Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 89

Wed, 05 Dec 2007

• 1. Re: Freedom of exegesive interpretation (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: The Kuzari, vindicated (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: The Kuzari, vindicated (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: The Shekhinah among people (was: Was Lavan daft, dense or what?) (Arie Folger)
• 5. Re: Fables and Lies (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: A shemitta miracle story (Dov Bloom)
• 7. Re: The Chanukah Musings of a Mathematician (Dov Bloom)
• 8. Re: The Kuzari, vindicated (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Kedushah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Limited Mabul? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Limited Mabul? (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: what did we learn for 350 years? (Richard Wolpoe)

Or, to take a mishnah, for example. We just learned the mishnah of the
one that was married to three wives, who had ketubot granting them
different respective amounts, which could not be paid out by the
inheritance left behind by their deceased husband. When Shemuel and Rav
Ya'aqov of Nehar Peqod interpret the mishnah as an oqimta, must it be
that that is what Rav Natan (the author of that mishnah) meant, or can
we suggest other interpretations? 
--
Arie Folger
=================================

Great example. If you mean that there would be a nafka mina lhalacha,
IIUC most current day authorities would say that unless much earlier
generations suggested an interpretation, we can not, even if when we
flew around the world backwards (superman reference) we found that our
interpretation was really what Rav Natan had in mind when he made the
original statement.   

Anything else gets you listed on the members of the academy website.

KT
Joel Rich


THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> E.G. if you were to claim that Mother Theresa was the greatest
> saint of the 20th century and so people should emulate her.  I
> would counter, it CAN work for any individual but as a people
> the ONLY valid approach is the Torah.

I hope that I'm misunderstanding you.

I agree with you that her approach would not work for us as a people, but it seems clear to me that her approach would not even work for us as individuals. Even a Jewish individual would still be missing many things if we only emulated the Bein Adan LChaveiro that she excelled at.

In other words, I would modify your comment to read: It can work for any non-Jewish individual but for the Jewish people the only complete approach is the Torah.

Akiva Miller

RRW wrote:
> AISI Das Moshe is not intrinsically superior for the individual, it is for
> Yisroel

That is IMO a dangerous statement. Wouldn't that be music in the ears of some 
New Age Jews, who would happily be more concerned with their private 
spirituality and leave their peoplehood at the door.

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RJR wrote:
> (in particular the gemara there mentions 10
> - iirc the ben yehoyada states the special shruya when a minyan is
> formed)

In particular, the gemara mentions hashraat haShekhinah at a beis din of 3. 
Your statement is about a minyan praying, and comes from teh same gemara, 
which has, BTW, a paralel in Avot, IIRC 3:7.

A minyan is waited upon by the Shekhinah when learning (mishnah in Avot) or 
when praying (gemara Berakhot), on account of the verse E-lohim nitzav 
be'adat E-l.

3 that seat themselves to engage as a beit din also have the Shekhinah, on 
account of the verse beqerev E-lohim yishpot.

The advantage that is bestowed upon a minyan, according to the gemara 
Berakhot, is that the Shekhinah waits for them ahead of their coming at the 
appointed time for prayer.

KT
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

Chazal used the story for a mashal. The question of whether the mashal
happened to also be what happened to occur or not isn't one that they
would have ever asked. Therefore, some could be historical, some not
-- it's not important and no one kept track. Even caring which is which
places you in a different perspective WRT the narrative than intended by
Chazal.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

----------------------------------------------


Agree, as long as we keep in mind that the story could have been
intended as  a memory device rather than a proof for the concept
(because otherwise we have the law of unintended consequences issue -
when someone looks at the same story and "proves" something else from
it).  I find in some cases it is viewed as a source proof text instead.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

 Zev Sero wrote: And yet it did for the people of Mevo Horon, who put their trust in it. 
I had written : Anyone in Eretz Yisrael who looks at agricultural economics knows that  last year (5767) was not a great year at all! Certainly it did not give a threefold yield (I meant 3 times normal)

I did some agricultural research, because the referenced article by the gentleman from Mevo Horon described their agricultural yield in a very unorthodox manner, by stating that they sowed X tons of wheat and yielded 40 times as much without stating the acreage (or dunam-age). In general agricultural yields in Israel are stated in kilograms per dunam (which is about 1/4 acre, 1/10 of a hectare or 1000 square meters). How much was sowed is usually irrelevant. People want to know yield per dunam. I suspected the (partisan - if you read the article - about boosting the "bracha" aspect) author was hiding something by using this unusual method of reporting yield.

The normal weight of wheat planted in present day Israel is 13-17 kg/duman. This figure is for  areas that have decent rainfall or are irrigated. If you plant in the negev or dry areas cut this in half - and your yield is also halved. My yield figures are for a average rainfall area (non-irrigated) or an irrigated field. One generally wants to have 500-550 mm of rainfall and/or irrigation. Some coastal areas get up to 800 rainfall. So if you get 300 mm rain you'd irrigate 200.

A good yield (this varies very much by area, and by rainfall that year) is 575-600 kg/duman in our area (northern negev, irrigated). 500 is fair. Less than 500 is not good. 650 is very good. The regional high in my area was 1200kg/dunam - an exceptionally high yielding single field. 
Mevo Horon is in a part of Israel with 400-600 mm rainfall on average, as opposed to my area with 300-400. These rainfall figures are according to an Israeli popular Atlas.

Assuming an average sowing of 15 kg/dunam, the reported 40 fold yield of Mevo Horon would be about 600 kg/dunam. Nice but not earth shattering, nowhere near even 50% over average and certainly not 2 or3 times a standard wheat yield in EY nowadays. So the Mevo Horon story is more polemic than real "ness mi-shamayim". 

We also can understand in light of these figures that Yitzhak Avinu's Meah Shearim (hundred fold yield) in Breishit 26:12 was amazing for ancient times and would be still nowadays with modern agricultural methods, sprays and fertilizers, be more than outstanding ! However 40 fold today in the "shmitta miracle story" is not more than good or very good.

I would expect a bracha for Am Yisrael to be more than for 1 small settlement, which the article lauds for being the only moshav/kibbutz to totally halt their field crops. Were there a bracha D'oraita it would be evident to all during the 6th year, thus encouraging all to take note of the mitzvot of shmitta. It is clear from the pasuk that the bracha that would reassure Bnei Yisrael happens before the 7th year. Otherwise it wouldn't reassure. 

Of the major Poskim who paskened in Agricultural issues over the last 100 years, and certainly for the last 60 (like all the Chief Rabbi's Ashkenazi and Sefardi until this year, all the heads of the Mitzvot Hatluyot Cmtte and Shmitta Cmmt like Rav Shaul Yisraeli, Rav Ariel, Rav Daum, even the present R Yosef and R Whitman ) I never saw one argue that there was a bracha from the Torah. They usually say meforosh the opposite. R Yisraeli's writings were recently referred to on Avoda. See ROY Yechave Daat V 4 53, (Daat Rabim VeAtzumim MiGedolai Yisrael - who supported the heter mechira), or Yabia Omer V 3 19 siman zayin.

Sefer HaShmitta of R YM Tukuchinsky on pages 68-70 gives the epistle of those gedolei Yerushalayim who violently opposed the heter mechira, which was promolgated by R Yitzhok Elchonon Spector, R Mohliver and others in 5649. 

R YH Zonnenfeld and RS Salant opposed the heter 100% and gave various and many halachic arguments against it. But an assured bracha? They say things like "we are sure that shmitta observance will be for a bracha" (veAnachnu tomchim uVetuchim ki shvitat haAretz tihye lebracha) implyng that afterwards an undetermined bracha will be on the observant. 

The epistle of these heter opponents in 5649 ends by saying: VeHashem shofteinu hu yoshienu veYitzave et birchato im raglei haMevaser. They are using the phraseology of the pasuk in Vayikra 25 VeTziviti et birchati , but placing their hopes for the bracha in the time of Raglei Mevaser = the time of mashiach. 

None of these gedolim who opposed RYE Spector's heter suggested (as the fellow from Beit Horon and some posters did ), let alone promised the kiyum of the bracha nowadays before the shmitta year. 

Poskim le-hud and story-tellers le-hud. 

And even the story tellers don't tell such convincing stories when you check their facts and figures.

>The GRA wrote the sefer Ayil Meshulash. According to friend of mine ...this is the only sefer of his that was published during his lifetime. 
>The sefer deals with standard geometry, analytic geometry, solid geometry ... In the parts that I have looked at, I saw no derivation of any of the concepts from Torah sources. ... He gives no Torah sources. If all of this can be gained from traditional Torah study, then why didn't he present the mathematics from this standpoint? 

The GR"A wrote a sefer on Hebrew Grammar known as Dikduk Eliyahu. It is all based on psukim, and not stuctured like a "normal" grammar book. This unusual style and structure for a grammar book was because the GR"A wanted the learning of Hebrew Grammar to be a kiyum of Talmud Torah.  He accomplished this by quoting explaining and utilizing psukim continually.

My guess is that he did not find it possible to do this with math, but was able to do so with Hebrew Grammar.

On Dec 4, 2007 12:14 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
wrote:

>
> I agree with you that her approach would not work for us as a people, but
> it seems clear to me that her approach would not even work for us as
> individuals. Even a Jewish individual would still be missing many things if
> we only emulated the Bein Adan LChaveiro that she excelled at.
>
> In other words, I would modify your comment to read: It can work for any
> non-Jewish individual but for the Jewish people the only complete approach
> is the Torah.
>
> Akiva Miller


Yes that is essentially what I meant to say.

I would just add that for an individual such as a Yisro/Iyyov/Sehm/Eever
Torah Judaism is NOT necessary to find G-d or spirituality - and that
certain seekers can be on an equally valid path for themselves [perhaps
Neale Donald Walsh was correct in HIS path FOR HIM!]

Look at the vision in al kein nekaveh for the universe after Moshiach. it is
NOT a mas conversion to Judaism

And AFAIK Rambam requires Jews to encourage non-Jews to observe the 7
mitzvos but not to encourage them to do more. AISI, the ONLY reason for a
non-Jew to do more is to be part of a national covenant.

If Judaism were a a requirement for "salvation" then we would be selfish or
miserly in discouraging converts.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071204/964c480d/attachment-0001.html 

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 10:47:56PM +0100, R Arie Folger wrote:
: Some poster suggested that we therefore stand erect, with feet together for 
: [Unesaneh Tokef], as we would during neqadesh/naqdishakh/na'aritzekha...
: convinced that we would already need to adopt that posture during the first 
: verse, which is, after all, only a summons. The qedushah begins with qadosh, 
: qadosh, qadosh.

When I was ill, I stood from "Qadosh, qadosh, qadosh" through "Yimlokh
H'". It seems to me every davar shebiqdushah involves the concepts of
berakhah and of Hashem's transcendence. E.g. Borkhu es Hashem haMVORAKH
LE'OLAM VA'ED, or Yehei shemei ... MEVORAKH leOLAM. But qedushah's
"barukh ... mimkomo" gets trancendent in kevod H' being above space,
not discussing time. And thus, I didn't want to end Qedushah before
"le'olam, E-lokayikh, Tzion, ledor vador. Hallelu-kah!"

AISI, that's the minimal definition of qedushah -- the three quoted
pesuqim.

My father actually tries to stand feet together the entire chazaras
hashatz, even mussaf YK. (At least he did when I was still living at
home. I don't know if that changed.) That's shitas RCBrisker as taught
by RYBS.

: Note that I left out keter from the above list, as some posters might want to 
: differentiate between the different forms of qedoshah opening verses (but I 
: am not sure that that would be convincing).

Speaking of my father and his RYBS-isms, and of Keser perhaps being
different, I'm reminded of something I heard from my father once and
don't understand. BH he is enjoying a stay in EY, and I will probably
forget to ask by the time we speak again.

RYBS holds that on RCh, if one doesn't have time to take off one's
tefillin for musaf and put them away bekavod, it is better not to take
them off. But only when davening nusakh Ashkenaz. Keser shold not be said
with tefillin on. Some connection between "keser" and tefillin shel rosh
seems obvious, but I don't see how they're in opposition. Could someone
explain?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
micha@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 02:01:52PM -0500, ygbechhofer@gmail.com wrote:
: While it is true that the second time is linked to the generation of the 
: Tower of Babel, I submit that this is not necessarily exact, as we know 
: of no massive flood at that time...

Which is my point.. that the flooding of the Mediterranean was therefore
not noteworthy in comparison to the Mabul. It wasn't a "massive flood".

BTW, note that Barbary is southern end of the Mediterranean running from
Morocco through around Tripoli, Calabria is the southern tip of Italy,
(north of Tripoli), and Akko and Yaffo at the eastern limit. R' Lezar
and R' Acha are thus describing the flooding of the Atlantic into the
seabed now known as the Mediterranean. The creation of the sea, not its
overflowing.

Where was humanity in Enosh's day? Perhaps in dor Enosh, the plain
between Europe and Africa was inhabited. However, after the Mabul until
the pelagah, even the east half of that plain wasn't yet resettled. That
would explain a second flood in the actual dor hapelagah but didn't
disturb humanity enough to warrant mention (outside of this Y-mi).

It would depend when Yefet's offspring went to Greece.

In fact, it could well be that Hashem created the Mediterranean to
separate Cham's civilizations from those of Yefet, and didn't need to
do so until the pelagah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:01:52 -0500, ygbechhofer@gmail.com wrote:
> Translation of the Yerushalmi:
> 
> HaMotzim" /(Yechezkel/ 47:8) /-/ this is the great [Mediterraenean] 
> sea.  And why is it called "Motzim?" Corresponding to the two times 
> that it came out, once in the generation of Enosh and once in the 
> generation of the Tower of Babel. R' Lezar in the name of R' 
> Chaninah: The first time it came out up till Calabria and the 
> second time up till the rocks of Barbary. R' Acha in the name of R' 
> Chanina: The first time it came out up till the rocks of Barbary 
> and the second time it came out up till Akko (Acre) and Yaffo 
> (Jaffa) - "Up till here you shall come and not further" (/Iyov/ 
> 38). Up till Akko you shall come and no further. "And here He shall 
> extend the might of your waves." Up till Yaffo I will extend the 
> might of your waves.
> 
> While it is true that the second time is linked to the generation 
> of the Tower of Babel, I submit that this is not necessarily exact, 
> as we know of no massive flood at that time. I therefore think that 
> just as the generation of Enosh refers to the known flood of that 
> time, the generation of the "Dispersion" (/Haflagah/) refers to the 
> known flood of the /Mabul/. See also the /Yalkut Shimoni, echezkel/ 
> 383. Nevertheless, see //Teshuvos B'Tzel HaChochmah/ /2:12////// 
> that considers this Yerushalmi from a Halachic perspective and 
> takes it as written (I added it to the blog post).

With all due respect, we do know of a massive flood at that time. 
Genesis 11:8 says "Vayifetz otam", and Breishit Rabbah 38 says "Ein
'vayifetz', ela 'vayetzaf'.  Hetzif aleihem ha-yam, v'hetzif shloshim
mishpachot meihem."  This is saying that 30 of the 70 nations were
obliterated in a flood at the time of the destruction of the Tower. 
And I've seen elsewhere (forgive me if I can't produce a source right
now) where it's shown that the reason there are still 70 nations is
that Abraham engendered 30 new ones (av hamon goyim in truth).  It
seems clear that this Yerushalmi is speaking of that flood, and not
the Mabul.

Lisa
--
The Book of Esther in the Light of History, now available at:
http://www.lulu.com/starways/

Images from a Twisted Mind at http://www.cafepress.com/starways/

On Nov 28, 2007 2:31 PM, AY & CB Walters <acwalters@bluebottle.com> wrote:

>  The Geonim say that from the chasimas hatalmud by R' Ashi until the Behag
> was 350 years.
>
> Now, AFAIK, the Behag was the first post talmudic sefer, he was probably
> from the early gaonim/late saboraim.
>
> But what the saboraim doing in the intrerim - why do we have zero seforim
> from them, when we have an unbroken chain both before that, and afterwards?
>
> It is known that some of what we call the Gemoro was actually written
> after R' Ashi, by the saboraim (eg the entire first daf and a half of
> Kidushin), but presumably this is the exception not the rule.
>
> I have heard that all the connecting words, such as "meisvei, toh shema,
> kasha" etc found in the gemoro are of savoraic origin; originally the bavli
> looked like the yerushalmi - without the connecting words, where the kashia
> ends and the teretz starts, etc. If so, then to say the Talmud was closed by
> R' Ashi, just means the halochos, and not necessarily the leshonos.
>
> Is this theory accepted as true? Even if so, 350 years is an awfully long
> time for this - longer than the period from R' Akiva until R' Ashi -
> spanning all Amoraim and much Tanoim too...
>
> Any ideas?
>

You can get a PhD for answering these questions
Start by reading the Igggeres D'Rabbeinu Sherira Gaon and down the road
check out a book by Kaplan called *The Redaction of the Baylonian Talmud*

Also See the Bach on Even Ho'ezer 6 in which he discussess the Rambam's
methodology, it is a hint at a distinction between the "meimros" of the
Talmud vs. the 'Shakla vetraya" stuff.

Reading a lot of Ga'onic literature can be very informative.  Think of the
Sh'iltos and the Halchos Gedolos as more yerushalmi like in that there is
little of the "framing" ofte shakla v'tarya

It is likely that many Rishonim noticed the distinction between moraic
statemetns and the shakla v'tarya  See Tosafos in Pesachim re: Seini lev
dehi'a which is treated Halachically as 'dechiya be'alma" and therefore not
normative

A simlar phenomenon happens on this list. I have attacked arguments from say
X.  X assumes I am opposing his position because of my attacks. In reality I
may be agreeing with his position and simply rejecting his selection of
evidence as too weak etc.  Thus, shakla v'tarya can be very mis-leading and
it is not impossible for Rishonim to take a position that APPEARS to be
under attack by the Gemara.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071205/8495f45c/attachment.htm 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 89
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."