Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 079

Wednesday, February 9 2005

• Adar I
• Re: It recently became kefira
• RE: A of the U
• Using a doctor-Chasam Sofer
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• RE: Seudat Purim on Friday
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronology
• Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Pakod Pakadti
• Re: Mezuzah
• Torah and Science
• Re: lice eggs (again)
• Abortion
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronology

In the shul I davened in this past Shabbat, the chazzan for musaf,
when saying birchat hachodesh, referred to the (then) upcoming month as
"Adar Aleph". It is clear to me that l'chatchila this is not what should
have been said; the established practice, cited by the Mishna Brura,
is to say "Adar Rishon", (or "Adar Harishon"); the Rama says to say
"Adar" for the first month, and "Adar Sheni" for the second. I saw no
one who says to say "Aleph" or "Bet".

My question is, does saying Adar Aleph have any merit at all? Is
this an acceptible substitute for Adar Rishon, at least bdiavad? (It
is possible that "Aleph" may be considered equivalent to "Rishon",
as it is colloquially) If Adar Aleph were written in a get, would
it invalidate it? (I saw in the Nachalat Shiva that Adar Rishon is
what should be written; he doesn't relate to the term Adar Aleph).
What about a financial document which is pasul if the date is wrong,
would Adar Aleph pasul it?

It *may* be that Adar Aleph is kasher (since one need not say anything
beyond Adar), and Adar Bet is not (one cannot write Adar alone instead
of Adar Sheni, according to our psak, against the Rambam).

Any ideas?
Saul Mashbaum       

RDIC <bdcohen@optonline.net> wrote:
> How does this apply to those today who try to do things l'chol hadeos --
> e.g. those that put on Rabbenu Tam tefilin in addition to rashi's. Hasn't
> the normative halacha determined that the correct mesora (by majority
> opinion) is Rashi tefilin, and that, the subsequent wearing of Rabbenu
> Tam tefilin is to follow an incorrect rejected or discarded opinion
> which should not be relied upon.

The gemara calls someone who follows both batei Shammai and Hillel,
combining them lechumrah, a chamor who sits in the dark. The first part is
an obvious pun, the second, a reference to what such a person's Shabbos
would be like.

But that's not someone who accepts the ruling of beis Hillel, but chooses
-- qua personal lifnim mishuras hadin -- to also do what beis Shammai
said. In that case, he's not defying halachic practice, but using a
rejected position as a suggested "qadeish es atzmekha" while recognizing
it's still "mah shemutar lakh".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR ** wrote:
> 1. Where does ma'aseh breishis end? Adam? Chava? Gan Eden expulsion? Who
> decides?

Machlokes. The two extrema quoted here in the past: Maharal says it ends with
Vayechulu (note the word!). R' ZY Kook says it ends with Lekh Likha.

> 2. We need to define TSPB. Do you include midrash? Rishonim? And again:
> Who decides?

Our religion is fraught with machlokes. Identifying grey area doesn't
invalidate a definition.

In this case, I would personally recursively include anything that grew
out of TSBP. So that it's a growing stream starting with MRa"h.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

At the urging of Micha, I am sharing this idea I saw in the Chasam Sofer
al HaTorah for Parshas Mishpatim.
(Micha, if I am misquoting anything please correct me)
The pesukim say "Ki Yirivun anashim v'hicah ish as rayaihu....rak shivto
v'rapo yirapeh"

The Chasam Sofer says

Why does the possuk start out with "Ki Yirivun anashim". Let it just
say "Person A hurt person B". The Chasam Sofer answers that really
one should not go to a doctor. The reshus was only given to go to a
doctor for someone whom HKBH wouldn't cure. He then quotes a possuk
that such a person is one who isn't involved in shalom. Therefore,
the Torah specifically states "Ki Yirivun anashim...v'rapo yirapeh"
because only one who was involved in a fight can't rely on HKBH to heal
him but rather he must go to a doctor.

[An article forwaded by R' Yisrael Dubitsky. -mi]

There are several questions which come up as a result of the discussion.

1. What does Seder Olam say about the Persian period?

(The correct name is Seder Olam, as found in the Bavli and in the
vast majority of the works of the Rishonim; the name Seder Olam Rabbah
developed in the Middle Ages to distinguish between the rabbinic work
Seder Olam and the post-rabbinic work Seder Olam Zuta. It entered general
usage as a result of being used by the printers of the first edition,
Mantua 1514).

There is absolutely no doubt that Seder Olam states in chapter 30 that
the Persian period (defined as the period from the conquest of Babylon by
Cyrus until the advent of Alexander of Macedon) lasted 52 years. It is not
true that "the majority of printed editions and manuscript editions of the
SOR actually write that the Persian reign was 210 or 250 years". In fact,
only the above-mentioned first printed edition -- and subsequent printed
editions based upon this edition -- have the number 250, while ten other
witnesses to the text, ranging from the 9th century to the 16th, all have
52. In addition, in chapter 29 Seder Olam says that the destruction of
the Temple lasted 70 years, 52 until they arrived in Eretz-Israel (upon
the proclamation of Cyrus), and then 18 years for the reigns of Cyrus,
Achashuarosh, and the first two years of Darius, until the beginning of
the building of the Second Temple. (Actually, the numbers come to 19,
but earlier in the chapter Seder Olam told us that the three years of
Cyrus were incomplete -- "mequta'ot"). Add these 18 years to the 34
years noted in chapter 30 as the number of years that Persian Empire
reigned while the Temple was standing, and we come to 52. Furthermore,
Seder Olam states towards the end of chapter 28 that the entire period
between the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the
Second Temple lasted 490 years (a tradition to which we will return), and
this of course presupposes 52 years for the entire Persian period. These
490 years are divided there in two ways, one of them being the famous
division of 70 years of the destruction and 420 years that the Second
Temple stood, and this of course is the basis for the tradition in
other works of rabbinic literature (see Tosefta Zevahim 13:6 (p. 499),
Yerushalmi Megilla 1:14 (72d), Bavli Yoma 9a)

Seder Olam further states that there were only three kings to Persia,
the above-mentioned Cyrus, Achashuarosh, Darius -- and an additional
King of the Medes, also named Darius, who was the actual conqueror of
Babylonia and according to the chronology of Seder Olam gets no year
for his own. This is stated twice in Seder Olam, once in chapter 28 when
elucidating Daniel 11:1-2 and the second time very explicitly in chapter
30, "you find for Persia only three kings, and for Media one."

Seder Olam does not claim "that Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes were one
king." This is found in Bavli Rosh Ha-Shana 3b, and in the above-mentioned
first printed edition of Seder Olam (and two related manuscripts), but
is missing in the seven other witnesses to Seder Olam, and was clearly
introduced into the printed text (and its relatives) on the basis of
the Bavli text. All Seder Olam says is that "the entire (institution of)
kingship was called Artahshastah". There seem to be several reasons for
the generation of this conclusion: (1) one king called Artahshastah seems
to favor the Jews while another called the same name obstructs them;
(2) only is this way can he arrive at 52 years for the Persian period,
for if the Artahshastah of Nehemiah is not the Darius of the building
of the Temple, it is impossible to arrive at 52 years.

2. An unstated question: what is Seder Olam?

As noted above, Seder Olam is mentioned a number of times in the Bavli;
twice it says: "ma'n tanna' seder 'olam rabbi yose hi'"; "Who taught
Seder Olam? It was R. Yose". This attribution to R. Yose (ben Halafta),
of the generation before R. Yehudah Ha-Nasi', makes Seder Olam the oldest
rabbinic work we have. (This is not the place to discuss various possible
questions upon and objections to this conclusion; I will just note that
300 or so pages of my introduction to Seder Olam -- presently in press --
deal with the questions of genre, date, attribution, etc.).

3. Are these statements in SO meant to be taken as historical facts?

Seder Olam deals just about exclusively with dates and ages, e.g. in
chapter 1 it tells us that when the Dispersion (ha-palagah) occurred,
that Avraham returned to Haran and spent five years there, that the
same year of famine (and went to Egypt for three months) was the year
Avraham defeated the four kings, that Sodom was inhabited 51 years in all,
etc. In later chapters he details all the years of the judges (the problem
with which he is faced is fitting them all into the 480 years of 1 Kings
6:1), the years of the kings of Judah, and the contradictions between the
books Kings and Chronicles. As opposed to the norm in rabbinic midrash,
where the message is clearly at least a main intent, all we have here
are facts. Of course chronological statements can have ulterior, sublime
motivation (good examples can be found in Bavli Megillah 16b-17a and
in the Tanhuma-type midrash found in the printed editions of Bereshit
Rabba 56:8), but to suggest that an entire work, of which 99% contain
only historical facts, was not meant to tell us historical facts is to
my mind implausible in the extreme.

4. The theological question: is it a valid position within Jewish
tradition to reject the historicity and facticity of statements meant
by Chazal to be taken as historical facts?

This of course is the thorny issue, one which often raises the
temperature. What I do is very simple -- point to the Ramban. Chazal
have only one position with regard to the number of years that Bnei
Yisrael were in Egypt -- 210, and they have only explanation for the
400 years of Genesis 15:13 -- from the birth of Yitzchok, and only one
explanation for the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 -- from the "brit beyn
ha-betarim". (The fact that Avraham was clearly in Eretz Kena'an for the
berit, when 70 years old, but according to Genesis 12:4 left Haran when
he was 75 years old, generated the above-mentioned conclusion that he
returned to Haran for 5 years). Put very simply, the Ramban on Exodus
12:40 does not accept this; he offers three alternative explanations
and according to all of them Bnei Yisrael were not in Egypt for 210 years.

Now I am aware that this is not the end of the theological question. Some
will possibly suggest, "well, maybe the Ramban can do that, but we
cannot", and others will say, "well, the Ramban clearly thought that
this was a midrashic-aggadic statement, but if he would have thought
that Chazal meant historical fact, then of course he would have accepted
it". To me however, the evidence is overwhelming: very, very many Rishonim
clearly believe that there is no problem is not accepting historical
reconstructions proffered by Chazal.

5. What is the evidence for the generally accepted chronology that the
Persian period lasted approximately 200 years?

Here Reuven Manbar did quite a good job, though not all the texts prove
something. In a later posting of his, he made the important point that
the crucial question at this point is not to prove all the details of the
generally accepted chronology, but to see if the Seder Olam statement
of 52 years for the entire Persian period is rendered problematic by
the evidence.

The two most crucial pieces of evidence are the Canon of Ptolemy and
Saros List. The Canon of Ptolemy, composed in the 2nd century CE by the
Egyptian astronomer of that name, lists all the names of the rulers of
Babylon -- Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek -- (from the days of
Nabonasser (747 BCE according to the accepted chronology) until Ptolemy
I, and then lists Ptolemy's descendents and the Roman Emperors until his
day. Interestingly enough, this list was well-known in the world of late
antiquity, but only by astronomers, and not by historians. It was only
the great polymath of the 16th century, Josef Scaliger, who realized how
incredibly important this canon was for the reconstruction of ancient
history from the days of Nabonasser on. Ptolemy has on occasion been
accused of fudging his astronomical data -- to make his mathematics work
out with his astronomical data (and I must confess to my complete and
total incompetence in this matter and my consequent inability to judge
anything written about this question) -- but nobody of any consequence
has suggested that he tampered with the regnal years list. (The main
attack on Ptolemy can be found in Robert R. Newton. The crime of Claudius
Ptolemy, Baltimore 1978; most scholars find his arguments underwhelming,
though not of no substance at all). On Ptolemy's Canon still important is
F.K. Ginzel, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, I,
Leipzig 1906, pp. 138-143; and see: J. Neuffer, 'An Egyptian Time Scale
and Old Testament Chronology', in The Archaeology of Jordan and Other
Studies Presented to Siegfried H. Horn, ed. L.T. Geraty & L.G. Herr,
Berrien Springs 1986, pp. 547-578; C. Walker, 'Achaemenid Chronology
and the Babylonian Sources', in Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian
Period: Conquest and Imperialism 539-331 BC, ed. J. Curtis, London 1997,
pp. 17-25; L. Depuydt, '"More Valuable Than All Gold": Ptolemy's Royal
Canon and Babylonian Chronology', JCS, 47 [1995], pp. 97-117.

The Saros Table lists the regnal years of a 18-year cycle of specific
types of solar and lunar eclipses, and contains the following years:
Nabonid 7, Cyrus 8, Darius 9, Darius 27, Xerxes 9, Artaxerxes 6, Darius
1, Darius 19, Artaxerxes 18, Artaxerxes 39, Omas (=Ochus) 8, Darius
3, Anti (=Antigonus 2), Se (=Seleucus) 15, Se (=Seleucus) 33, until
Seleucus 213. This tablet was published already in the 19th century;
see J.N. Strassmaier, 'Einige chronologische Daten aus astronomischen
Rechnungen', ZA, 7 (1892), pp. 199-200; idem, 'Zur Chronologie der
Seleuciden', ZA, 8 (1893), p. 106; and much more recently: Astronomical
Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, V, Lunar and Planetary Texts,
edited by H. Hunger, including materials by A.J. Sachs, with an appendix
by J.M. Steele, Vienna 2001, pp. 84-87, 394; see also F. X. Kugler,
Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel: Assyriologische, astronomische und
astralmythologische Untersuchungen, II. Buch: Natur, Mythus und Geschichte
als Grundlagen Babylonischer Zeitordnung, nebst eingehenden Untersuchungen
der Aelteren Sternkunde und Meteorologie, II.2, Muenster 1924, pp. 362-366
[162-166]; A. Sachs, 'Achaemenid Royal Names in Babylonian Astronomical
Texts', AJAH 2 (1977), pp. 129-147.

(By the way, the most astonishing thing about the Heifetz article
in Megaddim many years ago is that it seems that he spent months --
or perhaps even years -- delving into the question of the Persian
period in Chazal, and seems never to have discovered the basis for the
generally-accepted chronology).

6. What is the basis for the Seder Olam statement?

One of the bases -- sometimes made explicit and sometimes not -- for
preferring (I am talking about from a presumed historical point of view
and not from the point of accepting the authority of Chazal) the Seder
Olam chronology is that it surely must be true, for after all where could
it have come from, if not from an ancient Jewish historical tradition.

In this context, it should be noted that Chazal have just about no
information about the Second Temple period. First Maccabees was written
in Hebrew; possibly a copy of the Hebrew original was still seen by the
Church father Jerome; Chazal were supremely uninterested in it. Indeed,
they were supremely uninterested in all history. Biblical history
was essential of course, but not as history -- as Bible, the word of
ha-qadosh baruch hu to his people. History written and told by man --
any person -- was of supreme unimportance.

 From where then does the 52 years of the Persian Empire come? From
biblical interpretation. I noted above that towards the end of chapter 28
Seder Olam that the entire period between the destruction of the First
Temple to the destruction of the Second Temple lasted 490 years. The 70
years of the churban were a biblical given. The period from the Greek
conquest until their own day could be easily determined because of the
in-general-usage Seleucid Era (minyan ha-shetarot), which was taken to
have begun soon after the onset of the reign of Alexander and was not
connected to the reign of Seleucus, and that tells us that approximately
380 years passed from the Greek conquest, so that leaves us a maximum
of 40 years during the Second Temple period that the Persians reigned,
and after it was accepted that six years passed between the conquest and
the beginning of this era (this is an interesting point, but basically
irrelevant to the question under discussion here), the conclusion was
that it was only 34 years. Add to these years the 18 years of Persian
reign before the building of the Second Temple (see above) and we arrive
at 52 years. That's it.

From: Alan Rubin <alan@rubin.org.uk>
> With all this learned talk about Persian genealogies, astronomical
> dating and counting Molads can anyone explain what happened to Greek
> history. There doesn't appear to be time in SOR for the Greek-Persian
> wars, Marathon, Salamis, Platea then the Peloponnesian Wars. Since this
> period starts with a Greek war against Darius and ends with the rise of
> Alexander it appears that SOR requires us to dispense with most of
> classical Greek history.

I agree it is a problem. One solution sometimes used by some of those
who believe in the literal meaning of SOR dating is that all those events
took place prior to the Persian conquest of Babylon.That is Babylon fell
in about 371 BCE, about 100+ years after the Greek-Persian wars and the
names of the Persian Kings in the 370-311 period were simply repeats of
earlier names.

This still doesn't solve the question of the dating of Alexander's
conquest of Judea, which takes place, according to SOR, in 319
BCE. According to the Greek Historians Alexander died in 323 BCE.

I think that many SOR literalists simply say that Greek History is
unreliable.

I think R"n Lisa and RYGB can probably give better answers to your
question than I can.

[Moderator's note: If was nice to see people welcome Lisa to the
list (RAM did so on list). However, she is participating in this one
discussion as a historian who brings an O perspective to her work, and
has not joined. Her contributions here are in reply to CC-ed comments --
so remember to CC <lisa@starways.net> when you reply to this thread. -mi]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 10:50:06PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: Indeed. How do we? We know that not all aggada is meant to be taken
: literally. And the Rambam's son had some choice words about people who
: take it all literally...

I don't know about RA ben haRambam, but the Rambam himself has some pretty
harsh things to say. A couple of pages before the ikkarei emunah, in his
introduction to Sanhedrin's pereq Cheileq (123b, bottom of col 1; which is
technically 123c since amud # should be column number). The Rambam speaks
of three katim of people WRT aggadita. The first two are NOT complimented.

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 03:48:35PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
:>So what you are saying is that these collisions changed the period of Mars 
:>and all this occurred about 2300-2400 years ago. Is that correct?

: Why 2300-2400 years ago? Oh..., I get it. You've confused me with
: Immanuel Velikovsky...

Actually 2400 yrs ago is too late for Velikovsky. But it is contemporary
with binyan bayis sheini, the time in question.

:                                     .... The same conventional chronology
: that snaps the chain of Torah transmission between Baruch and Ezra also
: adds an additional 30 years right smack in the middle of the most heavily
: chronologized section of our history...

This line hit me quite strongly. The idea of a gap in the chain of mesorah
would be quite significant. If it were accidental. R' Shwab's proposal,
hava amina if you'd prefer, was that it was an intentional elision. IOW,
it's not a flaw in our mesorah because the chain was known even when we
reached the far end of what we now call the break, it was buried.

On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 11:39:20PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: You are not quite correct on that account. In order to be in sync with
: the 420 year count Rabbi Schwab must (and does) conclude that the Temple
: actually stood for 585 years, but that the number was truncated to 420,
: for some unknowable reason - indeed, for some counterintuitive reason,
: as 585 would qualify as much more "gadol yihyeh kavod habayis hazeh" than
: the 410 of bayis rishon! (see "Jewish History in Conflict" p. 69)...

As I understood it, the idea is that AKhG aliminated 168 years between
efforts of building the BhM, years in which many if not all of the walls
were represented by curtains. I'm not sure this reduces the question,
as a bayis of curtains is also a bayis with all the qedushah thereof.

:        ... Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Seder Olam,
: which is presented as history, not as aggadah, is the chronology behind
: BB 3a. ...

This is a key part of your argument, and I don't get it. Since when do
chazal engage in studying history? And when they discuss science in a
context that isn't finding the metzi'us about which to pasqen, that isn't
aggadita either? They were actually talking about the gestation period
of snakes and not making some aggadic point using then-contemporary
science as a mashal?

What's the ra'ayah that this is not the case with the SOR? Yes it looks
like a history book, but it would be out of character to think it's
history for history's sake rather than their thoughts about history
repeated as meshalim for other things?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: "Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR **" <schoemann@lucent.com>
> Correction, as somebody pointed out to me off-list:
>>> The Shulchan Aruch says in 695:2 that it needs to be done in
>>> the morning because of Kavod Shabbat.

>>      It's not the Shulchan Aruch, it's the R'ma; and since
>> the one who posed the question is a S'faradi, it makes a difference.

> True. It's a long R'ma that starts the previous page, but it's still
> a R'ma.

I finally caught up in my reading of avodah. all sefardim that I know
here in Netivot even during a year when purim falls during the week eat
their seuda in the morning. only ashkenazim eat in the afternoon! (during
a regular year)

On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 22:50 -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>From: Alan Rubin <alan@rubin.org.uk>
>>With all this learned talk about Persian genealogies, astronomical dating 
>>and counting Molads can anyone explain what happened to Greek history. 
>>There doesn't appear to be time in SOR for the Greek-Persian wars, 
>>Marathon, Salamis, Platea then the Peloponnesian Wars. Since this period 
>>starts with a Greek war against Darius and ends with the rise of Alexander 
>>it appears that SOR requires us to dispense with most of classical Greek 
>>history.

...
>The problem only really comes into being if we assume that Persia barely
>existed prior to the fall of Babylon. In the Heifetz revision, the Greek
>wars attributed to Xerxes took place during the time of Nevuchadnezzar,
>and that Ahasuerus I (father of Darius the Mede), whose name in Greek
>transliteration was indeed Xerxes, was the king in question.
...

1) How did the Persians make it to Greece without knocking off the
Babylonians first? Did they go around the Caspian and Black seas?

2) Wouldn't a defeat by the Greeks severely have limited the Persians
ability to conquer Babylon? Or better put, why would the Persians go
very very far out of their way to try and conquer Greece before Babylon?

RnLL:
> ...I do not think it's possible at this stage in the game to prove which
> chronology is correct. But we can, however, establish certain implications
> of either of the two being correct, and the chronology of Chazal being
> grossly incorrect and invalid casts an enormous doubt over all of Judaism.

1) I am impressed by the evidence for the accuracy of Chazal's chronology -
thanks. Whether or not Chazal were infallible, it's important to be
reminded that archaeologists certainly are not.

2) Is "an enormous doubt over all of Judaism" an exaggeration? Even in
the worst case scenario that Baruch did not in fact transmit directly
to Ezra, presumably the chain of tradition was not broken; we just don't
know the names of the intermediate links. If I am misunderstanding, please
let me know. It seems to me that, while it quite is a serious matter to
suggest that Chazal's understanding of science or history is incorrect,
such a suggestion would not threaten the foundation of Judasim itself.

 - Ilana

At 04:47 PM 2/8/05, Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
>1) I am impressed by the evidence for the accuracy of Chazal's chronology 
>- thanks. Whether or not Chazal were infallible, it's important to be 
>reminded that archaeologists certainly are not.

It's probably even more important to remind them, but they'd mostly
rather not hear it. <grin>

>2) Is "an enormous doubt over all of Judaism" an exaggeration? Even in the 
>worst case scenario that Baruch did not in fact transmit directly to Ezra, 
>presumably the chain of tradition was not broken; we just don't know the 
>names of the intermediate links. If I am misunderstanding, please let me 
>know. It seems to me that, while it quite is a serious matter to suggest 
>that Chazal's understanding of science or history is incorrect, such a 
>suggestion would not threaten the foundation of Judasim itself.

Well, Chazal do talk about Baruch as Ezra's rav. So that'd be false.
And if it was false, maybe Moshe Rabbenu as Yehoshua's rav is too?
It's not a necessary conclusion, but it's certainly within the realm of
the possible at that point.

It isn't so much that breaking the chain proves Judaism wrong. Maybe the
Torah came down to us in a different way than Chazal teach. But in that
case, what's the authority of the Torah? I mean, if it didn't come down
to us as we've been taught, maybe it wasn't from Hashem to begin with?
Anything's possible at that point.

Lisa 

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> "But what if everyone knew the siman, but it was fulfilled in a totally
> unforeseen (and miraculous) way? Such as someone who couldn't say
> /p/ saying "paqod paqadti" clearly."

If Aharon was the one actually communicating "pokod pakaditi" (which he
seems to have been, Shmos 4:16, v'diber hu l'cho el ho'om; 4:30 vayedaber
aharon es kol had'vorim asher diber hashem el moshe etc.) then where is
the miraculous aspect?

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> even if he's an anoos and not yotzei -- anoos Rachmanah patrei, the
> sechar should be the same even so.

No. "Keman de'avad lo amrinan" - a person who, through no fault of his
own, fails to fulfil a mitzvah, is an anoos and is exempt from whatever
onesh comes with the neglect of that mitzvah (e.g. Pesach and Milah),
but does *not* get the sechar that would come with its fulfilment.
See the examples of tzedakah and kinim.

(WRT the gemara in Kiddushin 66a, I don't really think it's relevant,
but if one insists that it is, then a pasul mezuzah is clearly like
a short mikveh or a baal mum, rather than like a ben grusha, since
the psul is there, waiting to be revealed by a careful examination,
rather than depending on eidim. OTOH a mezuzah which was written out
of order would be like a ben grusha, since the psul is not determinable
from examining the object itself, and if that gemara were relevant then
one could argue that one was yotze the mitzvah and deserves the sechar;
but I don't concede the premise.)

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[Micha:]
> RDL's answer is that the difference in science is irrelevent. Whther
> kinim physically have eggs, or they have microscopic eggs, the eggs
> have no halachic mamashus. The only goreim for a visibly sized kinah
> is the meat they ate to get to visible size. Other scientific causes,
> being microscopic, are not halachic goremim. My rebbe thereby entirely
> preserves the point that chazal is making, not just the pesaq.

It seems like RDL is saying the same as Rav Dessler that the Halacha does
not deal with the microscopic. However, my point is that Chazal clearly
went further than that by denying that lice have eggs entirely. My proof
is that had Chazal known that lice do not spontaneously generate they
would not have had any need to reinterpret the Beraisa which is in Aggadic
context rather than a Halachic context, saying that Hashem sustains the
largest to the smallest animals, the horns of oryx to betzei kinnim ,
by saying that it means a new species rather than the eggs of lice.

Yaakov Goldstein

Many have written variations on the following:
> It is clear that the Gemara was not aware that lice lay eggs.

However we know that lice eggs are visible to the naked eye! You could
probably even watch them hatching - perhaps R. Slifkin wrotes about this?
Just do a search on the net for lice eggs: every reference to any type
of lice egg lists them as being quite large! And we see them ourselves,
they are called nits. How is that the entire scientific establishment
for thousands of years did not mae the obvious connection between nits
and lice? I searched for some time on the net for spontaneous generation
articles, and all the ones mentioning lice stated that people thought
they generated spontaneously. Any experts?

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@yahoo.com

R' Micha wrote:
> Most acharonim who have published on the subject would consider abortion
> not to be murder. As I wrote, assur, even livnei No'ach, but not murder.

I responded:
> As I understand the Sugya, for a Ben Noach to commit the abortion it
> is pretty clear that it is retzicha.(see Rambam Milochim 9:4).

I now see that it is not so clear. According to the Rambam it seems that
it is Retzicha. However, the Minchas Chinuch, without citing the Rambam,
does post the Chakira if for a Ben Noach it is Retzicha or a separate
issur. Rabbi Bleich suggests that Tosafos (Sanhedrin 59a) is posing the
same question. Tosfos is not sure whether a Ben Noach may have an abortion
to save the mother's life. By a Yisroel it is stated explicitly that it
is not only permitted but mandated. However, since Tosfos is not sure
regarding a Ben Noach, it is possible to say that Tosfos is not sure
whether it is murder in which case an abortion would be prohibited,
or a separate issur in which case it would be permitted.

Kol Tuv,
Moshe Schor

RnLL:
> It isn't so much that breaking the chain proves Judaism wrong. Maybe the
> Torah came down to us in a different way than Chazal teach.  But in that
> case, what's the authority of the Torah?  I mean, if it didn't come down to
> us as we've been taught, maybe it wasn't from Hashem to begin
> with?  Anything's possible at that point.

Torah min HaShamayim is one of the Ikarei Emunah. The concept of an
unbroken mesorah from teacher to student from Moshe Rabbeinu to now is
also fundamental. But I don't think that the precise identity of every
member of the chain of tradition is a basic tenet of Judaism.

One reason that it's important to distinguish between basic principles of
faith and other ideas in Torah is to avoid mislabeling people as heretics
when they are merely incorrect (kal v'chomer when they are actually
expressing a legitimate opinion). Another reason is to avoid precisely
the kind of logic you are using here. A person needs to be able to say,
"I just can't accept what Chazal say here as literally true" WITHOUT
questioning kol haTorah kulah.

 - Ilana

I wrote <<< The molad for Adar Rishon 5765 will occur this week, on
Wednesday Feb. 9, at 4:56 AM and 4 chalakim. Count backwards to Bereishis
(about 5765 years) at a rate of 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 1
chelek per month, and you'll see that the molad of Tishrei in the year
that Adam HaRishon was created, was at 8 AM on a Friday morning. >>>

R' Sholom Simon responded <<< That's only because when we calculate
the molad, we use that as a starting point, whether or not there was an
actual molad at that time! You've only proven that subtraction is the
opposite of addition. >>>

Yeah, but you're looking only at the endpoints. We've been using the
29d12h44m1c period for at least 1500 years (=18000 months) and no one
(that I'm aware) of has complained of it being out of sync with what's
visible in the sky. We acknowledge that it is only an average, so some
variation is allowed and accepted, but if the error was as small as
one chelek per month, the accumulated error would come to 1000 minutes,
or over 16 hours!

According to NASA, today's New Moon is at 10:29 PM GMT Feb 8. That's
12:29 AM Jerusalem Standard Time, or about 12:08 Jerusalem Solar Time. If
we equate "molad" and "new moon", then the calculations are less than
5 hours apart. And if "molad" is actually after the "new moon", when
the moon has moved enough the make the crescent visible, then they are
amazingly close, IMHO.

My point is that it is fair to presume that if they are this close today,
then they have been just as close all along. So it is not just addition
and subtraction from today to Bereshis. Rather, it was addition from
when the Molad Tohu was established in the Gemara, up to today; then
subtraction from today will overshoot the Gemara and accurately land us
in Bereshis.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]