Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 147

Friday, July 30 1999

• Re: allegory
• flood
• Allegory - Josephus's view
• review and curriculum
• Re: allegory
• machlokes
• psak halacha
• turning on lights on shabbat
• Re: allegory
• creation
• Re: machlokes
• Re: Allegory - Josephus's view
• allegory
• Re: Avodah V3 #146
• Re: mabul vs creation
• Re: turning on lights on shabbat
• Re: creation
• Sources
• Allegorization - Rambam/Ra'avad in Hil Melachim, megaleh panim
• A clarification

Here we go again.

<<
> You consistently make the same mistake.  No one says that chazal
> allegorized the mabul.  They had no reason to.  Neither, for that
> matter, did Rambam have any reason to allegorize the mabul.  The
> question arises only in the modern day because of scientific
> discoveries. 
> 

So Chazal werre wrong? Or ignorant? Or uninformed?
>>

Now we have come full circle, I guess.  Back to science and Chazal.  I guess 
that means we can finally drop this thread and move on.

Yes Chazal were uninformed.  The did not know about the study of geology to 
the extent that we do today.  Based on what science has shown today, it seems 
difficult to see a world-wide catastrophic flood.

This does not make Chazal "wrong" or "ignorant" of halacha in any way, this 
is not a "mockery" of Chazal.  This is just making a claim that they were not 
as scientifically advanced as we are today in some areas.  Where they were 
far ahead of us was in seeing cause and effect relationships (such as isha ki 
tazria, v'yalda zachar), although not necessarily being able to explain them.

Can you please, now, stop putting words into others' mouths.  If the only way 
to win an argument is to attribute outlandish statements to those you 
disagree with, then maybe there is too much personal involvement in the 
discussion, and not the removed analysis that is necessary for such 
discussions.  I don't think that getting so worked up is a valid form of 
Avodas HaShem, and certainly wouldn't want it in active mitzvos.

EDT

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Hi:
  I'm still several weeks behind.  Nonetheless I thought I'd send in a
few posts.  Dr. Shinnar and Rabbi Clark have occasionally anticipated
me, so I risk wasting all our time.
  You might want to reread Igroth Kenaoth, which is essentially a
collection of letters by several prominent rishonim about the flood
issue.  One consolation is that the ratio of polemic to content was high
even then.  One warning is that I'm relying mostly on memory of having
read through the whole thing several years ago: my arguments from
silence may not be accurate.
  R. Yehuda HaRofeh attributes to the Rambam (and no one in the
controversy disagrees) two possible reasons for interpreting scripture
allegorically: (1) internal contradiction or (2) contradiction of what
has been proven by science.  He accepts (1) as legitimate and rejects
(2) as heretical.  His reason for rejecting (2) is that scientific proof
is unreliable.
  Notice several things:
(a) he does not reject (2) because of God's infinite capacity (more on
this later).
(b) he does not cite Rabbi Bechhofer's rule that we interpret scripture
allegorically only if Chazal tell us to (Rabbi B's rule has the
advantage of explaining Elisha's bears, which no one else's rule does).

The only analogue I know to Rabbi B's rule is in St. Augustine's On
Xtian Doctrine.  Rabbi B. may have read it on seeing the cited passage
from Rabbi Lichtenstein, not realizing that that referred to The
Confessions.  Yesh zariz v'nifsad ...

To apply this to the flood we need several other bits of information. 
The Bible promises that in Messianic times we'll have good weather if
we're good and bad weather if we're bad.  The Rambam in Maamar Techiyath
HaMeithim classifies this as non-miraculous.  A miracle is only that
which is done through unnatural means.  The Ramban classifies this as a
nes nistar.

The naive reader of the Biblical text sees that the Bible goes out of
its way to emphasise that the flood occured through natural means
unlike, say. the destruction of Sodom (though the Rambam's opinion on
that requires more citations - see the Abarbanel at the beginning of
Veyera, the Ramban at the same spot, and the passage the Ramban cites in
the Guide).  So that we can postulate an argument between the Ramban and
the Rambam about whether the flood was a nes.  Hence, for the Rambam,
the assertion of God's infinite capacity is irrelevant.

Modern science (unlike Medieval science) would deny the possibility that
there is enough water to flood the earth.  So a good Maimonidean who is
also a modern scientist would be justified in understanding the flood
allegorically, while a Nacmanidean or a disciple of R. Yehuda would not.

David Riceman

The following is from Professor Louis Feldman Moshe Feldman's father, re: 
Joesephu's views on  Krias Yam Suf, etc.

>>Dear Rich,
Josephus, Antiquities 2.348, commenting on Krias Yam Suf, cites the parallel 
with Alexander the Great's crossing of the Pamphylian Sea, to show that it is 
possible, but then adds, "However, on these matters everyone is welcome to his 
own opinion."  This is a comment which Josephus makes (Ant. 1.108) with regard 
to the extraordinary logevity of the patriarchs.  It is also found in Ant. 3.81,
3.268, 3.322, 4.158, 8.262, 10.281, 17.354, 19.108, War 5.257.  This formula or 
its equivalent is also found in Herodotus 2.123, 3.122.1, Thucydides 6.21, 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquitie 1.48.1, and Lucian Quomodo Historia
Conscribenda Sit 60.  
All good wishes.
Louis Feldmans<<

It suggests that in Joesphu's time the literallness of these events was NOT 
dogma.  

Rich Wolpoe

I posted a question about seder halimud several weeks ago.  I was not
specific enough, so that the questions I had in mind were ignored. 
here's a more detailed set of questions:

1.  There is an opinion (which I have heard attributed to R. Yisrael
Salanter) that in addition to a mitzva of limud Torah there is a mitzva
of yediath kol hatorah.  Is this cited by any normative posek? What is
the definition of kol hatorah? Is it delimited by texts or by content?
Does it include only halacha or also midrash? What about nistar?

2.  The Baal HaTanya is exceedingly strict about review (I have yet to
meet anyone who follows his opinion).  The Rambam alludes to the need
for review, but gives no schedule (b'itim mzumanim shelo yishkach davar
echad ...).  Do modern poskim discuss this issue (Kether Rosh cites R.
Chaim as being extremely lenient in the era of printing)?

3.  Is there a contradiction between 1 and 2? Is this related to the
machloketh between chassidim and mithnagdim about limud lishmah (alluded
to but not fully explicated by Rabbi Shulman in his lessons to us on
chassiduth)?

David Riceman

<<
Let me emphasize: This is not a slippery slope argument. We, in my
opinion, are already well into the abyss. If we know better than Chazal,
then we know better than Chazal. In reality, then, it is not Chazal who we
are following, but ourselves. We pick and choose which Chazals to accept
and which we don't. We pick and choose which modern tools we use and which
we choose not to use. It is not the Yahadus of Mesorah, but our Yahadus.
>>

Finally something I can agree with!  (just not the way you think I am going 
to).

Chazal tell us that dancing is forbidden on Shabbos.  Tosfos say, well, not 
today because things are different.  The Aruch HaShulchan says, what we do 
isn't really dancing.

What happened to the absolute following of every psak of Chazal?

No.  What we do, and what halacha is, is OUR acceptance of Chazal.  If a 
Sanhedrin were constituted today, it could overturn vast parts of what was 
already accepted.  And how do we re-institute said Sanhedrin?  But OUR 
accepting upon ourselves people as authoritative, by restarting s'micha.  It 
is really all up to US.  What we accept is what we follow.  

The mesora we follow is what we have accepted.  That is our tradition, which 
opinions have been accepted, which rejected.  And a far as I can tell, no one 
here has rejected any halachic, or even hashkafic statement of Chazal.  Again 
you insist on putting ideas into other people's mouths.

The mechanism for change was already accepted (make a Sanhedrin and change 
the interpretations).  It does not follow current public moods, or 
observances.  If it did, then the majority of Jews don't keep anything, and 
nothing would be binding.  But once the system was set, by our acceptance, we 
follow it.

This ties into Mattan Torah vs. Kabalas HaTorah.  Was it forced upon us or 
did we accept it.  HaShem somehow needed our accepting it in order for it to 
be binding upon us.  Why else put a mountain over our heads.  And if you will 
say we had no chocie but to accept, that isn't true.  We could have rejected 
it and been crushed by that figurative mountain.

This, of course, is a thread that we also discussed at one point in the past. 
 Spinning wheels, spinning round.


EDT 

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

> Daniel Eidensohn  writes
> 
> The issue is whether historically there have been  a wide range of
> responses when one views the opponents views a danger to yiddishkeit or
> did they follow a fairly predictable and narrow range of strong language,
> social sanctions which were moderated by such factors as  the anticipated
> collateral damage resulting from dispute, the likelihood of winning etc.
> You seem to posit that any violent disputes lacking in respect are not
> the result of a genuine Torah position -  which means they were the
> result either of psycho pathology or living in a  more primitive culture
> than we have to day. I have great difficulty with such an alternative
> The fairly consistent historical data is that there have been a lot of
> vehement disrespectful disputes. How do you explain this fact?
> 
I don't disagree with the facts as stated.
My problem is that viewed from hindsight frequently the machlokes
caused more problems than the problem they were meant to cure.

I have no doubt that both sides of the Hasidic/mitnagdic argument that
sent the other side to prison on false charges were sincere in their desire
to eradicate evil. The question is were they right?
Similar argument apply maybe even more to the Yavetz/Eibschutz fight.
The fact that one side was out to rid hereticism does not change the
fact that this fight caused great damage to the image of the rabbinate
in the larger community.

Burning of the Rambam's books for their "hereticism" lead to the burning
of the talmud.	
I personally have little doubt that the vehement disrespectful fights
of our day have caused great harm to the cause of religion in the state
of Israel.

I hope is that we would learn from history that frequently the cure
of vehement disrespectful disputes, of book burning, of cherems, etc
is worse than the disease. This is especially true since in most cases
the cure does not even remove the disease. Thus, after the fights
the two sides continued their ways. These fights rarely convinced
anyone to change their ways.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

With regard to Akiva Miller's long post on psak, there's a point on
which I'd like to initiate more detailed discussion.  The act of psak
consists of two parts: (1) determining that a particular physical
situation should be classified as a particular halachic situation, and
(2) determining the normative beahavior in that particular halachic
situation.
  When you go to a posek his main problem is to do (1).  It seems clear
from the Rama in YD 242 that the act of psak somehow fixes (1).  Thw
question is: what fixes (2)?
  My hunch is that the Rambam and the Raavad differed on this. See the
hassagah to the hakdamah to the Mishne Torah (savar letaken ...) -
admittedly not explicit enough to serve as proof.  That is, the Rambam
decided a halacha once and then let it lie, whereas the Raavad
repaskened every time the question recurred.  I'd also guess that the
Rambam represents a minority opinion, which is why his codificatory
style is so unusual among rishonim.
  There is Talmudic material on this - e.g. l'halacha v'lo l'maaseh. 
Does anyone know of an extended explicit discussion?

David Riceman

> It is one thing to say that Chazal were mistaken about scientific
> knowledge as scientific knowledge. There was no mesorah on kinnim per se,
> and they may well have applied the principles of mesorah (netillas neshomo
> on Shabbos) to a "contemporary halachic problem" and not necessarily come
> up with an answer in line with reality, because they were using the
> science of the time. 
> 
> Like the Aruch HaShulchan's heter to turn on electric lights on Shabbos.
> 
Sorry, but I got confused what does turning on lights on shabbat have
to do with allegorization or science of our time.
If I understand it correctly Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also basically
says that using electricity, by itself, is allowed on shabbat except
for custom.

Eli Turkel

<<
I know that, as did R' Kaplan, and he addresses this. If you look in the
back of the first vol. of Torah Shleima you will see that there are
several sources in the Midrash that take "bone olamos u'machrivan"
and the 974 doros prior to Adam literally
>>

And how long was each dor?  If we assume a conservative 2,000,000,000 years 
for the age of the earth, then each dor is more than 2 millions years in 
duration.  And how do we measure a "generation" anyway.  So even taking 
midrashim literally, Rabbi Kaplan would be stuck trying to explain the sheer 
number of years that have to be accomodated.

EDT 

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

RYGB wrires

> 
> The 5759 are from the beginning of this cycle. There were cycles before
> this. This is the Tiferes Yisroel/R' Aryeh Kaplan School to which I
> adhere.
> 
> There is also the Schroeder School of the use of relativity to jibe a much
> older world with 5759 years. I like the creativity of this line of
> thought, although I am not happy with the implications of it for the sixth
> day of creation.
> 

I understand how these various theories answer the conflict between the
Torah and modern science. However, I have difficulty fitting these 
theories into Chazal. The recent daf yomis discussed proofs for the season
in which the world was created, was in spring or autumn and how that affects
plants growing. 
The gemara is somehow deciding the date of creation based on the seasons
in Israel. However, the seasons change between north and south while I
would assume that plants starting growing everywhere not just in Israel.
Furthermore, if one accepts that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of
years ago and that there was a continuous life/plant existence on Earth
for a billion years than the gemara is Rosh Hashana is meaningless no
matter which theory one accepts.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

<< > Daniel Eidensohn  writes
 > 
 > The issue is whether historically there have been  a wide range of
 > responses when one views the opponents views a danger to yiddishkeit or
 > did they follow a fairly predictable and narrow range of strong language,
 > social sanctions which were moderated by such factors as  the anticipated
 > collateral damage resulting from dispute, the likelihood of winning etc.
 > You seem to posit that any violent disputes lacking in respect are not
 > the result of a genuine Torah position -  which means they were the
 > result either of psycho pathology or living in a  more primitive culture
 > than we have to day. I have great difficulty with such an alternative
 > The fairly consistent historical data is that there have been a lot of
 > vehement disrespectful disputes. How do you explain this fact?
 >  >>
I have to admit that this always bothered me, both when practiced by groups 
and individuals. Perhaps in some cases the simplest answer(Occam's razor) is 
that we're dealing with human beings....? Or perhaps they really didn't feel 
disrespectful only acted that way for the resultant impact on the object of 
their disrespect(a' la the Rambam by "appearing" angry to your children)

Shabbat shalom
Joel Rich

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> The following is from Professor Louis Feldman Moshe Feldman's
> father, re: 
> Joesephu's views on  Krias Yam Suf, etc.
> 
> >>Dear Rich,
> Josephus, Antiquities 2.348, commenting on Krias Yam Suf, cites the
> parallel 
> with Alexander the Great's crossing of the Pamphylian Sea, to show
> that it is 
> possible, but then adds, "However, on these matters everyone is
> welcome to his 
> own opinion."  This is a comment which Josephus makes (Ant. 1.108)
> with regard 
> to the extraordinary logevity of the patriarchs.  It is also found
> in Ant. 3.81,
> 3.268, 3.322, 4.158, 8.262, 10.281, 17.354, 19.108, War 5.257. 
> This formula or 
> its equivalent is also found in Herodotus 2.123, 3.122.1,
> Thucydides 6.21, 
> Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquitie 1.48.1, and Lucian
> Quomodo Historia
> Conscribenda Sit 60.  
> All good wishes.
> Louis Feldman<<
> 
> It suggests that in Joesphu's time the literallness of these events
> was NOT 
> dogma.  
> 

I have never pretended to be knowledgeable about my father's field. 
However, it seems to me that Rich's conclusion from my father's
e-mail is not warranted.  You cannot derive from Josephus what people
thought in Josephus' time.  As a matter of fact, my father just
published a book comparing Josephus' portraits of biblical figures
with chazal's statements; there are many, many differences!

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

Please forgive this late addition by I am now just catching up on my Avodah 
reading.
    I agree with those who hold that interpreting the mabul as allegory is 
incorrect. 
    However, i am baffled at the distinction made between interpreting an 
incident in Tanach as allegory and interpreting it as a dream. In either 
case, the incident did not really occur, even though the text says that it 
did. This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.
    shabbat shalom. 
    David I. Cohen

>>>YES!! I want the list! I really need to be hit over the head with it to
concede that there is a Rishon of repute that allegorized what Chazal took
undeniably literally. <<<

Aderaba - please show where Chazal took the mabul literally to the exclusion 
of any and all other interpretations.  Aside from BB 15, no such passage 
debating the literallness of any text exists - unless you have a sugya I 
don't recall.  The derashos shel dofi claim has been refuted by others as 
dealing with halachic passages only, etc., the fact that Chazal make derashos 
is not a contradiction to allegory (see sefer Iyov!), and the fact that an 
interpretation in unprecedented does not de facto prove it incorrect.

As I wrote previously, an extraordinay claim requires extraordinary evidence 
(to quote Martin Gardner). Claiming the flood is allegorical demands far more 
extraordinary proof than has been offered so far - but by the same token, to 
resort to claims that allegory is equivalent to a psak on mishkav zachor 
which negates halacha or 

-CB

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> And at that time did contemporary historians/scientists have a common
> wisdom as to the age of the world and did it differ or coincide with
> Chazal's?(as usual I'm asking out of ignorance) 

Don't know!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Whoops! That should have been Yom Tov, not Shabbos.

Sorry!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Please read the Tiferes Yisroel and R' Kaplan's essay in "Ressurection
Immortality and the Age of the Universe. They deal with these issuess and
note that the questions are not valid.

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> I understand how these various theories answer the conflict between the
> Torah and modern science. However, I have difficulty fitting these
> theories into Chazal. The recent daf yomis discussed proofs for the
> season in which the world was created, was in spring or autumn and how
> that affects plants growing. The gemara is somehow deciding the date of
> creation based on the seasons in Israel. However, the seasons change
> between north and south while I would assume that plants starting
> growing everywhere not just in Israel.  Furthermore, if one accepts that
> dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago and that there was a
> continuous life/plant existence on Earth for a billion years than the
> gemara is Rosh Hashana is meaningless no matter which theory one
> accepts. 
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Eli Turkel
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> >>>YES!! I want the list! I really need to be hit over the head with it to
> concede that there is a Rishon of repute that allegorized what Chazal took
> undeniably literally. <<<
> 
> Aderaba - please show where Chazal took the mabul literally to the exclusion 
> of any and all other interpretations.  Aside from BB 15, no such passage 

Convenient, eh? You made an offer and then withdrew it...

What you ask of me I never offered and cannot. I have offered sources that
indicate that Chazal state that allegorization of Tanach in halacha is
MPbT, and a Gemara that extends that category of prohibiton to narritive
portions of the Torah.

I have cited several Gemaras that indicate, by virtue of machlokesim and
discussions of variious aspects of the Mabul that Chazal took it
literally.

I have ciited a Rashba that says unequiivocally that allegorization is
Doresh Derashos shel Dofi, and that the fact that people have engaged in
this practice is reason to bar practices (the study of chocmos
chitzoniyos) that he perceived led to this terrible approach.

I have been told, however, that in any event, no proofs matter, as science
has proven Chazal wrong, so I do not know what good it does to bring
proofs.

Apparently, the mesorah of Chazal (and, although we need this not, and
l'havdil elef alfei havdolos, almost every other world culture and
religion) cannot be sustained except by "solid" scientific evidence. So
what good is the proof that I brought and might bring? You would just say: 
"They were wrong about that too!" 

Then, of course, every obscure and questionable source (Josephus, Philo,
the Malmad) is a legitmate source to the contrary. Not that you need
sources, of course, since science validates and science invalidates, but
additional arrows in the quiver cannot hurt.

I credit the honesty of one of the most sever of my critics here today,
who concedes - in his opinion, it seems, corageously, while in my mind, in
a way that brings to mind "al da vadai ka'bachina" - that his Judaism is
what he has chosen, and that mesorah is but relatively insignificant. It
is not Chazal's religion that we received in humility and cognizance of
their greatness. It is our approaching their buffet table and picking and
choosing based on our superior epicurean expertise.

I see no point in continuing to correspond. Indeed with the exception of
two-three other individuals, it seems that I am here a kol koreh
ba'miidbar. But I thank everyone for educating me as to the view of
certain segments of Orthodoxy today.

V'kana"l: Al da vadai ka'bachina.



YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Rambam Shoftim 12:1 interprets the pesukim relating to bi'at mashiach 
regarding animals living in harmony as a mashal; Ra'avad asks that the Torah 
says 'V'hisbati chaya ra'ah min ha'aretz'.   R' Ahron Soloveitchik explains 
that the machloket depends on understanding the 26th midah (of the 32) which 
states that in divrei Navi one can darshen a mashal, but not 'b'divrei Torah 
u'mitzvah' - Ra'avad understood this to be a categorical issur on 
understanding Torah as a mashal, Rambam understood it to limit only 
understanding mitzva passages as a mashal, but not other areas (see Radbaz).  
It is clear that the Rambam read these pesukim exclusively as a mashal.  Note 
also that all the illustrations of not darshening b'derech mashal are taken 
from halachic passages.  

Even Bartenura's comment that 'megaleh panim shelo k'halacha' refers to 
explaining the parsha of molech as referring to marrying non-Jews, requires 
qualification.  The Bartenura is based on the Mishna in Megillah (25a); 
however, see the Targum Yonatan on the pasuk as well as the Maharasha in Meg. 
citing the Aruch who read the pasuk exactly as a prohibition of marrying a 
non-Jewess.  See Tif. Yisrael in Megillah who writes that Aruch and T"Y 
understood the issur as translating the pasuk as applying only to an Arami 
and not all non_Jews, which changes the DIN - nothing to do with prohibiting 
allegory!

I do not wish get involved in the flood controversy.  What I would like to do 
is to prevent is a mischaracterization of the halacha by those who would 
equate allegorization of pesukim with heteirim for homosexuality.  I don't 
have a Bar Ilan CD ROM.  I can cite you the issur for mishkav zachar and the 
parsha of ma'amad har Sinai off the cuff - without a Rashba dug up off a 
database (whose interpretation has been debated) apparently no other sources 
exist that would prohibit what is ostensibly a worse crime against the 
mesorah.  Interesting...

Good Shabbos!

-Chaim

After just getting off the phone with a list member I wanted to clarify what 
I have written.  I have already noted that an allegorization of Torah demands 
great proof, and I have yet to hear that re: the flood.  The absence of 
textual support, the fact that mesorah is surely unsupportive of such a 
methodology applied wantonly, and a lack of similar interpretation applied 
elsewhere in Torah are not lightly overcome objections.

At the same time, I cannot side with a claim that there is a specific issur 
in advancing such an interpretation (except acc: to Ra'avad) or equate it 
with undermining the mesorah.  The fact that the Rishonim did not resort to 
allegorization is not the same as saying the Rishonim prohibited 
allegorization.

These issues blow up from a simple question of is a good interpretion being 
advanced to great issues of faith and heresy, which I think is silly, for 
lack of a more appropriate word.  I regret getting drawn into this to the 
level where I have to write this clarification.

While there is a great leap from saying the Rishonim didn;t do it to the 
Rishonim prohibited it, there is an equally great leap to jump in the 
opposite direction.  Just because no issur exists doesn't allow one to throw 
caution (as well as mesorah) to the wind and set out independently.  In 
practical terms, what is permitted may nonetheless be harmful, subversive to 
tradition, and certainly not fare for consumption to the lay public reading a 
journal of religious thought.  I cannot point to a specific issur that would 
prohibit such an article's publication; however, I cannot fathom on a 
practical level how one can justify it given the many obstacles against it.

-Chaim

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]