making the same adjustment Halachically themselves?
My guess is that they would have shifted according to the more recently
refined Gregorian correctionf...

 Nevertheless we do not.  But why not?

Whatever the reason we do not make a shift, it is probably not due to
some perceived confilct between Halachah and science but probably more
to do with our own limitations i over-turning precedent

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
R. Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/

>> Your answer certainly does not give a ma'amin any great comfort. If it
>> works for you, so be it. If I was not frum and got your answer, I would
>> probably remain not-frum.

>You can't say that -- since you have no understanding of the mind-set
>and worldview of a non-frum person.

Uh-uh. I teach in Ohr Somayach and am very close to several of the talmidim.

>IN fact, as anyone active in kirum would know, your answer would be more
>problematic, since it doesn't supply *any* answer that a non-frum person
>with basic (high school) scientific knowledge would find acceptable.

Wrong again. Kana"l. Baduk u'menuseh. (BTW, to the best of my recollection 
I have not provided Avodah, at least not recently, with *my* answer.)

>That's why it's important to answer these questions, and not brush them away
>with "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht."

>> BTW, I spoke today with a respected scientist familiar with the fossil
>> record, and he said that seeing how there is no one location with a
>> complete fossil record, putting it together is sheer hypothesis, and
>> that therefore the record proves neither for nor against the Torah.

>Appealing to Authority? Unless the "respected scientist" is respected
>in paleontology or a related field it's meaningless.

>As anyone familiar with pseudoscience can tell you, you can find
>"respected scientists" who believe all sorts of things.

This one (although not a member of Aishdas) happens to know some of our 
constituency and commented: "Some believe what they see and some see what 
they believe."

>FWIW, We have continuous geological and environmental records, taken
>from the same location, going back over 100,000 years.

>We have biological records going back over 10,000 years.

Surely you jest? In the evolutionary time-frame these are mere moments...

YGB

RYGB wrote:
>Your answer certainly does not give a ma'amin any great comfort. If it
>works for you, so be it. If I was not frum and got your answer, I would
>probably remain not-frum.

Fortunately, then, you are frum! However, in my considerable experience
of dealing with people on this topic, my approach works. Telling them
"you don't die from a kashya" does not work.

Come to think of it, it's not really a matter of giving comfort. It's
a matter of trying to get an accurate understanding of this section of
Torah. Many people want to resolve the conflict regarding the age of the
universe, and while it is possible to comfort most of them with answers
such as that of RAK, Dr Schroeder and Dr Aviezer, the fact is that these
answers do not hold water because they do not account for the difference
in sequence. If you are saying that you would rather have no answer at
all, then while this may work for you, it certainly doesn't work for
most people.

>BTW, I spoke today with a respected scientist familiar with the fossil
>record, and he said that seeing how there is no one location with a complete
>fossil record, putting it together is sheer hypothesis, and that therefore
>the record proves neither for nor against the Torah.

Was he talking about evolution, or about birds coming after land animals?
What was his field of speciality? The consensus amongst scientists in the
field is overwhelmingly, probably even unanimously, that terrestrial
animals came before flying creatures. And I doubt you'll find any
respected scientists claiming that plants appeared before the sun.

>I don't know who RYGB is referring to with the word "we," but I 
>searched the archives and found a number of listmembers showing that it 
>can indeed be acceptable, giving clear sources in Rambam and Rav Saadia 
>Gaon. And this was regarding non-maase Bereishis material - kal 
>v'chomer regarding maase Bereishis, the most esoteric part of the 
>Torah.

RYGB:
>Uh-uh. Check the archives again. The sources in the Rambam and RSG
>were debatable, to say the least. I think the interpretation of my
>interlocutors at the time was plain out wrong, but they were certainly
>not unambiguous!

I did indeed check the archives again, and found debate concerning
Rambam's position on Gan Eden. Abarbanel, Efodi and R' Yosef Kappach
interpreted Rambam as understanding it allegorically, while you
disagreed. Considering the stature of your interlocutors, I wouldn't
characterize the proposed source in Rambam as "debatable, to say the
least."

Furthermore, this previous debate on Avodah was only regarding Gan Eden,
concerning which there is some ambiguity in Rambam's position. However,
with regard to RYGB's blanket statement that allegorization is
unnacceptable, we have a very clear statement by Rambam to the contrary:

"The account of creation given in Scripture is not, as is generally
believed, intended to be literal in all its parts." (Guide For The
Perplexed, 2:29)

With regard to Rav Saadia Gaon, I did not find any debate regarding his
position, which is stated as follows:

"And I so declare, first of all, that it is a well-known fact that every
statement in the Bible is to be understood in its literal sense expect for
those that cannot be so construed for one of the following four reasons:
It may, for example, either be rejected by the observation of the senses
....Or else the literal sense may be negated by reason .....Again [the
literal meaning of a Biblical statement may be rendered impossible]
by an explicit text of a contradictory nature, in which case it would
become necessary to interpret the first statement in a non-literal nature
... Finally, any Biblical statement to the meaning of which rabbinical
tradition has attached a certain reservation is to be interpreted by us
in keeping with this authentic tradition." (Emunos V'Deyos 7)

I think it is somewhat inaccurate, then, to summarize all this as you
did, with the sentence "to allegorize the Torah is unacceptable, as we
have stated here time and again."

>I would appreciate Rabbi Carmel's email address so we can get his input,
>but I do not know that he is the last authority on REED's intent.

He does not use e-mail to my knowledge, but his phone number is listed in
the phonebook. I agree that he is not the final word on REED's philosophy,
but in the absence of another talmud of REED telling us that Rav Carmell
is wrong, I see no reason to accept that as the case.

> Vohs is shteit und geshriben is clear - you conveniently omitted the
> Ramban that REED cites verbatim after the word "ability" and before the
> word"In" in your translation! Who states quite clearly (and whom REED is
> elucidating): "Know that the days mentioned in the activity of Creation were
> in the Creation of Heaven and Earth literal days, made up of hours and
> minutes, and that they were six like the six days of the work[week],
> K'PESHUTO SHEL MIKRAH.

But Rav Dessler's whole point is that "peshuto shel mikra" does not mean
physical history! I quote again:
"In the simple meaning of the text - that which is conveyed to us in
accordance with our own conceptual capacity - we are to understand actual
days made up of hours and minutes. But in its real essence, that is to
say, in its inner meaning, the text has quite a different connotation. It
refers to the six sefiros, which are modes of revelation of the divine
conduct of the world. Only for our benefit does Scripture present them
to us in the form of six days."

This is a somewhat unconventional understanding of Ramban, but this is
what Rav Dessler held nonetheless. The sefer does indeed take the six
days in a non-literal manner, contrary to your assertion otherwise.

Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin

WRT to allegorizing the torah, RYGB states
>If you mean other Avodah subscribers, that is correct. If you mean more
>substantive sources, it is not.

We have been down this route before. I would note that among more modern
authorities, RA Lichtenstein has written that allegory is permissible,and
that clearly the rambam allegorizes (or is willing to allegorize) ma'ase
breshit. RAY Kook has also been cited with an allegorical interpretation
as, at the least, permissible.

Whether or not ma'ase breshit should be understood as an allegory is
a machloket rishonim, with the ramban clearly opposed. Furthermore,
the extent of how far permissible allegory extends is also a machloket.
However, I think RYGB is unique in claiming that there are no substantive
sources that understand ma'ase breshit as nonliteral, and that even
understands the rambam on ma'ase breshit as being "debatable, to
say the least". The dominant interpretation of the rambam has been to
allow quite extensive allegory - which is one reason he was criticized.
There are no substantive sources that would support RYGB's interpretation.

Perhaps RYGB can cite one major mefaresh of the rambam who understands
him as he does - requiring the literal understanding of ma'ase breshit?
Does RYGB consider all the standard meforshim of the rambam as not being
substantive sources?

Meir Shinnar

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>"God created the Heavens and the Earth" is a Spiritual Truth (i.e. God
>>was personally involved in creation) without the need for the narrative
>>to be an exact record of the physical process.

> If it is described as a physical process it is not spiritual.

After all is said and done it might be worth while to consider the
philosophy of Kant at this point who argues that one cannot know spritual
truth through the process of reason, which is in essence the crux of
the discussion here. Science relies entirely on perception and rational
thinking but ultimately cannot know through the means available to it
(perception and reational thought) the nature or even the existence of
a Spiritual Being.

Here is a riddle. Can anyone identify who said the following?

     "God caused to rise among the nations the exceptional man Kant,
who, on the basis of the Socratic and Cartesian scepticism, brought about
that "Coppernican turn" whereby the whole of man's reasoning was set in
steel limits within which percetion alone is legitimized. Blessed be
God Who in His wisdom created Kant! Every real Jew who seriously and
honestly studies the "Critique of Pure Reason" is bound to pronounce
"Amen" on it. 'Go not about after your own heart and your own eyes' or,
in Kantian language, 'pursue not the messages of you inner and outer
experience - for, pursuing them, thou wilt be unfaithful to Me': the
whole Kantian theory of perception is the most adequate commentary on
this fundemental injunction of the Torah."

HM

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> My point is that
> 1 Tishrei was Shabbos, Adam was created Fri, 30 Elul, within the period
> of time (or "time") in question.

1 Tishri was Shabbos, not Friday?  Mina hani mili?  

> That one day makes your posintion, IMHO, an off-by-one error.

> The first full year is year 2 because someone didn't like the Seider
> Olam's use of zero, and they wanted real time to begin with 1.

Seder Olam has the first full year (i.e. the year beginning with Adam's
creation on 1 Tishri) as year 0, and the 5-day period before that is not
part of the calendar at all.  This would accord with your view.  But
our calendar doesn't just add 1, in order to avoid having a year 0;
it adds 2 to the SO's count, in order to include the first 5 days.
That's the difference between starting from BHRD and VYD.

> : No, that's the Seder Olam's calendar.  The one we use is 2 years ahead
> : of that one, and on it the world was created on 25 Elul 0001, and Adam
> : was created on 1 Tishri 0002.

> To summarize my point:
> Actually, 30 Elul 0001. 1 Tishrei is the 7th day if 25 Elul is the 1st,
> Adam was created on the sixth.

> Which explains the use of year 1, even if pre-Adamic time was only "time".

Again, mina hani mili that that Elul had 30 days, and that Rosh Hashana
was the 7th day, not the 6th?

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                       potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                       before the war.                         - David Kay

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


[ 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         ]