Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 045

Sunday, December 4 2005

• Re: TIDE and the Kesubah
• Re: sub-atomic particles on Shabbat
• Re: TIDE
• Re: Bilam's klalos (was: rising Torah star)
• Re: RSRH on Eisav's Chinuch
• RSRH on Eisav's chinuch
• What is being done about the increasing number of guilty frum people in prison
• Re: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah and Quantum Mechanics
• Re: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• Re: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• Fw: Being exposed to minus
• Friendly Reminder - Sunday night start Prayer for Rain
• Eisav's Chinuch
• On minds and brains
• Re: Fw: Being exposed to minus
• RE: Being exposed to minus
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz's view on TSBP

On 11/21/05, Rivka S <rivkas@thejnet.com> wrote:
>> but if you need 1000 for one to be yotzeh lehora'ah, how will you have
>> dayanim & mechanchim of the next
>> generation if you discourage Kollel?

The bigger question - Is the premise correct?

[And so we meander to Areivim... -mi]

They did it again. My posting to Areivim in reply to Chana Luntz's
question was rejected by the moderators as being too serious. They
suggested it be forwarded to the Avodah list instead for perusal by the
more solemn kahal. Until the last few months I have never have been
accused of being serious. I object very unseriously but accept the
decision of the moderators with all seriousness. And here is the posting:

Shalom Hanna,

RSZA wrote that, in his opinion, there is no issur in electricity, the
issur is in the result. Electricity that lights eish or does bishul is
assur because the result is assur.

So, re: << Would the firing of sub-atomic particles at unstable isotopes
of uranium or plutonium be considered to have sufficient mamashus that
it would be prohibited on Shabbas? >>. It depends on the result and
not on the movement of electrons or of other sub-atomic particles.

bivrakha,
David

>> For the record, TuM is not about integration into the gentile
>> culture. It is about utilizing the best of it, which does not contradict
>> the Halacha.

> Like what? And why would TuM presume to institute such an innovation,
> that we should utilize gentile culture, if it was not an ideal for the
> past 3000 years?

It's not TuM's innovation. Isn't that what "yafy'fuso shel Yefes b'oholei
Shem" means?

EMT

In a message dated 12/2/2005 4:52:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, sba@sba2.com 
writes:
> So how does this work in with 'vayehapoch Hashem es Haklolo livrocho"?

1) the Gemara Sanhedrin 105b Teitches that only one (Klala Loshon Yacid)
was Nehpach, the others came back.

2) we find that "Kol Hamacha'lo...Lo Osim Olecha Ki Ani Hashem Rof'echa"
the question there too is a doctor heals the future if Lo Osim why use
the term "Rof'echa" among the answers is that by HKB"H that has control
of Haya Hoveh vYihiyeh his Haficha uproots the thing M'ikara (like the
difference of Hatoras haNeder Al Yidei Chochom vs. Hafara).

Gut Shabbos v'Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

> RSRH writes that the chinuch Yitzchok and Rivka gave their children was
> too narrow and "one size fits all". Eisav needed a chinuch that was al
> pi darko. Since he didn't get it, he became Eisav.

Look at the Netziv at the end of Parshas Chayei Sarah- the Netziv posits
that Rivkah was psychologically overwhelmed by Yitzchak to the point
where it affected her ability to communicate with him because of their
respective backgrounds and had to deal with her two very different sons
al pi ruach hakodesh, IMO, that may be where the whole episode of Yaakov
and Esav has its origins.

[Email #2. -mi]

> heard recently from one of Rav Aharon Kotler's talmidim that his rebbi
> had a kabbala that it is assur to criticize the Avos on any point that
> Chazal were not critical of. Apparently RSRH didn't feel that way but
> I personally do not accept his criticism of Yitzchok.

There has been a pamphlet in the name of RAK for years making this point,
IIRC, it may be printed somewhere in Mishnas R Aharon. Yet, many Rishonim
and Acharonim analyze the Avos in the same manner as RSRH-especially
Ramban. OTOH, there is a definite trend in yeshivish and chasidishe
seforim to use Tanach as a Mussar Haskel for us without exploring
issues of how Biblical characters behaved in the light of Halacha. IMO,
we need both schools of analysis at least on the level of elu velu.

Steve Brizel
<Zeliglaw@aol.com>

<< I heard recently from one of Rav Aharon Kotler's talmidim that his
rebbi had a kabbala that it is assur to criticize the Avos on any point
that Chazal were not critical of. Apparently RSRH didn't feel that way
but I personally do not accept his criticism of Yitzchok. In fact, it
sounds rachok meod. Chazal say on the pasuk "vayigdilu haniarim" that
Yaakov and Eisav were virtually identical in their formative years and
the difference between them only began to arise in their teens and even
then it was initially subtle. By the time Yitzchok could have known,
it was too late. >>

But Eisav was born with fangs and looking like a beaset! Haven't yo seen
you're kids pictures he brought home from cheder? ;-)

Surely there was good reason to notice that this child was "different"

<<Besides, Eisav was always fooling his father. Also, the Zohar says
that Hashem hid Eisav's evilness from Yitzchok.>>

I believe RSRH would say that if he received a chinuch that spoke to
him, he would have no reason to try to fool anybody. Ever see a good
educator? Every kid in the class is listening. Even the troublemakers.

I wrote: Rav Dessler, actually Rashi too, says ... Eisav was born this
way, and no matter what anyone would have done, he was not going to
get with the program.

RSC replied: <<Rav Dessler says no such thing.>>

I don't have a Michtav MeEliyah with me right now, but IIRC, he does
write exactly what I said ona lengthy piece about sheker v'emes; Rivka
was told that Eisav was unchangable when she asked the Beis Medrash of
Shem V'Ever. She kept this from Yitzchok ( hashem's cheshbon for that
was because Yitchok and Yaakov needed the later scene to play out for
their own tikun.)

So b'kizur, you have no mekoros to help me out with RSRH....           :-)

On 11/30/05, Sholom Simon <sholom@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Err . . . that's part of the equation.  The other part (following up on
> REMT's post) is that amongst some of us, the halachos of Orach Chayim are
> more important than the halachos of Choshen Mishpat.  (Or, to be more
> blunt: guys who wouldn't be caught dead with a treif sandwhich who think
> it's OK to embezzle from the government, or "the goyim").

There is a halachic basis for believing that it's OK to embezzle the
government. If it can be shown that the government taxes unfairly, or that
its social programs don't properly take into account the needs of frum
yidden, or that money is spent for purposes that it shouldn't be, or if
the rules were written in a way that causes many or most people to ignore
them, there are poskim who say that one should not lose money as a result.

-Ezra

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:39:39PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: What is not so well realized is that the methodological materialism that
: undergirds Darwinian theories (supported in "The Science of Torah") are
: based on outdated ideas about the natural world...

Actually, Darwin himself believed in intelligent design. He was studying
to be an Anglican pastor when he took that famous trip on the HMS Beagle.
He saw evolution as a means of explaining how G-d created new species,
not a challenge to Anglican theology.

People who insist that evolution must contradict the notion that Hashem
did it are bringing their own antireligious biases to their debate.
One can argue with them, but first one needs to dig under their false
assumptions. Just as the science doesn't imply atheism, theism doesn't
imply its falsehood.

In short, Darwin wasn't a methodological materialist, and thus it doesn't
undergird his theory.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org> wrote:
>          .... I will take RAS's nusach with RSK's endorsement as
> a springboard, but the all the letters yield the same message.
> They state that he has made mistakes. I certainly concur with that 
> perspective 

> ...From what I 
> have read in the works of RNS, both in the form of the books and in the 
> form of his postings here, his approach toward Chazal is one with which 
> I myself have had, and have expressed, much difficulty...

RAS's letter which is the one RSK added his name to, specifically states
that RNS's books are K'Neged Torasenu. How do you explain that? R. Zevi
Ashkenazi called him yesterday and RSK confirmed that he signed onto the
ban for precisely the reasons you say, but his signature is to a letter
that goes much further. It seems to say that the kinds of things spoken
about in RNS's books are Kfirah. Furthermore, RSK originally endorsed the
books and as recently as 8 months ago said there was no Kfirah in them.

HM

Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
>The recent letter by Rabbi Shlomo Miller Shlit"a -- URL is at
><http://toriah.org/misc/RNS/index.htm >
>[There are also new letters by Rabbi Perlow,Rabbi Aharon Shechter and
>Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky Shlit"a].

I believe the letters need to be read carefully - they are very
specific. They do not state that everything that RNS has written
is incorrect. I will take RAS's nusach with RSK's endorsement as a
springboard, but the all the letters yield the same message. They state
that he has made mistakes. I certainly concur with that perspective (not
that RMS, RYP, RAS and RSK need my concurrence!). Not that *everything*
in RNS's books is a mistake - not even most things - but that there
are "mistakes therein" - left unspecified. They further state that the
spirit of the books "denies any excuse" for those mistakes. This means
that in a book written in the proper spirit, mistakes can be excused
- B"H! Otherwise all authors would be in trouble! Who does not make
mistakes?

These books, however, are written in a different spirit. From what I
have read in the works of RNS, both in the form of the books and in the
form of his postings here, his approach toward Chazal is one with which
I myself have had, and have expressed, much difficulty. Those here who
are new, or do not recall, may look back on our contretemps concerning
the Mabul to refresh their recollections.

As the conclusion notes, it is incumbent upon us to invest "a maximum
of one's intellectual and spiritual powers to grow in the knowledge of
their words and the appreciation thereof." Koh yiten Hashem v'koh yosif!

YGB

TRANSFERRED FROM ARVM:

From: T613K@aol.com
>> Is it a halachic problem to say the name Jesus?  I've never heard that,
>> (which by no means proves  anything!)-Andy Levy-Stevenson

> Yikes, I totally forgot about "Jesus" when I wrote that -- and Jesus is
> the name of a false god anyway.
> But BTW even though I would say "Jesus" if necessary, I would not say
> "Chr...." so that would have been a problem for me too, if it had come up.

Shmos 23: "veshem elohim acherim lo sazkiru lo yishoma al picho"
I understand that that refers to a meisis.
But would it also be a reason as an issur to mention the name of an AZ?

And don't we freely say Baal Pe'or?

SBA

Dear Friends, shavua tov.

This is just a friendly reminder to Jews outside of Eretz Yisrael that
our daily prayers should include the request for rain, beginning with
the Maariv service tomorrow evening - that is, Sunday evening, December
4, 2005, corresponding to 4 Kislev, 5766. The phrase "Veten tal umatar
livrakha" - "Give us dew and rain for a blessing" is inserted into the
9th blessing of the weekday shemone esrei, from now until Pesach.

Please be so kind as to remind friends and family members of this 
event, especially those who may not have occasion to be in shul at that 
time.

The request for rain is begun in the Diaspora on the 60th day following
the fall equinox, as calculated according to the approximation of Shmuel
in the Talmud. If you are interested in more information about this
calculation, you may wish to follow the link below, to a fascinating
article giving a (very brief) introduction to the Jewish calendar,
followed by a detailed discussion on why the prayer for rain begins when
it does. Thanks to Russell Levy for bringing this article to my attention:
<http://www.lookstein.org/articles/veten_tal.htm>

I know of one calendar that lists an incorrect date for beginning the
request for rain this year. (Thanks to Rabbi Finkelstein for showing
it to me.) Again the correct starting date is this Sunday evening.

Wishing everyone a happy Chanukka,
Ari Brodsky.

P.S. Now I know I won't forget my sister's wedding anniversary... on the
civil calendar, at least! Mazal tov to Sara and Noah on their wedding
tomorrow night!

-- 
Ari M. Brodsky

Eisav was aware of the greatness of his father. Perhaps he thought
that if his father thought that he was a tzaddik than he truly was a
tzaddik. It was inconceivable to him that a true tzaddik should be able
to think that a rasha was a tzaddik. It was his belief that he was really
a rasha and that his father could be fooled that pushed him to go farther
off the derech.

Kol Tuv,
Ezra

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:39:39PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff quoted:
>   Materialist ontology draws no support from contemporary physics and
>   is in fact contradicted by it. The notion that all physical behaviour
>   is explainable in principle solely in terms of a local mechanical
>   process is a holdover from physical theories of an earlier era. It
>   was rejected by the founders of quantum mechanics, who introduced,
>   crucially into the basic dynamical equations, choices that are not
>   determined by local mechanical processes, but are rather attributed to
>   human agents....

The latter part of the sentence isn't so clear. The Copenhagen
interpretation places much in the eye of the beholder -- IOW, the
collapse of the statistical into a given state happens at the time
of observation. However, Everett's Multi-Universe theory is gaining
popularity. It also fits string theories well. In the Multi-Universe
theory, there is no collapse into a single state, and the event goes
in different ways in different universes. The observer too splits into
different versions in each universe. And therefore, each version only sees
its reality. See <http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae179.cfm>.

However, the first part is significant. In QM, the universe is no
longer deterministic. Physics does not dictate every outcome, only the
statistical chance of outcome. In very large numbers, such as the number
of atomic particles in a baseball, there is little difference. If you
flip a coin a trillion times, very very close to half of them will come
out heads.

However, the brain involves feedback loops that magnify small effects.
It's what is called a Chaotic System, a system in which a small change
in input can have macroscopic change in result. In fact, if you don't
have infinite precision, you can't make a reliable forcast. Ask people
who study Chaotic Systems -- meteorologists and economists.

So, the future of a brain, even on the macroscopic scale, is not
determined by the laws of phsyics. There is plenty of room for the the
soul to be cause, not effect, of neural activity.

However, I would like to suggest a different model of the mind-brain
interaction, one that doesn't get involved in which is cause and which
is effect.

The individual is ne'etzal from HQBH. Thus, your neshamah is His Light,
after it passes through a slide that blocks some of the Light to make
a particular image. The gashmi is at a lower level, further from the
Source of atzilus. Thus, a single beam of light, passing through different
olamos, could be your neshamah at one level, and your brain at another.
Brain activity would therefore be a physical "shadow", or perhaps, the
image of the slide on the screen, of the very same light as the neshamah.
The structure of the brain and its physical events is just the physical
implimentation of the soul as it is manifest in olam ha'asiyah.

This is pulled from my own head. Comments and critique invited.

Gut Voch!
-mi

--
Micha Berger            "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org            -- Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In a message dated 12/3/05 10:35:34pm EST, sba@sba2.com writes:
> And  don't we freely say Baal Pe'or?

AZ that's mentioned in the Torah is Muttar.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On December 2, 2005, SBA wrote: 
> Shmos 23: "veshem elohim acherim lo sazkiru lo yishoma al picho"
> I understand that that refers to a meisis.
> But would it also be a reason as an issur to mention the name of an AZ?

Yes.

> And don't we freely say Baal Pe'or?

That's because the halacha is that any AZ that is written in the Tanach
is permissible to say and any AZ that is not written in Tanach is assur
to say as per your pasuk above.

Simcha Coffer

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I don't know Dr Berkowitz's position, 

Much of what I write below is taken from the HTC Journal essay by Rabbi
Chaim Twersky rebbuting Dr. Berkovitz.

Dr. Berkovitz's book is entitled: "Not in Heaven -- The Nature and
Function of Jewish Law" Dr. Berkovitz holds that Svara, ethics, and
practicality is what guides halacha. He also, holds that the power of
Rabbinic authority is vast and is not subject to the notions of their
predecessors neither in interpretive powers nor in function.

After bringing many proofs to these ideas and the thus the felxible nature
of both Halacha and its current decisors, he then defines Halacha as
"the wisdom of the application of the written word of the Torah to life
and the history of the Jewish people.

We can then understand the nature of why TSBP is indeed Bal Peh. It is
impossible for any written law to deal with the course of human events
that are constantly changing and evolving. Only an oral law has the
flexibility to deal with these changes.

Dr. Berkovitz in establishing that TSBP was really meant to stay that
way but for practical purposes need to be written down because of the
vastness of millennia of historical change.

The Gemara's modification of Halachic practice, in essence was the result
of the interaction of Halacha and daily life using prinicples of Derachha
Darkei Noam and V'Chai BaHem.

Applying these rules to our time... since TSBP is supposed to be Oral,
Dr. Berkovitz claims that the SA or any codified Halacha is an abberation
of TSBP's original intent. That it was written (even though of the
necessity of an Eis Laasos) was never-the-less against it's essential
nature.

TSBP was really meant to stay that way but for practical purposes need to
be written down because of the vastness of millennia of historical change.

The Gemara's modification of Halachic practice, in essence was the result
of the interaction of Halacha and daily life using principles of Derachha
Darkei Noam and V'Chai BaHem.

Applying these rules to our time... since TSBP is supposed to be
Oral, Dr. Berkovitz claims that the SA or any codified Halacha is an
aberration of TSBP's original intent. That it was written even through
of the necessity of an Eis Laasos it was never-the-less against it's
essential nature.

Compounding the issue was the Churban Bayis Sheni and the attendant
destruction of the Jewish commonwealth putting an even greater pressure
to veer off its ideal of oral transmission.

So the codification of Halacha combined with its situation in exile caused
medieval scholars to bind Oral law to the text. The worse conditions
became in Galus, the more self preservation became the goal. With the
advent of our return to possessing the Eretz Yisroel the opportunity
has arisen to return TSBP to its original true form.

Dr. Berkovitz claims that today's Halachic decisors are therefore modern
day Karaites who apply the principles of fundamentalism to text of our
Halachic codes.

Personal note: I know that Dr. Berkovitz was very upset that his Teshuvos
WRT to Agunos were rejected by R. Moshe. He mentioned it often in class
during my time there. He used to say about R. Moshe: If he (RMF) is a
Gadol, then no one is a Gadol... or that if RMF was a Gadol, then he
(Dr. Berkovitz) was certainly a bigger Gadol.

He told us that his (Dr. Berkovitz's) Teshuvos were rejetced by RMF
not becuase the reasoning wasn't valid, but because since such simple
solutions weren't brought down by Chazal, that they couldn't be used.

It's possible that Dr. Berkovitz's views on TSBP developed out of those
encounters with RMF.

HM

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


[ 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         ]