Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 035

Wednesday, November 8 2000

• Re: Some thoughts
• Re: animals / flowers - humor alert
• RE: animals / flowers - humor alert
• Re: animals / flowers - humor alert
• RE: animals / flowers - humor alert
• Re: animals / flowers - humor alert
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: karbanot
• Birthdays
• RE: animals / flowers - humor alert
• Bruriah
• Re: Questions about p. Noach
• Bs"d
• Re: korbonos
• Re: Women and tefila
• karbanot
• Re: korbonos
• Re: Bs"d
• Re: korbonos
• RE: Women and tefila
• RE: animals / flowers - humor alert
• [none]

> Is it pashut that the Arabs today are descended from Yishmael? 
> Were they not part of the bilbul of Sancherev?

     This was actually mentioned briefly on list a few weeks ago but
apparently lost in the noise. My take was that Yishmael was saved,
because of "ba'asher hu sham", from a potential punishment due to actions
which he would do at the time of the churban, giving Bnei Yisrael nodos
nefuchim, etc. This was clearly after the bilbul Sancheriv, indicating
that Yishmael (person) and Yishmael (uma at the time of the churban),
were the same. I got no reaction from that post, as I mentioned.

> If the Arabs are descendants of Yishmael, with respect to whom Hashem
> promised he would become a great nation, do they still qualify as an
> amu shfeila?

     Uma shefeila is be'etzem; as were the Kasdim, described by the
Novi as "zeh ha'am lo haya". They were raised up for the purpose of
making trouble for Am Yisrael, as in "hayu tzareha lerosh: kol hametzar
leYisrael na'aseh rosh".

Gershon

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 12:12:59AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote to Areivim:
:>: IIRC 50,000 years ago, between alaska and asia.

:> As stated on Avodah -- in the days of Peleg.

: Peleg lived 50,000 years ago?

I was pointing out that there may be reasons to question that 50K year dating.

Well, if you assume teva, and therefore have limited choices about when
things occured. However, if you assume the process of making the different
places in the world different wasn't teva, then you have a much freer
hand.

:> Besides, the two are frequently connected by an ice bridge.

: Between alaska and asia? Today? (I'm not talking about the artic ice cap --
: which does link the two but much farther north.

I was thinking about the Bering Straight.

-mi

> Well, if you assume teva, and therefore have limited choices about when
> things occured. However, if you assume the process of making the different
> places in the world different wasn't teva, then you have a much freer
> hand.

First off -- from a scientific POV, all we have is Teva. It makes no sense
to discuss scientific theories, and then throw out Teva.

Also, one problem with dating the split to Peleg is that the Chinese have a
continuous recorded history dating back at least 4200 years -- which
pre-dates Peleg. (of course, by going back to 1560 it also pre-dates the
mabul in 1656...)

>:> Besides, the two are frequently connected by an ice bridge.

> I was thinking about the Bering Straight.

AFAIK the freezeing in the Bering Strait is more packed ice chunks moving
south -- not stable enough for a nomadic tribe to cross over.

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 08:23:04AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
:> Well, if you assume teva, and therefore have limited choices about when
:> things occured. However, if you assume the process of making the different
:> places in the world different wasn't teva, then you have a much freer
:> hand.

: First off -- from a scientific POV, all we have is Teva. It makes no sense
: to discuss scientific theories, and then throw out Teva.

Agreed. Which means that if chazal tell us the event was a neis, it should
be the notion of building a scientific theory that needs to be tossed.

: Also, one problem with dating the split to Peleg is that the Chinese have a
: continuous recorded history dating back at least 4200 years -- which
: pre-dates Peleg. (of course, by going back to 1560 it also pre-dates the
: mabul in 1656...)

IOW, scholars have more emunah in Chinese tradition than in our masorah.
Because mesorah has religious overtones, and in particular, overtones
related to the religious bias the western scholar from a Christian
country is trying to avoid in himself, it gets underplayed as a source.

As I see it the choice is arbitrary.

Also, FWIW, there is more than one Chinese flood
legend, coming from different locations in China. See
<http://www.best.com/~atta/floods.htm#China>. (They too recall the
flooding of the Black Sea? ;-P)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Agreed. Which means that if chazal tell us the event was a neis, it should
> be the notion of building a scientific theory that needs to be tossed.

if *chazal* tell us, or if the *Torah* tells us?

And once you start tossing scientific theory out the window, there's no
limit. You end up denying the validity of *all* science, something TuM/TiDE
have been criticising the RW for.

> IOW, scholars have more emunah in Chinese tradition than in
> our masorah.

No -- it's the continuous *written* history that the scholars rely on.

> Because mesorah has religious overtones, and in particular, overtones
> related to the religious bias the western scholar from a Christian
> country is trying to avoid in himself, it gets underplayed as
> a source.

By definition mesorah cannot be used as a source within a scientific
paradigm. That's why anecdotal evidence of herbal medicine isn't acepted ny
the medical establishment, for example.

> Also, FWIW, there is more than one Chinese flood
> legend, coming from different locations in China.

I'm aware of this.

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:39:12PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: And once you start tossing scientific theory out the window, there's no
: limit. You end up denying the validity of *all* science, something TuM/TiDE
: have been criticising the RW for.

Lihefech, there is a clear limit. If the Torah tells us it's a neis,
and our mesorah (as told to us by chazal or whomever) confirms that it
doesn't mean something biderech hatev'ah -- then don't use the system
for understanding teva on it.

IOW, don't ask scientific questions about the sun stopping over Eimek
haAyalon, however, you can use psychology and neurology to analyze Ehud's
means of becoming ambidextrous.

In the gray area are eilu va'eilu situations, where some say it was
biderech teva and some say it wasn't, e.g. R' Akiva vs R' Eliezer on
the nature of the succos in the midbar.

I have a problem with those streams of machshavah that take an event
where we have no internal reason to say it was biderech teva, but
people try to cast it that way anyway.

For example, our debate last year about the mabul was about an event
that no one who reached conclusions entirely based within mesorah
concluded that the mabul was allegorical. Unlike ma'aseh Bereishis,
whose historicity was questioned before science raised any questions,
purely based on deductions made drawing from mesorah. This is the
inside vs outside / subjective limud Torah vs objective scholarship
idea that I eluded to earlier.

I wrote on Avodah on Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 03:08:22PM -0500:
:: Neither is a 15 billion year universe for that matter.  R' Yitzchok of
:: Acco introduced that as his own chidush (albeit based on some older
:: sources).

: Isn't that from mesorah, though? I mean after all, it's all chidushim
: based on earlier gar'inim all the way back to Moshe.

By "mesorah" I mean not only the data that started at Sinai, but the
conclusions we have reached since based entirely on that data. Which is
why using science to select amongst those conclusions is fine, but
to construct a new one would be (to my mind) objectionable.

The haflagah is, AFAIK, like the mabul -- no one claims a derech hateva
for it until we have an interest in forcing a scientific answer
where it didn't belong. The "pure mesorah" answers never came up
with this option.

:> IOW, scholars have more emunah in Chinese tradition than in
:> our masorah.

: No -- it's the continuous *written* history that the scholars rely on.

Not really. It's not like they are studying it off the original
manuscript. They have a tradition that this is what the original
said.

: By definition mesorah cannot be used as a source within a scientific
: paradigm. That's why anecdotal evidence of herbal medicine isn't acepted ny
: the medical establishment, for example.

Which means that by definition, there are things that we shouldn't be
studying with science.

You can't say that I will ignore data points X, Y and Z because of my
methodolgy, and then insist that the methodolgy is sufficient for
explaining the universe of data.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

One note, we are currently discussing on Avodah two statements credit
as amar R' Shemu'el bar Nachmeini amar R' Yonasan 1- 85 letters make
a seifer; 2- Noach only took animals "mei'osam shelo ne'evdah bahem
aveirah".

On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 04:14:53PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:> The gemara [Sanhedrin 108a] means he saved those which were not bred with
:> species other than their own b'issur, as the gemara says that 'hirbiyu
:> behaima al chaya v'chaya al bheima'.

: Exactly, this is also Pshat in Rashi D"H M'ho'oif L'mineihu (6:20).

And Sanhedrin 108a.

Rashi on 108b (it's on amud beis, not aleph) dibbur hamaschil "shelo
na'avdah bahem aveirah" explicitly states "shelo nizkaku ela liben
zugan".

That's as far as I got before posting. This seems to make R' Yonasan's
statement to be about something different than the discussion on the
previous amud. (Which, FWIW, was darshening a different pasuk.) Since
Rashi on the chumash was quoting that earlier gemara, I thought they
were disjoint.

However, I got to the Maharshah last night. He writes "Mah shepeirush
Rashi she... lav davka. Ele dimino hainu nu ben zugo. Vichein peirush
Rashi biChumash."

Given the Maharshah, I have to concede that I erred.

Thanks to all.
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 8 Nov 2000, at 9:20, Rich, Joel wrote:
> I've heard R' Schachter say that karbanot nowadays is "Uneshalma parim
> sfateinu"

That explains saying the Korban Tamid or an ordinary chatos. It doesn't
explain why we have to say Asham Shifra Charufa or Asham Nazir (to take
a couple of blatant examples).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

In a message dated 11/8/00 8:06:59am EST, schiffd@mail.biu.ac.il writes:
> In Chabad, they always quoted from the Ben Ish Chai to explain why they
> emphasized the Rebbe's birthday. I can't remember th eexact reference.

From: Yzkd@aol.com
> See Gemara Megila 13b WRT the birthday of Moshe Rabbeinu

	I seem to recall that everyone's birthday was considered special in
Chabad.  When the Rebbe z"l was bekocho,  he granted yechidus to those
whose birthday it was,  in addition to such considerations as bar mitzvah,
choson,  etc. 

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

MSB:
>: First off -- from a scientific POV, all we have is Teva. It makes no sense
>: to discuss scientific theories, and then throw out Teva.

> Agreed. Which means that if chazal tell us the event was a neis, it should
> be the notion of building a scientific theory that needs to be tossed.
<snip>

> As I see it the choice is arbitrary.
<snip>

Are there guidelines for which Mesoros can be questioned and which ones
cannot?
There seems to be a number of revisions in the last few hundred years that
call earlier presumptions into question.  Illustration:  What time is
shkiah?

Also are there guidelines for what is to taken literally and for what is to
be taken metaphorically and for what is to be taken allegorically?

By literal I mean as written.
By allegorical, I mean the story never happened, it is just to teach a
lesson.
By metaphorical I mean the story DID happen, but the descriptions are more
poetic and flowery rather than literal.

wrt Maetaphor, If I write:
"The stadium thundered when the booming bat of the Bambino - Babe Ruth -
belted the baseball into the bleachers." I don't necessarlily imply the
presence of nor of were storm clouds that might  produce thunder.
Nevertheless, even though the expressions arene't literally true, we can
still visualize a true statment underneath it about Ruth hitting a home-run.

Shoule we escehwing reading between the lines to discern a literal truth
underneath a possible hyperbole?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> The Maharatz Chayus in his Mevo HaTalmud (ch. 31 p. 342) argues for a late 
> chasimas hatalmud.  He brings various gaonic sources such as Bahag and 
> She'eiltos (and the Ein Ya'akov, which must have been compile from very early 
> sources) that quote gemaras that we don't have. He suggests that some gemaras 
> were edited out because they reflected badly on certain chachamim...

The theory I've usually heard for the existence of those "unknown" gemaras
& girsot in Ein Yaakov and the Geonim is that there were divergent Ashkenazi
and Sephardi texts of the Talmud.  The Ein Yaakov was based on a Sephardi
text.  I suppose, since most of the big printing houses were in Ashkenazi-
dominated countries (Italy, Poland, etc.), the girsa that we use became
"canonized".  There don't seem to have been any Talmud editions printed
in Sephardic countries (primarily Constantinople) in about 250 years.
"Printing the Talmud" doesn't say anything about textual differences
between the Salonika editions and the Ashkenazi (Venice, etc.) editions.
Rabbinovicz, however, (Maamar al hadpasat hatalmud) notes that the 
Salonika editions are very different from ours.

He brings a passage from Eruvin 65b which is quite different from ours.
Ein Yaakov (both Vilna and Warsaw editions) have a text that is 
somewhere in between; of course, they may have been back-edited to be
more consisten with the Ashkenaz editions.   Which all seems to support
the idea that there were separate Ashkenazi & Sefardi texts.  So the
gemaras in the Babylonian sources, such as the Geonim, would have come 
from their version of the text.

It's kind of ironic, given various past threads, that the Ashkenazim
worked so hard to make the Bavli (reflective of Sephardi traditions)
into the primary text of the Talmud, but the version of the Bavli that
we all take to be standard, is the Ashkenazi one, not the real Sephardi
one.

       Jonathan Baker     |  Marches-wan, marches-two,
       jjbaker@panix.com  |  March the months all through and through
    Web page update: Vidui, Siyum on Moed. http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/

RRW:
>> FWIW I don't see Noach's drunkeness as a result of hedonism.  I see it as a
>> depressive episode following his "survivor guilt" or his guilt over not
>> intervening on behalf of his generation. 

On 8 Nov 2000, at 15:10, Eli Linas wrote:
> Rav Zeidel Epstein, shlitta, machgiach of Torah Ore, gives a similar tyche.

I wanted to try to say a simpler pshat, but I don't know of any 
meforesh who says this. When one is not accustomed to drinking 
wine, one becomes drunk more quickly. As one becomes more 
accustomed to drinking wine, one's tolerance level for it (and for 
alcohol generally) rises. That's why it takes more for an alcoholic to 
get drunk than it does for you and me. 

Noah had not drunk any wine for at least the period of time that he 
was in the teiva plus however long it took the grapes to grow, and 
possibly for longer. Therefore, he had almost no tolerance for 
alcohol, and he became drunk very quickly without realizing that he 
had imbibed enough to become drunk.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

							Bs"d

Can anyone tell me why it's accepted that we don't head our posts with "Bs"d"?

Eli

RGS:
>No one today has to learn the halachos of an asham shifchah charufah.

See the CC on meis mitzvah - actually, it's vitally important ( of course,
this means learning, not reciting...).

RJR:
>I've heard R' Schachter say that karbanot nowadays is "Uneshalma parim
>sfateinu"

Does this mean that he doesn't say korbonos, and/or say that others shouldn't?

Eli

> The primary avodah of a man, is Torah/Avodah. Sharing the burden
> of packing kids off to school is secondary. For women, the reverse is
> true.

The primary avodah of both men and women is defined by Taryag mitzvos -
tefilah applying m'doraysa applying equally to both. What right do you
have to enhance your own shmiras hamitvos in going above what is required
m'ikkar hadin at your wife's expense?

-CB

RJR:
>I've heard R' Schachter say that karbanot nowadays is "Uneshalma parim
>sfateinu"

Eli
> Does this mean that he doesn't say korbonos, and/or say that others
> shouldn't?

Apologies for my usual lack of clarity.  He was bemoaning the fact that many
don't say karbanot (especially Yeshiva students of all stripes) because they
think that the only reason karbanot are there is to make sure that the
birchat hatora are not lvatala.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

RJR:
>>I've heard R' Schachter say that karbanot nowadays is "Uneshalma parim
>>sfateinu"

On 8 Nov 2000, at 19:55, Eli Linas wrote:
> Does this mean that he doesn't say korbonos, and/or say that others shouldn't?

I think the issue is that although we are obligated to learn about ALL
korbanos because we need to be prepared when BE"H Mashiach comes BB"Y,
if the notion behind saying korbanos is "neshalma parim sfaseinu," then
the only korbanos we should be reciting in the morning are those which
there is some possibility (however remote) that we would be obligated
to bring today without any pretext other than an ordinary aveira. Thus
reciting olah, chatas, shlamim, and of course the korban tamid make sense.
Asham shifcha charufa and asham nazir make less sense.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Eli Linas wrote:
> Can anyone tell me why it's accepted that we don't head our posts with "Bs"d"?
     
Why should we have to?

Gil Student

I wrote:
>No one today has to learn the halachos of an asham shifchah charufah.
     
Eli Linas wrote:
> See the CC on meis mitzvah - actually, it's vitally important ( of course, 
> this means learning, not reciting...).

I meant learn on a daily basis instead of bringing a korban.  Of course, there 
is an obligation to learn all of Torah.
     
Joel Rich wrote:
> I've heard R' Schachter say that karbanot nowadays is "Uneshalma parim 
> sfateinu"
     
Eli Linas wrote:
> Does this mean that he doesn't say korbonos, and/or say that others shouldn't?
     
It means that R. Hershel Schachter is choshesh for a Rabbeinu Yonah in Berachos 
that saying korbanos is a chiyuv de'oraisa.  Yes, he says it.

However, our sefasayim should only have to be meshalem for parim that we are 
obligated to bring.

Gil Student

-CB
> The primary avodah of both men and women is defined by Taryag mitzvos -
> tefilah applying m'doraysa applying equally to both. What right do you
> have to enhance your own shmiras hamitvos in going above what is required
> m'ikkar hadin at your wife's expense?

Does everyone hold that Tefillah for a woman is d'oraysso?  I had always
thought this was a machlokes and that the Rambam held it was mid'orassio
becuase mei'ikar hadin woman are not bound by time, and can daven once a day
at any time...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

> IOW, don't ask scientific questions about the sun stopping over Eimek
> haAyalon, however, you can use psychology and neurology to
> analyze Ehud's means of becoming ambidextrous.

But in the case of the continents splitting, it's NOT a case of trying to
explain a neis scientifically. We have an established theory, which was
developed by people who never HEARD of the neis, which seems to contradict a
Chazal.

AIUI, according to the RaMBaM we can't have such a case -- either our
understanding of the science is wrong, or our understanding of the Chazal is
wrong.

In the case of continental drift -- the scientific explanation fits the
facts. Why assume the Chazal was meant to be taken literally? Especially
since we know that the Torah (and Chazal) speak in Loshon Bnei Adam.

> Which means that by definition, there are things that we shouldn't be
> studying with science.

Agreed -- It's called Metaphysics.

But everything within the physical world *can* be studied scientifically.

> You can't say that I will ignore data points X, Y and Z because of my
> methodolgy, and then insist that the methodolgy is sufficient for
> explaining the universe of data.

You *can* -- within the paradigm of that methodology. The history of science
is a history of expanding paradigms.

For example -- Newtonian physics works. At non-relativistic speeds. Within
it's paradigm, it works. It has to ignore data points generated at
relativistic speeds -- but that's where Einstein stepped it and expanded the
paradigm.

   The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
   discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but  "That's funny ..."
       --  Isaac Asimov

Akiva

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

It seems to me that Vayhi Binsoa is a makor.  Why think it is merely a
proof?

Concerning rachmanus on Akum because they don't know any better:  The Gemara
in Makkos explains the verses concerning Avimelech's stealing of Sara
Imeinu.  He claims to have the halachic status of "anus" because he was
misled.  The Gemara answers in the name of Hashem that "havi lo lilmod.."
He is required to make it his business to know better concerning basic
issues of Yiras Shamayim.  This should be seen as the basis for Reb Elchonon
Wasserman viewing heresy by accident as reason for rejection of a Jew's
portion in Olam Ha-Ba.

Pardon me for joining late.  Who is TE?


Concerning RYK and eiruv:  Reb Yaakov made a statement concerning how to
perform mitzvas chinuch.  It was not a gezerah that it is forbidden to pray
more.  Therefore, one may eat out on Shabbos even though one might not later
have this option.  Eating is not done for chinuch, tefilla in school is for
chinuch.

Concerning Torah and science:  Halakha of course deals with the world around
us.  No one argues on this point.  What however are the halachic guidelines
from one area (in your example surgery) compared to another area(treifos)
can be a valid question.  the CI asks this question in hilchos treifos.
Saying halacha is out-of-date is an erroneous conclusion.  Perhaps one has a
valid unanswered question.  Perhaps one is simply ignorant of the depths of
that halacha.  Neither of these possibilites can change the basic halacha.
That's why the question from science is not such an earthshattering
question.

Shlomo Goldstein

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


[ 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         ]