Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 158

Wednesday, March 15 2006

• RE: Simple Mishloach Manos
• "Verabim me'amei ha'aretz misyahadim",
• Re: "Verabim me'amei ha'aretz misyahadim",
• Re: jewish identification
• Re: Simple Mishloach Manos
• Re: Amalek
• Re: Amalek
• Birthdays for people
• RE: Chazal, science, and halacha
• Re: Simple Mishloach Manos
• Purim and Carmel
• Re: jewish identification
• RE: Chazal, science, and halacha
• Re: Intelligent design
• RE: Purim and Carmel
• RE: relativity and geocentrism

On March 14, 2006, Russel Levy wrote:
>> Achashtiranim are a species of camel which travel very quickly (Rashi).
>> Obviously then, ramachim must also be a species of camel. Perhaps ramachim
>> were cross-bred with another species of camel and the resultant progeny
>> is referred to as achastiranim. (I wonder if RNS knows anything about
>> this). According to Ibn Ezra, ramachim means horses and achashtiranim
>> means mules.
 
> That's more than Ravina knew! I think it's (Megillah 18a) -- "Atu anan
> haAchashtiranim b'nei haRamachim mi yadinan??" And peirush rashi on that
> does not explain that we have to know the words :)

True. However, I am just quoting Rashi. As far as why Rashi knew something
Ravina didn't, I'm stumped. Ditto for the Ibn Ezra. Perhaps these
rishonim where being mifaresh biderech efshar...IOW, they were exposed
to a physical reality which seemed to match the Megila's description.

Simcha Coffer 

From: "Eli Turkel" <>
> It is interesting in the Megilla that Haman did not know Mordecai was
> Jewish until told so.

What about he Midrash that Haman had earlier sold himself as a slave
to Mordechai??

> Esther was queen for 4 years before revealing to
> Achashverosh that she was jewish. Obviously Jews were not distinguished
> externally from the general culture.

Which gives me the opportunity to offer 2 peshotim in "Verabim me'amei
ha'aretz misyahadim", with 'amei 'ha'aretz' being the Jews..

1) That they no longer were ashamed to wear their distinctive Jewish
malbushim - 'misyahadim' = it was noticed that they were Jews.

2) That 'amei ha'aaretz' refers to non-frum Jews who because of the
events in the Megilla - 'misyahadim' - became BTs..

SBA

>> It is interesting in the Megilla that Haman did not know Mordecai was
>> Jewish until told so.

> What about he Midrash that Haman had earlier sold himself as a
> slave to Mordechai?? 

As they say I can't explain the medrash but it is an explicit pasuk
(Esther 3:6) - "ki higidu lo et am mordecai"
Artscroll on an earlier pasuk (3:4) "meyom leyom " brings explicitly
that they thought Mordecai was a Gentile

 --
Eli Turkel

On March 13, 2006 Eli Turkel wrote:
>> It is interesting in the Megilla that Haman did not Mordecai was
>> Jewish until told so. Esther was queen for 4 years before revealing to
>> Achashverosh that she was jewsih. Obviously Jews were not dostinguished
>> externally from the general culture

R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
> This is, IMO, not correct. Haman said, "yeshno am echad mufuzar umiforad
> bein ha'amim", we were a single nation liberally scattered throughout the
> nations without any national cohesiveness and yet it was well known that
> "daseyhem shonos mikol am". There can be no greater statement about the
> nature of klal Yisrael then that. Haman was the last person who would
> want to praise our nation. If he said that, you know it was true. The
> reason Haman was unaware of Eshter's nationality is because Mordechai
> planned it that way. If what you are saying is true about Mordechai,
> I'm sure it was planned too.

Daseyhem does not refer to external appearance. The fact that Haman was
able to suggest extermination of a people [As well as the existence of
Hayl Am Umdinah HaTzorim Osum, Esther 8:11] suggests that the political
climate toward Jews at that time was not all that favorable, so we
shouldn't be surprised if Jews didn't dress the part and tried to keep
a low profile.

The Gemara in Megillah 13b elaborates on Haman's propaganda, with
his assertions that keeping the Jews was not politically or monetarily
necessary for Ahashveirosh. Daseyhem Shonos was defined as they won't eat
from us or marry us, V'Es Dosei Hamelekh Eynom Osim, D'Mafki L'Kula Shata
BeSh"Hi UP"Hi (Shabbos Hayom Pesach Hayom), they won't work on Shabbos
and Yom Tov, and thus won't earn any taxable income. Haman's propaganda
was aimed at a nation who may very well have tried to blend in, but were
nonetheless "different" because of Kashrus, Marriage, and Shabbos/Yom Tov.

"Mordechai" and "Esther" were not Jewish names, either.

See the Ibn Ezra who comments that one of the reasons that Esther was
told to conceal her nationality was so that she could continue to keep
Shabbos and Kashrus without alarm.

From: T613K@aol.com
>> He also mentioned the 4 degrees of listening, that RSZA taught him: ...
>> 3. He's following word for word, turning the pages correctly, but not
>>  concentrating on the story. Yotze be'dieved.
>> 4. He's concentrating on the plot - living the megillah: Fulfilled
>> the mitzva as it was intended.

> In former times it was quite common, and even today not uncommon, that
> many people -- especially the women -- did not understand the words of
> the Megilla. They were/are yotzei by following along anyway.
> And what about the partamim and the achasdarpanim and the pachos (that
> one must be something like "pasha" in India?) and the achashteranim who
> are sons of the ramachim?

That's the Gemara's argument, in fact, in Megillah, where they're
discussing in which languages one is yotzei reading the megillah.
They conclude that one is yotzei in vernacular only if one understands
that particular language. One is yotzei in Hebrew even if one
doesn't understand all the words, because there are words that nobody
understands/knows what they mean. And their example? "Achashtranim
benei haramachim".

Actually, someone on one of these email lists proposed a meaning for
that phrase. Look where it is: "...and they sent letters in the hand
of the runners on horses, the riders of the inheritance, 'Achashtranim
Benei Haramachim.'" It would make sense that AbM _are_ the runners on
horses, a family name, in fact, the first product placement in literature.

When it absolutely positively must reach all 127 provinces before
next Adar, sent it with Achashtranim Benei Haramachim. Delivery to
scattered people in any tiny town our speciality (yehudim haprazim,
yoshvei haprazot).

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

P.S. Rashi posits "racing camels"; Ibn Ezra posits "Arabian racehorses",
but the Gemara didn't know. This must be an example of that great
principle, "Aliyas Hadoros".

RAMiller wrote:
> RAF's suggestion is to make some sort of lengthy bracha which would
> include a mention of Amalek. But Zachor (according to many, at least)
> has to be said from a Sefer Torah, and I cannot imagine how that would
> be included in the text of that bracha.

Either the leining is the qiyum, and if so, making the blessing would
not constitute a premature fulfiliment, or the fulfilment can happen by
recalling sans leining, in which case one can imagine a different form
of kiyum, without leining, with some kind of birkat hamitzvah kind of
kidush, or perhaps followed by a (me'iqar hadin) superfluous leining.

Since you were mentioning both possibilities, I argued according to
one point of view. I did not suggest what the "real" or "ideal" kind of
zakhor is (leining or otherwise), leaving the exercise to other posters.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

>>"See Taz 685:2 near the end, is mashma that the oleh should be moitze
>>everyone in the brochos. So there is your brocho."

>Good answer; but you better have an oleh who is a yodea sefer.

As far as I am aware, the common practice is to give that aliyah to the
Rov of the shul.

Akiva Blum

Rashi in the beginning of this weeks parsha asks how could the number
of bnei yisroel be unchanged from motzei Yom Kippur of the first year,
603,550, to the first of the second month of the second year. The answer
Rashi gives is that birthdays are counted from Rosh Hashona in this
regard, and therefore it was in that respect the same year.

Why do we not count all birthdays only from RH? For example, all bar/bas
mitzvas are celebrated on RH. Who talks about this?

Akiva Blum

R' Shalom Kahn wrote:
> Hashamaim mesaprim kevod k'eil umaasei yadav magid harakiah 
> (among other things) is an experiential reality, irrespective of 
> science might explain the same phenomena.

to which R' Simcha Coffer responded:
> I have no idea what you are talking about. "Hashamaim misaprim"
> is precisely about science. It is precisely about our observation of
> a wonderful universe which simply could not have evolved by chance,
> a universe which bespeaks infinite wisdom and kindliness in all of
> it manifestations. Just because origins based science (as opposed to
> operational science, a discipline which includes testable hypotheses
> as part of its credo) chooses to eliminate the Creator from the
> equation doesn't mean that 'Science' contradicts the Torah's account
> of MB. "Hashamaim misaprim" is not "irrespective of science", it *is*
> science. Origins based science is 'scientism', akin to subscribing to
> a mindless religion which produces no verification of its fundamentals.

I truly do not understand what R' Coffer is saying. Science has a good
working explanation of how stars form and why they move along the paths
that they move along. Yet we still say "HaShamayim mesaprim." Does R'
Coffer deny that science has a good explanation of the development
of stars? And if this doesn't stop up saying "HaShamayim mesaprim"
in astronomy, then why should evolution stop us from seeing Hashem
in biology?

David Miller

T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> He also mentioned the 4 degrees of listening, that RSZA taught him: ...
>> 3. He's following word for word, turning the pages correctly, but not
>>  concentrating on the story. Yotze be'dieved.
>> 4. He's concentrating on the plot - living the megillah: Fulfilled
>> the mitzva as it was intended.

> In former times it was quite common, and even today not uncommon, that
> many people -- especially the women -- did not understand the words of
> the Megilla. They were/are yotzei by following along anyway.
> If here and there you come across a word that if you thought about it you
> would have to admit you don't know what word is -- you're still yotzei.
> Or are you?

It's a befeireshe gemara, Megillah 18a:
The mishna says that a foreign-speaker who hears the megillah in Hebrew
is yotze. The gemara asks: "but he doesn't know what is being said", so
how can he possibly be yotze? The gemara answers that the foreigner is
yotze "just as it is for women and amei haaretz", who are surely yotze
even though they don't understand the reading. But Ravina is unhappy
with the whole premise of the discussion, which is that we talmidei
chachamim do understand the megillah, and are surely yotze, but we have
a shayla about those who don't. "Do we understand 'haachashtranim
benei haramachim'?" We don't, and yet we are somehow yotze. How?
Because "the mitzvah is to read, and to publicise the miracle", which
happens just as effectively even if our understanding of the miracle
isn't linked to the actual words that we are hearing.

Oddly enough, this seems to relate directly to the other thread going
on at the moment [on Areivim -mi], about people learning gemara,
and understanding it, without actually understanding the Aramaic text
itself. It would seem from this gemara that they're actually "yotze"
the learning of gemara (though of course, not knowing Aramaic, they
can't learn on their own).

> "Chur karpas utecheles" come to mind. What is "chur"? Indeed, what
> is karpas? All the other things mentioned seem to be luxurious things
> like purple fabric and gold etc but carpas? Celery? Hanging from
> the chandeliers?

As techelet is blue-dyed wool, I assume chur and carpas are also dyed
wool; perhaps carpas is the colour of celery, pale green.

> And achuz bechavlei vutz? Tied with ropes of -- what in the world is
> butz anyway?

"Butz" in the language of late tanach and Chazal is the same as "bad"
in the Torah. Linen.

> And what about the partamim and the achasdarpanim and the pachos (that
> one must be something like "pasha" in India?)

An Achashdarpan is the governor of a province. Khshathrapava in Persian,
Satrapis in Greek, Satrap in English. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satrap
Pasha is actually a Turkish title, not an Indian one, and it's derived
from Persian "padshah", from "shah", king.

> and the achashteranim who are sons of the ramachim?

Presumably "achashteran" is related to "khshathra", meaning "protector",
but precisely what one protects, or how, let alone what ramachim ar and
in what sense the achashtranim were their sons, the amoraim, who lived
in Persia some 800 years later, didn't know know.

> The Avodah of Purim is the avodah of bringing everything back to its
> source -- in the greenery of the tree, via Hadassah, back to the Ein
> Sof. And to know Hashem hu ha'Elokim. And thus, Carmel means that the
> cushion -- the car -- is malei -- filled -- not hollow -- because Hashem
> is within.

To emphasize your point, the Gemara in Chagiga asks, "What is tohu? It
is a green line (kav yarok) that stretches from one end of the world to
the other." Yarok is the same letters of keri, meaning coincidence. It
is lack of order, embodied by Vashti (the green chick) who turned the
balance of order by refusing to come to the king. It is that lack of order
which is at the root of sina (hatred) when the social structure is out
of wack and people see different madreigos in others as being lackings
(chesronos). The mishloach manos are the tikun for this by bringing
all parts of Klal Yisrael together.

cbk 

"Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is interesting in the Megilla that Haman did not Mordecai was
> Jewish until told so. Esther was queen for 4 years before revealing to
> Achashverosh that she was jewsih. Obviously Jews were not dostinguished
> externally from the general culture

It seems to me rather that Jews were distinguished, but somewhat obscure.
Most people had never heard of Jews, or at least had never knowingly
met one. Haman could tell that Mordechai was a member of some sort of
strange ethnic group, which is "shoneh mikol am", but he didn't know
which one until he had occasion to ask.

On March 15, 2006, David Miller wrote:
> I truly do not understand what R' Coffer is saying. Science has a good
> working explanation of how stars form and why they move along the paths
> that they move along. Yet we still say "HaShamayim mesaprim." Does R'
> Coffer deny that science has a good explanation of the development
> of stars? And if this doesn't stop up saying "HaShamayim mesaprim"
> in astronomy, then why should evolution stop us from seeing Hashem
> in biology?

It depends what you mean. There are obviously certain facts about the
nature of stars which can be verified but they do not contradict the
presence of a Designer per se as evolution does. However, if you are
referring to a unified theory which adequately describes the motion
of all of the heavenly bodies, scientists are far from accomplishing
this. As RJO wrote to me " We have not the faintest clue why galaxies
are spinning the way they do for which we need the hypothetical black
matter and dark energy. Of course to even get inflation started you need
the hypothetical inflation which is supposed to be there and yet in over
25 years of massive searches for its existence has not been found. As
a matter of fact we are unable to account for the observed rotational
dynamics of the universe (already pointed out in the MN in MM:II as the
particularization problem over 800 years ago), other than speculative
just so stories".

RJO is a far greater baki in matters which pertain to astronomy and
physics than I. I suggest you read his paper on Big Bang Cosmology and
the problems it faces. In addition to treating the theory itself, RJO
also outlines what he refers to as his "demarcation principles" which he
uses to distinguish between valid and invalid scientific enterprise. You
may find the article here. http://toriah.org/science/big-bang/

Simcha Coffer

On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 10:23:09AM -0500, David Guttmann wrote:
: Is intelligent design compatible with Judaism?

Define "intelligent design"?

My understanding is that it's simply the claim that regardless of how
everything came to be, what actually exists is provably designed and
not accidental.

Since HQBH did design the universe, the only question I can see in what
you posed is whether Yahadus allows for the possibility that the design
is provable, or requires that we believe in the design without proof.

We have Medrash Temurah:
    "G-d created" (Gen. 1:1): A hereic came to Rabbi Aqiva and asked,
    "Who made the universe?". Rabbi Aqiva answered, "Haqadosh barukh
    Hu". The heretic said, "Prove it to me." Rabbi Aqiva said, "Come to
    me tomorrow".
    When the heretic returned, Rabbi Aqiva asked, "What is that you
    are wearing?"
    "A garment", the unbeliever replied.
    "Who made it?"
    "A weaver."
    "Prove it to me."
    "What do you mean? How can I prove it to you? Here is the garment,
    how can you not know that a weaver made it?"
    Rabbi Akiva said, "And here is the world; how can you not know that
    Haqadosh barukh Hu made it?"
    After the heretic left, Rabbi Aqiva's students asked him, "But what is
    the proof?" He said, "Even as a house proclaims its builder,a garment
    its weaver or a door its carpenter, so does the world proclaim the
    Holy Blessed One Who created it.

And although you refer to the Moreh 1:71, in 2:6 he uses the argument
by design in the guise of form being impossible without the Active
Intellect. The problem is with the specifics of the Kalam argument style
being sophistry, not the admissability of the basic idea.

...
: In Judaism God exists independent of the universe and its Creation. We
: state it in Davening every day "ato hu ad shelo nivro haolom veato hu
: meshinevro haolom". God "is" independently of the world. We are not so
: concerned about the existence of God. We accept that a priori...

Except the Rambam proves that, too.

You seem to be conflating the direction of proof, that ID proves that a
Designer must exist, with the direction of cause. Using ID to claim that
the universe proves the existence of G-d does not makes G-d's existence
contingent on the universe's.

:         There is no contradiction between Evolution and God's will...

But a a Divine Willed exolution /is/ ID! You have me so lost at this point,
that my failure to understand:
: I believe that if this idea is absorbed properly many of the issues
: of science versus Torah disappear. This is the deep thought behind
: Rambam 2:25:

: "We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided
: so. just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain
: time, in a certain form, and as we do not understand why His will or His
: wisdom decided upon that peculiar form, and upon that peculiar time,
: so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things
: mentioned in the preceding questions."

... fell off the radar.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

> To emphasize your point, the Gemara in Chagiga asks, "What is tohu? It
> is a green line (kav yarok) that stretches from one end of the world to
> the other." Yarok is the same letters of keri, meaning coincidence. It
> is lack of order, embodied by Vashti (the green chick) 

IIRC, Esther was the green one.

Simcha Coffer

On March 6, 2006, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Simcha writes
>> You seem more confident than Albert Einstein. I admit that astronomers
>> today maintain a heliocentric universe but AE maintained that there are
>> no absolute frames of reference in space and thus, although we may be
>> using heliocentric models to calculate the motion of the heavenly bodies,
>> who knows...maybe the earth is kavua?

> This theory was discarded because it required epicycles of increasing
> complexity instead of nice elliptical orbits. Though in theory the sun
> could go around the moon I would not want to write the computer program
> for NASA for the trajectory of their rockets using that assumption.
> In the real world out there the earth circles the sun

On March 7, 2006, Joe Socher wrote:
> 1. This is just a historical nitpick (which is something I am much more
> comfortable doing) Relativity of motion depending frames of reference is
> Galilean Relativity and not Einsteinian, no? (E.g., dropping a cannon ball
> from a crow's nest in the mast of a ship: it travels solely vertically
> in relation to the ship, but moves horizontally in relation to the Earth).

> 2. The scientific point (or maybe meta-scientific), however, is this:
> we have a unified theory of motion and forces among bodies that explains
> falling apples, the movement of the Earth around the Sun, the moon
> around the Earth, the moons of Jupiter, the travel plans of spacecraft,
> etc. etc. etc. all with basically the same few formulae of modern physics.
> We do not have any such general explanation motion that will include a
> Ptolemaic (or any other geocentric) model. You can't divorce Astronomy
> from Physics.

And on March 7, 2006, David Guttmann wrote:
> That would be preferable to coming up with sometimes embarassing
> arguments trying to deny reality. That argument on heliocentrism is one
> of them. Ossur leomro uleshomo'o because it is sheker.

And finally, on March 7, Marty Bluke wrote:
> Here is 1 article which deals with the issue
> http://www.evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm. Also see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism where Geocentrism is
> considered pseudoscience.

Well, that's quite a line-up of dissenters. Especially salient is the
allegation that my argument is sheker. Nevertheless, I must respectfully
disagree however, before I begin, I would like to make an important point.
The Modern Geocentric view must be distinguished from Ptolemy's view of
geocentrism. Whereas Ptolemy was animated by scientific considerations,
the majority of people who subscribe to the Modern Geocentric view
do so due to their religious convictions. Never once did I state my
own personal belief. As far as I'm concerned, and notwithstanding the
viewpoint of the author of Mevo haShemesh, I don't know what the proper
Torah viewpoint is. I can hear it both ways. I am merely discussing the
scientific aspects of geocentrism, not its religious trappings.

Now, let's begin with Marty's Wikipedia article.

Quote
"The geocentrist views are held in the awareness that essentially all
modern scientists agree that there is no evidence that the universe has
any center. Philosophically, since the concepts of center and absolute
motion are not clearly defined and no evidence distinguishing any motion
of the earth from motion of the universe is available, geocentrism in and
of itself cannot be falsified and is therefore not a scientific theory."

OK. So far we have seen that science is in agreement that there is no
evidence that the universe has any center. This eliminates both the
Ptolemaic and the Copernican view of the universe. We have also seen
that technically speaking, Geocentrism is non-falsifiable. The obvious
implication is that Geocentrism is possible as a model of the universe.
Everything stated here supports what I have been saying thus far but
in case one suspects that I am reading too much into the above quote,
let's keep going.

Quote
"In the framework of general relativity, the formulation of the laws of
physics is identical in all frames of reference, even in rotating and
accelerating frames."

Quote
"If general relativity is true, then there is no way to prove that
the Earth is not the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see
equivalence principle). An idea that is not falsifiable may be true,
but it is not a scientific theory."

Well, I think this proves that I interpreted the above quote
properly. The bottom line is, a Copernican view of the universe is
no less egregious than a Ptolemaic one. You certainly cannot refer to
this argument as sheker as it is universally accepted by any scientist
worth his salt. Adopting one view over the other is merely a matter of
convenience. It is possible that RET is correct regarding the computer
program which calculates the trajectories of rocket ships but this
is only because it happens that in this case it is more convenient to
use the sun as the fixed frame of reference. There are many textbooks
written on Spherical Astronomy which take the earth for granted as
a fixed frame of reference. If one wishes to know where to point his
telescope at night to see a particular planet, he uses the earth as the
fixed frame. If one wishes to calculate sunrise and sunset, the earth is
the fixed frame etc. etc. It's all a matter of convenience nothing more.

But just in case any readers are not convinced by Wikepedia, RJO
graciously supplied me with a slam-dunk quote by Hans Reichenbach

"The relativity theory of dynamics is not a purely academic matter,
for it upsets the Copernican world view. It is meaningless to speak of
a difference in truth claims of the theories of Copernicus and Ptolemy;
the two conceptions are equivalent descriptions. What had been considered
the greatest discovery of western science since antiquity, is now denied
its claim to truth" [P217]

"... the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the Ptolemaic
and Copernican conceptions ... " [P219]

Hans Reichenbach. The Philosohy of Space and Time. Dover 1958.

And in case the reader is not sure who Hans was, check out
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/reichenb.htm

I rest my case.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]