<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=windows-1255 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7100.4137"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>R' Micha, for the most part, I hear what you are
saying, and it is as good an attempt at explaining EvE as I have seen (though I
have not seen much on this). Nevertheless I still have to profess a
residual unease even though I am willing to accept much of what you write (as I
have had thoughts along some of those lines myself).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Let me try and paint a picture that includes (and
perhaps elaborates) I think much of what you wrote. correct me if I am
wrong or you disagree with my summary.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>1) There is but one reality, it is the existence of G-d
and his "boundless self-knowledge" which is one and inseparable from him. (If I
knew him, I would be him). Since "ain od milvado" then in a real sense there is
no other knowledge, it is all a reflection of some truth about G-d.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>2) Some how thru "Tsimtsum" He allows the "limited
reality" of the universe to be and the resulting finite beings in this
universe due to their intrinsic limitations can only grasp some limited
understanding of the total "boundless self-knowledge" of G-d.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>3) I may be on shaky ground here in my assumptions: In a
real sense (G-d's perspective), Torah is the "boundless self-knowledge" (I
suspect that this is the meaning of "Yisroel ve'Auraysa ve'Kudsha Brich Hu chad
hu" but I am not clear on how Yisroel fits in here. I am also not sure if the
KBH here is actually G-d, or some tsimtsum based semblance of G-d in the
Sefirot???). Torah given to mankind, is a subset ( a man-size abridgement
designed by G-d) of the total superset that only G-d can realize. I presume this
is in some way expressed in a finite TSBK and a limitless TSBP? (I feel on
shaky ground mostly in this last statements about the nature of Torah, so if
anyone understands this differently let me know). It is in this sense that the
malachim wanted Torah as some meforshim explain, they wanted a malachim-sized
(appropriate) abridgement of the supraset of Torah designed for them.
(Actually, I do not understand why they can not have their
version even while we have our version - why are the two mutually
exclusive, so that if we get our mankind appropriate Torah, they can not have
their version too).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>4) Olam Haba, the ultimate gemul, is greater attachment
to G-d through more understanding of greater (but still limited) parts of the
supraset of our Torah, that we could not grasp within the more limiting
structure of olam hazeh.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>5) Now the metaphor of shadows (and what I meant by my
mathematical expressions f(x,y,k), a lower dimensional slice of a higher
dimension) for EvE that you use fits well within this overall picture.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>6) My issues begin here. If men are fungibly equal, then
our appropriate and correct view should be the same (we should all see the same
shadow) for every individual and if we do not, it is only due to error. Thus we
are not all fungible, and this fits well with the notion that the shoresh of our
neshama for each individual comes from a different part of the overall whole, so
they are not fungible and therefore might logically and naturally view a
different shadow. This also sits well with the notion that each shevet had its
own nusach for tefila (I can not recall where I saw this idea). If this is
correct, then there should be a whole spectrum of pesak (and
EvE) appropriate to each individual, why are we all shoehorned into the
views of only BH and BS as there should be as many perspectives as there are
individuals? I then thought, that in fact this seems to be what we are getting
as we march through time - there are more and more shitos, and different
minhagim. Yet we view this as a deteriorating march away from the ideal at
Sinai, rather than a march toward the ideal spectrum of pesak to better match
each individual's different perspective (shadow or choice of k).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>7) Along the same lines of thought, I would imagine from
mathematical analogy, just as in mathematical analysis in a well behaved
function, a small change in x will produce a small change in y, why are we
getting diametrically opposed results (eg., tamei or tahor)? Why are the shadows
we see so different? Furthermore, if the picture I paint is correct, the the
ideal would be "tisgodedu" yet we are commanded "lo tisgodedu." Clearly my
thinking runs into a ditch somewhere - where?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>I have allowed myself the luxury of thinking aloud here,
these are not conclusive opinions just where my wandering (and wondering)
mind led me for now.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RMB wrote: <FONT face="Times New Roman">In the world of
thought, contradiction is NOT a show stopper. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman">CM: I do find this
problematic. In what world of thought is 2+2=5 admissible? Avoiding
contradiction is always required. In my world of thought it is always a show
stopper.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT><FONT face=Calibri>Kol tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>