Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 175

Thu, 25 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: walking between 2 women (Akiva Blum)
• 2. Fighting To Be Chazan? (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: She-lo Asani Isha (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: moon and sun (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: walking between 2 women (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: moon and sun (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: moon and sun (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: walking between 2 women (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: walking between 2 women (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: moon and sun (Lampel)
• 11. Re: sun and moon (Lampel)
• 12. Re: moon and sun (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: walking between 2 women (Zev Sero)
• 14. king's groove on heads.....?? (Harvey Benton)
• 15. sun and moon (Eli Turkel)

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 24/08/2011 12:48 PM, Akiva Blum wrote:
>
>
>> I dispute the whole notion that passing between two rows each consisting
>>> of many people is an issue.
>>>
>>
>  He quotes Gesher Hachayim page 152
>>
>
> Nu nu.  I still dispute it.  What basis could it have?
>
>
>
>   By the same logic one would have to avoid walking down a tree-lined
>>> avenue or a forest path!  Whoever heard of such a thing
>>>
>>
>  What does this have anything to do with trees?
>>
>
> Women, dogs, and trees are all listed together.  What possible basis
> could there be for distinguishing them?
>
>
>
Okay. So trees would only be dekel, and prsumably, if like nashim, only if
there's no more than four amos between them. Not your average tree lines
avenue.

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110825/e8e9b92a/attachment-0001.htm>

At 06:57 AM 8/25/2011, R. Ben Waxman wrote:


>The below only works if you assume that saying Kaddish is a magic formula.
>You either say it or you don't.

Saying Kaddish is most certainly not a magic formula.  Please see 
footnote 70 on page 367 of what I posted from the sefer Mourning in 
Halacha  at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/areivim/mourning_kaddish_amud.pdf 
In particular, note the paragraph beginning "But [the answer is] that 
the principal benefit of Kaddish for the deceased is not in the fact 
that the person recites the words, "  This paragraph explains clearly 
how saying kaddish by one person gives merit to a deceased parent and 
how the congregation also receives merit by answering when kaddish is 
recited by one person.

This situation that we see today in many shuls, namely that many 
people say kaddish at the same and often not in unison, is result of 
the fact that people have the mistaken idea that saying Kaddish is 
indeed a magic formula.  I can only wonder why rabbonim do not 
explain to their congregations what Kaddish really is and why this is 
not taught in yeshivas.  YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110825/4a497795/attachment-0001.htm>

> > I wrote:
> >> "But I can see no way that the level of obligation in commandments
> >> of a woman can be said to be greater than that of a (male) eved... "

RAF replied:
> >I don't understand your problem. An Eved is worse than an Isha
> > because it lacks the Kedushat Yisrael of a Jew!! An eved is forbidden to
> > marry a Jewess for this reason

And RJF added

> Also see Horiyot 13a -- an eved was bchlal arur.

Actually, this gemora specifically contradicts what RAF said above, ie it
notes that the reason one might have thought that a freed eved should
precede a ger is because an eved gadal imanu b'kedusha.

Concerning curses - indeed, women are also considered cursed (Eruvin 100b) -
but I agree the curse of a eved is probably regarded as more severe. That
means that if in fact your rationale for including and ordering the brochos
in birchas hashachar is based on a man giving thanks for not having been
cursed, then eved followed by isha would probably be correct.  It would also
be possible to read this into the rationale of the gemora in Menachos.  But
that is not what RAF is arguing.  He is arguing that the reason for the
bracha in birchas hashachar is because of the greater obligation in mitzvos
that a man has, not because he has not been cursed.

Similarly with RAF's most recent comment:

> Regarding My comments to Chana Luntz Sasoon that an eved is considered
> much lower than a woman because he is not only patur from MASh"G,
> but lacks kedushat Yirael and cannot marry a Jewess - Kivanti le-da'at
> haAbudarham, Birkhot haShahar. He adds that an Eved also lack Zekhut
> Avot and lack ne'emanut

A woman also lacks ne'emanut in many circumstances, although perhaps less
than an eved, so again, that could be a logical reason for a man to make a
bracha, first shelo asani eved, and then shelo asani isha (thanking for
having more ne'amanut than an eved and even than an isha).  Zechut Avot is
more tricky, because (a) the man making it could just as easily be a ger, in
which case if anything his zechut avot would be less, and (b) zechut avot is
not a reason to distinguish a man from a woman.  It therefore does not fit
so well with the gemora in Menachos, if you understand it to be advocating
reversing the order, which agrees to an equation between a woman and an eved
vis a vis a man, but with the situation for the eved being more dire. 

I am not saying there cannot be many reasons why an eved is considered a
worse state than that of an isha.  But levels of obligations vis a vis the
commandments is not one of them.  That is why it is difficult to understand
the maskana of the gemora in Menachos as talking about levels of obligations
and not something else (at least without switching the order).  Given that
we pasken like the Bavli over the Yerushalmi (and Tosephta), but we do
switch the order that makes levels of obligations vis a vis the commandments
difficult as the reason for the brachos in our siddur, contrary to what RAF
is arguing.


Regards

Chana

I wrote:
> What I've been describing are NOT the characteristics of
> thinking beings. They are characteristic of objects. Dull,
> dead, inanimate objects.

R' Zev Sero responded:

> HUH?!  How do you draw that conclusion from those premises? How
> do those premises even hint at a slightly elevated probability
> of that conclusion being correct? What is it about intelligent
> beings that would prevent them from obeying the laws of gravity
> and motion, or from having visible features, sizes, and colours?!
> It seems to me that this describes every single one of us!

Yes, of course intelligent beings obey the laws of gravity. But our motions
aren't always predictable. It is the very UNpredictability of our motion
that demonstrates intelligence.

I should revise my previous posts. It is not only dead objects which fail
to stray from their fixed positions. Trees also remain in one predictable
place forever. But "chai nosay es atzmo" - only someone in the animal
kingdom (or above) can pick himself up and move elsewhere.

It may not have been clear from my post, so I will clarify it now: I never
intended to offer PROOF that the sun and moon DON'T think. I merely wanted
to illustrate the LACK of proof that they DO think, and that this lack of
proof was as evident to the ancients as it is to the astronauts. I am in
TOTAL agreement with RZS, who wrote:

> And therefore?  *That's* your proof that it's not intelligent?!
> That the astronauts didn't talk to it?!
> ...
> And therefore?  How does that prevent it from being intelligent?
> ...
> And exactly what experiment would you conduct to test whether
> the celestial bodies are intelligent?

R' Joel Salomon wrote:

> Predictable, yes, but so is the motion of the guards at
> Buckingham Palace.

This actually supports and strengthens my point. If one observes the
motions of those guards to the point where they are as predictable as RJS
suggests, then one will not be able to distinguish them from robots. There
will be not any evidence to suggest that they are thinking beings. Of
course, you and I have outside knowledge and information which tells us
that those guards really *are* thinking beings, but there will not be any
evidence to show it, and in fact the evidence will suggest that they might
be robots.

This is exactly the same as those of Chazal who looked in the sky and saw
no signs of intelligence, but had *outside* knowledge and information which
told them that the sun and moon really are thinking beings.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

On 25/08/2011 6:50 AM, Akiva Blum wrote:

>> Women, dogs, and trees are all listed together.  What possible basis
>> could there be for distinguishing them?

> Okay. So trees would only be dekel, and prsumably, if like nashim,
> only if there's no more than four amos between them. Not your average
> tree lines avenue.

Not a very grand one, but a forest path or a garden path would be less
than 4 amos wide.  So might a walking trail in a park.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:05:36PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> How do you know?  The Rambam says they are intelligent; what grounds
:> exist to question that?
...
: We can ask a question on the Rambam what is the origin of his theory.
: The whole difference between modern and ancient science is that
: ancient science rested on
: authority while modern science relies on experimental evidence....

I disagree about the difference between Natural Philosophy (the ancient
precursor to science) and science. This is tangential, so beqitzur...
The difference is the notion of experiment. Natural Philosophy is based
on the world as "everyone knows" it works. It therefore is more in
line with intuition than reality, in cases where the two differ. (Both
the Natural Philosophy did and the scientific community does rely on
authority more than they care to admit to themselves, but that's a
tangent off the tangent.)

The Rambam's ra'ayah, although probably not his maqor, is disproven
elements of Aristo's physics. In Aristo's physics, an intellect imparts
impetus to an object, which them moves it until the impetus runs
out. We replaced this with notions of potential vs kinetic energy and
momentum. Momentum doesn't "run out", "objects in motion tend to stay
in motion until acted upon...", but due to friction and other forces,
it does dissipate.

So, in Aristo's universe, the spheres move eternally and therefore
someone is imparting impetus to them. Otherwise, the motion would run
down. Therefore, the Rambam concludes, the moon and other spheres must
be intellects, the source of that impetus.

In today's conception of physics, the moon has angular momentum, which
is actually being dissipated by the tides, and thus the month is slowing
down. But nothing involving intellects is necessary to keep the moon
running as long as it has. In space, there is little friction.

: My problem is that many meforshim take it literally. From the recent
: Meorot Hadaf: Maharatz Chajes explains that because the moon was
: diminished it caused people to worship the sun
: because now the sun is special...

This fits the Maharsha's explanation of the medrash, although you would
think the Maharatz Chayos would be explicit about it if that was his
intent.

I want to raise an interesting (to me) side-point. The MC was either a
Maskil (of the original sort, not the kind who made such problems for
the Yeshiva and Mussar movements decades later) or had enough similarities
in his thought for Rn Dr Bruria Henkin to make a sound argument in her
PhD thesis (which had her father's haskamah) that he was. A literalist
approach to a medrash that really isn't that amenable to one is therefore
a surprise to me; not what I think of someone with Haskalishe leanings.


On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 03:47:41PM -0400, R Zev Sero replied:
>> The sun consists of gases undergoing various nuclear reactions.

> Yes.  And therefore?  How does that prevent it from being intelligent?

and on Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 07:54:39PM -0400, R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: I sometimes understand these midrashim and others like them (with admittedly
: no textual basis for doing so), as referring to the Malachim who are charged
: with the conduct of the sun, moon, animals, etc. Just as the Gemara makes
: clear that the various nations have Sarim...

The moon has nothing that physically implements the mechanisms of
intelligence. Therefore, if it has an intellect, it is of the moon as
it exists in an olam other than ha'asiyah. And therefore LAD, RZS's
position collapses into RMYG's.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:13:40AM -0400, I wrote:
: I want to raise an interesting (to me) side-point. The MC was either a
: Maskil (of the original sort, not the kind who made such problems for
: the Yeshiva and Mussar movements decades later) or had enough similarities
: in his thought for Rn Dr Bruria Henkin to make a sound argument in her
: PhD thesis (which had her father's haskamah) that he was....

Thanks to R' Saul Guberman for catching this error. The thesis is by Rn
Dr Buria Hutner David. (I was thiking "Hutner" when I typed "Henkin";
2nd error: I thought the thesis predated her marriage.)

In any case, the thesis is "The Dual Role of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes:
Traditionalist and _Maskil_", available (thanks to R' Shaya Potter)
at <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~spotter/david-chajes.pdf>.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:32:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> I dispute the whole notion that passing between two rows each consisting
> of many people is an issue.  By the same logic one would have to avoid
> walking down a tree-lined avenue or a forest path! ...

Shuros at a levayah, r"l.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:22:39AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Not a very grand one, but a forest path or a garden path would be less
> than 4 amos wide.  So might a walking trail in a park.

Between two palm trees (perhaps only date palms) that are less than 6'
apart. Think about how often you see palm trees that close together.
And when palm trees are that close together, they grow at an angle
away from each other.

From <http://www.ehow.com/info_8760323_consequences-palm-trees-3-feet.html&g
t;
    ...
    Ultimately, planting any palm in multiples that are spaced only 3
    feet apart [that being the distance in the question -micha] will
    lead to problems. Close spacing causes the long, slender roots to
    interlock and tangle, absorbing the same water and nutrients in the
    same area. More watering and fertilizing may be needed to keep the
    palms from yellowing or displaying stunted growth. High concentrations
    of palm roots in a small area can compromise the anchoring qualities
    of the roots, too. Roots push up to the soil surface. Palms, which
    are naturally wind-resistant, may not be able to withstand winds as
    well and crowded-root plants may topple or tear-up nearby palms if
    one tips over. Or, if winds are very strong, the mass of tangled
    roots may not allow the tall palm to sway and rock naturally,
    creating a harsh load on the trunk, causing it to snap off instead.

Palm trees need their space, and therefore this din involves a rare
metzi'us.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

>> >  We can ask a question on the Rambam what is the origin of his theory [that the sun and moon have intelligence--ZL].
> Why would it occur to us to question it?  If he says it then he must
> surely have had it bekabalah; where else would he get it?
The idea that the celestial bodies are intelligent beings was widely 
accepted among the Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, etc.). There 
were, on the other hand, some people the Rambam leaves unnamed who 
thought the celestial bodies not only lack intelligence but also possess 
no life, and the Rambam in the Moreh lambasts them for thinking so. On 
the other hand, the Rambam himself  emphasizes that everything about the 
nature of the celestial bodies, their material, their movements and 
causes thereof, etc., is a matter of human speculation and not a matter 
of kaballah:

    MN 2:24
    What I said before (2:22) I will repeat now, namely, that the theory
    of Aristotle, in explaining the phenomena in the sublunary world, is
    in accordance with logical inference. Here we know the causal
    relationship between one phenomenon and another; we see how far
    science can investigate them, and the management of nature is clear
    and intelligible.

    **But of the things in the heavens man knows nothing except a few
    mathematical calculations*,* and you see how far these go. I say in
    the words of the poet," The heavens are the Lord's, but the earth He
    hath given to the sons of man" (Tehillim. 115:16). That is to say,
    God alone has a perfect and true knowledge of the heavens, **their
    nature, their essence, their form,* *_their motions_, and _their
    causes_*;* but He gave man power to know the things which are under
    the heavens: here is man's world, here is his home, into which he
    has been placed, and of which he is himself a portion. This is in
    reality the truth. For **the facts which we require in proving
    [anything about] the existence of heavenly entities are withheld
    from us*:* the heavens are too far from us, and too exalted in place
    and rank. Man's faculties are too deficient to comprehend even the
    general proof the heavens contain for the existence of Him who sets
    them in motion.

    MN 3:14
    Now, do not ask it of me to conform everything our Sages say
    respecting astronomical matters to the situation as it is. For
    mathematics were lacking in those days, and _*their statements on
    those matters were not based on a /mesorah/ from the Prophets_,* but
    on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived
    from contemporary men of science. But we should not on that account
    say, about those things that do conform to the truth, that they are
    incorrect, or only conform coincidentally. Rather, it is preferable
    and proper for every educated and honest man to explain a person's
    words in such a manner that they agree with fully established facts.

    The /Radak/ (/Breishis 1:1/) too, tells us that the Torah teaches us
    details only about the creation of things that were to be located
    below the moon---nothing about the universe beyond that point. The
    Light and the celestial bodies, he says, are mentioned only insofar
    as the role they play in what they provide for the Earth:

    /"Only that which is below the moon's sphere is mentioned in the
    Torah's account of Creation. The Light and the celestial bodies are
    only mentioned for their role in providing light on the earth.
    ...The chacham Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra also wrote that Moshe Rabbeynu
    spoke only about the temporal world; and [when the Torah says Hashem
    created the Heavens and the Earth,] the 'Heavens' refer to the rakia
    (sky) created the second day [not to the spiritual Heavens, nor the
    heavens containing the stars, sun and moon]."

    Zvi Lampel
    /

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110825/d054643a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/24/2011 12:05 PM, R. Zev Sero wrote:
> there are mekoros that say the moon still has its own light, that only shines when it's
> stimulated by sunlight.
Here's an interesting piece that shows things are not as simple as 
popular opinion thinks (from 
http://www.universetoday.com/75891/why-does-the-moon-shine/):

"The real mystery is why does the moon reflect at all. Like most objects 
in space, the Moon possesses a reflective characteristic called albedo. 
Albedo is how well an object reflects light. This characteristic seems 
pretty straight forward. Material like ice and snow have very reflective 
albedos. Land and Greenery have very low reflective albedos. *What makes 
the moon so interesting is that it has the same Albedo as coal. That 
means that it has almost no reflective quality up close.* So when the 
Apollo mission were going on the Moon was actually a pretty dark place. 
This only makes sense, because of the large lava plains that it has.
"The reason why the moon still seems so reflective is because of an 
interesting effect called the opposition effect. The opposition effect 
basically states that certain types of non reflective surfaces lose 
their shadows when directly in the line of sight of the light source 
shining on them. This why a road at night lit by head lights will seem 
to brighter than it is. The reason that moon does this so well is the 
loose regolith that covers most of its surface. The opposition effect is 
strongest for the moon when it is directly in the opposite position of 
the Sun in relation to the Earth."

Zvi Lampel
**

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110825/d44b0f43/attachment-0001.htm>

On 25/08/2011 8:13 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Yes, of course intelligent beings obey the laws of gravity. But our
> motions aren't always predictable. It is the very UNpredictability of
> our motion that demonstrates intelligence.

Hmm, so if were were stranded in space with a plentiful supply of air,
food, water, entertainment, etc., enough to live for some time, but no
jet pack or other means of propulsion, we'd suddenly lose our intelligence?!
Is a person paralysed in bed somehow less intelligent than one who walks
around?


> Trees also remain in one predictable place forever. But "chai nosay es
> atzmo" - only someone in the animal kingdom (or above) can pick himself
> up and move elsewhere.

And yet a turkey is not noticeably more intelligent than a tree.  So
self-directed motion is not a test of intelligence.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 25/08/2011 10:40 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 09:32:04AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I dispute the whole notion that passing between two rows each consisting
>> of many people is an issue.  By the same logic one would have to avoid
>> walking down a tree-lined avenue or a forest path! ...

> Shuros at a levayah, r"l.

Um, that was the very point being addressed!  The article cited claimed
that women don't go down the shura, something that does not accord with
my experience.  (Though at more modern levayos what I've seen is that
one of the shuros is made up of men and the other of wpmen, which would
obviate the entire question for aveilim of both sexes.)


[Email #2. -micha]

>      Ultimately, planting any palm in multiples that are spaced only 3
>      feet apart [that being the distance in the question -micha]

The article doesn't say what distance *is* appropriate.  Perhaps 6 feet
is enough?  And date palms don't take up as much room as the Canary
Island palms that we're used to.  In addition, the article is talking
about planting saplings that close to each other; I'm talking about the
grown trees being that close, which means the saplings were planted
farther apart.


> Palm trees need their space, and therefore this din involves a rare
> metzi'us.

Rare or not, would anyone suggest that one should not walk down such
a path?  I don't think so.


-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

i read a gemmarra or perush or medrash that states the kings of israel had
a groove on their heads so that the crowns would fit (there was a groove
allegedly on the crowns) is this true?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110825/1f4988d3/attachment-0001.htm>

> We can ask a question on the Rambam what is the origin of his theory.

Why would it occur to us to question it?  If he says it then he must
surely have had it bekabalah; where else would he get it?>>

Please define what you mean by the moon having intelligence. It certainly
does not have free choice.

I find it strange that the Rambam did not accept all the of chazal's science
and we should accept the Rambam's science.
Why assume it is based on kabbalah and not some Greek source.

I dont teach physics based on the Rambam and I certainly hope that our
physicians are not relying on the Rambam's medical books.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110825/c61cdd3e/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 175
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."