Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 124

Wednesday, February 8 2006

• Re: Creation & allegory
• Re: Sabbath mode wall ovens
• Ben Pekuah, Maris Ayin & Cheshash
• Re: Ben Pekuah, Maris Ayin & Cheshash
• RE: R' Gamliel's Navigational Tool
• Re: Slavery
• Re: Creation & allegory
• Re: Killing kinim on shabbat
• RE: Creation & allegory
• RE: Emunah, Perakim and the Mabul
• Re: the Mabul
• Re: the Mabul
• R' Gamliel's Navigational Tool
• Fw: Segulah For Parnassah - Parshas Hamon

Lisa Liel wrote:
> The Rambam wrote the Moreh for Nevuchim. He says things in the Moreh that
> contradict things in the Yad. It's important to consider the audience.
> I wouldn't have any problem telling someone who was having a hard time
> accepting the Torah that the sequence of the days of creation aren't
> necessarily reflective of the historical order of events. You teach
> people on a level they can handle....

But you don't do so by telling them things that are assur, or that you
feel are demonstrably wrong. So at the very least, even if I bought this
argument, it would identify an "efshar lomar" that the Rambam gave a
hechsher to. Even if not his position, it's one he felt was within the
boundries of kosher.

...
> The Rambam "seems to assert" in the Moreh that there won't be korbanot
> l'atid la-vo. That's a direct contradiction to the laws of korbanot
> in the Yad. It's not a contradiction. The Moreh contains apologetics.
> You have to consider the intended audience.

Simpler: "Seems" doesn't mean "asserts".

The Rambam, in his introduction, says he's framing Yahadus for nevuchim,
but better one not be an Aristotilian trying to force Yahadus into those
categories. Nothing about the following positions being a mere "efshar
lomar", but an inferior presentation of his beliefs to accomodate people
who got themselves stuck in an inferior perspective.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
micha@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R David Roth wrote:
> Assuming that one may use the grama switch to change the temperature
> on Yom Tov, would someone please help me understand why there's a
> problem with actually showing the temperature in the oven?  If
> actually adjusting the heating element itself via grama isn't a
> problem, why is showing the temperature such a big problem?

Wouldn't changing the display involve turning lights on and off, not
just adjusting ones that are already lit? Havarah, rather than bishul?

-mi

Reb Micha,

Please indicate sources for the distinctions you draw between Maris Ayin
and Cheshash.

Are you saying that the meforshim describing BPekuah as MA are using
that term injudiciously? They appear to explain MA the way (I think)
you describe Cheshash.

Aside this, I still request other examples where a MINOR variation which
does not directly clarify the problem is adequate to quell concerns for
MA or Chashash. How does a fused hoof clarify that this animal killed and
eaten is a BP? I suppose we may as well consider that Yosef witnessed his
brothers doing this very thing, reported it to his father and (one would
be comfortable assuming that) the brothers would have only done this if
it was Muttar Miderabanon. Meaning, with an animal that had either not
set foot on the ground or had a fused hoof. And that did not help avert
the misunderstanding.

Does the Remo anywhere else use such an expression as "Shum ShaAr DaVar
TaMuAh".

meir

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:19:10AM +1100, meir rabi wrote:
: Are you saying that the meforshim describing BPekuah as MA are using
: that term injudiciously? They appear to explain MA the way (I think)
: you describe Cheshash.

This is why I switch my language in the more recent email. Cheshash
vs vehiyisem neqiyim. (If someone misused the terms, it had to be me,
not them, no? So, I switched!) Still, ben paquah is in a different din
than almond milk.

: Aside this, I still request other examples where a MINOR variation which
: does not directly clarify the problem is adequate to quell concerns for
: MA or Chashash. How does a fused hoof clarify that this animal killed and
: eaten is a BP? ...

It's enough that people who were there for the birth would know which
one is the BP, and which not. As I wrote, they're not speaking about
vehiyisem neqiyim, people thinking the eater is a chotei. Rather they're
speaking about the person in the situation itself making sure he omits
shechitah on the right one.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

[R Mordechai Cohen:]
> see http://www.meorot.co.il/archive/en338.pdf
> R' Gamliel's Navigational Tool

All very interesting, and repeatable. Has anyone tried these methods,
what was the degree of accuracy?

KT
Joel Rich

Micha Berger wrote:
> R Zev Sero wrote:
>> You can't sever a rosh ever. But you are allowed to physically discipline
>> a slave; I'm not sure that you're not allowed to inflict permanent
>> injuries, so long as they don't affect a rosh ever. (Though it makes
>> sense to me that any injury or severe beating should be assur lechatchila,
>> if only through a kal vachomer from tzaar baalei chayim....)

> According to dinei tokhachah, one is allowed to hit another Ben Yisrael in
> order to discipline them -- if it were in a context where such discipline
> would work. What leads you to believe this din is different?

Terumas HaDeshen #218

S & R Coffer wrote:
> On February 6, 2006, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> I am disturbed by your confident dismissal of an apparent contradiction
>> in the Rambam by simply asserting that the Moreh Nevuchim contains kiruv
>> Torah or apologetics. That is not the way we were taught to approach the
>> Rambam in yeshiva. Are you claiming that the Rambam wrote explanations
>> he knew to be false in order to remove doubts of confused people?

> Are you claiming that the Moreh contains no apologetics at
> all? Apologetics in this context does not mean false. It means "not
> the best possible answer"...

I am surprised that a distinguished talmid chachom as yourself would
accept the resolving of questions concerning the Moreh Nevuchim -
by simply asserting that they are apologetics. The approach that I was
taught in yeshiva is well expressed by the Seridei Aish. [Just substitute
apologetics in place of error] If the Moreh Nevuchim is viewed as merely
a book containing apologetics - it is very unlikely that it will be
understood properly.Any time I find a problem I will simply dismiss it
by saying that it is another example of apologetics.

*Seridei Aish**(1:113): *I frequently explain the apparent contradiction
found in Avos (6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah
i.e. analysis of the students and faith in our Sages. Furthermore, what
does faith in our Sages have to do with acquiring Torah? However, the
explanation is that if one doesn't have certainty in the truth of the
words of the sages then one readily dismisses them for the slightest
reason. With an attitude of condescension, one proclaims that they
didn't know what they were talking about. Consequently, one makes no
effort to investigate and try to validate what they said. However, in
the end we find that in fact we are the ones who have erred. Therefore
it is characteristic of the truly wise to presume that the sages have
not erred, G-d forbid! However, weג "with our limited perspective and
limited understandingג" have. On the other hand to blindly believe and
not struggle to comprehend with our intellect the apparent difficultiesג
"saying simply that they knew and we need merely to mindlessly rely
on themג" that is also not correct. We need to wrestle mightily with
the apparent contradictions and doubts as if they are people like
us. With this approach, we will come to a much profounder and sharper
comprehension. Thus, we see that both factorsג "emunas chachomim and
pilpulג" working together to the end bring about the acquisition of Torah.

Daniel Eidensohn

In Avodah V16 #122 From: "S & R Coffer"  <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
>>       Doesn't the Gemara mention "beitzei  kinim" (I forget in
>> what context)? Didn't they know that lice hatch  from nits? [--old TK]

>Nits are eggs; larva of  lice.<<[--R' Simcha Coffer

Yes, I know that nits are eggs and assumed that everyone knows that.
Which is why I said "'don't Chazal talk about betzei kinim?" i.e., do
they not refer to nits/eggs of kinim? That was exactly my question:
if Chazal knew that nits exist and even CALL them "betzei kinim --
eggs of kinim" -- then how do they turn around and say that kinim
arise spontaneously? If they know that lice hatch from nits how can
they say that lice arise spontaneously (from sweat)? Do they think
the eggs are not laid by mommy lice but just appear on their own?WHAT
do they think arises spontaneously -- the eggs?

>> What is the
>> meaning then of "they do not procreate through  pirya vrivya"? Does it
>> mean that they reproduce asexually, laying eggs  that do not need to be
>> fertilized in order to produce young? [--old  TK]

>No. And this is a famous sha'ala. Some take the approach that  there were
> types of lice in the time of Chazal that reproduced asexually.  Others say
> "nishtanu hativi'im", [SNIP]

> .....Anytime Chazal propose something in science, if they base a halacha
> on their scientific conclusion, the halacha cannot be discarded despite
> the fact that the science turns out to be faulty. ....The idea behind this
> is that Chazal did not always mean to condone the scientific principles
> which they forwarded. Rather, they advanced explanations for the halachah
> which seemed to fit the paradigms of their day. .... The upshot is
> that Chazal's infallibility in Torah, to which I personally subscribe,
> is not compromised from ostensibly faulty scientific statements.<<

Based on some of the other things RSC has written, I am surprised --
pleasantly surprised, I might add -- that he acknowledges that Chazal's
scientific statements are not necessarily always accurate. I agree with
him, of course, in subscribing to the halachic infallibility of Chazal.

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

On February 7, 2006 Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> S & R Coffer wrote:
>> Are you claiming that the Moreh contains no apologetics at
>> all? Apologetics in this context does not mean false. It means "not
>> the best possible answer"...

> I am surprised that a distinguished talmid chachom as yourself would
> accept the resolving of questions concerning the Moreh Nevuchim -
> by simply asserting that they are apologetics. The approach that I was
> taught in yeshiva is well expressed by the Seridei Aish. [Just substitute
> apologetics in place of error] If the Moreh Nevuchim is viewed as merely
> a book containing apologetics - it is very unlikely that it will be
> understood properly.Any time I find a problem I will simply dismiss it
> by saying that it is another example of apologetics.

WADR, I believe you are taking my words out of context. Perhaps we should
drop the word apologetics (which is actually used primarily to denote
defence of Christian doctrines) because it seems to be misleading. What
I mean to say is that the Rambam sometimes advances certain taamey
hamitztvos in the Moreh that could be explicated in a more lucid and clear
way. I am not the only one who says this. Rav Dessler says as follows;
[my translation] "And this advice is very necessary for the sake of
saving the souls of those who are perplexed and this is similar to the
Rambam who wrote so much for the perplexed although several issues in
his book could have been explained in a clearer fashion, despite this,
since the perplexed require especial tutelage, he did (i.e. explicated)
for their sake so long as it did not contradict halacha" Michtav Vol. 4
pg. 354 on the bottom. On pg. 173 he takes the same approach regarding the
stira in the Rambam regarding korbanos and says "and behold this issue is
like all other issues in the Torah which a great person understands it
according to his great level and a small person according to his small
level". IOW, Rav Dessler understood that the Rambam was just giving a
possible reason for korbanos although there are deeper reasons for them.

The truth is, you simply cannot ignore the context within which the
Moreh was written. Much of the Moreh is dedicated to addressing the
issues raised by the naturalists and philosophers who were causing many
Spanish Jews to be "perplexed". In northern France, the Jews were not
influenced by philosophy and science and many of the Rabbanim, such as
the Ramah (R' Meir haLevi Abulufia) felt that the Moreh posed more of a
danger than anything else (see Yad Ramah to Sanhedrin beginning of perek
11). Later R' Shlomo min hahar and R' Yonah, alarmed at the spread in
learning philosophy due to the promulgation of the Rambam's seforim,
pronounced a ban (R' Yonah was chozer later). Even later than that,
the Rashba (shu't 414-418) assured the study of philosophy and science
under the age of 25.The issue here is that much of what the Rambam says
in the Moreh really is apologetic (i.e. in defence of the Torah) in the
sense that it addresses stiros from philosophy to Torah. The problem is
that in order to understand the Rambam properly, one must have a running
knowledge of philosophy, especially Greek philosophy. The Rambam states
in his hakdama that if someone is not well-acquainted with philosophy,
he shouldn't read his book. Obviously the Rambam felt the need to present
the Torah in a purely rationalistic way. Personally, I believe this was
l'ma'an hatztalas ha'nivochim like he writes in his hakdama. The problem
is that there will, by necessity, be times when a purely rationalistic
approach will fall short of the deeper more "religious" underpinning for
a particular mitzvah. But this doesn't mean that the explanation is wrong
chs'v. It just means that it isn't the best possible explanation. We
had a similar conversation when we were discussing the explanations of
Rishonim when they diverge from the pashtus of Chazal.

The truth is, much like you, I was michunach in Yeshiva never to discard
the words of Rishonim. It makes me uncomfortable writing what I did above
and I applaud you for attempting to find sources in Torah for all of
the Rambam's shitos in the Moreh. If you are able to do it, tavo alecha
bracha. I would love to be wrong here. However, whatever the case may be,
I do not believe that the Rambam would ever sacrifice any of the ikarey
haTorah, or even one halacha, for the sake of the perplexed. Nothing that
he said was contradicted by Torah per se. It just may not have been the
ultimate reason.

> *Seridei Aish**(1:113): *I frequently explain the apparent contradiction
> found in Avos (6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah
> i.e. analysis of the students and faith in our Sages...
> Thus, we see that both factors? "emunas chachomim and
> pilpul?" working together to the end bring about the acquisition of Torah.

Rabbi Eidensohn knows me long enough to know that I am in full agreement
with his haskafa as represented by the powerful paragraph quoted above.
Despite this, I don't think I've stepped out of line with what I've
written about the Rambam. (I already stepped out of line with the mabul
thing...I'm losing my extreme right wing reputation on Avodah :-)

Simcha Coffer

Quoting RMB writes:
> In fact, the use of the word palit to refer to Og implies that being
> an escapee of the flood was a notable quality, not something true of
> most people.

> Second, I wonder if Og was human anyway.

> Last, what about the halachic impact? Do these purported peoples of
> non-flooded areas have permission to eat meat? IOW, which beris are they
> bound by -- the one with Adam, or the one with Noach? (And if the latter,
> why?) For that matter, those of you who feel there are non-Adamite humans
> alive today, are they subject to ANY of Hashem's berisos?

I think you are confusing two different issues - the dating of human
beings and the global nature of the flood. Take the situation with the
Aborigines in Australia, for example. The scientific position is that
the Aborigines came across to Australia by boat (with their dogs' the
dingos), finding the rest of the animals there. The problematic issue
vis a vis this is not that fact, but the dating that is given to their
arrival (somewhere between 60 million and 200 million years).

The same thing is true of the American Indians. Again the scientific view
is that the Indians came into the Americas much later than the animals,
probably across the pole. The issue is the timing. (That is what makes
the case of England so much easier, because everybody seems to date the
arrival of humans as post any timescale for dating the flood).

Now that puts the question squarely back into the issue about dating
vis a vis ma'ase beishis that arose in earlier discussions, the flood is
an irrelevancy. If you hold that the world was created 5000 or so years
ago, then the Aborigines clearly got to Australia around 3000 years ago,
and the scientists are wrong. If you hold that ma'ase bereshis happened
a much longer time ago, you have three options:

(a) to say that while creation may have taken much longer, what we call
mankind has only been around for a more limited time (ie the scientific
dating vis a vis modern human beings is wrong - note that this involves
a much more limited attack on science than we have previously been
discussing vis a vis Breishis, because there are far more limited
scientific disciplines called into play - at its extreme, it does not
even need much of an attack on evolution, all it needs to say is that
the first modern human, from whom all the rest are descended, arrived on
the scene much later than science claims he did - you can even postulate
proto-humans roaming around much earlier within this world view);

(b)to put back the flood till before the arrival of the Aborigines (ie
to say the flood occurred 60-200 or so million years ago) - which then
requires reintepretation of the toldos post flood - because you then
clearly have a very long gap between Noah and Avraham; or

(c) to say that the Aborigines were not killed in the flood.

The last option gives rise to all the problems that you raise. But saying
there was a global flood that covered Australia does not help, because in
a global flood scenario the Aborigines still need to get to Australia post
flood to repopulate so we are still talking about either a "repopulation"
around 3000 years ago or an ancient flood. So either way, postulating a
global flood does not deal with the issue - which is really all about
the correct dating of human remains - and is really a ma'ase bereshis
question, not a flood question.

Regards
Chana
Chana Luntz

"Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> Hawaians, for example, have a fable that claims that they came by boat
> from Islands probably around the phillipines.

That's because they did. Nothing to do with the mabul - the current
"native" Hawaiians only arrived there about 700 years ago.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:13:47PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: That's because they did. Nothing to do with the mabul - the current
: "native" Hawaiians only arrived there about 700 years ago.

Although it is strange that similar legends exist among the frozen
homelands of the Innuit, the Australian aborigine in the deserts of the
outback, and the Aztecs and Incas, and many other peoples who live in
places that are unlikely to flood. Chinese and Japanese aborigines also
have such stories. In short, it's global amongst numerous cultures.

Which is what I'd expect from a neis according to the theory I posted
earlier. A human memory, but no physical evidence to be found.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

R' Mordechai Cohen wrote:
> R' Gamliel would then use this tool to measure the boundary
> of the t'chum Shabbos. He would take a pole that he knew to
> be one meter tall, place it a distance of one thousand meters,
> and note that it appeared to equal one millimeter on his glass.

I drew a picture of this geometry. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We have a triangle. One point of it is a R' Gamliel's eye. The opposite
side of the triangle is a vertical pole one meter (1000 millimeters)
tall. Two lines go from his eye to each end of that pole; these lines
are 1000 meters long, and we'll call them the top and bottom "sides"
of this triangle.

This triangle is intersected by a glass, which is vertical (i.e., parallel
to the pole), and at a distance from his eye such that the two sides of
the triangle intersect the glass one millimeter from each other.

Clearly, the glass is exactly one meter away from his eye. (The two
sides meet at his eye; they diverge by 1 mm for each meter of distance
from the eye; the sides are 1000 mm apart at a distance of 1000 meters
from the eye.)

This means that R' Gamliel was able to see an object one meter away, and
tell you that the object was exactly 1 mm long. Not 0.95 mm, or 1.05 mm,
but exactly 1.00 mm. Can anyone really measure to such an accuracy by
sight? Even if a ruler was attached to his glass?

But even if one *can* measure to such an accuarcy, it would not suffice,
and would have to be even *more* accurate. An error of under 5% applied
to a 2000-amah Techum Shabbos means an error of less than 100 amos,
and the description of R' Gamliel's tool sounds like it was a lot more
accurate than that.

> In previous generations, the Romans would build towers of set
> heights next to their ports, in order to help the navigators
> on incoming ships measure their distance from shore.

I'd imagine that even a 10% or 20% accuracy - or even more - would
suffice for such cases.

Akive Miller

From: T613K@aol.com
> Got this in my inbox today -- it couldn't hurt! --TK

> Reb Mendel M'Riminov said that saying Parshas Ha'monn (Shneyim Mikroh  
> V'Echod Targum) on Tuesday Parshas B'Shalach, is a Segulah for Parnasah.  

Some good soul has been advertising this for decades  in Der Yid.

One of our yungeliet was trying to find a source for this, ie where
actually does RMM'R say this?

Can anyone help?

SBA

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


[ 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         ]