Volume 18 Number 34
Produced: Tue Feb 7 21:54:10 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
2 people one parachute
[Leah Zakh]
Codes in Torah
[Joshua Lee]
Permitted Aveira (Sin) ?
[Yaacov Haber]
Rabbi Ploni
[David Kramer]
The "Other" Adar
[Richard Friedman]
Titles in Signatures (2)
["Lon Eisenberg", Hayim Hendeles]
Worcestershire Sauce
[Etan Diamond]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah Zakh <zakh@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:34:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 2 people one parachute
This is just a hunch, but in a case where the two have the same exact
rights toi the parachte or a water bottle wouldn't the mishna in Horaiot
(next to the last?) come into play? it deals with whom do we save before
whom ( a cohen before a levi etc). May be some of the more knowledgeble
subscribers can comment on that.
Leah Zakh
You can reach me at <zakh@...> or 718-601-5939
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joshua Lee <jlee>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 05:24:36 +0000
Subject: Codes in Torah
On Mon, 30 Jan 1995, Stan Tenen wrote:
> Given that solid folks are doing solid work on the codes, I wonder
> how it is that there is so little discussion of what the codes might
> mean or point to beyond their simple novelty. If they do not offer a
> "proof of Torah" or a "proof of G-d" (as I believe they do not), then
I have not yet pursued the articles in question. However, my
understanding is that many of the codes point to such things as the
birth and death dates of gedolim? That is, perhaps, a proof of Torah
that is *much* more important than at first blush.
As you know, the Oral Torah (Torah Sheba'al Peh) was revealed, according
to Judaism, with the written Torah on Har Sinai. (i.e. Avos 1:1)
This is difficult for many, unfamiliar with the traditional Jewish methods
of Torah-study, to grasp. The Talmud, the Shulkhan Arukh, maybe as well
the Iggeros Moshe, revealed on Har Sinai? Moshe Rabbeinu heard a discourse
of R' Akiva? He heard of R' Akiva? Let us face it, in spite of the
revelatory reality of Torah, which your work at Meru supports, this is
difficult for people nowadays to believe. No matter how often we read in
the Gemara and Mishnah that it is the case, nothing in Torah appears to
reveal this to us, unless we already have assumed and use the system we
have been given. Leading thus to a very difficult "leap of faith" which
our intellectual mind balks at.
OK. The Torah Sheba'al Peh model, where all levels are valid, but
structured and logical methods; as exhibited by our Torah scholars, exists
to validate and produce further gradual elaborations. (e.g. halakhah)
Without Torah Sheba'al Peh, you have no valid halakhah. The reasons for
it's authority crumble as well.
I am sure people on this forum can recall more than one occasion, where
this lack of trust in Torah Sheba'al Peh has led a fellow-Jew astray in
his Torah-knowledge and observance of Mitzvos.
But, here, Torah is telling us that each of these gedolim, Rabbis, had
their insights revealed on Mt Sinai. As our traditional way of reading the
text tells us! This potentially offers a proof of the Oral Torah of the
first-caliper. Literally, Moshe was there and heard about R' Akiva, as
the well-known aggadda in the Talmud has it, for example. Because, for an
example [I don't know if they've found him], R' Akiva is in the skip-codes!
> not a trivial question to ask what would be really useful information.)
Oh, I agree. It is important that we learn precisely what this information
in Torah teaches us.
> Why list historical events or rabbis names and dates? What do
Rabbis who delivered further reveleations of the Oral Torah, being also
revealed in the written Torah, appears to me far from trival. See above.
> posting comments on m-j for nearly 6-months now, and have sent several
> hundred packets of material on my work to those who have asked to see
I have yet to recieve my packet. Feel free to e-mail me, and I again will
send you my current address. (I am in the process of being admitted I
think to OS Monsey now, perhaps it is available already there...)
> Okay, I understand that the Meru findings include odd and peripheral
> ideas for many persons. But I would think that some of the persons
Part of the problem, is that the current interpretation of Meru's "Torus
knots findings, saying this topology reveals "continuous creation" in
Genesis, is that it appears, at first blush, to defy what our sages have
taught us concerning Genesis and creation.
I'm not sure if I am willing, through a topological "torus-knot" picture
of patterns, to overthrow the mesora we have concerning Genesis. Any more
than the fractal patterns of the "Sinai Rock" lead us to believe that
Moshe Rabbenu had only a vision of fractals at the burning bush, without
further revelations. Perhaps what your data needs is to be viewed by
someone who is very familiar with mathematics and with Torah-chochma.
> From my perspective, far more important than finding a rabbi's name
> and birthday in Torah is finding a map of the night sky, complete with
> dynamics. This complements our knowledge of the calendar, and offers
No, there's no contradiction. A mesora-true interpretation of what little
I know of your findings, would say that HKBH "created the firminent", and
all else, through his Torah. Simple, and no evolutionary-hypothesis
revealed in Torah, or contradictions of the peshat, is required...
> Why aren't we discussing these possible implications of the codes?
You ask a very good question.
Although we do not have proofs yet, it would be beneficial, especially
since they are being used widely for Kiruv, to have preliminary
interpretive discussions. Nu? I think your work as well, would benefit
from such analyisis, and would recieve an even better reception if it had
been viewed through the "prism" of tradition.
> anomaly. Neither as Jews nor as scientists should we say, "okay there's
> the new world, now let's go home without exploring it."
Call me conservative (with <grin> a small-c), but I think we have not
found really a new world, but essentially a way of viewing the "old
world" with new tools.
Internet: <jlee@...> | Free internet/Usenet BBS
ArfaNet: <Joshua.Lee@...> | My personal machine.
FidoNet: Joshua Lee at 1:271/250.9 | The same address, in Fido.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yaacov Haber <haber@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 07:33:17 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: Permitted Aveira (Sin) ?
> >From: Chaim Stern <PYPCHS%<EZMAIL@...>
> In Talmud Bavli Nazir 23b it says that an aveira (sin) done with
> the right motives/intentions is (sometimes) permissible. Exact
> guidelines are not given there. I've heard that this is a very deep
> kabbalistic subject. Can anyone out there shed some light on this ?
For a key to the whole issue of aveira lshmo please see the Vilna
Gaon, Keser Rosh, (in back of the siddur hagra) 132. In a very few words
much is said.
Rabbi Yaacov Haber, Director Australia Institute for Torah
362a Carlisle St Balaclava, Victoria 3183 Australia
phone: (613) 527-6156
fax: (613) 527-8034 Internet:<haber@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Kramer <davidk@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:27:45 -0700 (IST)
Subject: Re: Rabbi Ploni
Should one sign his postings with the title 'Rabbi'?
1. Rav Moshe Feinstien ZT"L signed his tshuvot "Moshe Feinstien".
2. A good friend of mine, a devoted talmid of Rav Hershel Shachter, is now a
Rebbe in a yeshiva here. His wife answered the phone one evening last week -
and the following exchange occured:
"Hello may I speak with Rabbi <ploni>?"
"He is not here right now, who is this?"
"Hershel Shachter"
Need I say more?
[ David H. Kramer | E-MAIL: <davidk@...> ]
[ Motorola Communications Israel Ltd. | Phone: (972-3) 565-8638 Fax: 9507 ]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Friedman <RF@...>
Date: 07 Feb 1995 11:32:11 GMT
Subject: The "Other" Adar
Lori Dicker (MJ 18:30) reported a rabbi's comment that if one is born
in Adar of a non-leap year, the birthday in a leap year is celebrated in
_both_ Adars. In MJ 18:30, Ed Cohen disagrees, stating that the birthday
in such a situation should be celebrated in Adar II _only_, since Adar I is
considered the leap month." He cites his own posting in MJ 18:4, which
merely makes the same assertion, and a calendar volume by Arthur Spier
(which I do not have).
I wonder whether either of these conclusions is correct. It would
seem that the appropriate date would be in _Adar I_ only. After all, the
double Adar originated in the Sanhedrin's adjusting of the calendar to
ensure that Pesah came at the correct time in the spring. The adjustment
was the addition of a second Adar, and the Sanhedrin could decide to take
this action even during the month that already was Adar. Thus, the _added_
month would be Adar II. The fact that we observe Purim in Adar II is a
special rule for Purim, and does not show that Adar II is the "real" Adar
-- Purim is delayed to Adar II in order to juxtapose the liberation from
Haman with the liberation from Pharaoh.
Lamm's _Jewish Way in Death and Mourning_ contains inconsistent
indications on this question. He explains (at 204) that in leap years, an
extra month, Adar I, is added between Sh'vat and Adar II. However, on the
next page, he says that when a death occurs in Adar of a non-leap year, the
yartzeit in a leap year is observed in _Adar I_ (though another, and more
desirable, practice is to observe it in both).
Can anyone out there bring logic, history, or sources to resolve this
conundrum, which, appropriately for the season, might be phrased as "Which
is the real Adar and which is the 'adar' one?"
Richard Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Lon Eisenberg" <eisenbrg@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:21:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Titles in Signatures
For me, this is actually a non-issue. I tend to respect people
(including many who post to this list) much more for what they say than
who they (think they) are. The title "rabbi" alone (especially on this
list) has little meaning, since I suspect there are some who use it who
are conservative or reform (and this is no fraud, since they really
believe they are rabbis); how can I know other than by what they say.
Lon Eisenberg Motorola Israel, Ltd. Phone:+972 3 5658438 Fax:+972 3 5658205
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <hayim@...> (Hayim Hendeles)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 09:18:29 -0800
Subject: Re: Titles in Signatures
> From: Leah S. Gordon <lsgordon@...>
> In response to the poster who objected to the use of "Rabbi" as a title,
> and to the moderator who defended the practice, I have an additional
> comment:
>
> It seems misleading to have a system whereby men only have the
> opportunity to be given "more credence" based on their title, as
> currently, the Orthodox movement is ordaining only men as rabbis. I
> feel that it is imperative to develop a parallel title that educated
> women can use to indicate as much academic halakhic expertise as has
> someone who signs his name "rabbi." I know several women who have
After reading this argument, I couldn't help but think of the famous
Torah giant of yesteryear who once addressed a letter to a country
farmer with the title: "HaRav Hagaon Haadir ... " [translation ?]
The farmer thought the Rabbi was mocking him, and went to the Rabbi
asking him why he did so. To which the Rabbi answered (in all humility):
"G-d forbid should I mock you. The title I accorded you is simple
common courtesy. Look at all the letters that I, a simple Jew, gets.
They are all addressed as Harav Hagaon ... Should I not extend the
same common courtesy to others?"
---
Alas, the difference between yesteryear and today. Then, people demanded
no respect for the knowledge they knew. Today, we all demand respect
for what we don't know.
(I can tell you personally, about a great Torah giant, of the past
generation - Rabbi Simcha Wasserman zt"l. He would always address
himself as "Wasserman". His wife, of course, was "Mrs. Wasserman".)
Hayim Hendeles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Etan Diamond <aa725@...>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 17:14:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Worcestershire Sauce
With all the discussion recently about fish and meat, I was wondering
what the deal is with worcestershire sauce. I see that the bottle says
"OU-fish"--does this mean that one cannot use it in cooking with meat or
chicken?
Etan Diamond
Department of History
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
<aa725@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 18 Issue 34