Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 065

Thursday, June 8 2006

• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• RE: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• Re: Taking Parasha Sheets
• re: parsha sheets
• Bochur haZetzer [ was Re: Tikkun Leil Shavuot ]
• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• me'ein hachasima
• RE: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• RE: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Re: measuring the mean lunar month
• Re: Tikkun Leil Shavuot
• Re: eruv tavshilin
• Re: me'ein hachasima
• RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto

> On June 3, 2006 Micha Berger wrote:
...
>> Was RDL "stretching" the truth for the greater good when he told this
>> fellow that nevu'ah is only in Hebrew? Or is he basing himself on someone
>> who is choleiq with the Rambam? I don't know of anyone, but that doesn't
>> prove much.

[RSCoffer:]
> IMO, the Rambam means that although the Navi certainly experienced his
> communication from Hashem in Hebrew, the legend was nebulous and required
> interpretation as opposed to Moshe's experience.

> I can't imagine anything different because all of Tanach is in Hebrew and
> Chazal make countless diyukim/drashos based on the etymology of Tanach.

There are portions of Tanakh that are written in Aramaic, and there is
also a rule that Divrei Torah MiDivrei Qabalah Lo Yalfinon.

The fact that for the most part Tanakh is written in Hebrew is not an
indicator that the actual Nevuah was expressed through speech by HQBH
to the Navi using those very words. Yeshayah, Yehezkeil, Trei Asar were
not written by the Nevi'im to whom the prophesy was shown.

FWIW, while this is an interesting thread on its own, the story of Harav
Lifshitz ZTL sounds like he was fighting fire with fire. Had the gentleman
responded that the N'vuah was in Hebrew, RDL would have found another
"out" to deal with the situation. We don't have a Mesorah about any
Nevuah being in another language other than Hebrew, so the K'lal that
Nevuah is in Hebrew may be true, if only coincidental.

Would anyone dismiss a Divrei Navi if all the criteria of a Navi Emmes
are met but the Nevuah was revealed to the Navi in another language?

Jacob Farkas

[R Jacob Farkas:]
> There are portions of Tanakh that are written in Aramaic, and there is
> also a rule that Divrei Torah MiDivrei Qabalah Lo Yalfinon.

Could you expand a bit on what you understand this rule to mean?

KT
Joel Rich

 Lisa Liel asked:
>Why is it okay to take parasha sheets from shul on Shabbat?

Assuming there is an Eruv, there is absolutely no problem whatsoever in
taking the Parsha sheets. [See: Mishna Brura 306 #33 and Kaf haChayim
44]. Although giving a present to someone on shabbat is not permitted
(since it's similar to "mekach u'mimkar" [doing business], this doesn't
apply if it's either for the sake of Shabbat itself or for a mitzva.


KT
Josh

RMB wrote about parsha sheets:
> The sheets are hefqeir, and there is no qinyan in picking up hefqeir.

This seems to be correct regarding hilchot Shabbat, but in general
I question whether the statement "there is no qinyan in picking up
hefqeir" is true. Acquiring hefqeir is achieved by the same darchei
haqinyanim that non-hefqeir is, and in general is bound by the same
qualifications. For example, the mishna is the beginning of BM says that
if someone fell on a metzia, and someone else picked it up, the second
one has acquired it. This is because the second one made a qinyan, and
the first one did not. Metzia, although not exactly hefqier, is similar,
for there is no daat maqneh.

There is a similar concept of qinyan of hefqeir by kiddushin, according
to the Ran, v"dal.

Saul Mashbaum

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> Something I notice every year: the chumash excerpts in the Tikkun seem
> somewhat random. The beginnings get cut off, and the ends pick up, in
> strange places. If it were always the first and last three pesukim of
> each sedra, I would understand that. But it isn't. I can't deduce a
> consistent rule from the text. So I wonder, who set that text? Was it
> the Shelah himself, or some bochur hazetzer working from the Shaloh's
> general instructions? If the latter, then we need pay his decisions
> no attention, and can decide for ourselves where it makes sense to stop
> and start (perhaps a strict 3 pesukim, or perhaps something else).

> Personally, what makes sense to me is to stop where the cohen stops on
> Mon/Thu/Mincha, and pick up again at maftir. Those breaks sometimes
> make little sense too, and I've heard it suggested that they were also
> chosen by some bochur hazetzer, but at least they're widely accepted
> for better or worse.

I am admittedly going off on a tangent to defend the oft maligned and 
underappreciated Bochur haZetzer [BHZ], as I find that too often their 
work is discounted and they incur the wrath of frustrated scholars 
worldwide. Furthermore, after a D'rasha I heard in Shul this past 
Shavous, I overheard a person complain about a Pasuk in Davening that 
had [in his understanding and according to a thought discussed by the 
Rebbe in his Drasha] misplaced commas. This person was so upset and 
irate and he repeatedly dismissed the BHZ.

BHZ is another word for typesetter. The job description did call for 
familiarity of the texts, and perhaps the ability to decipher old 
manuscripts, so this job was more suitable for a Bochur, i.e. one who 
studied (Yeshiva bachur, "chosen"), not necessarily a youngster.

The term BHZ is colloquially used to describe an inexperienced 
typesetter, only because the typesetters involvement is never brought up 
unless he erred in his work. So BHZ has come to be the near equivalent 
of Ta'us Sofer. If something appears [or is] flawed, blame the BHZ.

There is no question that there were many unqualified BHZ since 
Gutenberg, as there are today many unqualified people employed today who 
have enough familiarity with Adobe InDesign and QuarkXPress (fairly 
popular desktop publishing applications) for gainful employment 
purposes. BHZ are not necessarily editors, more often than not their 
work is reviewed by an editor before the material is actually published. 
Furthermore, in most cases BHZ was not responsible for editorial 
decisions like what to include in a Tikun Leil Shavous, as their job was 
of an entirely different nature.

The Torah velt should be grateful for all the efforts that BHZ has put 
in, providing us with quality productions of all our current Seforim, 
relatively error-free. They have and continue to do far more good than 
the few errors they committed (being human and all!). The least we can 
do is not insult them by changing the usage and meaning of BHZ to 
"inexperienced young typesetter."

Jacob Farkas

> [Jacob Farkas:]
>> There are portions of Tanakh that are written in Aramaic, and there is
>> also a rule that Divrei Torah MiDivrei Qabalah Lo Yalfinon.

R' Joel Rich wrote:
> Could you expand a bit on what you understand this rule to mean?

Certainly.

R' Simcha Coffer suggested that N'vuah was possibly transmitted verbally
to other Nevi'im and as proof he suggested that Hazal make many diyyukim
and D'rashos based on Divrei Nevi'im. I understood his point to mean that
it would be unlikely for Hazal to be M'Dayak in Divrei n'vi'im if what
the Navi saw was merely a vision and then in his own words interpreted
his vision.

My point was that there is a rule in Shas that we do not derive Divrei
Torah [presumably the 13 rules of Drasha] from Divrei Qabalah [NaKH].
Whenever the Gemara tries to deduce from a pasuk in NaKH it is often
for Giluy Milsa (see Bava Kamma 2b), and not for actual D'rasha.

There may be many reasons as to why Hazal would insist on keeping the
13 rules of D'rasha limited to the Pentateuch. I was challenging the
claim AIUI that D'rash from NaKH is proof that the words were recited
verbatim from the visions, by pointing out that any such D'rash is
limited to clarification only. It may be possible that the reason for the
exclusion of NaKH from the 13 rules is precisely because the words were
interpretations of visions, and not verbal, but I have no such source.

Jacob Farkas

Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[R Jacob Farkas:]
> R' Simcha Coffer suggested that N'vuah was possibly transmitted verbally
> to other Nevi'im and as proof he suggested that Hazal make many diyyukim
> and D'rashos based on Divrei Nevi'im...
> My point was that there is a rule in Shas that we do not derive Divrei
> Torah [presumably the 13 rules of Drasha] from Divrei Qabalah [NaKH]....

we see in many places chazal were mdayek using what appear to be 13
middot from nach and even sometimes have what appears to be a gzeirah
shava between nach and chumash. I've always assumed these are "ancient"
drabbanans that they chose to hang on these drashot as a memory aid.

Kt
Joel rich

On Jun 6, 2006, at 10:44:15 -0400GMT, RSC wrote:
> I can't imagine anything different because all of Tanach is in Hebrew and
> Chazal make countless diyukim/drashos based on the etymology of Tanach.

> Simcha Coffer

Except for those parts of Tanakh, including much of Daniyel, that are 
in Aramaic.
But Daniyel wasn't a prophet, so... is there a nafqa mina?

 -Stephen 'Steg' Belsky
   "the main purpose of the pyramid is to say
    'my unique pyramid is sky high and made of white marble.
     i do not share it with anyone'."
       ~ andrew nowicki

On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 10:44:15AM -0400, S & R Coffer wrote:
: IMO, the Rambam means that although the Navi certainly experienced his
: communication from Hashem in Hebrew, the legend was nebulous and required
: interpretation as opposed to Moshe's experience.

Just to clarify something I had slightly off in an earlier post. The
Rambam (Moreh III:44) is clear that "regular" nevu'ah came in three ways:
1- Allegorical visions
2- Hashem (or a man or mal'ach) speaking outright in a vision
3- Voices that are heard while in a "vision state" that aren't even
explicitly noticable for being divine, e.g. The voice the young Shemu'el
hanavi heard calling him from bed that he thought was Eli's.

This is different than what the Rambam seems to say in the aforementioned
YhT (7:3), where the Rambam seems to explicitly rule out anything but
"derekh mashal", "bemashal vederekh chidah".

I share my confusion.

But it would mean that in cases 2 and 3, one could possibly say that
all the speaking was in Hebrew.

Second: It's important to distinguish between the person and the book.
The language of the book doesn't prove anything about the language of
the person's revelation (to use a term that includes nevu'ah and ruach
haqodesh). Perhaps he heard Hebrew, but translated it in writing.

Daniel was a navi, according to the seider olam's version of the list of
48 nevi'im. And that's even in the exclusive sense of navi ledoros... The
seifer isn't a seifer nevu'ah, but the author was a navi. How the book
was revealed/inspired is a different question than the kind of revelation
that occured in the events described in it.


On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:11:18AM -0400, Jacob Farkas wrote:
: FWIW, while this is an interesting thread on its own, the story of Harav
: Lifshitz ZTL sounds like he was fighting fire with fire. Had the gentleman
: responded that the N'vuah was in Hebrew, RDL would have found another
: "out" to deal with the situation. We don't have a Mesorah about any
: Nevuah being in another language other than Hebrew, so the K'lal that
: Nevuah is in Hebrew may be true, if only coincidental.

That was RHS's point. Which is why I thought it was possible that RDL
was not compelled to stick to the truth to help this unfortunate man.

: Would anyone dismiss a Divrei Navi if all the criteria of a Navi Emmes
: are met but the Nevuah was revealed to the Navi in another language?

And that was my original question. Perhaps the fact that this isn't
given as a criterion proves that the answer is "no".

Shemu'el heard Eli's voice when Hashem spoke to him. What if someone was
raised by people who spoke to him in another language? Would he hear that
language? For that matter, can someone whose first language is something
other than Hebrew ever lift himself to madreigas hanevu'ah? What about
Moshe Rabbeinu? Was his first language Mitzri? Did he hear Hashem's
voice as thought it was Bityah's?

And doesn't this raise interesting ties to why kibud av va'eim is on
the first luach?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> My point is that Hipparchus's number had to be wrong. He was averaging
> over 345 years, which means that had he been accurate, his result would
> have been around cheileq and a half shorter than one lunation would
> take in his day. (The values were from moving avgs of around 3 chalqim
> to 0 chalaqim too long, an average of 1-1/2 chalaqim of error due to
> the earlier months in his sample.) Instead, his result was 15 sec or
> so too long, or off by 16-1/2 chalaqim from his methodology if it were
> carried out perfectly.

I won't dispute the idea that the duration of a lunation can vary widely
from month to month, nor that the average duration has been slowly
chaning over the centuries. But I do wonder where you get the 15 or 16.5
second figures.

As I see it, the records available to Hipparchus stated that 126007
days and 1 hour had passed in the 4267 lunations from one eclipse to
the other. He took that to be exactly 3024169 hours. Granted that that
actual duration may have been quite a bit more or less than that, but
nevertheless, those ARE the numbers he was working with, and when we
divide them, they DO average out to about 29.5 days and 792.979 chalakim.

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 07:14:21PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: I won't dispute the idea that the duration of a lunation can vary widely
: from month to month, nor that the average duration has been slowly
: chaning over the centuries. But I do wonder where you get the 15 or 16.5
: second figures.

The duration about which the month varies wildly grows by somthing
like 3 sec a century due to tides. The moon is losing energy pulling
the earth around (making tides), and that translates to a steadily
increasing average lunation. More precisely, the usual formula (a 2nd
order approximation) is given by LE Doggett as:
	S = 29.5305888531 + 0.00000021621 * T - 3.64E-10 * T^2
where all time is given in days, and T is days since 1/1/2000. (I pulled
it from the web, obviously.)

That's the "ideal average" or "astronomical molad" (AM), what the average
should be theoretically. With a finite set of near-random numbers offset
to before and after that ideal, you will see other averages in practice.

Hipparchus found the average over 345 years. Given that the first year
had an AM of a little over 3 seconds longer than the year he took that
measurement, his average should have been off by (3 + 0 / 2) = 1-1/2 sec.

The molad was most accurate 5 centuries later, in the days that Rav
Hillel established our current calendar. So, if Hipparchus actually had
accurate numbers, it should have been 3 sec/cent * 5 cent + 1-1/2 sec -
16-1/2 sec longer than the molad.

But he didn't. He got the molad exactly to the nearest cheileq (which is
equivalent to his unit of measure). The records he had didn't fit the AM
of his day. Rather than getting 3024169 hours in 4267 lunations, he should
have gotten around 3024189 hours (4267 months * 16.5 sec/month + 3024169).
How was he 19-1/2 hours off?

Aren't we forunate that we didn't know about the increase of AM due
to tide, and just used a number that was wrong when he computed it but
happened to be perfectly right at the time we were using it?

That alone shows a huge siyata dishmaya, but IMHO, the story is more
about mesorah. To explain:

There is a second mystery. Why does Hipparchus give the numbers in
60s? That's Babylonian style math, not Hellenic. It would seem
probable that he knew what answer he was expecting, because the
Bavliim had a value for the molad.

But why would the Bavliim carry around an overly long estimate of the
molad?

Well, it turns out that the Bavliim went to the 19 year cycle in around
499BCE. (The date given by wikipedia.) We were in Bavel by 499bce. And
the Tankhuma says that H' gave Moshe the value of the molad.

So, I find it more likely that the Bavliim learned from us and Hipparchus
from them, and then he erred to get his expected value. It seems to me
more sound than the idea that Hipparchus just happened to be 16-1/2 sec
long in his experiment, and we were lucky enough to use it at a time
when the AM actually was 16-1/2 sec longer.

But either possibility is a chizuq emunah.

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:11:32PM +0000, Dr. Josh Backon wrote:
: BTW one of the few times in my life I was ever floored (make that shocked)
: was seeing the peyrush of the Chazon Ish on the Rambam's Hilchot Ibur
: haChodesh. Pages of equations in spherical trigonometry. And I didn't
: understand a single line !

The Gra's peirush has diagrams of the spherical trig. R' Kalman
Kalikstein, who lived next door to me when I was growing up and taught
both physics and astronomy at at NYU, Hunter and Queens College, wrote
a peirush to the Gra's peirush. Not that it replaces knowledge of the
math either.

"It was a pearl in [the Vilna Gaon's] mouth, that a measure that
a person is lacking in the treasured knowledge of the forces of nature,
will be lacking 100 fold of the wisdom of Torah."
    - Qol haTor pg 123,
      as per R' Aharon Moshe Shreiber, BDD
      <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/schreiber_gaon.pdf>
      (2nd pg of PDF)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
micha@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 02:24:17PM +0200, Minden wrote:
: An entirely different question is what sense it makes anyway, in other
: words, why taking the first three and the last three psukem, or the
: first and the last mishne of a massechte, is not considered random. Don't
: advocates of "kabbala" argue it gives meaning to otherwise formalistic
: mitzves and customs? (-> arvm?)

I have a parallel question about the numbers of pesuqim one learns of
Torah each day when following Choq leYisrael.

-mi

On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:39:16PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Is there any problem is setting up a dinner on shavuot for the shabbat
: immediately after assuming an eruv tavshilin has been made. The question
: consists of two parts

Q3: Does the answer change to account for the fact that it was Shavuos,
and therefore Friday is YT deOraisa? Would the answer be more meiqil for
TY sheini shel galiyos?

(The connection to Shavuos is the lo BEDU Pesach rules out the possibility
of this happening on Pesach, and lo ADU Rosh rules out Sukkos. If my
math is correct, it means that in EY, eiruv tavshilin would only come
up on Shavuos or Shemini Atzeres.)

-mi

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

On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 10:37:37PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Anyone have an idea what the me'ein hachasima is for ma'ariv aravim?

We say that He is "H' Tzevakos" because He is "ma'avir yom umeivi laylah,
umavdil..." Isn't that me'ein "hama'ariv aravim"?

-mi

On June 5, 2006, Moshe Shulman wrote:
>>                       All of the musagim in kisvei Arizal are a mashal as
>>is well known but the infrastructure of the mashal is understood to
>>perfectly express the reality of the nimshal in a form that can be grasped
>>by our minds. If the mashal is problematic, it is not an accurate
>>description, on a human level, of the reality of the nimshal. No one can
>>relate to the reality of Atzmus nor can anyone fully relate to the reality
>>of Or Ein Sof as it is beyond our frame of reference but that doesn't stop

> You like to use terminology that is taken from Chabad. Some do not see
> it that way. The Ari did not use Chabad terms.

Or Ein Sof is Chabad terminology? Open up an Eitz Chaim. You can't get
past the first page without encountering the terminology Or Ein Sof
(Sha'ar haKilalim Perek Aleph)

Incidentally, for a thoroughly presented view of the difference between
Atzmus and non-Atzmus, and for an explanation of the enigmatic words of
the Arizal in his haKdama to Eitz Chaim in which he claims that all the
shemos and kinuyim are forms of Atzmus which are nispashet in the sefiros,
see the decidedly un-Chabad sefer Nefesh haChaim Shaar Beis Perek Beis.

>>the kabbalists from discussing the issue on the level of the mashal. All of
>>the baalei shita I have seen (The Arizal, the Mishnas Chassidim, The Shomer
>>Emunim, R' Yaakov Emden, R' Yonasan Eibishitz, The Gra, the Tanya, R' Chaim
>>Volozhiner, Rav Dessler and the LR) all discuss tzimtzum on the level of the
>>mashal. There is no other way to discuss kabbalistic concepts.

> So your definition of tzimtzum k'peshuto is?

Literal contraction of the Or Ein Sof. I made this clear several times
already.

> But many seforim do speak of Him. The discussion of philosophers
> about attributes of G-d is an example of such discussions.

Serious error. In fact, this is precisely the error which causes the
obfuscation of concepts like tzimtzum and which I consider karov le'kfira
but I won't argue with you. Just see Nefesh haChaim Shaar Beis Perek
Beis for a proper perspective on the attributes of the Boreh.

[Email #2. -mi]

On June 5, 2006, Shalom Kohn wrote:
> I had understood Tzimtzum as a simple metaphor for the following problem --
> Hashem's presence "fills the world," so how could there be room for
> anything else? Two objects cannot be in the same space at the same time.
> So, Tzimtzum expresses the idea that Hashem has retracted Himself --
> leaving to one side whether the remaining presence of Hashem is in
> another dimension, or in the subatomic interstices, or what have you --
> so as to give a place for the world and for human action. In other words,
> Tzimtzum expresses only the concept that Hashem has granted space for
> other things to function and exist. Beyond that, details of Tzimtzum
> involve describing the essence of Hashem (e.g., what was before and what
> was after the Tzimtzum process), which is indescribable.

I think the above description is actually pretty good other than the
fact that RSK seems to see T in the essence of Hashem rather than the
way He is manifest to His creatures. The truth is, both (essence and
manifestation or Atzmus and Or) are indescribable but one (essence),
be definition, is not mikabel any ti'arim and thus, saying anything
positive about it, including T, is meaningless.

[Email #3. -mi]

On June 6, 2006, David Riceman wrote:
> 1. In the beginning of H. Yesodei HaTorah the Rambam describes God as
> necessarily existing, while everything else exists only contingently.
> For example, if Hizkiyahu had become Mashiah God would still be the same,
> but where would the subscribers of Avodah be?

I think RDR is confusing the concept of Ein Od Milvado, discussed
in halachos 1-4 and the concept of Ani Hashem Lo Shanisi discussed
at length in halachos 8-11. Shinuy, or lack thereof, is predicated
on possessing a guf or lack thereof as Rambam explains. It is not a
form of ontological superiority (ein sham matzuy emes milvado kamoso)
in the Rambam's shprach although if RDR himself wishes to postulate it,
I could relate to such an idea.

> Now, the Rambam explains there that God not only generated the world,
> He also sustains the world. How He sustains the world depends on what
> the world is like (this is arguable; see Ibn Ezra's introduction to
> Sefer Kohelleth for someone who disagrees, and Klah Pithhei Hachmah
> #86 for someone who agrees). One possible view of Tsimtsum is that it
> represents the abandonment of other possible ways the world could work -
> - at the level of laws of nature and laws of hashgaha, not at the level
> of historical phenomena.

Sounds like the Multi-verse of Quantum Physics. I don't buy it. Tzimtzum
applies even to the reality we occupy and have occupied throughout
history. In fact, this is the stated purpose of Tzimtzum. To resolve
the apparent difficulty of reconciling the concept of Ein Sof in relation
to a limited beriah.

> 2. Rabbi Dessler has an essay on what he calls "fields of choice".
> He says that there are some crimes so beneath one that one doesn't even
> choose not to do them, and some acts so above one that one doesn't
> choose to do them. He argues that the basic work of mussar is to
> raise one's field. Arguably the "location" of one's field is closely
> related to one's consciousness of God (see the Rambam's discussion of
> hashgaha and nevuah in part II of the Moreh Nevuhim, and see MN I:1).
> Someone who is acutely aware of God would find it very hard to sin.
> Another possible view of Tsimtsum is that it represents God playing hide
> and seek in order to insure that we have free will.

The purpose of creation was to facilitate the exercise of free will so as
such I agree with RDR that the *purpose* of tzimtzum is to facilitate
free will but the *process* of tzimtzum cannot be described as RDR
suggests because tzimtzum applies to all forms of creation; even the
higher worlds where free will does not exist.

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         ]