(c) Apr 18 2001 RashiYomi Inc. MY COLLECTED & INDEXED MAIL JEWISH POSTINGS-Ver #1
Individual Postings 1st appeared(& were copied in html form) on the Email List Mail Jewish

From: rhendel@king.mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 19:24:16 -0400
Subject: Concepts vs Molecules:  Lamdus Vs Metaphors:

[Schild, Vol 24, #37] raises questions about prohibiting reading faxes
received on Shabbath since, he claims, it it only an anthromorphic
metaphor to see a resemblance between an egg that is lain and fax that
is received.

 From a *molecular* point of view, there is no doubt, that biological
birth is a more complex phenomena than receiving a fax.  However the
metaphor is only a springboard which must be accompanied with proper
tools of analysis and Lamdus.

A proper approach uses constructs vs molecular theory.  Talmudic
learning uses the concept of "entity status" popularly know as "chalus
sham---status of name". To use Chayim's own example, an electric motor
has the "name" (i.e. status) motor whether it is running or not.
Similarly my watch's handles exist eternally and do no become "new"
everytime a second changes.

On the other hand, if at one point in time I see a chicken and then a
second later I see a ` chicken and egg we say that "a new status" or "a
new entity" or "a new name" has arisen.  Similarly if at one moment I
see blank paper and then at the next moment I see a written document
then a "new status" or "new entity" or "new name"---the received fax has
been created.

True, the molecules of the egg did not just pop up and certainly
>>electrons do not modulate themselves into ASCII>> but the new status
or "egg" or "received fax" nevertheless was created.

The purpose of the laws of nolad was to rabinically limit use of "newly
created entities" since they violate the "spirit" of the Shabbath and
Yom Tov which suggests that we already have everything we` need (as in
creation).

I hope this clarifies the psak I mentioned which I think is a valid
one. (On a less serious note for those into lamdus, Rambam, Nizkay Mamon
9:1 suggests that an unborn egg, unlike an unborn embryo, is not part of
the mother (in tort law)...and this has always perplexed me when
compared with the perception of the born egg in Nolad laws(In other
words, if according to tort law the egg was separate from the mother
*before* birth how can nolad laws claim that the egg was created when it
was born!?!?)  Any lamdanim who can unscramble this problem?

Russell Hendel, rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu