Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 177

Sat, 27 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: king's groove on heads.....?? (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: She-lo Asani Isha (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: moon and sun (Hankman)
• 4. sun and moon (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Hurricanes and eruvin (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Shelo Asani Isha (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 7. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: sun and moon (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: sun and moon (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: sun and moon (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: sun and moon (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: sun and moon (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: sun and moon (Lisa Liel)
• 16. Re: sun and moon (Eli Turkel)

On 8/25/2011 9:51 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Harvey Benton asked:
>
>> i read a gemmarra or perush or medrash that states the kings of
>> israel had a groove on their heads so that the crowns would fit
>> (there was a groove allegedly on the crowns) is this true?
>
> I have a groove on both sides of my head, which seems to be the result
> of wearing eyeglasses for the past 50 years. It seems that my head
> kept growing, except where the frames of the eyeglasses would not
> allow it to grow. Listmembers (of the male persuasion) are welcome to
> feel this groove for themselves.

I have the same thing.  I'm glad you posted this.  I thought it was just me.

> We're getting into "cause and effect" territory. If RHB's source
> suggests that this groove existed before the king began wearing his
> crown, and its purpose is to make the crown fit better, then I have no
> explanation. But if the groove developed *after* the king wore his
> crown for a while, then what's actually happened is that the head grew
> to fit the crown, not that the crown fits the head.

As I recall, the midrash says they're born that way.  Also, that the 
crown had a bar across its diameter; that's what the groove fit around.

Lisa

RAF writes:
> In continuation of my previous post to Chana Luntz, my brother (R.
> Prof.) Dov Frimer writes:
> 
> Aryeh, we already anticipated this in our WPG article around footnote
> 26-  or more accurately the Rav did. See RHS, Eretz Hatzvi pp 96, at
> length, where the Rav explains that an eved has only miktzat keddushat
> yisrael - and therefore has certain partial OBLIGATIONS - while a woman
> has complete kiddushat yisrael with partial EXEMPTIONS. While the
> bottom line may be similar with regards to the performance of mitzvoth
> aseh shz?g, the starting points are at exactly opposite poles.


The problem I see with this is, that the exemption for avadim in relation
to mitzvas aseh shehazman grama is learnt out a gezera shava "la", "la"
from the obligations of a woman, as is explicit in Chagiga 4a.	So I just
can't see how anybody can claim that the nature of the exemption is
different. However such an exemption is characterised, whether as partial
obligations or partial exemptions, whatever applies to the one has to apply
to the other.  (I am not aware of anybody denying the validity of this
gezera shava - as far as I am aware the only question is whether it only
applies to mitzvas aseh shehazman grama or to all mitzvos that a woman is
patur from).

Note by the way that the actual gezera shava is between the pasuk dealing
with the giving of a get isha, and the pasuk dealing with a get shichrur of
a shifcha.  And that brings me to the other parallel, that of marriage. 
The situation with a married woman and an eved is again parallel (I erred
when I referred to an amoni or moavi, because there, while the marriage is
forbidden, it is still chal if performed).  In the case of a married woman,
any other marriage cannot be chal, unless and until her husband gives her a
get (or he dies).  I would have said that this was part of (if not the
essence of) the shibud to which Rashi refers, because the husband (while
forbidden by the takana of Rabbanu Gershom to remarry) retains the d'orisa
power to marry others, while a woman does not.	Similarly a marriage
between an eved and a free Jewess is not chal, unless and until the master
gives a get shichror.  I would have characterised the nature of that
inability as due to the shibud of 
 the eved to the master, and that by issuing the get (whether to an eved or
 an isha) what the master is doing (and remember in both cases he does it
 unilaterally, all he needs is witnesses, there is no formal requirement
 for a beis din) is removing the shibud.

Now once you characterise what the master does by giving a get shichror as
in fact conferring kidushas yisroel (or most of kidushas yisroel) on an
eved, you fundamentally change the nature of the parallel between a get
shichror and a get isha - a parallel that runs throughout the halacha,
where there are constant references back and forth - unless of course you
say that on marriage a woman loses some part of her kedushas yisrael, only
to get it back on the receipt of a get or the death of her husband.  Also,
you have to deal with the question as to the nature of the relationship
between an eved ivri and a shifcha.  Does he also lose some of his kedushas
yisrael in order to be able to marry her (but then he can have, and
according to many is required to have, a wife who is not a shifcha as well
as the shifcha)? 

Unless of course kedushas yisrael is such a weak concept that it really
doesn't matter that it breaks the parallel between the get shichror and the
get isha.  But even if you accept that an eved has some reduced form of
kidushas yisroel, and thus the parallels are broken between a get isha and
a get shichror in terms of what it achieves, even so, you still have to
contend with the gezera shava, that clearly learns the mitzvah obligations
of an eved from an isha, meaning that kedushas yisrael or no, the level of
mitzvah obligations would seem to have nothing to do with this.  

> Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer

Shabbat shalom

Chana

I have a different problem with the gemara and medrashim about the
reduction in size of the moon.	When the two were the same size, either the
moon could have been like today but much larger thus giving much more
reflected light, in which case the argument of the moon is very weak as it
is reflecting the sun's light and dependent upon it, so it is hardly an
equal moshel with the sun. If however, the moon was constituted of hydrogen
as is our sun today and the source of its own light from nuclear energy,
then the description of becoming smaller is problematic as the entire
substance of the moon was changed to its present non-hydrogen (and smaller)
composition which really amounts to the recreation of a new and different
moon and not the mere diminution of the moon. Any thoughts? Are there
meforshim who take these medrashim in a non literal sense - and not as
something that actually happened in a physical sense?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110826/c8d61e53/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Unless we have some reason to question what he says, why would we want
to reject it?  Just because?  Especially since it's in line with what
Chazal say, e.g. the midrash we are discussing here.>>

According to modern science the moon is a big rock no different from many
asteroids floating in space.
Most theories have the moon as captured by earth at some stage. In fact many
of the planets have multiple moons.

A number of people on this list have provided non-literal explanations of
the midrashim and Rambam was
probably basing himself on Greek astronomy.
Sorry, the idea of a bunch of rocks that are thinking in a human sense but
just can't talk to us in beyond
my level of belief. I similarly cannot not take literally that the rocks
fought over which rock that Yaakov would sleep
and that when Moshe spoke to rock, the rock actively listened and responded.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110826/9c65c653/attachment-0001.htm>

Question: The eye of Hurricane Irene isn't expected to hit NYC until
Sunday afternoon, but the leading edge is expected 24 hours earlier.
Does anyone have any idea whether this would invalidate the chezkas
kashrus of an eruv, and if so from when?  From when the heavy rain
starts?  From when one first notices a ruach she'eina metzuya?  Or
can one assume it will last at least until after Shabbos?

This is somewhat nogea` to me not only in the practical sense, but
because yesterday I filled in for the usual eruv inspector, who is away.
I walked the 10-km perimeter and found only one break, which will have
been fixed by now (though I haven't yet received word of the repair).
So I feel something of a proprietary interest in it this Shabbos, and
don't want to see some storm "undo my work" so to speak :-)

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 8/25/2011 2:31 AM, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:
> In continuation of my ongoing discussion with RYGB re' Shelo Asani Isha,
> RYGB has maintained that the Berakha is a reshut. I have maintained
> that the language of Rabbi Meir is "Hayyav", hence the berakha is
> obligatory. I've just noted that both the Tur and Shulhan Aukh use
> the language "Tsarikh" (needs to). Most Rishonim merely quote the
> Gemara as is, but the Meiri, Berakhot 60b, s.v. Berakhot, does not -
> yet he too uses the word Hayyav.

I am surprised at RAAF's assumption that the word "chayav" is to be
understood in a fundamentalist manner.

What about:
    Chayav inish l'besumei b'Puriya?
    Chayav adam l'hakbil pnei rabbo b'regel?
    Chayav adam l'hasi bno katan? (Mechilta Mishpatim)
    Chayav adam lomar b'lashon rabbo?
    Chayav adam lomar b'atishaso [sneezing]: Chayim? (Pirkei d'R' Eliezer
    52)
    Chayav adam lachlok kavod la'malchus? (Mechilta Bo)
    Chayav adam l'mashmesh b'tefillin kol sha'ah v'sha'ah?

There are more, see Michlol HaMa'amarim V'Ha'Pisgamim vol. 2 pp.
684-685.

KT,
YGB

On 25/08/2011 11:10 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>>>  Trees also remain in one predictable place forever. But "chai
>>>  nosay es atzmo" - only someone in the animal kingdom (or above)
>>>  can pick himself up and move elsewhere.

> and RSZ asked:
>>>  And yet a turkey is not noticeably more intelligent than a tree.
>>>  So self-directed motion is not a test of intelligence.

> You never noticed a turkey looking at something, and then look
> elsewhere? It will stand there gobbling away, and then walk a few feet
> and gobble some more. The most a tree will do is to turn its leaves
> towards the sun, and move those leaves over the course of the day,
> keeping them directed towards the sun. Totally predictable.

Yes, that's my point: turkeys, unlike trees, have self-directed motion,
and yet they don't seem any more intelligent.  So the two traits are
unrelated.  Turkeys move because they have feet, not because they have
brains.

> I'll grant you that compared to humans, turkeys are pretty stupid. But
> compared to trees, well, they're absolute geniuses!!!

I wonder what makes you reach that conclusion.  It seems to me that
they're of roughly equal intelligence, and the mere fact that a turkey
directs its own motion and a tree does not merely shows that this trait
doesn't relate to intelligence.


On 26/08/2011 9:50 AM, Hankman wrote:
> If however, the moon was constituted of hydrogen as is our sun today
> and the source of its own light from nuclear energy, then the
> description of becoming smaller is problematic as the entire substance
> of the moon was changed to its present non-hydrogen (and smaller)
> composition which really amounts to the recreation of a new and different
> moon and not the mere diminution of the moon.

When a prince transforms into a frog, is he not the same prince afterwards?


On 26/08/2011 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:

> According to modern science the moon is a big rock no different from many asteroids floating in space.

And therefore? The Rambam says that *all* the tzeva hashamayim are
intelligent, and only the earth is dumb. Rashi disagrees, and holds
that even the earth is intelligent. Now you will surely agree that Rashi
knew the earth's composition; he could see that it was made up of rocks,
soil, water, etc. So why would the fact that the celestial bodies have
a similar composition change anything?

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 05:52:18PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I find it strange that the Rambam did not accept all the of chazal's
>> science and we should accept the Rambam's science.
>
> Unless we have some reason to question what he says, why would we want
> to reject it?  Just because?  Especially since it's in line with what
> Chazal say, e.g. the midrash we are discussing here.

But the Rambam tells us his theoretical basis, and it's Aristo's impetus
theory. Dismissed science.

The Rambam's shitah therefore compells us to conclude he erred, and
that this medrash is ahistorical. Because

1- We should dismiss his natural philosophy for the same reasons he
dismissed chazal's, and
2- He ridicules people who accept all the fantastical stories as history,
which this one now (after #1) now becaomes.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 26/08/2011 1:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But the Rambam tells us his theoretical basis, and it's Aristo's impetus
> theory. Dismissed science.

Where does he tell us this?  I don't see it anywhere.  If his only reason
were Aristotelian physics then they would not have to be intelligent;
they would only need whatever it is that Aristotle thought an animal
needed in order to move itself.  There was certainly no cause to conclude
that the celestial bodies are more intelligent than people, and only a
bit less than angels!

And in fact there is no connection between his belief that the tzeva
hashamayim are intelligent and the need for a motive force to keep them
moving; on the contrary, he uses that argument to prove Hashem's existence
in the first place.  It's Hashem, he says, that keeps the galgal moving;
not the galgal itself.  Asserting intelligence on the part of the galgal
tends to undermine his argument rather than support it. Therefore he must
have had a completely different reason for asserting that it's intelligent.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 01:26:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/08/2011 1:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> But the Rambam tells us his theoretical basis, and it's Aristo's impetus
>> theory. Dismissed science.
>
> Where does he tell us this?  I don't see it anywhere.  If his only reason
> were Aristotelian physics then they would not have to be intelligent;
> they would only need whatever it is that Aristotle thought an animal
> needed in order to move itself...

... which is intellect.

I'm referring to the MN 1:72, 2:1, 2:6, 2:10, etc... Quoting the
opening of Friedlander's rendtion of 2:4:
    THE enunciation that the heavenly sphere is endowed with a soul
    will appear reasonable to all who sufficiently reflect on it; but at
    first thought they may find it unintelligible or even objectionable;
    because they wrongly assume that when we ascribe a soul to the
    heavenly spheres we mean something like the soul of man, or that
    of an ass, or ox. We merely intend to say that the locomotion of
    the sphere undoubtedly leads us to assume some inherent principle
    by which it moves; and this principle is certainly a soul. For it
    would be absurd to assume that the principle of the circular motion
    of the spheres was like that of the rectilinear motion of a stone
    downward or of fire upwards, for the cause of the latter motion is a
    natural property and not a soul; a thing set in motion by a natural
    property moves only as long as it is away from the proper place of
    its element, but when it has again arrived there, it comes to rest;
    whilst the sphere continues its circular motion in its own place. It
    is, however, not because the sphere has a soul, that it moves in this
    manner; for animate beings move either by instinct or by reason....

> And in fact there is no connection between his belief that the tzeva
> hashamayim are intelligent and the need for a motive force to keep them
> moving; on the contrary...

I think this quote proves otherwise.

Although here he speaks of the sphere that holds the moon, not the moon
itself. The Rambam doesn't actually say the moon has an intellect. One
could argue he takes the medrash to mean the galgal of the yareiach,
not the yareiach itself. But I think it's more reasonable he didn't
take this story historically. Recall also that in 2:30 the Rambam is
quite clear that day 4 is actually the 4th step in a logical process of
unfolding creation, and not part of a temporal sequence at all. So /when/
did this story occur?

>                   .  It's Hashem, he says, that keeps the galgal moving;
> not the galgal itself.  Asserting intelligence on the part of the galgal
> tends to undermine his argument rather than support it...

And yet he explicitly says it, repeatedly.

The Rambam proposes a chain of intellects from the Divine through the
angels to the galgalim down to us and inanimate matter. Yesodei haTorah 2.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 26/08/2011 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>  It is, however, not because the sphere has a soul, that it moves in
> this manner; for animate beings move either by instinct or by reason....

Um, doesn't this contradict your entire thesis?  Animals move by instinct,
so why couldn't the galgal do the same?  What comes after the elipsis?


> The Rambam doesn't actually say the moon has an intellect.

Yes, he does.  Explicitly.  *All* the stars *and* spheres are intelligent,
and they're all more intelligent than humans.  That's certainly not needed
merely to keep moving in a steady orbit, even in Aristotelian physics.


>> It's Hashem, he says, that keeps the galgal moving; not the galgal
>> itself.  Asserting intelligence on the part of the galgal tends to
>> undermine his argument rather than support it...

> And yet he explicitly says it, repeatedly.

That's exactly my point.  Since it's a raaya listor, he can't possibly
be saying it in order to prop up his argument.  Rather, he must be saying
it because it's the truth, even though it *weakens* his argument for the
existence of a Prime Mover.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 8/26/2011 12:26 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/08/2011 1:16 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> But the Rambam tells us his theoretical basis, and it's Aristo's impetus
>> theory. Dismissed science.
>
> Where does he tell us this? I don't see it anywhere. If his only reason
> were Aristotelian physics then they would not have to be intelligent;
> they would only need whatever it is that Aristotle thought an animal
> needed in order to move itself. There was certainly no cause to conclude
> that the celestial bodies are more intelligent than people, and only a
> bit less than angels!
>
> And in fact there is no connection between his belief that the tzeva
> hashamayim are intelligent and the need for a motive force to keep them
> moving; on the contrary, he uses that argument to prove Hashem's existence
> in the first place. It's Hashem, he says, that keeps the galgal moving;
> not the galgal itself. Asserting intelligence on the part of the galgal
> tends to undermine his argument rather than support it. Therefore he must
> have had a completely different reason for asserting that it's intelligent.

???? ?????? ???? ?????: ??? ?????? ??'.

Would you actually contend that a piece of time speaks and praises?  I 
mean, literally?

Lisa

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:14:03PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/08/2011 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
[quoting the Moreh:]
>>  It is, however, not because the sphere has a soul, that it moves in
>> this manner; for animate beings move either by instinct or by reason....

> Um, doesn't this contradict your entire thesis?  Animals move by instinct,
> so why couldn't the galgal do the same?  What comes after the elipsis?

No. Visit the chapter. It moves because it has an intellect. It doesn't
have an *animal* soul, so it doesn't move the way we do. You snipped the
earlier sentence:

    We merely intend to say that the locomotion of the sphere undoubtedly
    leads us to assume some inherent principle by which it moves; and
    this principle is certainly a soul.

Why not open a Moreh and look for yourself. I cited a whole list of
chapters which mention the continuing motion of the galgalim as proof
they posess intellects.

>> The Rambam doesn't actually say the moon has an intellect.

> Yes, he does.  Explicitly.  *All* the stars *and* spheres are intelligent,
> and they're all more intelligent than humans.  That's certainly not needed
> merely to keep moving in a steady orbit, even in Aristotelian physics.

The spheres, not the moon, planets or stars. As I said in the part you
snipped. The moon is a huge ball embedded in a transparent sphere. The
sphere rotates, so the moon moves. Thus his argument is that the spheres
have intellects, not the balls themselves. I said, he could take the
gemara to mean the galgal of the yareiach, not the yareaich itself,
but I don't find that very compelling.

>>> It's Hashem, he says, that keeps the galgal moving; not the galgal
>>> itself.  Asserting intelligence on the part of the galgal tends to
>>> undermine his argument rather than support it...

>> And yet he explicitly says it, repeatedly.

> That's exactly my point.  Since it's a raaya listor, he can't possibly
> be saying it in order to prop up his argument.  Rather, he must be saying
> it because it's the truth, even though it *weakens* his argument for the
> existence of a Prime Mover.

Again, look at the Moreh and Yesodei haTorah. The Prime Mover has a
thought, which in turn is an intellect capable of its own thought, each
tzuros beli chomer, ie mal'akhim, until you get to the Active Intellect
and then first of the spheres, the one that holds the stars. Each one
a step more contingent than the one before.

Given the similarity to Qabbalah, and the Or Ein Sof descending to
form the tzuros of each world, which then fill in with chomer to become
the tzuros of the world below, I think you would find this part of the
Rambam's thought appealing.

Except that he embraces it all based on Aristo's notions of intellect
and impetus.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On 26/08/2011 4:19 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> ???? ?????? ???? ?????: ??? ?????? ??'.
>
> Would you actually contend that a piece of time speaks and praises?  I mean, literally?

I don't know.  Shabbos is a king, after all.  But this is not at all
relevant.  I'm talking about the Rambam's *explicit statement* that
the sun, moon, and all the planets and stars, *as well* as the spheres
in which he thought they were embedded, are all not just intelligent
but more intelligent than we are.  RMB has been insisting that the reason
the Rambam said this was because it was required by Aristotelian physics,
and since we know that theory is false we can reject the conclusions that
are derived from it.  But the Rambam himself says the opposite; he says
that the Aristotelian requirement for a motive force is supplied by Hashem,
not by the celestial bodies themselves.  It would *help* that case if he
were to claim the celestial bodies are mere dumb matter.  But he doesn't
claim that, and instead claims for them not only some intelligence but
far more than even the most dedicated Aristotelian would say they needed.
So RMB's conclusion seems to me refuted.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 8/26/2011 3:42 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 26/08/2011 4:19 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>
>> ???? ?????? ???? ?????: ??? ?????? ??'.
>>
>> Would you actually contend that a piece of time speaks and praises? I
>> mean, literally?
>
> I don't know. Shabbos is a king, after all.

Pardon?  I believe it's Shabbat HaMalka.  Not Shabbat HaMelech.

Lisa

Lisa wrote:

Ditto.  I don't think there's any requirement for Jews to believe such
things in a literal sense.  It goes back to the whole thing about taking
midrashim literally. >>

Adding to the list of rocks the midrash says that the mizbeach weeps fwhen
couples get divorced.
Is the mizbeach now also intelligent?

This shabbat I saw an explanation that the mizbeach was a place full of
slaughter and blood. The midrash is saying that even in such a place full of
all this gory details we still need to remember the suffering of divorced
couples and their children.

BTW in general most people dont realize that the bet hamikdash was in many
ways a slaughter house. The gemara already talks about the amount of blood
on the floor


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110827/0545f92e/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 177
***************************************

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..."