Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 018

Tuesday, October 21 2003

• Buying in Bulk and Ribis
• Re: new birth control?
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Re: male birth control
• Re: new birth control?
• Re: new birth control?
• Re: new birth control?
• Just be nice to your wife
• Question on Tfilas Musaf the second day Sukkahs
• Re: Structure of the Korbanos in Parshas Pinchas
• sonei matanos / shalahmones
• Re: Aveilus and Sukkah
• Re: Simchas Beis haSho'eivah
• Re: Hilonim and wine
• RE: Basics for philosophical discussions
• Hebrew vs. Greek
• Re: Basics for Philisophical discussions
• RE: Rambam and creation
• RE: Rambam and creation

Let's say that my family uses a dozen eggs each week. I can buy it from a
frum grocer for $2 each week or I can buy a big four-dozen box for $7.50,
with a $.50 discount for buying in bulk, and keep the eggs in my fridge
until I need them.

Is the grocer charging me (avak) ribis for buying the eggs weekly?

Gil Student

The method being discussed
(http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994237) works by
*suppressing* sperm production. Wouldn't this be different than
*destroying* sperm? A healthy male is constantly producing new sperm. If
that process is temporarily stopped, why would it have to be considered
hashchasas zera - nothing is being destroyed, it's just being prevented
from being produced?

Avi Burstein 

RAM:
> I can't help but wonder if there are any poskim who might consider the
> husband and wife as one and the same person... If they are two halves
> of a whole, then the danger to the wife is no different than the danger
> to himself...

> Similarly, there are many details to the halachos of when a person
> may/must endanger himself to save someone else, and those halachos
> differ if it is the person's own self who is in danger. For example,
> Reuven might be allowed to undergo a risky procedure to save his own life,
> but not to save Shimon's. But what about saving his wife's life? Is that
> considered his own or someone else's?

We find such a concept in the din of pidyon shvuyim which is limited
mid'rabannan. Because there is a concern that high ransoms could harm
the community by encouraging further incidents of kidnapping, one may
not "overpay" to redeem Jewish captives. For oneself and one's wife,
one is not restricted by this edict. Tos Gittin 45a. S"A Y"D 252:4

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 10/20/03 hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> I contend that in instances where there is
> absolutely no zera present, for example in a totally sterile
> individual, then any seminal emission would not constitute Haschasas
> Zera. Of course there is Hashchasas Zera if a fertile man takes a
> sperm killing contraceptive.--HM

>> Anyway the hashchasas zera involved in, say, what Er and Onan did
>> was spilling semen, not sperm. --TK

> A sin? Maybe, Hashchasas Zera... no. A spermless individual may be
> considered a Krus Shafcha but his wasting semen does not entail
> hashchasas Zera.  .... Spilling spermless semen cannot be Hashchasas
> Zera, IMHO. --HM

I am going to drop this subject after this, and leave it to knowledgeable
people. I will say only that it is far from clear to me that the original
meaning of "zera" is "sperm," since I don't think anyone even knew there
was such a thing until four hundred years ago, when van Leeuwenhoek first
saw them under a microscope (and imagined he saw homunculi, "little men,"
under the glass).

I think the classic meaning of the word "zera" must be "semen." I have
no idea how or whether that would impact on the psak regarding use of
a drug that prevents the production of sperm. IIRC a topically applied
agent that acts as a spermicide is forbidden; yet I have no idea whether
that would apply to an orally ingested drug, either.

 -Toby Katz

On Monday 20 October 2003 23:19, Harry Maryles wrote:
> Semen is the medium for sperm. Zera is not semen and semen is not
> Zera. Sperm... is Zera.

First, although the resident English expert sides with your etymology
of semen, I must protest that this matter is not simple (anybody own an
Oxford English Dictionary here? Please report). Semen seems quite close
to the German Samen (pronounced zahmn), which means ... sperm.

More importantly, and relevant to our discussion, where do you see that
'Hazal differentiated between the two?

Arie Folger
 - 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent of one's own accord, unless he shall bring 
clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> However, I based my statement
>> on a simple reading of the term Hashchasas Zera... the destruction of
>> seed. It seems to me that if there is no Zera whatsoever, then there
>> can be no destruction of it and therefore no Issur of Hashcasas Zera....
>>  If sterility means no sperm production whatsoever,
>> how are you destroying it? There may be other Issurim involved but
>> you can't say that you are being Mashchis Zera if there is no Zera to
>> be Mashchis.

> You can't say you are destroying something that you just destroyed?
> This line of argument has an Alice in Wonderland flavor to it.

> You can't say you are being mashchis zera when you do WHAT? Take a
> male birth control pill? Have intercourse after taking such a pill?

You missed my point. I contend that in instances where there is
absolutely no zera present, for example in a totally sterile
individual, then any seminal emission would not constitute Haschasas
Zera. Of course there is Hashchasas Zera if a fertile man takes a
sperm killing contraceptive.

> Anyway the hashchasas zera involved in, say, what Er and Onan did was
> spilling semen, not sperm. It seems that wasting semen would be a sin
> whether or not it contained sperm. 

A sin? Maybe, Hashchasas Zera... no. A spermless individual may
be considered a Krus Shafcha but his wasting semen does not entail
hashchasas Zera. The fact that Er and Onan spilled semen was only an
issue because it contained sperm. I do not see semen itself being the
issue. Semen is the medium containing sperm. Without it (as in a totally
sterile... spermless... man) it is just a bodily fluid with no procreative
ability. Spilling spermless semen cannot be Hashchasas Zera, IMHO.

[Email #2. -mi]

Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:

RHM wrote:

> If we apply to Zera the requirement of
> visibilty
>> to the naked eye, then there would be no such thing Halachicly as
> Zera.

RAF: 
> Sure, it's called semen (so I am told, i.e., that I misused the word
> semen in my earlier posts, when I merely wanted to say sperm).

Semen is the medium for sperm. Zera is not semen and semen is not
Zera. Sperm... is Zera.

[Email #3. -mi]

Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Monday 20 October 2003 23:19, Harry Maryles wrote:
>> Semen is the medium for sperm. Zera is not semen and semen is not
>> Zera. Sperm... is Zera.

> First, although the resident English expert sides with your etymology of 
> semen, I must protest that this matter is not simple (anybody own an Oxford 
> English Dictionary here? Please report). Semen seems quite close to the 
> German Samen (pronounced zahmn), which means ... sperm.

I do not think it is arguable. Sperm is Zera and semen is the medium
wherein sperm is contained. It is basic reproductive biology.

> More importantly, and relevant to our discussion, where do you see
> that 'Hazal differentiated between the two?

They didn't. It is my belief that Chazal did not necessarily know all
the facts of nature. They did not have the means to know that semen was
only the medium and the microscopic sperm is the actual Zera. For this
they needed microscopes which had not yet been invented. Similiarly they
did not know about DNA and genetic testing. But these are scientific
facts now and one has to understnd that the Issur of Hashchasas Zera
by definiton must perforce mean the destruction of the specific part of
nature which is responsible for fertilizing the ovum... the sperm. Semen
cannot fertilize without containing sperm.

Whether Chazal knew or didn't know or understand that doesn't really
matter. The fact that they did not differentiate does not prove one way
or the other that there is a difference to them between semen and sperm
WRT to Halacha. It is my contention that the true definition of Zera,
i.e. sperm, is what determines the Issur. IOW had Chazal known they
would have refined the definition of Hashchasas Zera in this way.

HM

R Harry Maryles wrote:
>> (FWIW, I too would be very shocked if an entirely infertile man
>> was free from the issur of SZL.)

> I don't see why not. If sterility means no sperm production
> whatsoever, how are you destroying it? There may be other Issurim
> involved but you can't say that you are being Mashchis Zera if there
> is no Zera to be Mashchis.

I would be shocked for two reasons:

1- As I've posted here repeatedly, R' Dovid Lifshitz did make a general
klal out of halachah ignoring the microscopic. (Could someone let R'
Bleich know that someone else held of his chiddush?) As RDL is my rebbe,
finding out he was mistaken would surprise me.

2- Hashchasas zera levatalah isn't defined only procreatively. Why do
you assume that "zera" itself is? "Zera" is something that exists for
purposes other than "planting".

I think you're assuming too much based on the other meanings of the
word. Semen could be called "zera" simply because it's supposed to contain
sperm, rather than the word referring to sperm directly. The question,
as you point out, is that the meaning bifurcated since chazal's usage,
and now we need to know to which of the two halakhah refers.

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:34:27PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: You missed my point. I contend that in instances where there is
: absolutely no zera present, for example in a totally sterile
: individual, then any seminal emission would not constitute Haschasas
: Zera. Of course there is Hashchasas Zera if a fertile man takes a
: sperm killing contraceptive.

It's not a spermicide, it prevents production to begin with.

By your definition of zera, it's not hashchasah, it's prevention of anything
lezeroa'

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

In  Avodah V12 #17 dated 10/20/03  Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes:
> If a woman who would risk death by pregnancy would be forbidden to use
> contraceptives because that, too would risk death, would a man then be
> able to use contraceptives or would he require complete abstension? This
> woud mean that there would be no Ona'ah for the wife. ...

> We know that marital relations have two components, 1) procreation and
> 2) Ona'ah.....

R' Harry, you seem to be saying that marital relations involve "ona'ah"
for the wife, but that is so only if the husband is really mean to his
wife and says things like, "Are you ever going to get rid of that ratty
old housecoat?!" Or has his way with her over her protests (which no
gentleman would ever do, certainly no denizen of these august precincts).

I think the word you really meant was "onah," the duty of a Jewish man to
his wife, and not "ona'ah," the trap short-tempered tired men sometimes
unwittingly fall into.

 :-)

 -Toby Katz

does anybody know the reason why we don't say the 'sfeikeh dyomah' korban on 
the SECOND DAY of Sukkahs?
...since we ARE 'boki bkviyeh dyarche'...and we only do the second day yom 
tov as a decree of 'hizharu bminhag avoiseichem.'
we end up NEVER saying the actual korban for the second day Sukkahs...

Simcha G  

R Akiva Miller wrote:
> Shabbos is on its own as a parsha psucha, separate from the others.
> Rosh Chodesh, Pesach, and Shavuos are together in the next parsha
> psucha (separate from each other with a minor break). Rosh HaShana,
> Yom Kippur, the seven days of Sukkos, and Shmini Atzeres comprise
> the third parsha psucha (again, each day separate from the others by
> a minor break).

As I see it.

Shabbos is logically separate.

The spring holidays are being separated from the fall holidays. Those
that revolve around midas rachamim vs those that revolve around midas
hadin.

There is a strong structural parallel: Yom haKippurim is compared to
Purim by its name, Sukkos is gezeira shava 15:15 to Pesach, Shemini
Atzeres to Shavu'os's Atzeres.

As to why Purim therefore needed to be deRabbanan, why the 49 days
before Atzeres (starting from R"Ch Elul) has no halachic status and
includes the Yamim Tovim as opposed to Omer's "mimacharas hashabbos",
and other aspects of the parallel, see the devar Torah I put in our
shalach manos in 1996 at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/purim.html> and
the same basic thought with a Shemini Atzeres focus at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/shminiAtz.html>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

Does anybody know of a source for a solid discussion on "soneh matanos
yechie?" How does one reconcile this posuk with mishloah manot on
Purim? Let alone wedding gifts, etc.?

Thanks, 
Jake
jmarmer@randomhouse.com

gil@aishdas.org wrote:
> ...how can one be an aveil who would be patur from Sukkah?
> For someone who is R"L in aveilus before Yom Tov, the onset of Yom Tov
> ends of aveilus. For someone who R"L buries a relative on Yom Tov(or
> chol ha-moed), not sitting in the Sukkah would be public aveilus which
> is not allowed.

> Is the Gemara speaking of the metzi'us of aveilus rather than the din
> of aveilus? If so, someone months or even years after a relative's death
> might still have the metzi'us of aveilus.

Off the cuff I would say that the Gemmarh is speaking of the Metzius
and not the Halachic definition of an Avel. The fact is that someone who
just lost a parent, child or any loved one which would normally put one
into aveilus is filled with tremendous grief. The Halacha that dispenses
the requirement of Shiva does not remove the grief i.e. Tzar. This is
what the Gemmarrah is probably reffering to. Tzar is not a function
of Halacha. Tzar is a physical or emotional reality impacting on an
idividual in the same way rain is considered Tzar because it impacts on
an individual.

HM

R' Micha Berger asked <<< Which does R' Aqiva say "lifnei Mi atem
m'taharim" with a sheva under the mem of "m'taharim", or "mitaharim",
with a chiriq? Respectily, that would translate to "Before Whom are
you tahor" (besheva) vs "Before Whom do you render something tahor"
(bechiriq; from context, that something is ourselves).>>>

A similar question has bugged me for years in Mishna 3 of Bameh Madlikin:
"aino MITAMAY tumas ohalim". In my unlearned experience, I always tend
to think of mem-shva as an active verb (changing something the status of
something *else*, which is happening neither in Yoma nor in Shabbos),
and mem-chiriq as the preposition "from" (which is even further out of
context). I never quite knew how to understand these chiriqs.

TMALSS (to make a long story short), my Luach HaP'alim says that "mitaher"
(with a chiriq) is the simple hitpael form, which never would have
occurred to me (because of the lack of any tav), and I think the same
might be true of "mitamay".

So, the Mishna in Yoma, seems to make perfect sense: "Before Whom do
you purify yourselves?".

And I think we can fit the hitpael into tumas ohalim too. By tumas maga,
it is simply to say that the tamay object caused the tahor one to become
tamay. But by ohalim, perhaps we can say that the tahor object caused
itself to become tamay, by being together under the ohel with that
tamay object.

Akiva Miller

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
> Rav Yehuda Brandes once asked RSZ Auerbach whether a hiloni (secular
> Jew) touching the wine was a problem. RSZA's answer was first to send
> him to his own rav, then, when told that that rav had sent him to ask
> the question, he answered. and if that hiloni was drowning in the sea
> you wouldn't save him?

> Rav Brandes understood that to mean that current secular Jews have a
> different status than heretics and public sabbath violators did in the
> past - and just as we would save them, their touch doesn't make the
> wine forbidden.

I apologize if this has already been stated as I have not had the time
to read all of the discussion on this issue but this post moved me to
respond based on a "Shtikel Torah" I saw on Parshas HaAzinu.

Today's Issur is really also only about Stam Yeinam which is Mutar
M'deoraisa, but has a G'Zeira M'shum B'noseichem. Never-the-less the SA
(YD 124:8)states that a Mumar Yisrael, even if he is Mahul makes wine
Yayin Nesch through his/her touch.

Interestingly, The ShuT Mahri Ashkenazi (YD 16) writes that a Mumar
L'Chilul Shabbos B'Farhesia does NOT assur wine through touching. But the
vast majority of Poskim argue and say that a Mechallel Shabbos B'Farhesia
which is tantemount to being a Mumar L'Kol HaTorah Kula does indeed
make wine Yayin Nesech through touching. The Chasam Sofer explains that
even though there is no issue of M'Shum B'noseichem by a Mumar Yisroel
since their daughters are Mutar to us, nor is there an issue of it being
actual Yayin Nesech, never-the-less such an individual is treated as a
Goy Gamur and the wine given the same status as Yayin Nesech as a Knas.

This brings us to the issue at hand... Chilonim. The question is
whether they are considered Tinokos SheNishbu and whether that makes any
difference WRT the Knas. If they are not Mechallel Shabbos L'Hachis, the
Binyan Tzion argues that their wine should not be considered Assur since
they are not L'Hachis. But it is better to be Machmir if possible. The
Achiezer, R. Chaim Ozer, (3:25)agrees with the Binyan Tzion's Sevarah.

HM

RML
>To a Jew, the G-d of the  Philosophers makes
> no sense; the concept of the Perfect unmoved Mover does not exist in
> his language. Jewish philosophers while enriching us in so many ways,
> muddied the waters a great deal. 

This is a quite remarkable statement and value judgement - one might
argue that the G-d of the Philosphers made no sense in talmudic times,
but the statement as written - in the current tense - would write many
gdolim vetovim mimenu out of being Jews....

Furthermore, it is one thing to have this difference between static and
dynamic as one as one's own hashkafa, and one could make a reasonable
case for philosophy being a minor stream of thought. (Rav Berkovits
has expressed similar criticisms of medieval Aristotelianism)However,
the discussion was focusing on the limits of Orthodoxy - rather than
on what is true (or mainstream) hashkafa - (the latter discussion was
between RYGB and RDE) - and defining the limits of O versus C -and the
implication is quite clear that the author views the Moreh Nevuchim as
out of the O pale...

Meir Shinnar

[RML:]
<<To explain where I am coming form, I invoke the well described
difference between Hebrew and Greek epistemiology. Greek thinkers, as
other speakers of Indo-Eurropean languages, see the world in primarily
static terms. Something is or isn;t and syllogism is the way you determine
the truth of "is". Hebrew sees becoming as identical with being; in
other words. standing is just a stage in getting up. This is why amad
and kum mean both unlike English verbs stand/stand up.>>

Beautiful, but somewhat unconvincing, IMHO. Just because the above is
a description of Hebrew/Semitic (how is it in Arabic, RSM?), doesn't
mean that those who speak Hebrew think that way. To the Hebrew speaker,
it is also possible and plausible to think in "Greek" forms and simply
treat the statement of action and the state of being, both inherent in
the same verb, as homonyms.

Your statement would only be true if you would claim that it is Jewish
thought that influenced the Hebrew grammar, which in turn perhaps
limited extraneous developments in Jewish thought. Somehow, I would
sooner believe that Greek developed alternative verbs in order to solve
the difficulty of using these homonyms. IOW, a technical rather than
cultural/philosophical development.

Arie Folger

R Harry Maryles wrote:
> As I said there is much overlap but IMHO the dividing line has to be
> belief in Torah MiSinai as far as C and O are concerned.

As I've implied, I find myself on both sides of this issue.

I believe the divergence between C and O starts with a difference in
epistomology. The liberal Jew bought into the technological man's
focus on pragmaticism, empiricism, functionalism and the experimental
method. Things that can be subject to experimental proof (*) are
treated as more real than those whose proof is internal and can't be
shared.

(* Ironically, the experimental method never proves a theory. It
simply repeatedly fails to disprove it. Experiment only proves
negatives.)

They therefore bought into an epistomology that rules out the
possibility of miracle, prophecy or a revelation at Sinai before the
discussion even begins. The lack of belief in Torah miSinai (TmS) is
not the cause of the divergence. On that point I agree with RML. The
basic divergence is a difference in thought process that, followed
through to its logical conclusion, leads them to a difference in
ikkarim.

However, I also agree with RHM that the actual dividing line between
us is TmS. It's the point that would make their wine problematic
(minus tinoqos shenishbe'u issues and the machloqesin it causes).
People are often inconsistent. If someone happened to both have a
non-O epistomology and yet also believed in TmS, his wine is kosher
lekhol hadei'os AFAIK.

Then, because of a lack of belief in Torah miSinai (TmS), they can
then have the notion of a halakhhah that was always bent to historical
and political pressure, that it should continue to do so, and the rest
of their divergences.

>> Attitude is the best dividing line. Sometimes you can't define it
>> but, like obscenity, you know it when you see it.

> I disagree. Attitude is too amourphous to be a dividing line.

>> I beleive that the Chazal would be sympathetic to locate the
>> dividing line more in the realm of attitude and soul than in
>> philosophical positions that one holds. Granted, some things are
>> basic Torah facts but the factor that separates C and O is not so
>> much the content of their positions but how they arrived at them
>> To illustrate, if  a C holds an othodox position on issue 1 and a
>> reform position on issue 2, can you call him Othodox in one area
>> and reform in another? Clearly, one is a C or O Jew, not a holder
>> of C orr O positions. What makes one C or O Jew?

> It's like being a little bit pregnant. You can't be a little bit
> pregnant. You either are or you are not. Once you step across the
> clearly drawn line of apsotacy and believe that the Torah was
> written in Bavel by Man (Divinely inspired though he may have been)
> during the Mishnaic or Amaraic period, than you are no longer O. It
> doesn't matter then if you are Machmir on Chadash and drink only
> Chalav Israel. In fact Reconstructionism is a good example of that.
> They are very big on Mitzvah observance and encourage their flock to
> follow Halacha. The only problem with Reconstructionism is that it
> doewsn't accept the existence of God.

>> I am a mild fideist. I believe that feeling, faith and commitment
>> of belonging to a tradition make one an adherent. A Jew who knows
>> and keeps nothing but beleives in G-d and authority of the Sages

> One who accepts the authority of God but chooses not to observe any
> of the Mitzvos is a Mumar L'Kol HaTorah Kula unless if he is simply
> a total Am HaAretz in which case not observing anything is not his
> fault.

>> is
>> more in the fold that an educated, and doubting sceptic who
>> himself does not understand why he continues to hold on to a
>> worn-out
>> frayed thread of belief, despite himself. That is the paradigm of
>> Conservatism to me.

> If someone observes the Mitzvos but is skeptical then he may be more
> of a Jew than someone who believes in God, know that he should
> follow Halacha but refuses to do it. The observant skeptic at least
> conce=des the possiblity that his skeptisism may ultimately be
> incorrect. So he is observant.. just in case. I do not fault such an
> individual. He is simply unable to overcome his own intellectual
> doubts.

> This is different from someone who is an atheist but clings to
> Mitzvah observance for social reasons. I believe such a person has
> no Schar for doing Mitzvos.

> HM

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

For a list of scholars who believe that creation ex nihilo was implied
by the Rambam in his original formulation of the fourth principle, see
Menachem Kellner's Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought p. 57 and add to it
Marvin Fox, Interpreting Maimonides, p. 253.

Regardless, we have a late manuscript in the Rambam's own handwriting
in which he explicitly added belief in creation ex nihilo to the fourth
principle. This version can be found in the Qafah edition of Rambam's
Peirush Ha-Mishnayos. For details on the manuscript, see Kellner's Dogma
p. 240 n. 211.

Gil Student

RGS
> For a list of scholars who believe that creation ex nihilo was implied by
> the Rambam in his original formulation of the fourth principle, see
> Menachem Kellner's Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought p. 57 and add to it
> Marvin Fox, Interpreting Maimonides, p. 253.

> Regardless, we have a late manuscript in the Rambam's own handwriting in
> which he explicitly added belief in creation ex nihilo to the fourth
> principle.  This version can be found in the Qafah edition of Rambam's
> Peirush Ha-Mishnayos.  For details on the manuscript, see Kellner's Dogma
> p. 240 n. 211.

This is very nice, but irrelevant to the original point I was making.
There are several different issues.

1) What is the rambam's halachic position as formulated in the Mishne
Torah about ikkarim?
In the Mishne Torah, the rambam is very careful to use language consistent
with eternity, even with an Aristotelian understanding of eternity.
Every careful reader of the Mishne Torah agrees with this. This was
my point. THe rambam himself, in the more nevuchim, says that in his
hibburim hatalmudim he discusses things so that they are valid even from
an Aristotelian perspective.

2) What is the rambam's true position? Unclear. Many argue that he was
for a creationist viewpoint, others (Not just modern academics, but even
people such as ibn tibbon) argue that his real position (hidden) was
radically Aristotelian, others that he remained agnostic on this issue.

3) What is the rambam's formulation of the ikkarim in his perush
hamishnayot, a more popular, exoteric work? The simple pshat of ikkar
as formulated originally is consistent even with Aristotelian, although,
as RGS notes, some suggest that implicitly, he is for creation ex nihilio.

WRT to the later addition, many view it as specifically repudiating
Aristotelian kadmut, but not denying the platonic version - which he
explicitly held in the MOre Nevuchim to be compatible with the mesora
(see eg, Rav Shilat's edition of the hakdamot of the rambam - this is
not merely an academic version). The actual status of the ikkarim in
the rambam is, as RGS is surely aware, a matter of debate.

The origin of this was the claim, that in formulating the limits of
acceptable belief, we start with common axioms, and one axiom that was
suggested was that hashem was the boreh. I responded that even if one
believed that as true, this was not universally accepted, and is not
part of the mishne tora or the ikkarim formulated thereon,( even if one
wishes to understand the ikkarim in the perush hamishnayot otherwise
- it is hard to make something that is clearly subject to multiple
interpretations a universally agreed upon axiom). One can add that
there are many other rishonim who don't hold bria to be an axiom - eg,
the kuzari specifically says that it is permissible to believe that the
world was from eternal matter, and others (such as the ralbag) can be
easily added, therefore making this an axiom is quite problematic.

Meir Shinnar

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


[ 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         ]