Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 30

Thu, 26 Feb 2015

• 1. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Free Will (was Eilu V'Eilu?) (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Free Will (Micha Berger)
• 4. free will (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Wasting time (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: majority rule (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: majority rule (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. Re: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew ()
• 9. Re: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 11. The Cohen Gene (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Safeik as Metzi'us (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: The Cohen Gene (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: The Cohen Gene (Micha Berger)
• 15. Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (David Wacholder)

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:14:21AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Okay, let's follow through to the logical conclusion: If so, then there
: is also a universe where Adam and Chava succeeded in fighting the nachash,
: and resisted temptation, and Creation was fulfilled.

And a world in which we do everything right, and there is no redemption?

: ALL THESE WORLDS (according to the multiple universes interpretation)
: are equally real. Or in our context, equally real to Hashem. I can
: imagine Him looking down at His multiverse, seeing worlds where things
: went better, and worlds where things went differently. And suddenly,
: "vayinachem Hashem" (Bereshis 6:6, Shmos 32:14, and elsewhere) has worlds
: of new meaning.

R' Jack Love asked on the Chazal that says that Moshe looked into the
Mitzri taskmaster's future, saw no future good children would come out
of him, and only then killed him. So RJL asked me -- of course note,
the guy would be dead in a few minutes, no further children would come
out from him at all!

RJL took multi-worlds theory as a resolution; if MRAH could compare the
worlds where he kolled the Mitzri and where he doesn't, he could check
the versions where there are children and decide.

RJL also wanted to argue that since Hashem's "amirah" is our existence
(be'eser ma'amoaros nivra ha'olam) anythign He is omer "beLibo" exists.
And thus anything He could imagine would be equally real.

Ad kan quoting someone else in support of your idea.

However, as I intimated above, if everything happens, that means even the
unjust and unmerciful happen. And G-d only happens to appear otherwise
in the version of history this version of me and this version of you
happen to coexist in.

I can't accept that. There has to be a goal we're working toward, that
our actions actually can change the set of existing outcomes, or else
life is meaningless, and leis din veleis Dayan.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@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"

I do not know
how metaphysics and physics interact, how brains, minds and souls relate,
to say that choice is definitely not a physical process. After all,
a falling rock is a physical process, but there is metaphysics driving
that proces s too. Perhaps choice is the same way -- fully physical
while also being fully metaphysical.


--------------------------------
Just as a tangent -that's what determinists argue in saying there is no
free will-since there is no provable linkage to any metaphysics (is there a
metaphysical receptor in the brain?)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 04:10:02PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
:> I do not know
:> how metaphysics and physics interact, how brains, minds and souls relate,
:> to say that choice is definitely not a physical process. After all,
:> a falling rock is a physical process, but there is metaphysics driving
:> that proces s too. Perhaps choice is the same way -- fully physical
:> while also being fully metaphysical.

: Just as a tangent -that's what determinists argue in saying there
: is no free will-since there is no provable linkage to any metaphysics
: (is there a metaphysical receptor in the brain?)

First, there is also combatiblism. (To quote wiki: "the belief that free
will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to
believe both without being logically inconsistent.")

But I wasn't pushing that, as I believe free will is in an ineffible
middle ground between deterministic and random.

Does the form of an object move before the object itself? What about
the form of that form, which is how the Leshem sees the object's "root"
in Olam haYetzirah?

But forms are more closely tied to the object and are passive. We can
talk about everything moving together. To the Aristotilians, where
metaphysics is about ever more abstract intellects rather than forms,
metaphysics causes physics.

But that's as true for nature as for free will as for miracles. The
difference is whose or Whose intellect. Nature is mediated by angels,
intellects with no free will, so it can be studied in rules.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             There's only one corner of the universe
mi...@aishdas.org        you can be certain of improving,
http://www.aishdas.org   and that's your own self.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Aldous Huxley

<<Over the past hundred years, numerous experiments on elementary
particles have upended the classical paradigm of a causal, deterministic
universe. Consider, for example, the so-called double-slit experiment. >>

Two problems with this argument
1) Quantum Mechanics works in the small on electrons etc. It is not clear
it can have a macroscopic effect (though some experiments do indeed
indicate that)

2) There is no connection between a probabilistic universe and free will.
It just means that everything is still deterministic in the sense that we
can only work with averages and not individual particles.
In fact science has used this for a long time in statistical mechanics
where only the properties of the ensemble are computed and not individuals.

One of the spookiest parts of QM is  quantum entanglement
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement> where knowledge of the
spin of a particle gives knowledge about another particle very far away. It
has been found that this action at a distance does not involve secret
information.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150224/bfef55d5/attachment-0001.htm>

In a recent tagline, R' Micha Berger quoted an ancient Greek:

> The waste of time is the most extravagant
> of all expense.
>                         -Theophrastus

Though it is not quite as terse, I prefer the way Rav Noach Weinberg (of Aish Hatorah) phrased it in an interview:

> He shook his head. "Insanity! Do you know how Jews define
> sin? Sin is temporary insanity."
>
> For instance, he explained, he had a bad habit of wasting
> time; who in his right mind would want to waste time?
>
> "What about more serious sins?" I said.
>
> Reb Noach raised his eyebrows. "Wasting time," he said, "is
> very serious. It's a kind of suicide."

You can read the rest at http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/next-ye
ar-in-jerusalem-19770421#ixzz3SgH9Xobz
or at http://tinyurl.com/nucopco

Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com


____________________________________________________________
Apply for Disability
Are you eligible for Social Security Disability?
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54eca90e769ac290c07east02vuc

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 01:51:28PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: In a court situation one certainly follows a quantitative majority...
: However, outside of the court system obviously brainpower quotes. 100
: standard rabbis do not outway RMF. RHS has speeches were he complains about
: rabbis of shuls paskening on questions that are beyond their abilities.

Also, in interpreting the law in the beis din hagadol, it's a straight
majority. This is one of the reasons why we hold like Beis Hillel rather
than Beis Shammai; while Beis Shammai were typically brighter, BH had
more members. (Probably *because* Beis Shammai had harder entrance
requirements and was more elitist.)

One beis din has more clout than another if it's gadol mimenu bechokhmah
uveminyan. How do we define this:

1- Khochmah AND minyan, or Khochmah OR minyan? (Mishnaic lists often
use vav for "or", eg "Lulav hagazul vehayaveish pasul".)

2- There is a machloqes how to get gadol beminyan: Are we talking about
a beis din hagadol like Anshei Keneses haGadolah that had 120 members
rather than the requisite 70? Or does the minyan include talmidim,
and a Danhedrin is presumed to consist of 70 (+1)?

: How one decides on this of course is a difficult question.

I would suggest that perhaps my second question is related to how to
distinguish RMF from the typical LOR. Perhaps authority doesn't come
directly from brainpower, but frthe size of their following. Which in
turn is bound to have some correlation to intellect, but not total.

For example, how often do you hear someone holding like the Rogochover?
RARakeffetR likes to say, giving the Rogochover as his example, that
sometimes you have someone too brilliant and too creative for the masses
to follow, and they end up having little impact on the flow of halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

When discussing the workings of the Beis Din Hagadol, it may be helpful to
remember that not all the chachamim were members of it. In fact, there were
some non-members who were greater than the members themselves. This was due
to various membership requirements, such as receiving semicha in Eretz
Yisrael, or not being a ger.

Of course, we would *like* to think that the system was designed to give us
the best ability of determining Truth, but these rules suggest otherwise. I
see it as being similar to the Torah's court system in general: We'd like
to think that when a case is judged in court, the halachos strive to insure
a just verdict. But if critical evidence depends on a pasul witness, what
do we say then? We say that our job is *not* necessarily to find the truth,
but simply to follow the rules, and the chips will land where they may. And
so too when the Beis Din Hagadol rules on which halachic view to follow.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54ed0a8f8d418a8f5528st01vuc

> 
> Which bring us back to a main point of this thread: Which aspects of
> one's pronunciation (if any) can be described as clearly and
> objectively wrong?  My guess is that the trop can be used as an
> arbiter in many cases, especially on the question of which syllable
> to accent, and even more especially for a pasuk (like Birkas
> Kohanim).
> 

Ashkenazim are clearly and objectively wrong, not only -- as pointed
out by the original poster, quoted above -- when they pronounce
"shabbath" with the stress on the penultimate syllable, or when they
pronounce "emmeth" with the stress on the nonexistent penultimate
syllable, since we have a clear and undisputed tradition telling us on
what syllables all the words in the Bible must be accented, but they
are also clearly and objectively wrong when they pronounce the thav in
those and other words as if it were a samekh, because the thav and the
samekh are two different letters in the Hebrew alphabet, which means
that to our Hebrew-speaking ancestors (or, to be more accurate, to the
Hebrew-speaking Canaanites who invented the alphabet, but they spoke
the same language that our ancestors did, because our ancestors
learned it from them) the two letters sounded different.

In contrast, the thav and the tav, or, e.g., the feh and the peh, did
not sound different to our Hebrew-speaking ancestors, even though they
pronounced them differently, because they represented them with the
same letter, which they would not have done if they sounded different
to them.  The reason they could represent two different sounds with
the same letter is that whenever the letter appears at the beginning
of a syllable it is a plosive, and whenever it appears anywhere else
in a syllable it is a fricative, so there is never any ambiguity.  In
contrast, English speakers must be able to hear the difference between
/p/ and /f/, because we must be able to distinguish between pin and
fin, and between rapt and raft.  If words like fin and rapt did not
exist in English -- as they do not exist in Hebrew -- then English
speakers would not be able to hear the difference between /p/ and /f/,
even though the language contains both sounds.

If you think it's implausible that you can consistently pronounce two
sounds differently even though they sound alike to you, then you
haven't been paying attention to the sounds that have been coming out
of your mouth, because the same phenomenon occurs in English.  The k
in "kin", for example, is not the same sound as the "k" in "skin",
even though both are represented by the same letter.  If you think
they are the same sound, then place your palm close to your mouth
while you pronounce "kin" and "skin", and then you will discover, if
you did not already know, because you have not been paying attention
to the sounds coming out of your own mouth, that the "k" in "kin" is
aspirated, accompanied by a puff of air, whereas the "k" in "skin" is
unaspirated.  We do not, however, need to represent those two sounds
with two different letters, because a k at the beginning of a syllable
is always aspirated, whereas a k elsewhere in a syllable is always
unaspirated, so there is never any ambiguity.

If a native speaker of Sanskrit undertook to document correct English
pronunciation by putting dots inside the letters that are used to
write English, then he would add a dot to one of those two letters,
because in Sanskrit there are both aspirated and nonaspirated
consonants at the beginning of syllables.  A native speaker of
Sanskrit, therefore, needs to be told whether a consonant should be
aspirated or unaspirated, because he can pronounce them either way,
just as a native speaker of English needs to know whether a word
should be pronouned pin or fin, rapt or raft.  A native speaker of
English does not need to be told whether a consonant should be
aspirated or unaspirated, because the position of the consonant in the
syllable already tells him that.  A man who spoke English and nothing
else could not pronounce the k in "kin" as the k in "skin", even if he
wanted to.  For the same reason, a man who spoke ancient Hebrew and
nothing else did not need dots in a letter telling him whether it
should be plosive or fricative, because the position of the consonant
in the syllable already told him that.  He would not be able to say
"fin" or "rapt" even if he wanted to (just as our ancestors, for other
reasons, could not say "Platon" or "specularia" or "Xshawerosh").

And that is why we know that pronouncing a thav as a samekh is clearly
and objectively wrong: Hebrew contains pairs of words in which
substituting a thav for a samekh changes the meaning of the word,
requiring them to be pronounced and spelled differently, just as
English (but not Hebrew) contains pairs of words like pin and fin, or
bat and vat, or those and doze, or tin and thin.  In Hebrew, "hayyom
harath `olam" does not mean the same thing as "hayyom haras `olam",
although both are legitimate Hebrew sentences, and that is why they
are written with different letters, and pronounced differently
(actually, Ashkenazim do pronounce those two sentences differently,
but only because they mispronounce the qamatz; I could have brought
other examples, but "hayom harath `olam" is my favorite).


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

On 02/24/2015 05:04 PM, Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:
> the Hebrew-speaking Canaanites who invented the alphabet, but they spoke
> the same language that our ancestors did, because our ancestors
> learned it from them

They did no such thing.   The Kenaanim were Bnei Cham, and thus did not
speak Leshon Hakodesh (or any Semitic language).  Avraham Avinu was
from Bnei Shem, and did.  He didn't learn it from any Kenaanim, because
he grew up in what's now the south of Iraq.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:02:13AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: They did no such thing.   The Kenaanim were Bnei Cham, and thus did not
: speak Leshon Hakodesh (or any Semitic language).  Avraham Avinu was
: from Bnei Shem, and did.  He didn't learn it from any Kenaanim, because
: he grew up in what's now the south of Iraq.

I don't know how much Kenaani and Semitic languages differed. Yes,
their ancestry would be different; but they lived in the same area and
frequent cross-polinazation seems inevitable.

So language taxonomy may not look like human taxonomy, if there was
more influence from neighbors than the language they brought with them.

And so linguists consider Hebrew to be one of two children of the
Canaanite language family (the other being Phoenician) which is a
subtype of Neorwest Semitic, which is a group of Semitic languages in
the Afro-Asiatic (formerly: Hamito-Semitic) language family.

Mind you the Kenaanim spoke a Phoenician family language, whereas the
languages of Amon, Moav and Edom are considered dialects of Hebrew --
not even separate languages.

BTW, Aramaic is another NW Semitic language family, a sibling of
Canaanite. It's too diverse for linguists to consider the variants
dialects of a single language.

In terms of writing:

The oldest abjad was found in the Sinai. It is referred to as
Proto-Sinaitic script, and typically attributed to foreign workers
who would travel from Egypt (where they would pick up the idea of
heiroglifics) to their Asian homelands.

Abjad: named for the alef-beis-jimel-dalet of the typical abjad letter
order. Writing like in Hebrew or Arabic.

Wilder (in both the "more fascinating" and "far less likely" senses)
is Lina Eckenstein's theory that Serabit el-Khadim, where much of the
Proto-Sinaitic script was found, was Har Sinai. Among her evidence is
that the area contains a temple of Hathor, a goddess somehow realted to Ra
(Mitzri traditions vary as to how) who was often depicted as a cow.

(Personally I prefer identifying the eigel with Apis, a bull god who
was said to mediate between the other gods and man. Apis was worshipped
at two temples with golden bulls in front of them -- like Rechav'am's
religion. And the idea of trying to make a mediator fits the pasuq
describing their motivation: "zeh Moshe ha'ish ... lo yada'nu meh hayah
lo!" (Shemos 32:1))

Also, while the Sumerian cuneiform was a syllabary, the Ugaritic
variant follows the typical abjad format (with 6 additional letters
tacked on the end: 3 for refuyos, one to distinguish sin from shin,
and two ayin-like letters.

Semites were using our writing system first. And the shapes comes
from Semites visiting Mitzrayim, not Kanaan and Mitzrayim's common
ancestry.


-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

We did a few iterations on the topic of kohanim and Y chrosomes,
the last being quite a while ago.

The issue is that since all men inherit their father's Y chromosome
(since their mothers don't have one) and all kohanim descend down
the male line from the same person, we should find pretty consistent
Y chromosomes among kohanim. And we do -- whether Ashkenazi or
Sepharadi, kohanim stand out.

Then there's the issue of whether one could use this data to decide
that a family was mistaken about their yichus. And if one can, should
one. (Answer: since it's all statistical, no.)

Well, anyway, Talmudology blog, has a nice primer for people who couldn't
keep up with the rushed explanations of the science we had on-list. See
<http://www.talmudology.com/the-daf/2015/2/17/ketuvot-23b-the-cohen-gene
>

Talmudology discusses science in the talmud roughly whenever daf yomi
passes something of interest to the author, R' Jeremy Brown. RJB
wrote "New Heavens and a New Earth: The Jewish Reception of Copernican
Thought".

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 06:23:53PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: [AhS] OC 409:6 deals with sefeiqos in eiruv techumin...
: Then he closes that if the eiruv was made with safeiq tereifah, it
: is not an eiruv. "Because we need a se'udah that was usable when it
: was still day, and this certainly isn't because it is a safeiq
: terifah" (MA s"q 9)

: So, unlike the reasoning with the tzitzis tassle, the safeiq preventing
: him from eating the eiruv food *is* treated as a metzi'us that the food
: is unusable and thus not an eiruv.

: The safeiq nature of the prohibition is abstracted away, and we just
: look at the pesaq that it can't be eaten.
...
: AhS OC 416:8 raised the issue again. The topic is still eiruv techumin.
: Now it's eiruv for YT where there is a sefeiqa deyoma...
: And RYME spells out that you can NOT say mimah nafshakh: If day 1 is
: secular, you can reach the eiruv for day 2. And if day 1 is holy and
: needs an eiruv, day 2 doesn't need an eiruv.

: Rather, if day 2 requires an eiruv, the fact that the safeiq about day
: 1 would keep you from reaching the food is enough to pasl the eiruv.

: Again, using the pesaq based on safeiq as a metzi'us for a further din,
: instead of figuring the din based on the safeiq directly.

Well, I think I hit a counterexample. Still in AhS OC, but now in hil'
Pesach -- 443:4 <http://j.mp/1DUUHWK>, citing the Tur.

If someone attempts qiddushun on erev Pesach after the beginning of the
6th hour using chameitz gamur, she isn't married.

If he used chameitz nuqshah, which Rashi says is "only" assur
miderabbanan, Rashi would still say it's like chameitz deOraisa. But
Rabbeinu Tam says that since there are two derabbanans -- the time and
chameitz nuqshah -- you do have to be chosheis for qirushin. See AhS
IE 58.

From the reasoning I was pushing 2 weeks ago, we ought to say that
regardless of the sevara in hilkhos pesach, the pesaq is that neither
he nor she would be allowed to get hana'ah from chameitz nuqshah during
that hour.

So in what sense can we say he owns it or that she received a shaveh
perutah?

In this situation, the AhS's reasoning appears to lump the theoretical
choshein mishpat within the hilkhos Pesach question, rather than settling
one and making it the metzi'us for the other.

I can't figure out why derabbanans would warrant a different kind of
treatment (being brought across to the derivative question) than sefeiqus
(where we settle the safeiq in the first question and treat that as done
before looking at the 2nd).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On 02/25/2015 04:58 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Then there's the issue of whether one could use this data to decide
> that a family was mistaken about their yichus. And if one can, should
> one. (Answer: since it's all statistical, no.)

I'm not sure about "since it's all statistical".   If we could somehow
establish that the mutation to create this marker occurred in Aharon
himself, before he had his sons, then its presence would absolutely prove
descent in the male line from him, and its absence would absolutely prove
lack of descent.  Thus, while its presence wouldn't prove one *is* a cohen
(since kehuna can be lost), its absence would prove one *isn't*.

The reason its absence *doesn't* prove one isn't a cohen is that there's
no reason to suppose the mutation happened in Aharon.  More likely it
happened in some early cohen; perhaps Aharon's sons or grandsons, or
perhaps someone as late as the first churban.  Thus there would be many
cohanim who are descended from Aharon but not from this cohen whose
Y chromosome mutated, and they wouldn't have the marker.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 05:38:59PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: I'm not sure about "since it's all statistical".   If we could somehow
: establish that the mutation to create this marker occurred in Aharon
: himself, before he had his sons, then its presence would absolutely prove
: descent in the male line from him...

First, that's an "if". I am saying that given what we know -- which
includes not knowing which generation the mutation happened in -- we
cannot make that determination.

Second, you ignore the likelihood of back-mutations (reversion). It's
significantly more common than the original forward mutation. Probably
because the original pre-mutation haplotype tends to be the more stable
of the two. Which is how it ended up the norm to begin with.

-Micha

Regarding no Sanctity remaining:

Anything not included in the Permanent Covenant can simply lapse and become
irrelevant. Har Sinai and Shiloh are the classic cases.

I heard audio of the Rav RYDS Ztz?l delivering Shiurim to Boston Baalei
Batim ? and highlighting that Shilo had no Mitzvah ? no place in the
Rambam, no permanence, no reason for us to spend a single moment locating
the exact precise place.

Every inch and square foot of the Makom Mikdash is Torah even now. When the
Mikdash will be built it will be reality. Because the Makom Mikdash is the
opposite ? it was part of the Permanent Covenant ? it is important.

 Segue #1:

The Luchos Rishonos were covenantal, but had the brittleness of Heavenly
Perfection ? Heaven?s idea of earth ? and weighed down and or were
volitionally shattered by Moshe Rabeinu. The phrase of the Midrash is They
did not contain the word Tov, implying deeper perspective. No potential for
falling and arising was available in those, the actual writing of Hashem
Himself ? A N Ch Y.



The Second Luchos ? viable only after the Tefila and reconciliation
affected by Moshe Rabeinu ? were more bilateral and flexible. The changes
from Luchos I to Luchos II as written in Dvarim ? have another factor, the
audience was now mainly Second Generation who were not the actual Yotz?ei
Mitzrayim. Their renewed Arvos Moav ? facing the impending conquest -
added the aspect  of Areivus for each other ? taking ownership
responsibility actively for their Yisrael side of the Covenant.



-- 
David Wacholder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150225/c73a5a32/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)