Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 77

Fri, 29 Jun 2012

• 1. Don't take credit for your talents (Micha Berger)
• 2. who is a talmid chacham (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Drops of wine (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Drops of wine (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: Drops of wine (Zev Sero)
• 6. Avodah] Who is a Talmid Chacham (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: Avodah] Who is a Talmid Chacham (Zev Sero)
• 8. ani maamin's (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: ani maamin's (Micha Berger)
• 10. Why four? (Harvey Benton)
• 11. Re: tosefta incorporations?? (Harvey Benton)
• 12. Re: tosefta incorporations?? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Kivrey Avos (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Why four? (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: Why four? (Harvey Benton)

From this week's issue of Hamaayan (sent out by torah.org)
<http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5772/chukas.html>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Hamaayan
by Shlomo Katz

Parshas Chukas
Deep Waters
Volume 26, No. 35
10 Tammuz 5772
June 30, 2012

Sponsored by Martin and Michelle Swartz on the thirtieth yahrzeit of
Martin's grandfather John Hofmann a"h (12 Tammuz)

Today's Learning:
Tanach: Tehilim 125-126
Mishnah: Yevamot 15:8-9
Daf Yomi (Bavli): Niddah 40
Daf Yomi (Yerushalmi): Yevamot 29
Halachah Yomit: Orach Chaim 75:1-3
...

                             Letters from our Sages

The following letter was written by R Shlomo Wolbe zl (a leading teacher
of mussar in the last 50 years; died 2005) to his grandson. It appears
in the pamphlet Igrot Uketavim, published on the occasion of R Wolbe's
shloshim.

To my beloved... peace and a blessing!

R Yisrael Salanter, may his merit protect us [founder of the mussar
movement and a brilliant scholar] said, I know that my head is equal
to that of a thousand men; this merely obligates me to do the work of
a thousand men.

We learn from this that one is obligated to recognize the strengths and
talents that G-d has given him. One certainly did not receive these for
nothing, only in order to use them to serve his Creator through Torah
and through sanctifying His Name in the world.

To be full of pride over ones talents makes no sense, for we did not
give ourselves these talents. The reason that G-d did not give everyone
the same talents is that not everyone has the same task. If one takes
pride in his talents, it is a sign that he does not believe that G-d
gave them to him. In so doing, he is taking pride in G-ds garment,
as the verse says (Tehilim 93:1), Hashem donned grandeur.

Grandeur [which shares a root in Hebrew with pride] belongs only to the
Creator, not to the created.

When a person does recognize his talents, he needs to know that he is
obligated to exhaust them for the sake of Torah and service of G-d. Who
can believe that he is fulfilling his obligation? Everyone is obligated
to do infinitely more than he is doing, using whatever talents he has.
... Indeed, in contrast to a multi-talented individual, one who is not
talented but works hard to understand and know [the Torah] is using
his talents. A talented individual should feel shame, not pride, in the
presence [of a person whose talents are limited]....

With love,
Grandpa Shlomo
  __________________________________________________________________

The editors hope these brief 'snippets' will engender further study and
discussion of Torah topics ('lehagdil Torah u'leha'adirah'), and your
letters are appreciated. Web archives at Torah.org start with 5758
(1997) and may be retrieved from the Hamaayan page.

Hamaayan needs your support! Please consider sponsoring Hamaayan in
honor of a happy occasion or in memory of a loved one. The low cost of
sponsorship is $36. Donations to HaMaayan are tax-deductible.
...

<< Isn't this explicitly rejected, though?  A poor person's korban is
just as valuable as a rich person's.  Also, "echad hamarbeh ve'echad
hamam'it", and "Rachamana liba ba'i" >>

For reward in heaven it depends on effort and not achievement.
However, the privileges in this world depend on a high level of achievement.
Thus, for example the case of a TC goes first in a bet din and perhaps in a
line for a private doctor.
One stands up for a TC.
In theory a TC does not pay certain taxes, for exceptional cases one says a
bracha on seeing a gadol.

On certainly is not required to stand up for someone who diligently spends
hours going over Rashi on the parsha
because he has a poor background.
There is a story of someone who was a bal teshuva late in life and spent a
long time learning one daf of gemara and became ill.
RMF paskened that he could say a siyum on one daf because of his efforts.
No doubt he gets a great reward however he
certainly is not a TC to stand up for or to receive breaks on taxes and
going ahead on line.


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120628/99c749d3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:23:35AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> In previous iterations, we also mentioned the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach['s
>> talmidim] and it appears as a "yeish lomar" in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106,
>> "dam va'eish").
>
> I don't think any of these sources suggest that it's because *our* joy  
> is lessened.  Rather, it's because we know that Hashem is, kaveyachol,  
> grieving.  Just as we don't rejoice over the fall of an enemy who is one  
> of our own, Hashem silenced the angels because the Egyptians were His  
> own, even though they had behaved with enmity towards us and Hashem.

Again, that doesn't fit those many many who accept this explanation for
Chatzi Hallel on shevi'i shel Psach.

But I also wonder why we would be expected to have a different response
than G-d's.

Last, I think saying that when the Beis Yoseif et al tie "binfol oyivkha"
to Chatzi Hallel, they are not precluding feeling joy at our being free
from their oppressing us. I believe the point is to call for ambivalence:
sadness at the waste of tzelem E-lokim -- starting with what the Mitzrim
did to themselves and continuing with their death -- simultaneous with
happiness that justice was made manifest, that the wicked are no longer
around to harm us, etc...

> Even widely respected talmidei chachamim can err and confuse alien ideas  
> as our own.  As witness the recent discussion about widely respected  
> talmidei chachamim quoting "Ein navi b'iro" as though it's a Jewish  
> thought, when it's actually from the treyfer sefer.

Some level of emunas chakhamim is required WRT matters of Torah, no?
Otherwise, TSBP is whatever you want it to be, ve'ish hayashar be'einav
ya'aseh.


On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:06:26AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I made the same argument by pointing out that if such compassion were
>> unJewish, so would giving the parallel explanation for Chatzi Hallel on
>> the last day of Pesach. And yet/that/  has a solid pedigree.

> The Chavos Yair neatly disposes of this argument.

The Chavos Yair (#225) not only DOES tie CH on shevi'i shel Pesach to
"maasei Yadai", he says that's why we do not say any special ofanim,
either. (The latter makes much sense, actually.) It's a "yeis ta'am
acheir", but the CY doesn't reject it. And he defends the medrash against
questions based on the gemara seeking another answer.

But your claim wasn't eilu va'eilu, but "unJewish". The Beis Yoseif
et al said it -- the concept is well within the mesorah. If you choose
to reject the Yalqut, the Shibolei haLeqet, the Beis Yoseif, the Taz,
the Maharil (in the name of Rashi), the Kav HaChaim, R' Aharon Kotler
(not to mention the Meshekh Chokhmah WRT Purim and Chanukah), AND THE
CHAVOS YAIR, there could well be al mi lismoch. (Not that I recall anyone
other than a naive reading of the gemara in Megillah, which obviously
has some answer all the above knew.)

You can't simply dismiss someone applying the parallel sevara elsewhere,
eg the drops of wine, out of hand by just declaring it "unJewish".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On 6/28/2012 9:55 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:23:35AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>>> In previous iterations, we also mentioned the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach['s
>>> talmidim] and it appears as a "yeish lomar" in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106,
>>> "dam va'eish").
>>>        
>> I don't think any of these sources suggest that it's because *our* joy
>> is lessened.  Rather, it's because we know that Hashem is, kaveyachol,
>> grieving.  Just as we don't rejoice over the fall of an enemy who is one
>> of our own, Hashem silenced the angels because the Egyptians were His
>> own, even though they had behaved with enmity towards us and Hashem.
>>      
> Again, that doesn't fit those many many who accept this explanation for
> Chatzi Hallel on shevi'i shel Psach.
>    

I disagree.  I think it fits all of them.
> But I also wonder why we would be expected to have a different response
> than G-d's.
>    

I don't understand what you're wondering.  They were Hashem's maasei 
yadayim.  Not ours.  Think about the Gemara's take on binfol oyivcha.  
It applies to fellow Jews.  Why?  Because we're connected to them.  
They're family.  Even if we aren't getting along with them, we're still 
family.  Same thing here, kaveyachol.  The Mitzrim were Hashem's 
family.  They were bad and needed to be punished, but the same principle 
that we have with binfol oyivcha explains why (a) Hashem didn't rejoice 
over their destruction, and (b) why it's both okay and normal for us to 
rejoice over their destruction.

We say that Hashem wears tefillin.  Metaphor or not, we're supposed to 
compare ourselves to Him.  Obviously Hashem isn't "bound" by binfol 
oyivcha, but we're supposed to understand the same principle applying in 
the case of His silencing the malachim.  There's a distinction between 
our folk and theirs.  But for Hashem, they're all His folk.

> Last, I think saying that when the Beis Yoseif et al tie "binfol oyivkha"
> to Chatzi Hallel, they are not precluding feeling joy at our being free
> from their oppressing us. I believe the point is to call for ambivalence:
> sadness at the waste of tzelem E-lokim -- starting with what the Mitzrim
> did to themselves and continuing with their death -- simultaneous with
> happiness that justice was made manifest, that the wicked are no longer
> around to harm us, etc...
>    
It's an interesting vort, but I don't think that sort of distinction 
exists in the Beis Yosef.  When they tie binfol oyivcha to chatzi 
hallel, they're saying what I wrote above.

>> Even widely respected talmidei chachamim can err and confuse alien ideas
>> as our own.  As witness the recent discussion about widely respected
>> talmidei chachamim quoting "Ein navi b'iro" as though it's a Jewish
>> thought, when it's actually from the treyfer sefer.
>>      
> Some level of emunas chakhamim is required WRT matters of Torah, no?
> Otherwise, TSBP is whatever you want it to be, ve'ish hayashar be'einav
> ya'aseh.
>    
Right.  And emunat chachamim starts with the Gemara.  I don't buy the 
Beis Yosef lacking emunat chachamim and disputing a mefurash Gemara.  I 
just don't.  And since there is a reasonable understanding of the Beis 
Yosef that *doesn't* contradict the Gemara, I can't fathom anyone trying 
to justify choosing machloket.

Lisa

On 28/06/2012 10:55 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 09:23:35AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>> In previous iterations, we also mentioned the hagaddah of R' SZ Aurbach['s
>>> talmidim] and it appears as a "yeish lomar" in that of R Elyashiv (pg 106,
>>> "dam va'eish").

>> I don't think any of these sources suggest that it's because *our* joy
>> is lessened.  Rather, it's because we know that Hashem is, kaveyachol,
>> grieving.  Just as we don't rejoice over the fall of an enemy who is one
>> of our own, Hashem silenced the angels because the Egyptians were His
>> own, even though they had behaved with enmity towards us and Hashem.

> Again, that doesn't fit those many many who accept this explanation for
> Chatzi Hallel on shevi'i shel Psach.

Wrong.  See the Chavos Yair.


> But I also wonder why we would be expected to have a different response
> than G-d's.

Hu eino sas, aval acherim meisis.



> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 08:06:26AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> I made the same argument by pointing out that if such compassion were
>>> unJewish, so would giving the parallel explanation for Chatzi Hallel on
>>> the last day of Pesach. And yet/that/  has a solid pedigree.
>
>> The Chavos Yair neatly disposes of this argument.
>
> The Chavos Yair (#225) not only DOES tie CH on shevi'i shel Pesach to
> "maasei Yadai", he says that's why we do not say any special ofanim,
> either. (The latter makes much sense, actually.) It's a "yeis ta'am
> acheir", but the CY doesn't reject it. And he defends the medrash against
> questions based on the gemara seeking another answer.

You are completely misrepresenting the CY.  He is not on your side on
this.  First of all, he says that the real reason for half-hallel is the
korbanos, and *not* the Mitzrim.  But to farentfer the medrash Harninu,
he suggests that it applies only to the limited case of whole hallel,
which (he suggests) is only said when Hashem is also happy.  Since when
His creatures die "He is not happy but He makes others happy", our own
joy is undiminished but we can't say a complete hallel.  But he concludes
that that is only to farentfer the medrash, "but according to the truth"
the reason for not saying whole hallel is because of the korbonos.  He
also says that "according to the truth" Hashem's kepeida against the
mal'achim saying shira applied only at the moment that the Mitzrim were
drowning, but the next day when the Jews said shira, the mal'achim
joined in with Hashem's approval, because His moment of sadness was over.

So the CY does not support your position.  In future *please stop* citing
him to that effect.
  


> But your claim wasn't eilu va'eilu, but "unJewish".

That's right.


> The Beis Yoseif
> et al said it -- the concept is well within the mesorah.

Again, see the Chavos Yair, who completely disposes of this argument.


> If you choose
> to reject the Yalqut, the Shibolei haLeqet, the Beis Yoseif, the Taz,
> the Maharil (in the name of Rashi), the Kav HaChaim [...], AND THE
> CHAVOS YAIR, there could well be al mi lismoch.

No, I am not rejecting them, the ones I checked *do not say what you
claim they do*.   On the contrary.  I'm not checking them all again,
but the Maharil explicitly says the opposite, that we spill the makos
in order to direct punishment to Hashem's enemies!  If you claim these
sources support you, please supply mar'ei mekomos.  The CY I've already
shown above rejects your position and neatly limits the effect of any
source that talks about hallel.  So if any of the authorities you claim
above are from Hallel, forget about them, you have no basis for extending
them to the makkos or any other situation.



> (Not that I recall anyone
> other than a naive reading of the gemara in Megillah, which obviously
> has some answer all the above knew.)

It is not "naive", it is the plain and obvious pshat.  How *else* can
one read it?


> You can't simply dismiss someone applying the parallel sevara elsewhere,
> eg the drops of wine, out of hand by just declaring it "unJewish".

I certainly can and do.  The CY explains how.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

RDB writes: 

> It doesn't have to do with innate output ability, but with Ameilus in
plumbing the depths of Torah. The more one exerts oneself in learning, the
>greater the Zechus. 

The classic definition of merit is:

Brains (or IQ) +  hard work = merit.

(although perhaps it ought really to be a multiplication rather than an
addition, since the idea is that with zero brains or zero hard work you
would not achieve any merit).

Brains are the "innate output ability".  Ameilus is the "hard work".  Merit
is the actual output. So the classic definition of merit requires both.
Communistic thinking, on the other hand, points out that brains, or innate
output ability, are inherently unfair - and thus just as it is not fair to
pay people more because their parents happened to be rich, it is not fair to
pay people more because they happened to inherit brains.

Now it is not clear to me whether RDB (and/or the Netziv) is indeed
advocating merit, and only pointing out that one does not get to merit
without the application of hard work, or whether in fact he is/they are
saying that only hard work counts and has any value, and the actual output
(not just the output ability, but that which is produced) is irrelevant.

RZS, in his previous posts appeared to be saying the latter - ie the hard
work put in by somebody with a low IQ counts just as much as that of the
greatest gadol, and actual output is irrelevant.

>Isn't this explicitly rejected, though?  A poor person's korban is just as
valuable as a rich person's.  Also, "echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it", and
>"Rachamana liba ba'i".

Echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it is learnt from the poor person's korban
versus the rich person's (see Menachos 110a).

Note however that this concept actually contradicts the idea that what
counts is the time spent in hard work - ie the amount of ameilus a person
puts in, because what it appears to say is that if one gets to the same
point, it doesn't matter whether one takes a long time or short time, it is
the result that counts (that paradoxically seems to be the Sfas Emes's view,
although he appears to be talking about dvekus to Hashem).  So that would
seem to suggest that a person with a lot of brains, who can get to a certain
point in learning much more quickly earns as much merit as the years of toil
of the not so bright.
Indeed this seems to be the Taz's problem in Orech Chaim siman 1 si'if katan
3 - why shouldn't the one who does more get a greater reward than the one
who does less?  His answer is that this is specific to tephila, and only
where the one who does less then uses the time to learn more Torah.  

Tosphos (Shevuos 15a) has a more basic problem with echad hamarbeh ve'echad
hamam'it - doesn't it in fact matter in korbanos whether we provide more or
less- we see from various korbanos that we are required to choose the better
korban (the best of the flock etc) - and thus concludes that the point is
that one should not get puffed up by pride because one brought a better
korban than his fellow.

If that was applied to learning (and I am not sure Tosphos is, they too may
be restricting it to Avodah), then it is not that merit is not of
importance, just that somebody with the brains to achieve real merit should
not be proud about it, but rather needs to remind themselves that the fact
that they were able to achieve so much is not just due to the coach yadi -
the hard work aspect, but to the G-d given brains aspect.

Regards

Chana

On 28/06/2012 6:15 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> RZS, in his previous posts appeared to be saying the latter - ie the hard
> work put in by somebody with a low IQ counts just as much as that of the
> greatest gadol, and actual output is irrelevant.

The definition of Torah lishmah is that there is no "output".  If you're
digging holes for a purpose then the value of your work is measured by
how many holes you produce; but if you're just doing it for exercise then
you can just dig the same hole and fill it in again, over and over, and
you've achieved every bit as much as if you'd dug up a whole field.  Of
course if you do dig up a field then you've also benefited the farmer; if
you come up with moreh'dike chidushim then you benefit klal yisroel for
generations to come.  But that isn't the point of the learning, it's only
a side benefit.  Hence "echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it", because the
zechus of limud hatorah is the same.  For that matter, not to get personal,
but a woman who is mechadesh chidushim and is mezakeh the whole world is
still an einah metzuvah, and has less zechus *for her limud itself* than
a poshuter yid who learns chumash.


> Echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it is learnt from the poor person's korban
> versus the rich person's (see Menachos 110a).
>
> Note however that this concept actually contradicts the idea that what
> counts is the time spent in hard work - ie the amount of ameilus a person
> puts in, because what it appears to say is that if one gets to the same
> point, it doesn't matter whether one takes a long time or short time, it is
> the result that counts

I don't understand what you're saying.  Echad hamarbeh ve'echad hamam'it
doesn't mean one who puts in more or less effort.  It's one who brings
more or less.  The whole point is that Hashem values what it cost you,
the effort and sacrifice, not the value of what you brought.  If a few
greens are a more meaningful sacrifice for you than a fat bull is for
the rich man, then your greens outweigh his bull on the Heavenly scale.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2012/06/roots-of-faith.html 
though somewhat  parody, which of these can one deny and still be 
considered a frum jew?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120629/b2cf4514/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 09:42:43AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2012/06/roots-of-faith.html 
: though somewhat  parody, which of these can one deny and still be 
: considered a frum jew?

I don't think that a real poseiq would tell people to avoid wine I touched
because my notions on the age of the universe are more subtle than
the 5772 vs 13.7bn either/or usually presented -- and thus not clearly
the former. Or because there are days when I agree with the rishonim
on HP not being universe, or the CI on what bitachon means, or...

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

arba nichnas l'pardes
4 sons
4 questions
etc, 

why the fascination with four??

hb

From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:24 AM
> On 22/06/2012 11:54 AM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> why were some beraitos available and incorporated into the gemmarra, while
>> others were incorporated into the toseftas ???

> You're mixing categories. Your question is like "why were some words
> of Thomas Jefferson incorporated into the 'The Thomas Jefferson Reader',
> while others were incorporated into 'Supreme Court Decisions 1851-1900'?

are you saying that some beraitot were not available either because
of time (later/earlier) or distance (ey or bavel) to ravina and rav ashi??

or are you saying there is absolutely no cross-over between the two?? --
do we ever pasken from a berata from a tosefta over a gemmarra??

hb

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:55:41AM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: are you saying that some beraitot were not available either because
: of time (later/earlier) or distance (ey or bavel) to ravina and rav ashi??

Rav Ashi and Ravina (order intentionally swapped) weren't out to collect
beraisos to produce a snapshot of halakhah pesuqah. (Unlike Rebbe and
R' Chiya in the Mishnah and Tosefta, respectively.) They quote those
lower-case-m mishnayos that furthered the discussion. There was no
attempt to be canonical, so there is no reason to explain exclusion.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 08:23:22AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> The machlokes in the gemara whether "meisim yod'im" refers only to what
:> is happening outside the cemetery.  Lechol hade'os they know what is
:> happening inside.

: Again: See tosfot sotah 34b D"H avotai as well as michtav meliyahu -yamim
: noraim where he posits those of high ruchanit stature know nothing of
: this world once they leave it.

Except that Tosafos also include them knowing what is said in tefillos.
Which would answer the "Rachel mevaqah" question.

Didn't see MmE, yet.

I'm wondering if the same is true of a recent meis still undergoing
chibus haqever. He is still attached on some level to his body, to the
extent of knowing and feeling its decomposition. So I see it plausible
that connection to olam hazeh is also informative beyond that.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Because it's a fun number.  2+2, 2x2, 2^2.  The word four has four 
letters in it.  So does arba.  And vier.

Honestly, I don't get the question.  There's also a fascination with 3.  
And 5.  And 6.  And 7.  And 8.  Every number has its own significance or 
significances.

Lisa

On 6/29/2012 12:44 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> arba nichnas l'pardes
> 4 sons
> 4 questions
> etc,
>
> why the fascination with four??
>
> hb
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120629/a706cc55/attachment-0001.htm>

please explain the other
fascinations eg, 3, 5, etc, 

and? what does ^ mean???
thanks

?
hb
















________________________________
 From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
To: Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>; The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> 
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Why four?
 

 
Because it's a fun number.? 2+2,
2x2, 2^2.? The word four has four letters in it.? So does arba.? And
vier.

Honestly, I don't get the question.? There's also a fascination with
3.? And 5.? And 6.? And 7.? And 8.? Every number has its own
significance or significances.

Lisa

On 6/29/2012 12:44 PM, Harvey Benton wrote: 
arba nichnas l'pardes
4 sons
4 questions
etc,  why the fascination with four?? hb
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list Avo...@lists.aishdas.org http://list
s.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120629/39039b57/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 77
**************************************

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..."