Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 055

Wednesday, July 28 2004

• Re: Who was Iyov
• Re: nine days question
• The Dynamics of Anger
• Zivug;was Divine knowledge of future righteousness
• Re: Storks and Tzedakah
• RE: Storks and Tzedakah
• Re: Wearing tefillin on chol hamoed if you have moved to Israel
• Who was Iyov
• Re: Who was Iyov
• Re: Gilgul
• Re: ksav ashuris
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Tfillin not worn
• RE: source for "No Talmidei Chachamim b'zman haZeh" needed
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Iyov
• Re: The Dynamics of Anger
• ksav ashuris
• Re: ksav ashuris

In a message dated 7/26/2004 6:16:08 AM EDT, zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
> The problem with a literal interpretation of the narrative is that
> it makes Iyov's misfortunes (death of sons and loss of wealth) and
> suffering a result of a trivial seeming bet between GOD and the Satan....

One of a number of problems. Yet the majority view in the gemora seems
to be that he existed. Perhaps the problems with both approaches yielded
the Yerushalmi's pshara(SOTAH 5:20) he existed but the yissurin didn't,
and he was used in the story to tell us that had he received such yissurin
he would have been able to withstand them.

If it's already Tisha Baav in aretz, can one in the US still pray for
the geula shlaima to come so that this Tisha Baav be a true Moed?

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 7/26/2004 6:15:46 AM EDT, dannyschoemann@hotmail.com writes:
> What they have done in my shul (Chazon Ish) is to stop Lekha Dodi in the
> middle in order to usher in the aveilim (a few seconds) before sheki'ah.
> They then continue Lekha Dodi.

If the khal is accepting shabbbat at that point, what happens to Tosefet
Shabbat?

KT
Joel Rich

1. Vayikra 10:16: Anger ("va'yikzof") at Elazar and Itamar for not
eating the chatas in the aftermath of the death of Nadav v'Avihu--
nisalma mimenu halacha.

2. Bamidbar 31:14: "Va'yiktzof Moshe al pikudei he'chayil"--forgot
halachos of klei mateches.

3. Shemos 16:20--"va'yitktzof Moshe" on those who left over the mon,
and therefore forgot to teach hilchos shabbos.

Vayikra Rabbi (Margoliyos) 13 s.v. "R. Pinchas" collects these cases;
so does Yalkut Shimoni on Parshas Shmini 247:533.

I remember a passage in Midrash Shmuel on Avos that brings Moshe Rabbeinu
as an example that no one can always escape anger but I could not find
it. Anyone knows where it may be?

Also, it is of note that there are several tehilim that seem
to employ anger as a metaphor and seem to suggest that it
can be a positive emotion in certain circumstances. They
are 109, 83, 44. See an interesting article on this at
<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2096/is_2_52/ai_92285033>

M. Levin

[RnTK:]
> Zivug rishon and zivug sheini are not necessarily first and second
> marriage. Your first zivug is your ideal mate, your soul mate, the one
> the bas kol announces before you're born. Depending on your deeds and
> the way your character develops as you mature, you may or may not ever
> even meet this person. You may meet her but not choose to marry her.
> Your first wife may be your zivug sheini--the one you got because you
> didn't "earn" your zivug rishon, or the two of you just grew apart
> (without ever having met).

[Micha:]
> An interesting notion, but how does it fit our Rashi?

> Rashi concludes that zivug rishon is mazal, and zivug sheini is
> determined by zechus.

 From what I remember, R. H. Shechter many years ago said that the
Rishonim, maybe Meiri, explain that zivug rishon refers to early
marraige. At around 13 there are no zchusim yet and it goes by
mazal. Second marraige later n life is a time of accumulated zchusim
and that is why it goes by zchusim.

M. Levin

In a message dated 7/26/2004 6:15:58 AM EDT, zoorabbi@zootorah.com writes:
> As far as I know, the mitzvah
> of tzedakah for non-Jews is only due to darkei shalom

I think part of the issue ( dealt with by R'AL in several essays)
is the concept of "only due to darkei shalom". Interesting is that we
learn many "mitzvot" which we place under gmilut chesed but are not
clearly commanded on(eg bikur cholim) from Ma hu af atah (imitato dei)
and from maaseh avot siman labanim.

We don't characterize these as "only"!

KT
Joel Rich

> There's a famous idea that the stork is called Chasidah 
> because it acts with chesed to its companions, sharing food 
> with them....            As far as I know, the mitzvah of 
> tzedakah for non-Jews is only due to darkei shalom...

According to Rabbi Dovid Tzvi Hoffman zt"l (Hildesheimer Rosh Yeshiva and
well-known posek), darchei shalom is a different category to evah. The
Mishna in Gittin (e.g. 59a) and elsewhere uses darchei shalom to regulate
behaviour between Jew and Jew (not just between Jew and Gentile), e.g. you
may not steal from a deaf-mute. We do not refrain from robbing a deaf-mute
just in order to appear to be his good friend so that he will not hate us.

Thus darchei shalom is a positive active principle applicable to all
times.

Hence it does not say "mipnei hashalom" which would mean to obtain or seek
peaceful relations but rather "mipnei darchei shalom" (I think he means
to stress lashon "derech"), i.e. to create and promote ways of peace. This
also follows, he says, from the Rambam's codification of the Talmudic law:

"Even with respect to gentiles the Sages commanded that we visit their
sick and bury their dead with the dead of Israel and provide for their
poor together with the poor of Israel, out of "darchei shalom" (peace),
for it is written "G-d is good unto all and His mercies are upon all His
creatures", and it is written "(the Torah's) ways are ways of pleasantness
and all (its) paths are paths of peace".

The "ways of pleasantness" Mishlei quote is used in the Talmud for good
relations between Jew and Jew (e.g. Yevamos), and hence we have a positive
Shalom principle based on a verse in Tanach.

Of course, in the case of a Gentile who accepts the 7 Noachide commands
(the ger toshav), there is a positive command to sustain him. In the case
of a pagan, Emes and Din would say that to support him is to support
paganism. It is Shalom that comes along (as explained by R. Hoffman)
and overrides Din even in this case.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

R' Moshe Feldman asked <<< Someone ... asserted that minhag hamakom is
not a reason to be mevatel a din; it should impact just minhagim. >>>

Can you clearly identify the difference between a din and a minhag?

Isn't second day Yom Tov a din? According to that person's argument,
should an oleh continue to keep two days of Yom Tov?

Akiva Miller

> The problem with a literal interpretation of the narrative is that
> it makes Iyov's misfortunes (death of sons and loss of wealth) and
> suffering a result of a trivial seeming bet between GOD and the Satan....

I would agree with you except to qualify "literary device" somewhat. We
should say that someting like this conversation occurrd or we, I feel,
will go too far toward allegorizing scriptural lessons as merely "good
writing". There are others who feel differently; I am just expressing
my point of view.

There are other instances of such conversations, such as in Daniel.
They can't all be nothing more than literary devices. Here is one most
relevant:

Melachim 1, 22
King of Israel said to Jehoshaphat: 'Did I not tell thee that he would
not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?'

22:19 And he said: 'Therefore hear thou the word of the Lord. I saw the
Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him
on His right hand and on his left.

22:20 And the Lord said: Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and
fall at Ramoth-gilead. And one said: On this manner; and another said:
On that manner.

22:21 And there came forth the spirit, and stood before the Lord, and
said: I will entice him.

22:22 And the Lord said unto him: Wherewith? And he said: I will go forth,
and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said:
Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth, and do so.

22:23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth
of all these thy prophets; and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.'

M. Levin

R Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
> The problem with a literal interpretation of the narrative is that
> it makes Iyov's misfortunes (death of sons and loss of wealth) and
> suffering a result of a trivial seeming bet between GOD and the Satan.

If the idea is bothersome to you as history, why would it be appropriate
as a story? Wouldn't it imply the wrong lesson either way? (Albeit being
easier on your sense of justice to think there was no real victim.)

Second, and more importantly, your read of the begining of Iyov implies
a Gcd vs devil relationship that I find theologically problematic. I
think it reads even smoother if you see the Satan in his true role,
to provide challenges for human beings to overcome.

As I posted to scj once, a long time ago:

... G-d asks the Satan, "Have you put heart to my servant Job? For there
is none like him in the land, a pure and upright man, who fears G-d and
avoids evil."

The Satan's answer, "Does Job fear G-d while having nothing?" Has G-d not
given Job everything he needs for a happy life? Would job still serve G-d,
or curse him, if it were all taken away?

Note that these are all phrased as questions in the original. The
[Notzri] spin is to make these sarcastic rhetorical questions. But there
is no inidcation of that in the text. It's quite clear from the text
(if approached without prejudice) that G-d and the Satan aren't having
a duel, but are cooperating to develop Job to his maximum potential.

G-d notes to the Satan that Job has grown all he could in his current
role, the Satan -- the Challenger -- notes that Job never had to deal
with serving G-d from a position of a have-not.

So, G-d approves this mission.

Later in that discussion I pointed out that Iyov himself is never let in
on this discussion. Why not? Isn't it the answer to his question "Why me?"

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R Seth Mandel wrote:
> This should not come as a surprise to anyone. It is well known that
> the Ari did not invent the idea of gilgulim. the question is how did
> they come to pre-expulsion Spain, when they were not mentioned at all
> by earlier rishonim...

Umm, ha'atakah /is/ mentioned by Rav Saadia Gaon (Emunos veDei'os 6:8) --
and he also explains who he believes it reached the source that reached
pre-expulsion spain. But I don't think RSBA's friend R' Shmuel would
apprectiate this shitah.

My point being that it's not merely wondering about the silence. The
only early source we have (barring the Zohar, Mishpatim) is anti!

-mi

Gil Student wrote:
> See the last section of this essay:
> <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet9.html>

There is also my post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n113.shtml#03>. Not as well
written or thought out, but still somewhat informative.

See also R' Nosson' Scherman's appendix to R' Munk's seifer on
alef-beis. He discusses the machloqes Bavli and Y-mi as to whether it was
the mem and samech which had middle peices floating within the luchos
(B) or ayin and tes (Y). He gives the Radvaz's answer, in essence the
same as RGS's article.

As for the name Ashuris, the medrash says that two people of Avraham's
generation didn't participate in building Migdal Bavel: Avraham and
Ashur. We were left speaking the pre-tower language. Ashur got two
rewards: the sacred alphabet, and Yonah's trip to Nineveh. The medrash
takes for granted that Ashuris means "Assyrian".

The problem I have with this opinion is that it is overkill: Now, instead
of asking why Ashur had the sacred script, we have to explain why they
/don't/ have the sacred language. Their claim to Hebrew should be as
strong as ours.

The Ritva says they lifted it from a sacred Jewish text, but then the
Assyrians maintained the script when we did not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In Avodah V13 #54 dated 7/26/04  Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> 
writes:
> Michtav M'Eliyahu (2:75): Hashgocha protis (individualized Divine
> Providence) is only relevant for a person on the high spiritual level of
> serving G-d without ulterior motivations. ... In contrast
> hashgocha clallis (general Divine Providence) is for those who don't
> serve G-d at all or serve Him in a mechanical fashion without any inner
> awareness. ....

My understanding is that Divine Hashgacha does extend to every individual,
but is clothed in natural laws, and is made manifest only for tzaddikim,
for whom open miracles, or incredible coincidences that are close to
miraculous, do sometimes occur.

An example of a miracle is in Yaffa Eliach's book *Hasidic Tales of
the Holocaust* in which a Nazi soldier walked right by a car in which a
tzaddik (fugitive) was sitting and not only did not see the tzaddik--he
did not even see the car. (I'm sorry I don't remember who the tzaddik
was.)

For the rest of us, everything that happens follows the laws of nature,
including catching colds, getting into accidents, and so on, but Hashgacha
continues to operate unseen, behind the door. Who catches the cold that's
going around, who doesn't? Whose car skids on an icy road and hits another
car--whose car narrowly misses? Seemingly random, not so in reality.

Among other things, this explains why tefilla can be efficacious, and
is certainly not considered an exercise in futility--even when uttered
by or for a person who is just a beinoni (most of us).

To be honest I don't know whether I am interpreting R' Dessler or
disagreeing with him. I would not dare to do either, if not that I had
been taught a certain understanding of how G-d deals with us--possibly
a chassidish way of looking at it?

"Hakol b'yedei Shomayim chutz miyir'as Shomayim" certainly implies a
non-randomness to the flow of events. I don't know how that fits into
the Hashgacha pratis-vs-klallis rubric.

 -Toby Katz
=============

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Recently came across this statement in the Michtav M'Eliyahu that is
> relevant to a discussion we had a while back. This statement could
> readily have been written by the Rambam and the other rishonim.

> Michtav M'Eliyahu (2:75): Hashgocha protis (individualized Divine
> Providence) is only relevant for a person on the high spiritual level of
> serving G-d without ulterior motivations....

The problem is (as I noted in that discussion) the MmE is using HP to
mean something different than the Rambam does. According to REED, teva
is an illusion. Therefore, his discussion of a lack of HP for the rest of
us doesn't mean something nearly as lesseiz fair as the Rambam's position.

-mi

R Saul Mashbaum wrote:
> On the contrary, tefillin is the classic mitzva chiyuvit....
> Not putting on tefillin is a bitul mitzvat aseh. There most certainly
> is an issur in non-performance.

First, bitul would imply choosing non-peformance, not risking one's life
to perform.

Second, do you wear one of the candidates for techeiles? If not, may I
ask why not? After all, according to your position, it's a chance that's
you're being oqeir mitzvah beyadayim, and therefore a safeiq de'Oraisa
of violating a chiyuv as strict as milah...

> The mitzva is tefillin is not dependent on the mitzva of qriat shma,
> as RMB suggests.

But there is a mechzei problem if he says shema without them.

>>Unlike the mitzvos for which we did risk our necks, such as milah, where
>> there is an issur involved in non-performance.

> There are surely significant differences between milah and tefillin,
> but as far as the chiyyuv is concerned, they seem to me to be virtually
> the same.

Notice, though, I'm focusing on the lack of issur, not presence of
chiyuv.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R Akiva Atwood wrote:
> To qualify my question:
> The article claimed that, even today, all things being equal, Talmidei
> Chachamim get tzedakah funds before a non-T.C.

Having more context would have helped. I was thinking of dinim of behavior
and dress that are mandatory on talmidei chachamim. That quite likely
has gone the opposite direction bizeman hazah: anyone recognizable as an
O Jew is a "talmid chacham" and an almost-rabbi in the eyes of the rest
of the Jewish world. I would think the dinim should apply to all of us.

-mi

Micha Berger wrote:
>>Michtav M'Eliyahu (2:75): Hashgocha protis (individualized Divine
>>Providence) is only relevant for a person on the high spiritual level of
>>serving G-d without ulterior motivations....

>The problem is (as I noted in that discussion) the MmE is using HP to
>mean something different than the Rambam does. According to REED, teva
>is an illusion. Therefore, his discussion of a lack of HP for the rest of
>us doesn't mean something nearly as lesseiz fair as the Rambam's position.

Your assertion that Rav Dessler has a different vision of HP than the
Rambam has to contend with the fact that at the end of the piece I
quoted Rav Dessler says: "Look at the Rambam Moreh Nevuchim (3:17-18)
and in the introduction to the Mishna where the Rambam comments on
"G-d has nothing in His world except for the 4 amos of halacha as well
as the Seforno (Tazriah 13:47)... "

Moreh Nevuchim (3:18): Divine Providence is not equal for everyone but
rather is proportional to their spiritual level. Consequently the Divine
Providence for the prophets is extremely powerful each according to
their level of prophecy. The Divine Providence for the pious and saintly
is according to their level of perfection. In contrast the fools and
the rebels lacking spirituality are in essence in the same category
as animals... This concept that Divine Providence is proportional
to spiritual level is one of foundations of Judaism... The fact that
some people emerged unscathed by calamities while others are harmed is
not the result of their physical prowess and natural abilities. It is
entirely dependent upon their degree of perfection or imperfection. In
other words whether they are close or far from G-d. Those who are close
have absolute protection while those who are far are totally bereft of
any protection from the inevitable calamities that occur. They are like
someone walking in the dark and without a doubt will come to grief...

Rambam(Introduction to Mishna): Purpose of the Unlearned There is still
one problem: You may ask, "You have just told me that divine wisdom does
not create anything useless, everything has a purpose. You also said
that man is the preeminent creature, and was created for the purpose of
conceiving thoughts and ideas. Now, if that is the case, why did Hashem
call into being all those people who cannot form a creative thought? ...
Those ignorant people were created for two reasons: The first reason
is to attend to the needs of that one wise man. If all human beings
were thinkers and philosophers the world economy would be destroyed ...
Therefore, the rest of mankind was created to provide all the services of
a smooth-running society so that the scholar's needs are met, the nation's
economy will function well, and scholarship will flourish. How apt is the
saying, "If it were not for the foolish the world Would lay in ruin." ....

Seforno (Vayikra 13:47): ... however those who are spiritually insensitive
who have no interest to know this matter they are like the goyim and
most of the Jewish people except for some exceptions. They are under
the influence of nature and the constellations...they are like the other
animals who lack individual Divine Providence except according to their
species because they only fulfill G-d will on the level of the species...

Rav Dessler also states (2:180): ... The Rema at the beginning of
Orech Chaim quotes the Moreh Nevuchim ... If Torah and mitzvos are our
life mamash - ... and we are immersed in them day and night without
interruption then our sages tell us that the angel of death has no
influence over the person who doesn't interrupt his learning at all...

There is no question that he is in agreement with the Rambam and Seforno
since he is quoting them. If he disagreed he would need to state such -
which he doesn't. I also found that the Malbim and the Meshech Chochma
specifically state that their understanding of HP is based on the Moreh
Nevuchim. [citations available]. Regarding Ravv Dessler's concept of
teva [see 3:164]. He simply states that G-d runs teva but we just see
the teva - the laws of nature. He apparently does not see an inherent
contradiction between his view and that of the Rambam.

Your alternative explanation might be to say that all entitites have HP
but some entities have more than others - which is the position of the
Shomer Emunim HaKadmon and the Lubavitcher Rebbe. [Similar to the idea we
are all equal but some of us are more equal than others ] However I agree
with the criticism of this idea by the Munkatcher - once you acknowledge
greater and lesser HP than we get back to the Rambam's concept.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 02:16:57AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: There is no question that he is in agreement with the Rambam and Seforno
: since he is quoting them...

That doesn't resolve my dilemma, though.

To the Rambam, Moreh II ch 17, teva is a thing to which man can be
abandoned.

To REED, teva is a pattern that hides G-d's Hand, but not different in
kind to other divine interventions. And therefore HP is, as RnTK wrote
was her own opinion, a willingness to stretch that pattern even if it
makes Him a little more apparant.

While they may agree (in REED's opinion) on who gets HP, I don't see
how it's possible for them to agree on what HP is without agreeing on
what the alternative is.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha@aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Micha Berger wrote:
>To the Rambam, Moreh II ch 17, teva is a thing to which man can be
>abandoned.

>To REED, teva is a pattern that hides G-d's Hand, but not different in
>kind to other divine interventions. And therefore HP is, as RnTK wrote
>was her own opinion, a willingness to stretch that pattern even if it
>makes Him a little more apparant.

>While they may agree (in REED's opinion) on who gets HP, I don't see
>how it's possible for them to agree on what HP is without agreeing on
>what the alternative is.

I agree with your question and have no answer for it. But the fact remains
that Rav Dessler clearly viewed his concept of HP as that of the Rambam.
Your question is also relevant to other achronim whose concept of Teva
differs from the Rambam - but nevertheless assert that they agree with
the Rambam concerning HP. On the other hand I don't see it is more
problematic than those who assert that HP applies to all but that some
have more HP than others. Either way assertions are being made without
acknowledging that logically the package can't hold together.

Daniel Eidensohn

> The problem with taking the Iyov narrative literally is not that a
> righteous man is made to suffer. History has many examples of righteous
> people who suffered greatly. In such cases, we assume that these are
> "yesurim shel ahava"; that Hashem desires to have the righteous person
> rise above his current level of divine service. Iyov's friends were not
> aware of this possiblity and judged Iyov as meriting his misfortunes
> and sufferings.

Something that struck me when reading Iyov yesterday - this is probably
not a new question, but it is highlighted even more by these statements.

Saying that Iyov was oved miyir'a is not necessarily pshat based.
Yire elohim is applied also to Avraham I believe. The opening Heavenly
narrative may be (this is just my guess) simply to bring the whole
question into sharper focus for the reader. Iyov really is a tzadik,
and HKBH even boasts about it to the Satan. The yisurim as far as we
can understand are more or less arbitrary. It is impossible for us to
fathom the reason for them, and we must assert, as Iyov does that Hashem
is truly the tzadik, and that any perception of injustice is merely our
lac of understanding, even though we have supposedly been privy to the
'real' truth of the situation, this cannot be the whole story.

It is clear from the narrative that Iyov and his friends do not now off
any concept of Olam HaBa, neither are they awar of any 'yisurin shel
ahava'. They assume the straightforward theology, as presented by the
pshat of the Torah: s'char va'onesh in this world. According to this,
the truly righteous should not suffer. The friends try and do 'tziduk
hadin' by saying that Iyov must have sinned, and Iyov rejects this.
Finally HKBH informs Iyov that he is not truly in a position to judge
and must therefore simply accept his fate.

Firstly, not even HKBH deigns to explain yisurin shel ahava, doesn't
this call into question that whole doctrine? In fact doesn't Iyov call
into question any attempt to explain tzadik v'ra lo? Why then do we
even find this tackled by later sources in a seemingly superficial way?
And how does Olam HaBa fit into this? Furthermore the friends comments
are rejected as imputing evil to HKBH, how does this reflect on the
later attempts to resolve the question?

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:22:43AM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Also, it is of note that there are several tehilim that seem
: to employ anger as a metaphor and seem to suggest that it
: can be a positive emotion in certain circumstances...

Doesn't this get into the question of the tzadiq in pereq 1 meiHil'
Dei'os, for whom the shevil hazahav always applies, and the chasid of
pereq 2 who seeks extremes when it comes to anavah and ka'as?

Another question is wherther the shevil hazahav is the middle of both
or the presence of both extremes simultaneously. The latter fits the
Rambam's description of the reason for the shevil hazahav, that every
middah that exists does so because it's manifest in our perception of
Hashem, and therefore mah Ani af atah would requiring manifesting both.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Avi Burstein (betera@012.net.il) posted on: Jul 26, 2004: 
> ... the script that we use to write a sefer torah - commonly known as
> "Ksav Ashuris" ... I had just naturally assumed ... was THE
> official style of how a sefer torah had always been written ... What is the
> earliest known source for using that style of script? ...Is there more to
> this issue than is commonly taken for granted?>

Rav Yosef Albo's Sefer HaIkkarrim discusses this issue at length.

Zvi Lampel 

I would like to contribute that R. Yakov Kaminetcki in his Emes L;Yakov at
teh end suggests that you get 600.000.00 by counting only the yodin. Each
letter can be seen as being made up of yud's. he goes through the count
and comes out with 600.00.00 yuds.

This is a Kabbalistic idea.

M. levin

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


[ 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         ]