Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 023

Saturday, October 20 2001

• techeiles - why Gedolim are silent on P'til
• Re: Birchas habonim
• Re: Two questions on the Daf Yomi
• Re: Two questions on the Daf Yomi
• Re: neiros Shabbos
• Re: varying minhogim re number of neiros Shabbos - two vs. one per family mem...
• Re: neiros Shabbos
• Re: Number of shabbos candles
• Re: neiros Shabbos
• Re: Number of shabbos candles
• doing more than necessary
• olive oil
• Re: Birchas habonim
• Re: Birchas habonim
• Re: Birchas habonim - Nistar
• Re: Birchas habonim - Bakoshos on Shabbos
• Ha'Chovel
• Re: Two questions on the Daf Yomi
• Re: Two questions on the Daf Yomi
• daf yomi question
• Re: Avodah V8 #20
• Beit Halevi objection and Dr. Singer (fwd)

Well, there has been some very lively discussion of techeiles on this
list initiated with my article. That is certainly heartening. Certainly,
one of my primary goals was to further the debate. Alas, my work schedule
is so hectic right now I have not had the time to jump in and reply to
the messages. Some comments cannot go unchallenged, however.

Dr. Sterman wrote:
> It is disingenuous to lump all attempts at the rediscovery of tekhelet
> together. Each must be examined on its own merit and evaluated seriously

I agree whole heartedly. That is why in my article I only dealt with
murex trunculus. Besides, so much has already been written on Radzyn
on both sides of the issue, and I had not seen any critical evaluation
of murex outside of letters to the editor. However, allow me to share
with you why I got started on this line of research. The writings about
murex trunculus were fascinating. However, as I looked deeper into the
subject I found that the writings in favor of murex trunculus were filled
with errors. I'm not talking about weak logic, which I deal with in my
article. I'm talking about misquotations, misrepresentations and outright
false statements that the authors never took the time to corroborate. I
spent a lot of time tracking down these errors, and I found the whole
affair rather disillusioning. The articles read so nicely, and the
marriage of Torah and science was so appealing to my academic nature. A
few examples of the errors I talk about:

1. R Chaim Twersky and many other P'til articles assert cuttlefish cannot
exist in sand. Considering the name of the first techeiles sefer by the
Radzyner was called Sefunei Temunei Chol, and he was by all accounts
a great Torah scholar with significant secular knowledge, I found it
rather hard to believe he could have missed this. Since I was reading
R Twersky's article online, I checked the Columbia Encyclopedia online
and found a short entry on cuttlefish. It said that cuttlefish spend
their days buried in the sand and swim about at night. Apparently,
it is characteristic behavior of the cuttlefish to bury themselves in
the sand. Yet, P'til claims otherwise. Nobody bothered to check facts
before publishing.

2. R. Mordechai Katz wrote that Rabbi Eliashuv supported P'til - then
had to retract when he was challenged and had to admit he based this on
hearsay. Why didn't he check it out first?

3. R Moshe Tendler claims that Pliny the Elder speaks of murex being used
to dye techeiles. Not true. He speaks at great length of dyeing with murex
species and lists many different shades of purple and how it was done. Not
once does he speak of murex dye being used to dye blue (or techeiles).

4. Archeological evidence? There is a lot of archeological evidence
to support the statement that murex trunculus was used to dye purple.
This was never in dispute in academia or religious circles. I went through
the academic journals and consulted with experts in the field. There is
no support whatsoever that it was ever used to dye blue. None. I made
this clear in my article and this was left unchallenged by Dr. Sterman
other than to quote Vitruvius out of context(Vitruvius writes little
about murex dyeing other than to point out that it produces different
shades of purple in different regions - it mentions bluish as one of 4
shades of purple). To constantly refer to the piles of shells as support
for blue dyeing is disingenouous.

5. As for Dr. Sterman's claim that murex trunculus is the opinion
of academics, this is both irrelevant and misleading. Academia has
little on the subject outside of Irving Ziderman and P'til chemists.
Others blindly quote these articles. BUT - Ziderman's articles, and the
academics quoting him, all claim that techeiles was PURPLE, not blue.
So they don't really support P'til at all. The reason they go for the
purple idea is because of the chemical tests in the gemara. They all
recognize a fermentation process and know that indigo is readily reduced
in such conditions - meaning it will change colors to a yellow-white
and fail the test. Having bits of snail meat or bromine is not likely
to completely stop the process.

If only a little gets reduced the color would fade and fail the test.
If the murex dye is left in its natural bluish-purple, it is very
difficult to reduce, though it is unclear if it would partially reduce
and still fail the test.

6. Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm claimed that a Bar Kochba coin with the murex
image was irrefutable evidence that it was used for a mitzvah. Aside from
the issue that it could have been used for argaman, murex images were used
on other coins of the era as well, as I argue in my article. Dr. Sterman
informed me that the coin Rabbi Dr. Lamm refers to was not a Bar Kochba
coin, but is in fact a Tyrian coin! My article was already typeset so
I couldn't change my article, but isn't it amazing that this was not
only spoken publicly but made its way into print! The book, Tekhelet:
Renaissance of a Mitzvah has chapters by R.Dr. Lamm, R. Moshe Tendler,
R Herschel Schacter and Dr; Baruch Sterman, based on a special symposium
with these speakers. Why wasn't this error caught prior to publication?

And what about P'til claims that dead sages would agree with them if
they were alive? At least 3 different places I have seen P'til writers
claim that the Radzyner Rebbe would agree with them if he were alive. Why
would they actually put this in print? Is this a persuasive argument?
P'til also claims that Rabbi Herzog would agree with them if he were
alive. To read P'til you would think that Rabbi Herzog essentially agreed
that murex was right, but had a small problem or two, which they have
answered so he can now be considered a supporter. In fact, I have seen
P'til writings where Rabbi Herzog is listed as being of the opinion
that murex trunculus was the chilazon. This is a terrible distortion
of the truth. Rabbi Herzog says that without consideration of Talmudic
sources one might be confident that murex trunculus was the chilazon.
He then presents the Talmudic criteria, almost completely relying on
the sugya in Menachos, and concludes that murex trunculus doesn't meet
any of these criteria. It is at least a little conceited to think that
he would agree to P'til's answers to all of his objections, let alone
think the Radzyner Rebbe would also accept P'til's position. I do not
think it is the way of Torah or science to make such claims.

Dr. Sterman says we should examine each claim to the chilazon seriously
- how about fairly? To read P'til you would think that the whole world
was against the Radzyner, that he was alone in his position, that he
was duped by an Italian chemist, that Mordechai Rabinovits and Hillel
Meschel Gelbshtien were the Gedolei HaDor (Sr. Sterman quotes these
talmidei chochomim but ignores the more recognizable gedolim), and
various other myths. Why does P'til always go out its way to bash Radzyn?
If it is so irrelevant, why bother? My article was not about Radzyn,
yet Dr. Sterman's response goes out of its way to gratuitously attack
Radzyn. I'm not going to deal with the issue of Radzyn - the arguments
against the dyeing process are well known, but it is important to be fair.
According to Rabbi Borstein's excellent sefer HaTecheiles, the Lev
HaIvri, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, a posek of great stature, not
only supported the Radzyner position but wrote a sefer in its defense.
He was every bit the equal of Rabbi Gelbshtien, who writes with such
vicious animosity about the Radzyner Rebbe. Dr. Sterman doesn't mention
that R. Gelbshtien was a Kotzker chassid at a time when they were still
bitterly opposed to Radzyn for breaking off from the Kotzker Rebbe. The
Meharsham, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron did not rule it was techeiles,
but was very favorable and publicly wore a Tallis with techeiles (and
was buried in it in accord with his will). Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky
and Rabbi Chaim Berlin also wore techeiles, but privately (as far as I
know, rumors about Rabbi Herzog wearing it privately are just rumors).
In a private correspondence, The Maggid of Kovno, Rabbi Yitchak Elchonon
Spektor also was favorably inclined but was unable to take a public stance
in favor due to certain matters of pikuach nefesh he was involved in.
The Chofetz Chaim was m'supek. This hardly makes it widely accepted,
but the picture is quite different than the way P'til paints it - they
make a laughingstock out of Radzyn, and this is not warranted. In fact,
I believe it takes away from P'til being taken seriously by Gedolim.
I have been told personally by a Rosh Yeshiva that the attitude displayed
in P'til articles was so haughty that he knew there couldn't be any merit
to their position. He did look into the matter some, saw some obvious
problems and then forgot the whole matter. Oh - the unscrupulous Italian
chemist story - this is a fabrication. Rabbi Herzog made up the story
in his dissertation, but he was honest enough to state that this was
entirely a speculation without any shred of evidence to any part of the
whole story. Rabbi Herzog speculates on the why's of puzzling unresolved
matters throughout his dissertation. He wasn't trying to fool anyone.
The result, however, is like a rumor - parts of the story get dropped
and people start to think the story is fact.

It is extremely important to do thorough research before publishing.
I believe that the many errors, misrepresentations and Radzyn-bashing
have all worked to keep gedolim out of the murex debate - and this is
a great shame. A mollusk produces a blue dye - isn't that worthy of
serious consideration by our sages? Shouldn't they be writing about it?
Isn't it a shame that a Mendel Singer has to step up to further the
debate - where are the people who really know Torah? Our leaders -
why are they silent? I think it is because of the reasons I have stated.

I have already said too much no doubt. I happen to have enormous respect
for Baruch Sterman. His tireless efforts and devotion to this mitzvah
are inspiring. He is someone to emulate. His work is truly l'sheim
shamayim. The P'til web site now posted my article - a great sign of
fair play, and a good start, though the many errors in their web site
documents need to be corrected. The murex trunculus argument deserves
to be debated among our gedolim. Until then, commoners like me will try
to fill in as best we can.

I will try to deal with many of the issues raised in this list recently,
but it may be a little while before I have time and I apologize for
this. I am also sorry for being so enraged. If I was personally attacked
I wouldn't care. However, I have little tolerance for sloppy research,
especially when it is Torah-related. P'til people - I have no doubt you
are well intentioned, but your emotional attachment to the issue may be
getting in the way.

mendel
Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D.
e-mail: mes12@po.cwru.edu, mendelsing@aol.com

In Avodah V8 #21, GStudent replied:
> Off the top of my head, here's a defense. Shabbos is not a time for
bakashos. Hence, we don't say...the weekday shemoneh esreh.... <
Seems to me like a popular myth.  See the bottom of BT B'rachos 21a ("lo
it'r'chuhu").

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 10/18/01 5:59:15pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> 1. On 82a, the Gemara says that the takana of krias haTorah is to read
> Shabbos, be mafsik Sunday, read Monday, mafsik Tuesday and Wednesday,
> read Thursday and be mafsik Friday. Why the emphasis on hafsaka?

1) Lav Dafka emphasis, as there is Machlokes Haposkim (O"C 135) whether
if there was no Krioh on Monday whether it can be made up on Tuesday
(since it would still be within 3 days of Shabbos), I haven't seen
anyone bring Rayoh from the Gemara that Tuesday must have a hefsek,
(although it would support the Daas Horov).

2) Bitul Mlacha/Tirchoh Tziburoh would require us not to add more then 
necessary, (and see R"N beginning of Megila who Teitches Yom Haknisah 
different then Rashi).

3) If the Takana would not have definite perimeters as to when not,
Toras Kol Echod Byodoi, one community might decide to make the 2 days
Tuesday/Thursday Tuesday/friday sunday/wedensday etc. or every week
other 2 days, which would dilute the strength of the Takana.

> 2. The Gemara on 82b tells the story of how the brother (whichever the
> correct girsa is) outside the walls of Yerushalayim was given an advice
> by a person who was familiar with chochmas yevanis. What exactly is
> chochmas yevanis and how does it relate to this particular advice-it is
> not clear to me why the advice was related to the chochma.

See Shita Mkubetzes Al Asar, also see Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech
Chochmos Chitzoniyois.

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

<<I haven't seen anyone bring Rayoh from the Gemara that Tuesday must
have a hefsek, (although it would support the Daas Horov>>

It would seem that it's not a rayah if nobody brings it; now that you
point it out the potential rayah is clear.

<<See Shita Mkubetzes Al Asar, also see Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech
Chochmos Chitzoniyois. >>

R' Yitzchok, hob rachmonus!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In Avodah V8 #22, Mordechai opined:
> However, I think people are not michavein to be mikayeim neiros Shabbos
> with electric lights usually - or at least not everyone is.

When my wife and I do stuff like turning extra lights on before Shabbos,
we're thinking about oneg Shabbos, not nairos Shabbos.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 10/18/01 5:57:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> The old minhog IIRC, AFAIK, is that two neiros are lit - one each kineged

There are different Minhogim on this, see Ramoh O"C 263:1, and Mogein Avrohom 
there, there is also Minhog brought in Bnei Yis(s)char of lighting 36 Neiros.

> Some people, esp. hassidim (esp. lubavitchers?) have a custom to add
> one candle for each child.

This Minhag is brought and explained in the Lkutei MAHaRYaCH.

> 2) Does the adding of more candles not denigrate / eliminate the zochor
> vishomor symbolism?

See above mentioned Ramoh.

> 3) Are people allowed to change / abandon their ancestral minhog just
> because they may think that 'more candles look nicer', or something of
> the sort?

1) See Kitzur S"A 75:2, his Mokor is the Mogein Avrohom, 263 S"K 1 and S"K 15.
2) WRT wether one can change Minhog see Poskim at lentgh, (if this would 
Bichlal be considered changing by adding).

> 4) I think / suspect that increased affluence, the modern consumer
> economy, easy availability of inexpensive packaged products, etc.,
> making the addition of neiros easier, definitely is playing a role here.

As above also the fact that Mitzvah Lharbos B'oroh.

> 5) Also perhaps involved is the common belief that 'more is better' -
> in contrast to the Jewish teaching that 'kol hamosif goreia'.

See above mentioned Ramoh.

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/19/01 10:47:31am EDT, gatwood@netvision.net.il writes:
> My halacha teacher, Rabbi Elazar Barclay, (Litvish) explained to us that
> the origin of this 'minhag' is actually a form of cnas. If the woman
> gives birth shortly before Shabbos she may be unable to light candles at
> home. Thereafter she lights an extra candle as a cnas. This developed
> into the custom of adding candles even when the woman could have kept
> up this practise at home- if she gave birth early in the week.

While it is a nice Sevara, the Halacha is that for an Ones one does
not get a Knas, (Of course one can make pilpul that having the child is
Techilosoi Brotzon, especially since Lo Mifkidah Apiryoh Vrivyoh).

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/19/01 10:48:33am EDT, res10@nyu.edu writes:
> Derech agav, he also mentions a strong preference for olive oil, as
> opposed to candles.

As does the S"A, however there are some who hold that nowadays that we
have have very good candles, there are Halchik reasons (i.e. Shemo Yateh
O"C 275), to use them

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

>IIRC this stems from earlier times when childbirth virtually always caused 
>a woman to miss lighting: longer confinements, less help, etc. Although 
>this should not invoke the "kenas" of adding one candle, it was so assumed.

Not just earlier times, my wife missed candle lighting for two out of
three (so far) children.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how obligated someone staying in the
hospital is in neiros Shabbos. As a guest who can be moved at the whim
of the hospital, I don't know if she needs to light, or at least not
with a berachah. Especially since her husband is crazy enough to insist
on being mishtatef bifrutah whenever staying in someone's house.

Gil Student

> There is also a strong minhag to light seven candles.  Ha-Rav Ovadiah
> Yosef, shlita, brings it in the name of the Shelah Hakadosh, among others
> (sorry I don't have the sefer with me to check, but there were a number of
> other mekoros as well.) Derech agav, he also mentions a strong preference
> for olive oil, as opposed to candles.

R' Ovadia may have a strong preference, but, as I recall it, the Shelah
Hakadosh holds the mitzva is dafka with oil from a gematri on the tetzaveh
relating to Shabbos lecht. As the Menorah was shemen zais bilvad, so,
too the lecht.

> When discussing this idea in general, I would make a chiluq. Some cases,
> like this one, the minhag is bedavka not to do something. Doing more than
> two eliminates the meaning of one alternative. In other cases, however,
> one is adopting a practice which one's minhag gives no reason against.

Another example is using 2 challot on shabbat. The Ari advocated 12
challot. I have never seen anyone complain about more than 2 chalot for
lechem mishneh (does the mishneh mean 2?).

> There is also a strong minhag to light seven candles. Ha-Rav Ovadiah
> Yosef, shlita, brings it in the name of the Shelah Hakadosh, among others
> (sorry I don't have the sefer with me to check, but there were a number of
> other mekoros as well.) Derech agav, he also mentions a strong preference
> for olive oil, as opposed to candles.

What is the reason for the preference of olive oil?
The Mishna indicates only that olive oil burns better than others.
However, since modern candles burn better than olive oil that reason
wouldn't apply.

Eli Turkel

In a message dated Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:36:19am EDT, MPoppers@kayescholer.com
writes:
>> Off the top of my head, here's a defense. Shabbos is not a time for
>> bakashos. Hence, we don't say...the weekday shemoneh esreh....

> Seems to me like a popular myth.  See the bottom of BT B'rachos 21a ("lo
> it'r'chuhu").

I believe the bakashos reason is brought down in the Yerushalmi.

SS
Joel Rich

In Avodah V8 #21, GStudent replied:
>> Off the top of my head, here's a defense. Shabbos is not a time for
>> bakashos. Hence, we don't say...the weekday shemoneh esreh....

and I had replied:
> Seems to me like a popular myth. See the bottom of BT B'rachos 21a
> ("lo it'r'chuhu").

Coincidentally (or not, from my perspective :-)), today's Project Genesis
Halacha-Yomi e-mail speaks of this very matter -- it quotes kSA 76:16.
I'm not a big fan of the manner in which kSA is quoted nowadays, as Rav
Ganzfried z'l' combined Halacha and custom in his writings yet they're
bandied about by some as totally binding on all, but this particular
paragraph is apparently based directly on the BT.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 10/19/2001 10:49:27am EDT, MPoppers@kayescholer.com writes:
> If I may generalize, the leaders (and followers) of W. European Jewry
> may have preferred that nistorim remain nistorim, but hidden does not
> mean unknown or ignored. 

Well put. Many Gdolim from Western European were well versed in Nistar
but were very carefule to keep it that way - BUT a lot of Kabbalistic
concepts trickled down after being filtered by these Gdolim.

E.G. Experts on Zohar note that RSR Hirsch used several (many?) symbolisms
for mitzvos that are found in the Zohar - w/o necessarily going into a
mystical discourse. I once showed a diaggram of Hirsch's model of the
first 9 Makkos to a Sephardic Kabbalist who was duly impressed.

Similarly I suspect that the Ramban used his pirush on Chumash to eteach
Nistar w/o using the original texts such as Bahir and Yetzira.

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

In Avodah V8 #21, GStudent replied:
>> Off the top of my head, here's a defense. Shabbos is not a time for
>> bakashos. Hence, we don't say...the weekday shemoneh esreh....

In a message dated 10/19/2001 11:36:19am EDTime, MPoppers@kayescholer.com
writes:
> Seems to me like a popular myth.  See the bottom of BT B'rachos 21a ("lo
> it'r'chuhu").

Tangentially, this is a good segue for several Minhaggim. E.G. we do
not say Avinu Malkeinu on Shabbos. This makes sense in that it parallels
the weekday Amidah.

But how come we DO say it on Rosh Hashanah on a weekday? Don't we omit
the same weekday references in the Amida on RH as we do on Shabbos?
And how come we omit Avinu Malkeinu when YK is on Shabbos? YK on Shabbos
does not stop up us from saying the 13 middos, vidyuy, etc. so how come
it stops us from saying Avinu Malkeinu?

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

We were discussing the discrepancy between TSB'Ksav vs. TSB'al'Peh in
Ayin tachas Ayin, and I recalled an idea from the Maharal, that there are
two toros, and TSBK is that of the ideal, i.e., the Din, whereas TSBP is
that of the real, i.e., the mitigating Rachamim. We took that further,
of course, for example, the Arabs have literal ayin tachas ayin - Din
without mitigating Rachamim. V'yesh l'hosif!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

>> See Shita Mkubetzes Al Asar, also see Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech
>> Chochmos Chitzoniyois.

> R' Yitzchok, hob rachmonus!

Bkitzur, here it means language and Brmiza.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

>>> See Shita Mkubetzes Al Asar, also see Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech 
>>> Chochmos Chitzoniyois.

>> R' Yitzchok, hob rachmonus! 

> Bkitzur, here it means language and Brmiza.

How is that different than Rashi and why is the fact that the man knew
chochmas yevanis relevant to the story?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The question was asked why the gemarah states that we read the Torah
on Shabbos . be mafsik and read it on Monday, be mafsik and read
it on Thursday. The netziv was asked as to the permissibility of
having a special Kriyas hatorah as part of of a Hachnasas Sefer Torah
procession. He answered that one may do so only on Monday and Thursday
as those days were part of the Takanah as opposed to other days. Perhaps
the meaning of the term mafsik here is to be understood to the exclusion
of the other days...menachem b

On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 10:59:20AM -0400, Arie Folger replied:
>: It seems to me that free will is a requisite part of creation. Without
>: free will there would be no righteousness to distinguish from
>: _what_every_sane_human_being_would_do_ and thus no place for sachar
>: ve-onesh. You may, of course, point to the period before the sin of etz
>: hada'at as a period where free will was substantially different from
>: tody, or even not yet existant...

On Wednesday 17 October 2001 15:33, [Micha] wrote:
> Despite the way you portray the Rambam, he makes a point of saying that
> bechirah was extant, but it was the choice between truth and falsehood.
> Admittedely that's different in kind from what we call bechirah.

Which means that the choice between emet and sheker is not always
obvious, we have simply fallen lower once we discovered the emotional
tov ver'a. Tying this back to be'hirah WTC - our starting point - free
will of some form is a necessary and integral part of ma'aseh bereishit,
and the created world has never existed without be'hirah 'hofshit.

> I would think that this limits the cheit to either being a ta'us or an
> aveirah lishmah.

The notion of avreirah lishmah occurs in 'hazal only in the context
of Ya'el, eshet 'hever hakeini, who killed Sisrah (see haftarah parshat
Beshala'h & T.Bavli on that section) and possibly in similar contexts. The
usage of 'aveirah lishmah in other contexts is more modern, I believe
it is nowhere to be found in Ramabm, and found particular appeal around
the time of Shabtai Tzvi (which made it all the more complicated to
distinguish between bonafide 'aveirah lishmah theorists like the Ishbitzer
some time after ST and Sabatians). In later 'hassidic writings 'aveirah
lishmah becomes the equivalent of searching for extreme kullot for the
sake of outreach. I believe it is told that (I believe it about him)
rebbe rab Zishe (Zushe for non 'hassidim) would hang out periodically
in bars and become friends with some of the Jewish lowlifes/drunkards,
whom he brought back into the fold later on.

Anyway, I believe none of this is to be found in Rambam's writings.

> As for why I think bechirah is more valuable than life...
> Hashem created the world because it's the nature of a meitiv to want
> someone to recieve that tov. We exist as keilim to recieve divine
> hatavah. That's our point.

And how does that exist without be'hirah? Are we really anything more
that eitzim ve-avanim without the power that Ribono dekuli alma granted
us to make up our own mind?

> What greater hatavah can there be than to share aspects of His Existance?

Which is creativity itself. We share because He made us creative beings
who have the power to join Him in construction (well, we just do sub
contracting) or oppose Him through destruction of our own self.

> One aspect is that He is the Borei. Therefore, as paradoxical as it seems,
> the perfect qeli for shefa is one that is broken but striving to repair
> itself. To self-create.

As I pointed out in my original post, that is Ari za"l kabbalah, not
Ramabam rationalism.

> Another is independance of action.
> Both of these require (since the 2nd one basically is) bechirah chafshi.

So, as I said, the beriah cannot exist/makes no sense W/O free will.

Sabbes Shulem i-mevoyrokh, Shabbes Shulem i-mevoyrokh, Shabbes Shulem
i-mevoirokh (excerpt from a rebbe's tish),

Arie Folger

Regarding Dr Singers comments on the Beit Halevi and his suggestion that
murex was widely known at the time of the rishonim and gaonim and that
it was associated with the ancient colors:

I believe that his facts are historically incorrect.

1.The colors were commonly used until the fall of the Roman empire. Severe
restrictions were place on ownership for non imperial patrons ultimately
with a death penalty. ( good reason to forget the process)

2. 6th -10th century Imperial policy restrictive in the extreme. The
technique became a uniquely Byzantine secret

3. Under Moslem rule previous dye centers ceased to exist ( Tyre ect)

4. While the rest of the world was ignorant of the dye and process
Byzantium prized it but did not export the dye or dyed cloth at all. Even
in 968 , when Liutprand , Bishop of Cremona visited Constantinople of
a diplomatic mission, The royal colors were denied to him.

5. Even then, where the sole murex dyers were in Byzantium, the penalty
for private dying was the amputation of a hand.

Therefore' the usage continued but under extreme limitations and by a
handful of people that were pledged to keep it secret and all of this
was in Byzantium ' not Erope or North Africa. The assertion that the
Gaonim and Rishonim knew about it and rejected it is false. Firstly ,
they did not live near Byzantium and secondly the usage was so limited
as not to be seen by the masses at all. The fact that a fisherman on
the coast of Italy might have pulled the murex up in a net once in a
while without any idea that there once was a royal garment or color
that existed' let alone that it came from the body of a little snail ,
does not mean that the Rishonim knew and rejected it.

Finally as we in Ptil Tekhelet have seen, even with extensive, searching
and research many great obstacles had to be overcome in order to dye and
we had to actively study and search to do it and it took years. In fact
even knowing what we wanted' it still took us 2 years with the internet,
modern research and communications' untill we found that it could be
purchased albeit in very small quantities.

The Radvaz 1480-1573 Chief Rabbi of Egypt' says specifically " it is
possible that it still exists today but that we don't recognize it or
don't know how to catch it also there i sno need for it today as there is
a color similar to tekhelet that is fast, that is Isatis or Nil in arabic"
(kala ilan) teshuva 685

So you see even he' who was interested in the topic, while the dying
continued in Byzantium, was familiar intimately with kala ilan and knew
the plant on a technical level was both unfamiliar with murex despite
his assertion that it might exist. Yet he never bothered to look for it
and he lived near the ocean!

So in the words of the beit Halevei "and only after it becomes clear to
us that the fish or the dye process has been forgotten" and how to catch
it has been forgotten or that it was forgotten at any point in history,
then we can use halacha as a proof for it.

Murex clearly satisfies that requirement.

Ari Greenspan
Ptil tekhelet

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


[ 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         ]