Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 26

Thu, 13 Feb 2014

• 1. Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical Perspective (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Ki Sissa "Pouring Salt on the Wound" (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 3. Re: When BD Errs, Who Brings the Sin Offering, AKA the MaHaRal that will not go away (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (Micha Berger)
• 5. Limud Torah (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Yom Tov Sheni for Olim LeReget to the Beit (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: Why does Moshe use logical arguments when davening to save Bnei Yi srael? (Micha Berger)

The question of how smoking is viewed through the 
lens of halacha is not a new one. In fact, there 
is abundant halachic literature dating back to 
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries related to 
the permissibility of smoking. Far from 
discussing the health issues later associated 
with this habit, the poskim of the time actually 
address whether or not one may smoke on Tisha 
B???Av or other fast days and whether non-kosher 
ingredients contained in a cigarette are of 
halachic concern. But the main area where we find 
smoking discussed is by the Halachos of Yom Tov, 
where poskim debate whether smoking on Yom Tov is 
permitted, prohibited, or actually fulfilling a Mitzvah...

To find out more, read the full article 
"<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1392287965
-93aaaa7683f249c612bec745caae92a1-bd17a17?pa=20452773624>Insights 
Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical Perspective".

I welcome your questions or comments by email. 
For all of the Mareh Mekomos / sources, just ask.

"<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1392287965
-381ea09e23f405120d689d8015fa3d11-bd17a17?pa=20452773624>Insights 
Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary 
Halacha articles for Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed 
the article, please share it with friends and 
family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me.

kol tuv and Good Shabbos,
Y. Spitz
Yerushalayim
<mailto:ysp...@ohr.edu>ysp...@ohr.edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140213/794cd5e3/attachment-0001.htm>

?And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf
and the dancing; and Moses? anger waxed hot, and he cast the tablets out of his 
hands and broke them beneath the mountain? (32:19).

Moses? reaction to the news that the Israelites had fashioned a golden calf and were
worshipping it was a curious one. When Gd informed him initially, he keeps the tablets 
but only when he sees the act for himself, does he hurl the tablets to the ground. Why
didn?t he react when Gd told him. Surely he didn?t doubt the word of Gd.

A careful reading of the text gives an insightful answer. Eleven verses earlier, in verse 8,
Gd told Moses only that: ?They have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it,
and have sacrificed unto it and said, ?This is thy god?? ?; whereas what Moses saw was
was not merely the confirmation of this, but ?the DANCING? ? he saw them actually 
rejoicing in their defection. 

Several parallels came to mind: If you recall, when 911 occurred, the enemy countries 
showed their citizens dancing in the streets over our tragic attacks. It was one thing to
see the planes crash but to see them dancing just poured salt on the wound.

In learning this subtlety in the text, I had two flashbacks. When I was a youngster, my 
uncle was driving my cousin and I to shul on Shabbos. We, like 50% of the congregation,
had an orthodox affiliation but were not shomer Shabbos. People would always park a 
couple blocks away and then walk from their parked car to shul. My uncle was driving and also 
smoking a cigarette.  As we got close to the shul, we saw the rabbi and his family walking
ahead. So I?ll never forget what happened next. My uncle took the cigarette out of his mouth
and immediately put it out in the ashtray and said: ?It?s bad enough that we?re driving on Shabbos
but the rabbi doesn?t have to see me smoking, too!? 
It is amazing how that stuck out in my mind as if it happened last Shabbos. 

The second flashback I had is when I was 15 in the Yeshiva in New York. We were all sitting
around the Shabbos table and one of the students (last name Klein) smuggled in some Schnapps
and apparently the Rosh Yeshiva (Rabbi Yehuda London) got wind of it. He quietly came over to 
our table and took the glass from Klein, containing the schnapps, and violently spilled it out on him
and threw the glass on the floor breaking it into numerous pieces. I?ll never forget that and thought
of Moshe Rabbeinu throwing the tablets on the ground.

I guess nature never really changes.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140213/a3400af9/attachment-0001.htm>

i hear your groans at seeing the revival of this topic, but it came up
in Content-type: text/plain; charset="cp1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding:

See http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n028.shtml#02 and my reply at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n029.shtml#03 and a lot of posts
before and since, but since the subject line was repeatedly changed,
it's a dog to follow the whole flow. (People might want to remember to
cut-n-paste the subject line to have mercy on archive readers.)


The topic was the role of one's own seikhel vs own's poseiq (is HIS
poseiq, or .... up the Sahnedrin), vs the SA. RMR argued that it was
better to study the halakhah and do what you conclude is right, than
to be right by some exceptional standard. Whereas I argued that it was
better to study the halakhah and understand why it's right (because
the world needs talmud Torah), but if you fail to -- we still do what's
right by legal authority standards. So when you and your poseiq disagree,
go with the poseiq.

So, here's the Y-mi reference - Sanhedrin 11:3 (vilna 55b). It returns
us to the data point of a zaqein mamrei.

R' Zeira (FYI: R' Ze'ira, with an ayin, in Y-mi) says that a ZM is only
chayav if he is horeh la'asos or he was horeh without mentioning la'asos
or not, but then ve'asah.

R' Hila cites R' Yishmael in a beraisa that it's because the pasuq says
"kein asher yei'aseh" rather than "ya'aseh", the passive voice not
ya'aseh, implying his causing others to act.

R' Hunah: is someone was melameid halakhah (as opposed to horeh) and
afterwards a case came up -- do what he taught. But if he himself had
such a case before teaching, then we do not follow what he said.

The Penei Mosheh says this if because he is nogei'ah bedavar.

Someone cannot pasqen on his own case. If the person is himself involved,
it's not a real pesaq. Only if he is teaching others does limud rise to
the level of hora'ah both in terms of authority and if that authority
is abused -- zaqein mamrei.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

So, in early incarnations of the thread, http://bit.ly/mtp2YM I found
a couple of indications of Rabbeinu Chananel's shitah that the computed
calendar, or at least much of the computation, was in use even when
qiddush hachodesh was al pi re'iyah. Eidus was apparently part of the
rite for qiddush hachodesh, but the date didn't depend on the eidim.

So the list so far:
> Y-mi Eiruvin 3:9, top of vilna 26b), in which we learn that some
> "seder mo'ados" was available in R' Yosi's day. Meaning a calendar
> (if not the current one) must have been in use before R' Hillel II.

And:
> Y-mi Sukkah, end of 4:1, vilna 18a.
>       R' Simon [a/k/a R' Shimon ben Pazzi] charged those who do the
>      computations... Have in mind that you do not make neither teqi'asah
>      [RH] on Shabbos, nor Arvasa [Hoshana Rabba] on Shabbos. And if you're
>      stuck, make Teq'asah [on Shabbos] and do not make Arvasa.

> R' Simon and R' Yosi are both third generation amora'im (turn of
> through early 3rd cent CE), roughly contemporary. So, in their day,
> people did preplan the calendar, but there was enough leeway that these
> things were a decision...

Simon Monagu noted:
: Firstly, right there in Shabbat 87b, there is a mahloket, among other
: things, whether Iyyar was haser or male; in fact the whole sugya seems
: to presuppose the possibility that the calendar wasn't exactly the
: same as the current fixed calendar.

And I responded:
> [T]here is no reason to believe that the fixed calendar of Hillel
> Nesi'ah was the one anyone is claiming was used beforehand. In fact,
> we proved otherwise, since Rava fasts for 2 days because he didn't know
> if Elul was made full (RH 21a, c.f. Or Samayach on Qiddush haChodesh
> 5:3). The OS also brings raayos from the nasi wanting to add an Adar
> (Sanhedrin 12a) and Abayei having a Fri 9 beAv (Taanis 29b). And Abayei
> was niftar 5 years into Hillel's nesi'us!

Well, it would seem that one amora did think the calendar was pretty
well fixed, even back in Ezra's day.

Y-mi AZ 1:1 (vilna 2b) detours from discussing the three days after a
non-Jewish holiday to mention of isru chag.

Nechemiah 9:1 tells us that the Jews gathered for a day of fasting and
teshuvah (over all the intermarriage) on the 24 Tishrei. Why did they
wait for the second day after Shemini Atzeres? From this R Yudan [Rabbi
Yehudah / Rebbe] proves that you can't have a taanis on isru chag.

But maybe it was just that that year Shemini Atzeres was on Friday,
and the fast was pushed off for Shabbos? It couldn't have been Shabbos,
because that would have meant Yom Kippur was on Sunday, and the calendar
doesn't allow for Yom Kippur to be adjacent to Shabbos (Fri nor Sun).

This is then questioned in a manner the acharonim interpret variously.

R' Yochanan bar Madaya replied that the did the computation backwards,
and it wasn't a Shabbos. Meaning RYBM held (1) he knew the cheshbon used
then, and if they switched systems, all the calendars in use between
his day back to Ezra; (2) at least the DU part of "velo ADU rosh" was
in play at the beginning of bayis sheini.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In a recent daf yomi (Succah 8) the gemara discusses the size of a circular
succah. The rishonim further discuss various mathematical questions of the
relationship of a square to a circle.

Rav Stav based on this gemara asks several questions about the definition
of learning Torah. Two possible applications would be a bracha and learning
in the bathroom.

1) Learning in detail the rishonim discussing the mathematics of the length
of a diagonal of a square and the area of a circle
Extension of these to learning higher math where it is applicable to real
halachic question

2) learning about animals to define what is a terefah

3) learning astronomy for kiddush hachodesh (Rambam has a discussion of
ancient astronomy)

4) learning Moreh Nevuchim and more generally Jewish philosophy

5) learning mussar and general ethics

He quotes from shut Chavot Yair #172 who has a lengthy discussion of
Euclidian geometry with mathematical proofs (he seems to disagree with some
- has anyone ever looked at his proofs?).
He discusses triangles and rectangles but notes he doesnt discuss pentagons
etc.
In the end he apologizes for the lengthy treatment which is not the purpose
of the responsa
but he enjoys the topic
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140213/5360e595/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger cites several ideas, and writes:

> Notice that according to none of these ideas do we have any notion
> of what "time" would mean to a meis. So we should start by
> admitting we don't know what we're talking about.

Okay, but that means accepting all the possibilities. When you write

> So, given the idea that we aren't talking about time as we
> usually think of it 

it gives the impression that you are taking sides. To you it is a 'given"
that we *aren't* talking about time as we usually think of it. I'm not so
sure. It could go either way.

> So, given the idea that we aren't talking about time as we
> usually think of it I want to wave aside the terminology of
> living people causing "aliyas haneshamah" for things done after
> petirah with a kevayakhol. To replace it with something we can't
> really comprehend beyond the words, because it involves violating
> the normal past-to-future causality, I would suggest that the
> meis's place in olam haba is determined by what they did that led
> to someone else doing a mitzvah after their petirah. The aliyas
> haneshamah can be as much thought of as lemafrei'ah as beshe'as
> ma'aseh -- they're both mere approximations of the emes.

Perhaps I'm totally off base, but I really don't see most of this as beyond
comprehension. I'll try to explain it simply, both with and without "time's
arrow". In both cases, there is nothing the meis can do personally to
change his level, but *we* can do things to change it.

First, perhaps time flow for the meis *is* as we experience it. If so, then
when we do mitzvos in his memory, they are credited to his account, because
the mitzvah would not have been done otherwise. I would think that it would
go on his account immediately, but I have heard that it actually happens on
the yahrzeit (similar to how a bank credits interest quarterly, I suppose).
I would also think that if a person left the sort of legacy which inspires
others to do aveiros even after he's gone, then logically that too should
go on his account and cause him to go to *lower* levels. Further, I don't
know why any of this should stop at an arbitrary point 12 months after
death; it seems that in His rachamim, HaShem has a Statute Of Limitations
on punishment but not on zechuyos.

All of those questions are interesting, but unrelated to the question of
time flow for the meis. R' Micha Berger has suggested (if I my paraphrase)
that when a person dies, he immediately goes to his ultimate level,
inclusive of all acts which will be done in his memory, even if they are
yet to be done in the future. RMB would prefer to "wave aside the
terminology of living people causing 'aliyas haneshamah' for things done
after petirah with a kevayakhol", but I have no problem with it -- It's all
a matter of perspective: If WE (who are bound by causality) do something
ten years after the petira, we are still *doing* it (in the present tense)
in his zechus. The idea that he "got" his aliyah ten years ago? *That's*
where you need a "kevayakhol", because *that's* the part where we're
talking about things that we don't understand.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Do THIS before eating carbs (every time)
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/52fd33f6eae533f53bbbst02vuc

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:05:43PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: > Notice that according to none of these ideas do we have any notion
: > of what "time" would mean to a meis. So we should start by
: > admitting we don't know what we're talking about.
: 
: Okay, but that means accepting all the possibilities. When you write
: 
: > So, given the idea that we aren't talking about time as we
: > usually think of it 
: 
: it gives the impression that you are taking sides. To you it is a 'given"
: that we *aren't* talking about time as we usually think of it. I'm not so
: sure. It could go either way.

Well, to some extant I *am* taking sides. We know that we cannot know
what it means to apply the concept of time to the dead. That does rule
out concepts of time that we do understand, like the way(s) in which we
living people experience it.

...
: All of those questions are interesting, but unrelated to the question of
: time flow for the meis. R' Micha Berger has suggested (if I my paraphrase)
: that when a person dies, he immediately goes to his ultimate level,
: inclusive of all acts which will be done in his memory, even if they
: are yet to be done in the future. RMB would prefer to "wave aside the
: terminology of living people causing 'aliyas haneshamah' for things
: done after petirah with a kevayakhol", but I have no problem with it --
: It's all a matter of perspective: If WE (who are bound by causality)
: do something ten years after the petira, we are still *doing* it (in
: the present tense) in his zechus. The idea that he "got" his aliyah
: ten years ago? *That's* where you need a "kevayakhol", because *that's*
: the part where we're talking about things that we don't understand.

(By "wave aside" I didn't mean do way with it, I meant to dismiss its
import to our discussion. Like the way I still talk of "sunrise" rather
than speaking of earth-spin.)

But this isn't the full picture, because non-reshaim spend up to 11
months in gehenom. Bephashtus, 11 of our months, since they're tied to
living people saying qaddish, but if need be we can squeeze out of that
by calling the months symbolic, or one way of measuring the interval
among man (like REED on the first 6 days), etc..

I could invoke relativistic time as a mashal of two different experiences
of the same interval, but it would only be a mashal. Here we're talking
about a more fundamental concept, time as it exists philosiphical by souls
not bound to relativity or any other physics.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On 13/02/2014 5:34 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Nechemiah 9:1 tells us that the Jews gathered for a day of fasting and
> teshuvah (over all the intermarriage) on the 24 Tishrei. Why did they
> wait for the second day after Shemini Atzeres? From this R Yudan [Rabbi
> Yehudah / Rebbe] proves that you can't have a taanis on isru chag.
>
> But maybe it was just that that year Shemini Atzeres was on Friday,
> and the fast was pushed off for Shabbos? It couldn't have been Shabbos,
> because that would have meant Yom Kippur was on Sunday, and the calendar
> doesn't allow for Yom Kippur to be adjacent to Shabbos (Fri nor Sun).
>
> This is then questioned in a manner the acharonim interpret variously.
>
> R' Yochanan bar Madaya replied that the did the computation backwards,
> and it wasn't a Shabbos. Meaning RYBM held (1) he knew the cheshbon used
> then, and if they switched systems, all the calendars in use between
> his day back to Ezra; (2) at least the DU part of "velo ADU rosh" was
> in play at the beginning of bayis sheini.

What's odd is that that that Elul was unexpectedly malei, so they had to
make two days of Rosh Hashana, and that was the last time Elul was malei
until well after the churban.  That seems strong evidence that the calendar,
at least that year, was *not* pre-planned.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 2/13/2014 4:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:05:43PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> : > Notice that according to none of these ideas do we have any notion
> : > of what "time" would mean to a meis. So we should start by
> : > admitting we don't know what we're talking about.
> :
> : Okay, but that means accepting all the possibilities. When you write
> :
> : > So, given the idea that we aren't talking about time as we
> : > usually think of it
> :
> : it gives the impression that you are taking sides. To you it is a
> : 'given" that we *aren't* talking about time as we usually think of
> : it. I'm not so sure. It could go either way.
>
> Well, to some extant I *am* taking sides. We know that we cannot know
> what it means to apply the concept of time to the dead. That does rule
> out concepts of time that we do understand, like the way(s) in which we
> living people experience it.
That's not a sound argument.  I don't know what color shirt you're 
wearing right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't wearing a shirt.  We 
don't know how time works for the dead, but it's possible that it works 
the same way it does for us.

And in fact, if time *doesn't* flow for them as it does for us, there's 
no reason we couldn't, say, daven to the neshama of someone who is still 
alive, or not yet born, since, presumably, their neshama isn't bound by 
time.  And I don't think anyone has ever gone there.

> But this isn't the full picture, because non-reshaim spend up to 11
> months in gehenom. Bephashtus, 11 of our months, since they're tied to
> living people saying qaddish, but if need be we can squeeze out of that
> by calling the months symbolic, or one way of measuring the interval
> among man (like REED on the first 6 days), etc..
But why would "need be"?  It seems, b'pashtut, that the 11 months thing 
means that time flows for them as it flows for us.

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:22:03PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> That's not a sound argument.  I don't know what color shirt you're  
> wearing right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't wearing a shirt.  We  
> don't know how time works for the dead, but it's possible that it works  
> the same way it does for us.

It's more like a blind person who doesn't know what color shirt I am
wearing. Even if someone who did know the color told him what the color
was, he still wouldn't know anything but a bunch of content-free words.

We know that if times exists outside of physics, it's something as
outside our experience as color for someone blind from birth.

And in fact, I didn't try to prove we don't know what time is, but that
we can't. If the blind man thinks he knows what the color description
means, he's wrong. We can rule out his misunderstanding.

> And in fact, if time *doesn't* flow for them as it does for us, there's  
> no reason we couldn't, say, daven to the neshama of someone who is still  
> alive, or not yet born, since, presumably, their neshama isn't bound by  
> time.  And I don't think anyone has ever gone there.

But it's more than "block time" too.

But tiem can't flow for them in the way it does for us because we know
that time-flow for us is intimately related to our being in space. And
both REED and Kant agree that time's arrow is phenomenlogical, and not
really part of the universe that's "out there". This idea that time
is a single line at all, even beyond the subject of experiencing
past-present-future says more about post-sin people than about time.

But in any case, Einstein closed the door on the idea of applying our
experience of time to metaphysics.

>> But this isn't the full picture, because non-reshaim spend up to 11
>> months in gehenom. Bephashtus, 11 of our months, since they're tied to
>> living people saying qaddish, but if need be we can squeeze out of that
>> by calling the months symbolic, or one way of measuring the interval
>> among man (like REED on the first 6 days), etc..

> But why would "need be"?  It seems, b'pashtut, that the 11 months thing  
> means that time flows for them as it flows for us.

Thus my if.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:48:04PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> What's odd is that that that Elul was unexpectedly malei, so they had to
> make two days of Rosh Hashana, and that was the last time Elul was malei
> until well after the churban.  That seems strong evidence that the calendar,
> at least that year, was *not* pre-planned.

Good question, but maybe:
The calendar during the golah got off plan by one day, and the decision
to correct it was just then for RH last-minute.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 2/13/2014 5:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:22:03PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> That's not a sound argument.  I don't know what color shirt you're
>> wearing right now, but that doesn't mean you aren't wearing a shirt.  We
>> don't know how time works for the dead, but it's possible that it works
>> the same way it does for us.
> It's more like a blind person who doesn't know what color shirt I am
> wearing. Even if someone who did know the color told him what the color
> was, he still wouldn't know anything but a bunch of content-free words.
That's an issue of his knowledge.  Not of the reality.


> We know that if times exists outside of physics, it's something as
> outside our experience as color for someone blind from birth.

I'm sorry, but that's not true.  It *could* be something outside of our 
experience, but then again, maybe it isn't.  We don't know. Maybe we 
*can't* know.  But that means that we also don't know if it's time 
*exactly* as we know it.


> And in fact, I didn't try to prove we don't know what time is, but that
> we can't. If the blind man thinks he knows what the color description
> means, he's wrong. We can rule out his misunderstanding.

Again, that's a personal judgment on your part.  Even if we can't know 
what time is for a dead person (because we *can* know what it is for us 
-- I don't know if you were implying otherwise; it was unclear), that 
doesn't mean that time for a dead person can't be something 
understandable.  The reason we can't understand it is simply because 
it's on the other side of a wall from us.  When you assume that it's 
inherently un-understandable by us, you're taking a huge leap that isn't 
justified.

>
>> And in fact, if time *doesn't* flow for them as it does for us, there's
>> no reason we couldn't, say, daven to the neshama of someone who is still
>> alive, or not yet born, since, presumably, their neshama isn't bound by
>> time.  And I don't think anyone has ever gone there.
> But it's more than "block time" too.

How do you know?  See... I'm willing to admit that I don't know. You 
seem awfully sure about a lot of things in this discussion, and I don't 
see how you can possibly be sure.  What's your basis for your saying 
"It's more than 'block time' too" (whatever "block time" is)?

> But tiem can't flow for them in the way it does for us because we know
> that time-flow for us is intimately related to our being in space.

Disagree.  We don't know anything of the sort.  There is a current 
theory that space and time are related, but it's never been proven. And 
even if it were, you don't know whether there are aspects of space where 
the neshamas of the deceased are.  Aspects that are sufficient to 
support time in the way we think of it.  These are things we simply lack 
the information to know.

> And
> both REED and Kant agree that time's arrow is phenomenlogical, and not
> really part of the universe that's "out there".

But their philosophical positions don't constitute fact.

> This idea that time
> is a single line at all, even beyond the subject of experiencing
> past-present-future says more about post-sin people than about time.

Possibly.  But again, that's pure conjecture.

> But in any case, Einstein closed the door on the idea of applying our
> experience of time to metaphysics.

Of course he didn't.

Lisa

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:29:28PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> It's more like a blind person who doesn't know what color shirt I am
>> wearing. Even if someone who did know the color told him what the color
>> was, he still wouldn't know anything but a bunch of content-free words.

> That's an issue of his knowledge.  Not of the reality.

And the nimshal... Just as we knwo that if the blind man thinks he
knows what he's talking about, he's wrong, we can also know that
anything about physics-less time we think we understand is wrong.

We know this much about the reality -- it's something we can't know.

Kind of like the person who calls himself an agnostic because he
can't decide if he believes in G-d or not, in contrast to a real
agnostic who believes he proved that one can't in princple know
if He exists or not.

Similarly, I am arguing that we can't in principle know how time
works without space and the rest of physics. Thereofre, any
theory that can be understood could be ruled out by that argument.

>> We know that if times exists outside of physics, it's something as
>> outside our experience as color for someone blind from birth.

> I'm sorry, but that's not true.  It *could* be something outside of our  
> experience, but then again, maybe it isn't.  We don't know. Maybe we  
> *can't* know.  But that means that we also don't know if it's time  
> *exactly* as we know it.

We know that the only time we've experienced is one with space, angled
by our velocity, and curved by mass and energy. We know that the dead
soul doesn't inhabit space, doesn't have mass, and therefore has no
velocity or energy either.

I am focusing on the relativity bit of my argument, because I don't
think you share Kantian postulates on which REED's position about time
rests. Not because relativity and time is more primary, but more likely to
come to some kind of common language.

(Kant proves that space and time involve numerous antinomies, which
if they were objective existences would mean paradoxes, but as human
perceptions of an inconceivable reality, they become mere dialectics.
The difference being that paradoxes in the real world are imposibble,
but inconsistency in the human mind is the norm.)

>> And in fact, I didn't try to prove we don't know what time is, but that
>> we can't. If the blind man thinks he knows what the color description
>> means, he's wrong. We can rule out his misunderstanding.
>
> Again, that's a personal judgment on your part...

And despite the above, what's so bad with m posting my own beliefs about
the answer to a raised question?

...
>> But it's more than "block time" too.
>
> How do you know? ...

Because block time is also a physics theory, describing the universe as
a 4D sculpture that only seems to man to be a 3D movie because that's
how our perception works.

....
> Disagree.  We don't know anything of the sort.  There is a current  
> theory that space and time are related, but it's never been proven...

Not proven? It's so well established, the fact is used in engineering.
The GPS (SatNav) system has to adjust for the difference in rate of time
between the sattelits and the receiver.

Before that, it was measured in space travel, seen in spectra of objects
moving away from us (doppler shift), etc...

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 32, Issue 26
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)