Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 052

Thursday, June 27 2002

• RE: Black Jews
• Re: Black Jews
• masorah
• Re: Aharon Ben Asher, Rambam, Rasag and the Aleppo Codex
• Re: OU and Israeli produce
• Re: Aharon Ben Asher, Rambam, Rasag and the Aleppo Codex
• RE: Black Jews
• Re: Metzius vs. Mere Scientific Categorization
• mostakes of amoraim
• Sharkskin, sturgeon, and kosher caviar
• Re: More on Sharkskin
• Another reason not to make aliyah?
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• avinu malkenu
• ketuba
• Fwd: Rabbi Mayer Twersky - Projecting Faith
• Re: Body Piercing and Halacho
• Re: rock solid foundations (was--first principles)
• Re: RW Wurzburger on Jewish Community

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Jews, both Sephardim and Ashkenazim, were demonstrated to be far closer
> genetically to each other than either of them were to the Arabs.

I found the article I was thinking of. It is "A Biochemical Response
to a Halakhic Challenge: The Case of the Ethiopian Jews" by Dr. Karen
Bacon in Torah U'Maddah Journal vol 3 (1992). Bacon cites studies by
Dr. Batsheva Bonne-Tamir which genetically analyzed Ethiopian Jews and
found that they are genetically related to peoples of East Africa but
*not* at all related to either Ashkenazi or Yemenite Jews.

Believe it or not, Bacon found this conclusion to be halachically
beneficial to Beta Israel. She cites RHS' article in the 1985 RJJ Journal
("Determining Identity: Ethiopian Jewry") to the effect that *provided*
we can conclude that there is a safek as to whether Ethiopian Jews
are descended from Jews or ever halachically converted to Judaism,
there is a sfeik sfeika causing them not to be treated as mamzeirim:
(1) safek whether they are descended from Jews or converted properly; (2)
safek whether a given person is descended from a woman who remarried after
having not halachically divorced (because the Beta Israel did not follow
the laws of gittin). Bacon writes that her article helps establish safek
#1 (apparently, RHS in his article said that historical or scientific
evidence would be necessary to establish that there is a safek). W/o the
sfeika sfeika, we would not be permitted to marry Ethiopian Jews because
of safek mamzeirus. (Note: I did not review RHS' article itself).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 08:49:56PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: We Ashkenazim simply don't have the evidence -- the metzius, if you
: will -- to say we're any more Jewish than the Ethiopians...

Evidence is birur. Don't confuse the truth with the ability to prove
the truth.

We have a mesorah. Same way we know about ma'amad Har Sinai.

The fact that the evidence does in fact exist, both genetically and
linguistically, is just icing.

-mi

RMB asked what would be if someone showed up with a claim that they had
a parallel mesorah having been broken off from the rest of Jewry prior
to the time of churban bayis sheni.

Such an event happened, sort of. Sefer Eretz Yisroel of Eldad haDani
appeared during the time of the rishonim purporting to be from the
lost Tribes--ie prior to the beginning of the Babylonian exile, during
Bayis Rishon. One notable halacha of his was that women may not shecht.
This is contrary to the Mishna in Chullin. The Ibn Ezra strongly rejected
the authenticity of his claim. Tosafos rejects his halacha. Yet we see
that if such an event would occur there would be halachic analysis of
such opinions. Certainly not an impossibility.

Shlomo Goldstein

First, it should be noted that the EJ article on Masora was written by 
Aharon Dotan.  IMHO the piece should not get extra points for being printed 
in EJ but should be treated like any other academic article.

Arie Folger wrote:
>But could it be that we rely on a Karaite for the exact text of the Torah? 
>Could Rambam have been unaware of ABA's being a Karaite? EJ is a little 
>ambiguous as to whether ABA really was a Karaite, or whether it was an 
>unfounded accusation. Does any list member have more info on this?

I heard RSZ Leiman say in a taped lecture that there is no evidence at all 
that Aharon Ben Asher was a Karaite.  There is, however, evidence that the 
Qeter Aram Tsovah was once owned and used by a Karaite synagogue (they only 
use vowelized texts).

>* MEIR BEN TODROS HA-LEVI ABULAFIA, Masoret Seyag la-Torah * Meiri, Qiryat 
>Sefer

>Do any of these works present grammar as an independent discipline, or do 
>they merely consist of lists of exceptions? IOW, do any of these works 
>present an underlying framework that causes rules and exceptions, or are 
>they all, as is Okhlah veOkhlah, "alephbetic" lists of exceptions?

Masoret Seyag la-Torah and Masoret Rabbati (by Ya'aqov Ben Hayim) are just 
lists, as is the unmentioned Qeter Aram Tsovah veha-Nusah ha-Mequbal Shel 
ha-Miqra by R. Mordekhai Breuer.  Qiryat Sefer is an halakhic work on how to 
write a Sefer Torah.

Gil Student

On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 01:08:33AM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Rav Kalman Kahana, in his appendix to the Kitzur S"A, writes (4:8) that
: this applies only within the "ancient borders", rather than in the new
: city....

Wouldn't that mean the Chashmona'i borders, rather than the crusader
border of the area we now call the Old City?

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 08:45:37PM +0300, Daniel M Wells wrote:
: 1. While all Tnuva warehouses take Trumos and Maaseros before releasing
: for sale to grocery stores, there are some warehouses, notably Tel Aviv,
: who remove the prerequisite Trumah Gedola and then toss it back into the
: container, since the halacha states that if seperated Trumah Gedola gets
: mixed up (and obviously by accident..) with the maasered produce and it is
: less than 1 in 200 then the whole produce is allowed.

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 11:03:07PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer replied:
: Why wouldn't that fall under ain m'vatlin issur l'chatchila? 

Issur? This is heqdeish, not issur. And what if they have a non-Jew do
it?

Back to RDMW:
: 2. According to the CI, a person who does his own separation should be
: aware that if the crates of fruit or vegetables are not from the same
: picking then if for example some of the apples in his bag are from farmer
: x and some from farmer y, then T&M has to be taken from each apple
: individually.

: 3. There is a machlokes if T&M have to be taken on ChutzLeAretz vegetables
: which are canned (ie the final process) here in Israel. The Eida does not
: hold it is necessary, and so many of those who hold by that machmir
: opinion, have to take T&M from each can. Shearis Yisrael (obviously) is
: machmir and their Chutz LeAretz produce cans are maasered.

Then would the CI would require taking ma'aser from each fruit canned? And
what about pureed baby food?

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 04:09:46PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: As I'm writing this, I'm thinking that perhaps the poster meant this
: scenario: All the maasros are taken, but in small batches. Then the
: Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Maaser are not thrown back into *their*
: chullin, but into a much *larger* pile of chullin...

Or what if they're thrown back in to their original bins in small batches?

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 11:30:10PM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> I was never in that situation, so I cannot say for sure, but it seems to
:> me that one *would* have to give the Maaser Ani to a real ani in such
:> a case. If anyone has ever asked that as a parctical shaalah, I'd love
:> to hear the answer.

: You're right about Maaser Ani (I am now home and have the sefer put 
: out by the Machon l'Limud Mitzvot Ha'Tluyot Ba'Aretz)...

But if shemittah is derabbanan, and especially if yoveil isn't in the
shemittah cycle so that the years of shemittah today can't even possibly
be the de'oraisa one, then how can ma'aseir ani and ma'aseir sheini be
de'oraisa.

(Just remember: no matter what answer others got, Avodah isn't your
poseiq. We all sometimes get an idea of what's right in our heads
and forget to ask she'eilos.)

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:55:30PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Yeah, you're right. The bracha and the Maaser Ani might be the only
: ones. I think I confused the kulos of safek tevel with the kulos which we
: can use because (rov poskim hold that) it's only D'Rabanan nowadays. In
: a few years, we may see Rov Yisrael Yoshvin Ba'Aretz, and then a lot
: may change.

We discussed this before when I made a similar suggestion. RYYB (that's
"rov" not "rav") probably requires shevatim in their borders.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wednesday 26 June 2002 15:48, Gil Student wrote:
> First, it should be noted that the EJ article on Masora was written by
> Aharon Dotan.  IMHO the piece should not get extra points for being printed
> in EJ but should be treated like any other academic article.

I was aware of that; sorry for not making this explicit. Quite funny (standard 
academic practice in journals, but never before seen in Encyclopedia) is that 
he quotes himself without any indication that he does so.

> Arie Folger wrote:
> >But could it be that we rely on a Karaite for the exact text of the Torah?
> >Could Rambam have been unaware of ABA's being a Karaite? EJ is a little
> >ambiguous as to whether ABA really was a Karaite, or whether it was an
> >unfounded accusation. Does any list member have more info on this?
>
> I heard RSZ Leiman say in a taped lecture that there is no evidence at all
> that Aharon Ben Asher was a Karaite.  There is, however, evidence that the
> Qeter Aram Tsovah was once owned and used by a Karaite synagogue (they only
> use vowelized texts).

So was RASAG's accusation unfounded, or were there two Aharon ben Ashers?

Note that Rambam only relied on Aharon ben Asher's massorah for ptu'hot and 
stumot, but even that is significant.
Arie Folger

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 08:49:56PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
>: We Ashkenazim simply don't have the evidence -- the metzius, if you
>: will -- to say we're any more Jewish than the Ethiopians...

> Evidence is birur. Don't confuse the truth with the ability to prove
> the truth.

> We have a mesorah. Same way we know about ma'amad Har Sinai.

> The fact that the evidence does in fact exist, both genetically and
> linguistically, is just icing.

But then the argument goes the other way: the Ethiopians have a mesorah,
recognized by RaDBaz, that they are Jews. Why not simply rely on that
mesorah?

Perhaps, mesorah should be compared to chazakah: we rely on it but if
there is a rei'u'sah, we don't. In the case of the Ethiopians, genetics
is a rei'u'sah to their mesorah. In the case of Ashkenazim, it isn't.

So we don't have to bring evidence for mesorah, but should pay attention
to any hard evidence (as opposed to historical theories, which are never
determinative) which undermines the mesorah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 6/27/02 12:13:51 PM, Eliyahu writes:
<< A Talmid Chacham with whom I learn explains most Kashrut definitons
as being based upon grossly observable phenomena, not upon current
scientific categorization.

As to the issue of "metzius" in general. I strongly disagree that it is
"an illusory concept". I see no reason not to believe that Halacha like
other legal systems, differentiates between law and fact.
 >>

I'd like to respond to both points, which essentially converge within
the concept of "metzius."

It is difficult to say that Kashrut depends on "grossly observable
phenomena, not upon current scientific categorization." Some of the
finer points of determining kosher fleishig pivot on minute inspection of
internal animal tissue following shechita. No observant Jew wants meat
to be hechshered on mere gross observation of possible disease. Indeed,
the entire idea of Glatt fleishig -- which has more or less overtaken
more lenient standards in the observant community -- is based on going
beyond "gross" inspection.

In any event, no scientist would concede that his efforts are expended
at engaging in mere "categorization." The point of most science is to
overcome the perceptual limitations implied by the linguistic process of
categorization, and to understand natural phenomena on their own terms. So
if a scientist says, look, like it or not, sharkskin has scales, he is
not engaging in categorization so much as he is saying that the notion
that sharkskin does not have scales is itself a myth of categorization.

The myth of categorization says much about the difference in legal systems
between "fact" and "law." These differences are frequently muddled and
illusory. Sometimes for procedural reasons these distinctions have to be
made, such as those found in American jury instructions, which reserve
"facts" to the jury and the "law" to the judge. But American lawyers are
familiar with the notion of a "mixed" or "hybrid" questions of fact and
law, which usually cannot be unmixed and must be treated through subtle
analytical methodology that embraces the idea that the boundary between
"fact" and "law" often doesn't really exist.

So, too, with halacha. What halacha treats as "fact" often isn't so
much a question of fact as it is a form of observation made through a
halachic lens. Rashi, Rambam, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban understood this. It
didn't trouble them -- well, maybe it troubled Rambam a little -- and it
shouldn't trouble us. We simply have to remain honest enough to recognize
what we're dealing with.

David Finch

In the daf (BB101b) thwe gemara says that the shitah of Rav Huna ben
Rav Yehoshua is wrong based on mathematical arguments that show his
arrangment of graves is impossible. It didn't seem to bother the gemara
how he could make such a mistake.

Today we have unconvered several grave sites from tanaitic times.
I don't know their arrangements but if it turnes out to be like one
of the shitot in the gemara why couldn't we say that the other shitot
were wrong based on historical evidence instead of mathematical one.
This is especially true since this is no longer halacha lamaseh today

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 06/27/2002

Josh knows more than the rest of us about the different types of scales.
All I knew was that there were several, and some were kosher, and some are
not.  But I do know something more than Josh in the issue of halokho.
Regarding sturgeon and swordfish, Josh says the issue is not that they have
placoid or ganoid scales, but, to quote him, "Some fish have bony tubercules
or scates rather than scales. (such as sturgeon). swordfish have scales
during their juvenile stage in the form of bony tubercules or expanded
compressed platelike bodies."
The g'moro deals with different kinds of scales, including those that fall
off or do not cover the whole body, and says that the latter are kosher.  On
the basis of this g'moro, the Noda' biY'hudah paskened that sturgeon are
kosher.  It is not a matter of conjecture which fish he was referring to
(e.g. names like cod mean different things in different places), since he
both describes the fish, where it is found, and uses a form of the Latin
name.  He did not refer to swordfish, but on the basis of his argument, they
would be kosher as well.
The interesting thing here is that in his time, just as nowadays, Jews
assumed that sturgeon was not kosher.  The Noda' biY'hudah and his son,
IIRC, had to reprint the t'shuva three times, because in the first case the
printer refused to print it, and then another rabbi wrote a letter claiming
that the Noda' biY'hudah retracted his p'saq and admitted that he had made a
mistake.  In the third letter, the son of the Noda' biY'hudah writes a
strongly worded letter to this other rabbi to the effect that "if you want
to disagree with my father, go ahead, but to spread lies about my father's p
'saq and lies that he said he made a mistake, that is inexcusable, a
bizzayon of the Torah and a bizzayon of my father, and you will have to give
a din v'cheshbon on lying and bizzayon."
I have asked several rabbonim about how it came to pass that if the Noda'
biY'hudah paskened unequivocally that sturgeon is kosher, every book says
black on white that it is not.  Of the two rabbonim who even were aware of
the issue, one said that of course sturgeon is kosher, and the fact that
there is none with a hekhsher is either because the rav hamakhshir doesn't
know about the issue, or you can't get a rov hamakhshir to the fishing
plants.  (The latter, BTW, is true AFAIK: companies pay for hekhsherim if
they think it will increase sales.  That is not the problem of the caviar
producers, but rather that there is a severe shortage of product, since
sturgeon live only in the Black Sea and reproduce very slowly and pollution
and boats seem to have been diminishing the number of sturgeon.  So why
would a company want to advertise or pay for a hekhsher if they can't find
the product to sell?)  The other rov said that of course, no recognized
halakhic authority would contradict the Noda' biY'hudah on this, but since
Jews believe they are not kosher, and the only ones pushing their kashrut
are the C or R, why should an O rov fight to show they are kosher, as if we
accept the way they arrive at their decision? After all, it is no mitzvah to
eat caviar.
This latter answer, of course, jibes exactly with the view of our esteemed
champion muskie catcher of Areivim, R. David Finch, who says "I'm not
defending the Conservative psak that treats sturgeon as kosher. (My biggest
problem with Conservative psak is the way it is established, i.e., through
highly politicized conferences of the RA that function along the  lines of
the Democratic Party's Platform Committee.)"
I challenge anyone to find a posek who deals with the issue and refutes the
Noda' biY'hudah.  I am _not_ saying that I "know" that there is no one; what
I am saying is that I have been looking for years, and have found no one.
Please do not hesitate to correct me if anyone knows of a source (but one
that knows that the Noda' biY'hudah had a t'shuva on this).  The books on
the kashrus of fish just take it as a given that since sturgeon, as R. Josh
says, do not have scales but rather bony tubercules, they are not kosher.
My bottom line is I don't care if people hold that they are not kosher (I
don't like fish eggs, anyway), but it seems to me inexcusable for these
books to distort the Torah by giving the impression that everyone agrees on
this issue.  The Noda' biY'hudah is not just anyone.  My goodness, he is not
even MO, L, or Chareidi, so there go most of the opportunities for saying
"WADR to the Noda' biY'hudah, he is MO/L/ wears a grey hat, and so cannot be
representative of true Torah."  The only thing you can say is that he was an
opponent of chasidus, but even according to the Chasidim, that is not an
issue, since a famous story of the Chasidim is that he repented on his death
bed from all the not nice things he said condemning chasidus (and the story
_must_ be true, since it is retold in the CIS Shulman "authorized" biography
of him ;-) ).
Seth Mandel

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:18:48 EDT DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
>...what would happen if, in the future, science should decode >sharkskin 
>DNA and conclude that proto-scales are the genetic >equivalents of the 
>scales found on kosher fish? Would that create a >problem regarding 
>metzius? Would the O rabbinate be obligated under >halachic methodology to 
>revisit the question of whether sharks are >kosher? If not, wouldn't you 
>say that "metzius" is, at bottom, an illusory concept in psak?

A Talmid Chacham with whom I learn explains most Kashrut definitons
as being based upon grossly observable phenomena, not upon current
scientific categorization.

As to the issue of "metzius" in general. I strongly disagree that it is
"an illusory concept". I see no reason not to believe that Halacha like
other legal systems, differentiates between law and fact.

KT
Eliyahu

<snip>
Now, I realize that the subject line of this post is misleading,
<snip>. This is the first I've heard of the idea that the second day
of YT is "greater" than the first day. Has anyone else heard of it? If
so, where?

I think you may have more luck on Avoda, actually, but we do find that
concepts learnt are "greater"/dearer than those explicitly written.

[I did too, so I bounced it here. -mi]

We also find that the punishment for machalel YT sheni greater than the
1st day - see MB 496:1

There's also the concept that you've had an entire day to prepare yourself
properly for YT Sheini.

- Danny

I was discussing this thread with R' Chaim Brown during the ferry ride
home from work. Some thoughts related to my question about types of kavanah,
as in kavanah for what Shema means vs kavanah to be yotzei.

RCB noted another instance of special kavanah: yibum according to Abba
Sha'ul. He (and we) holds that we should choose chalitzah over yibum
without proper kavanah. Would seem that kavanah is me'akeves.

This is different in that it's not a different kind of kavanah, but
the absence of the wrong kavanos.

Afterwards I wondered if this is called kavanah or lishmah, and what's
the difference between the two, anyway?

I then repeated this conversation on the train to another friend (not
a subscriber, yet) and he mentioned the following list of mitzvos for
which kavanah is me'akeves. Interestingly, he kept the mar'eh meqomos
on his Palm Pilot as part of his striving to get kavanah for those
mitzvos.

1- Tzitzis - O"Ch 8:8 (Although I asked why not the pasuq.)
2- Tefillin - O"Ch 25:5
3- Succah - MB (early in the discussion of succah)
4- Tefillah - the only R' Chaim on Hil' Tefillah

We noted that Shema (and yibum) weren't on his list. But he got off the
train before I found out where this list came from. He is BCC-ed so perhaps
we may get an answer.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

All siddurim that I know list aveinu malkenu as being said after nefilat
apaim both shacharit and mincha.
All shuls that I have attended say it before tachanun.
Any reason?

Artscroll says most sefard shuls do not say avinu malkenu on a fast
day.
Every sefard shul I have been in does say it.

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 06/27/2002

At my son's wedding the mesader kiddushin insisted that the eidim read
the entire ketuba. When I asked him he said they have to know what they
are signing.

Has anyone else seen this?

I asked my shul rabbi and he said his custom was to have the witnesses
read the additional amounts as that is the only thing that changes
between ketubot.

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 06/27/2002

Forwarded with permission.

torahweb@zeus.host4u.net wrote:

to subscribe, email: weekly@torahweb.org
for anything else, email: torahweb@torahweb.org
the HTML version of this dvar Torah can be found at:
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2002/parsha/rtwe chukas.html

Rabbi Mayer Twersky

Projecting Faith

    Hashem said to Moshe and Aharon, "Because you did not believe in Me
    to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore, you
    will not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them
    (Bamidbar 20:12).

What precisely was the sin of Moshe and Aharon? This elusive question has
engaged the greatest of our commentators throughout the generations. The
Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh catalogues ten different answers to this vexing
question. Rambam offers a novel answer to this question which he
describes as "one of the most difficult in the Torah". The ensuing
remarks are devoted to Rambam's novel interpretation.

In the fourth of the Eight Chapters, and subsequently in Hilchos
De'os, Rambam develops the doctrine of moderation. We are commanded to
avoid extremes and cultivate the mean. Thus, by way of illustration,
one shouldn't eat gluttonously, but neither should he neglect basic
nutritional needs. The mean in this instance consists of eating to
maintain one's health and strength.

Against this background, Rambam explains that Moshe [and Aharon] sinned
in deviating from the mean, and becoming angry with the Jewish people
and manifesting their anger by addressing the people as "rebels".

Ramban sharply critiques this Maimomidean explanation. Inter alia, he
argues that the pesukim do not accommodate Rambam's intepretation. As
quoted above, Hashem faults Moshe and Aharon for not believing. According
to Rambam's analysis, however, their sin was unrelated to a lack of faith.

Let us explore the Rambam's doctrine of the mean. In Hilchos De'os,
Rambam explains that this doctrine is mandated by the mitzva of v'holachto
b'drachav (imitatio dei). Hashem's actions are all balanced, and thus
the mitzva of imitatio dei commands that we behave in a similar fashion.

The identification of v'holachto b'drachav with the mean generates
a remarkable, highly repercussive corollary. Since our behavior is
commanded and thus (at least, in the case of righteous Jewish leaders)
presumed to be godlike, our actions reflect upon Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Hence
if we display anger, we eo ipso insinuate anger to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

Thus, Rambam concludes his exposition of Moshe's sin as follows.

So, when Moshe said or did anything, [the Jewish people] subjected his
words or actions to the most searching examinations. Therefore, when they
saw that he waxed wrathful, they said, "He has no moral imperfection,
and if he did not know that G-d is angry with us for demanding water
and that we have stirred up the wrath of G-d, he would not have been
angry with us." However, we do not find that when G-d spoke to Moshe
about this mater He was angry.

Accordingly, the phrase, "because you did not believe in Me" should be
understood, according to Rambam, that your actions bespoke a lack of
faith because they projected an unbalanced, distorted image of Hakadosh
Baruch Hu. Faith involves not only correct beliefs regarding Hakadosh
Baruch Hu, but also equally correct projections of His image.

Faith must be reflected in all our words and deeds, and in all
realms. When rachmana litslan our words or deeds are flawed, eo ipso
our faith is deficient.

Copyright (C) 2002 by Rabbi Mayer Twersky.
All rights reserved.

In a message dated 6/23/02 7:10:11pm EDT, sbacher@icon.co.za writes:
> Could anybody assist to clarify if Body Piercing is an Issur or just
> not done because of Miuskeit etc.

It can involve the issue of Chovel Batzmoi, for the different opinions see 
Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech Chovel (Vol. 12 col. 682).

For a male it can also involve Lo Silbash.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:42:17PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I don't know that "proof" and "logical deduction" are synonymous. The
: concept of a Prime Cause is a logical deduction, one of perhaps several
: logical deductions which I intuit is the best one. Never-the-less, the
: fact that other explanations or deductions fall within the parameters
: of reason makes it something less than "proof".

You're choosing deduations based on intuition. That makes the argument
only partially logical anyway. Logic is airtight. Given the premises
and the rules of logic, everyone (who does it right) will reach the
same conclusion. In that sense, it's proof. At least a proof that those
premises imply that conclusion.

My earlier point was that now you're stuck explaining some set of
premises rather than justifying the conclusion.

: When speaking of creating in the Primal sense, time is not a factor
: because as you say "Create" is a verb, and verbs imply change and
: time. The Primal Cause can create, as it were... "outside" the refference
: of time.
...
: G-d is beyond time. He created time and lives from without time. Time
: is a human concept which measures motion, and, pre-creation there was
: no time or motion. We mortals are bound by time and cannot conceive
: of a "timeless" world...

In which case, the First Cause can create an infinite timeline, stretching
infinitely back. You just posited that the first cause needn't be before
all the second causes. I would agree. But that robs you of your argument
that the chain of causes must be finite.

Picture a printing press printing a history timeline in a book. One
cause for all of "time". Couldn't Hashem similarly print an infinite
"line"?

: I don't think you made the case of your proposition being an equally
: logical deduction obviating the concept of a Prime Cause as the most
: logical of explanations of material existence.. To say that there is
: simutaneous existence of time and the universe does not preclude G-d as
: their Creator. Logically it is still a superior propostion to say that
: there is a Prime Cause to all of creation of which time and the universe
: are simultaneously part of.

Not logically -- intuitionally! As you yourself wrote. Logically,
*neither* is precluded. Different assumptions seem to be more intuitively
correct, different conclusions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 11:32:17AM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: In chapter 1, RWW suggests that as part of our dialogue with G-d we
: must be concerned for others because they are in the image of G-d.
: Therefore our dialogue with G-d must include a dialogue with other people.

I was never comfortable with this approach, even when presented by
acharonim. It makes bein adam lachaveiro a derived value, rather than
inherently important. I like the Maharal's peshat in torah, avodah and
gemillus chassadim. That there is value inherent in the perfection of
each of three relationships: between man and himself, man and Hashem,
and man and other people, respectively.

RSRH's peshat in Chok (see the appropriate section in Horeb) goes
further and includes man's relationship to non-human elements in the
world around him. But this is admittedly a shitas yachid in that it take
choq to refer to something other than "beyond human comprehension".

: In chapter 2, RWW addresses community from a more utilitarian
: perspective. An individual needs a community in order to function
: properly, i.e. eat, learn, live.

RYBS, in his essay by that title, speaks of the dialectic between
community as a means of allowing people to accomplish their ends and
community as something people are supposed to work toward.

Then there is his community of fate vs community of destiny. The latter
are unified in seeking a common end, therefore providing some sense of
unity between the two.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

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


[ 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         ]