tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post6970047870543858554..comments2019-03-12T02:52:29.842-04:00Comments on Al Pi Cheshbon: The Weight of the TeivaShtiklerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498936768989355610noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post-56269756907962117942012-10-21T00:13:10.285-04:002012-10-21T00:13:10.285-04:00Here's the big question I don't think I...Here's the big question I don't think I've asked you before: Did anyone in R' Heinemann's Chumash class answer the question correctly on the test? Or did any of them come up with any other creative answers?3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375https://www.blogger.com/profile/12059887722695403992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post-46669298116551370522012-10-19T01:43:50.756-04:002012-10-19T01:43:50.756-04:00It seems that what you say "However, what doe...It seems that what you say "However, what does seem problematic is that Rashi brings in the figure of 11 amos in 7:17 when the waters were at their highest intensity." can be answered by what you stated earlier "The Sifsei Chachamim quotes the Nali"t as saying that the figure of 11 amos is only a minimum but it could have been more."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post-71627268635016286812011-11-06T00:15:15.530-04:002011-11-06T00:15:15.530-04:00I forgot to mention last week - once again I went ...I forgot to mention last week - once again I went through this calculation with a few people over Shabbos. A couple of people asked the same question: How do we know the ark's shape was a rectangular prism? How do we know it wasn't boat-shaped, with a hull at the bottom? Actually you imply above that Rashi answers this question, so maybe you can relieve me of my ignorance and remind me where.3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375https://www.blogger.com/profile/12059887722695403992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post-823956985121713952010-10-10T18:38:50.943-04:002010-10-10T18:38:50.943-04:00I discussed this over Shabbos about 5 or 6 times w...I discussed this over Shabbos about 5 or 6 times with different people or groups. I think it makes sense intuitively to calculate the volume in cubic amos before converting to modern measurements, especially when prompting people to work it out mentally on Shabbos. Here's what I do: The submerged volume is 165,000 cubic amos. If we estimate an amma at half a metre, then a cubic amma is 1/8 of a cubic metre. We can then approximate the volume as 160,000 cubic amos, divide by 8 and get about 20,000 cubic metres. A cubic metre of water weighs a (metric) tonne, so the weight of the displaced water, and therefore of the box, was about 20,000 tonnes. (Chazon Ish-niks can then multiply by about 1.75 as they would for any volume measurement.)3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375https://www.blogger.com/profile/12059887722695403992noreply@blogger.com