[Avodah] the Sne and the Aish

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:05:00PM -0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
>> Lemaaseh, though, the "seneh bo'er ba'iesh vehasneh enunu ukal" was an
>> illusion. That's what the pasuq says "vayar". But what actually happened was
>> that the mal'akh appeared "belabas-eish mitokh hasseneh". Notice the fire
>> was really smaller, within the bush, and just gave the appearance of
>> engulfing it.
> 
> What do you mean by "an illusion"?  What is an illusion in this context?  I
> would understand the word illusion to mean it didn't really happen - like a
> kind of mirage or dream...

Look at 3:2 https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Shemot/3.2#e0n6

The pasuq says that a mal'akh appeared to Moshe from a flame within
the bush. Then is says Moshe saw a bush within a flame and yet is not
consumed.

Seems to me, pashut peshat (not just RYBS's vertl) is that in reality,
the flame was smaller than the bush. It somehow looked to Moshe much
bigger than it really was. And then he went for a second look.

(According to RYBS, the whole point of the exercise was for MRAH to take
to heart the idea that Hashem doesn't need that kind of showiness. And
when he did get it, the nevuah shifted from being via mal'akh to being
a conversation with HQBH directly. Thus his idea that it was Moshe
grasping Hashem's "tzimzum" [RYBS's use of the term] that led )o both
his emulating it and being an anav mikol adam and [less speculatively]
to Moshe's special sort of nevu'ah.)


> If there was a small "fire" that did "burn" then the centre of the bush
> would be reduced to ash, even if the rest of it was not...

Or just a central branch was on fire. Or maybe the small fire would have
eventyually consumed the bush, but the blaze (be-labas eish) he first
saw should have gone through the bush rapidly.

All I am noting is that the bush not burning is in the "vayar" description,
and not in the half of the pasuq that describes the bush and the fire
themselves.

>> What the case of LEDs adds is the possibility of making light without
>> anything reaching yad soledes bo, so a lack of havarah doesn't leave you
>> with bishul. But I don't see how the old bulb was more about combustion than
>> an LED is.
...
> The problem we have with LEDs is that there is nothing remotely similar
> described in the poskim, because nothing like LEDs were known at the time.
> While they most likely did heat a gacheles shel mateches in building the
> mishkan (so truth is, whether or not it is bishul or havara is an academic
> exercise, it is clearly assur), they most certainly did not use LEDs....

Agreed. I was just identifying the novelty there.

I thought from your first post you were saying LEDs were new because of
the lack of actual combustion.

I don't think there is combustion in the earlier kinds of light bulbs.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   exactly the right measure of himself,  and
Author: Widen Your Tent      holds a just balance between what he can
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham