Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 033

Tuesday, November 7 2000

• [none]
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Re: Tzohar
• Re: woman's tfila
• women's tfila
• Re: Birthday special
• Re: Tinok shenishbah
• RE: beriah and dinosaur bones
• Re: Kiddush intro
• RE: Birthday special
• Re: Birthday special
• Re: Avodah V6 #32
• Re: women's tfila
• RE: Kiddush intro
• Re: parshas Noach
• RE: Question about P. Noach
• Re: animals / flowers
• RE: women's tfila
• Re: More from Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky
• RE: parshas Noach
• Re: 85 letters makes a sefer kadosh?
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Re: Tinok Shenishbah
• Re: beriah and dinosaur bones

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> Over the weekend I came across the Halichos Shlomo and looked it up.
> RSZA was talking about someone who either came late to shul or davened
> slowly and started his silent shemone esreh with the shaliach tzibbur and
> continued together word for word with the sha"tz. See the footnote beis.

You should have read a bit further.  In footnote gimel, it refers to "shar
ha'omdim b'shemona esrei"  (i.e., those people who are _not_ saying shemona
esrei together with the shaliach tzibbur, but are merely taking a long time
to complete their silent shemona esrei), and it says that, l'chatchila, they
are not mitztaref, but, b'shas hadchak, they are mitztaref.  (page 119-120).

And, like you hypothesized in a previous post, RSZA does indeed compare the
situation to a sleeping person, who, "m'ikar hadin", is also mitztaref.

KT
Aryeh

Much of what was discussed here can be found in Mogein Avrohom O"C 51:9, 
282:1, 422:8, note also the Chochmas Shlomo on 51.

WRT V'zos Hatorah see Chosen Yeshuois (from the author of the Misgeres 
Hashulchan printed in back of the KS"A, page 30) 23:25 from R"C of Valozhin 
to say the entire Possuk of Al Pi Hashem... he concludes that since it has no 
meaning as is it is a question of Shem Lvatoloh.

WRT the Chasam Sofer and Esnachta, as to me this was Shver from the Gemara in 
Megila I looked it up in O"C # 10, and IIUC he also rejects this, and his 
reason is as quoted in the C"S on the S"A that there is no other choice, 
while he holds that starting from Yom Hashishi makes no sense, see Lkutei 
Mariach.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/6/00 3:54:01 PM EST, dbnet@barak-online.net writes:
> RYGB's comment on the kiddush intro was <because of the kol pasuk shelo 
> paskei Moshe problem.

>  Since when is yom hashishi a complete sentence? 
>  How is this an improvement over starting silently with vayhi erev?

I among others were bewildered I hope RYGB will post his reply for the list.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

At 10:48 PM 11/6/00 +0200, D & E-H Bannett wrote:
>Since when is yom hashishi a complete sentence?
>How is this an improvement over starting silently with vayhi erev?

Less than three words is nisht ken posuk, nor a pasuk fragment. Nafka mina 
for sheimos as well - I believe the source is the Gemara in Gittin about 
sirtut. Check the TE on the topic of Kol pasuk d'lo paskei Moshe as well.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated 11/7/00 10:32:50 AM EST, gdubin@loebandtroper.com writes:
> To emphasize the need of not mixing the minim,  which led to the
> mabul.

Along the same line since Nechtima Dinom Al Hagezel, this also emphasizes 
that there are different Tchumim Sheli Vshelach.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/7/00 10:30:45 AM EST, Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> Is there a chiyuv mide'oraisa for a woman (or anyone) to daven with a 
minyan?

WRT a women there is no Chiuv even Midrabanan, Shut Shvus Yaakov O"C Vol. 3, 
No. 54; Tshuvah MeAhava, VOl. 2 NO. 229.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com	
> Is there a chiyuv mide'oraisa for a woman (or anyone) to daven with a
> minyan?

chiyuv-probably not, strong preference -definitely yes. If this is not the
case for women too, then why does everyone (not to reopen an old thread) get
bent out of shape about women's tfila groups that don't do dvarim
shebikidusha - unless this is a macro halachik issue and the issue of
davening with a "real" minyan is only very ancillary)

>> PS This sounds like we don't have confidence that we can communicate the 
>> halachik priorities to women so mutav sheyihiyu shoggigim when they're 
>> single 

> "Mutav..." does not apply here because these women are not violating any 
> prohibition.

true- I meant it in a philisophical sense -that we not tell them what is
preferable (if my supposition were correct)

> It is less a matter of communication than one of hergel and emotions.  There
> are far too many men and women who get used to the single way of life and
> then resent their spouses when they finally get married.

Hmmmmm! Sounds like a chinuch problem to me - but again not a reason not to
to mitzvot "basher hu sham"

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Many years ago I looked into the inyan (or lack thereof) of birthdays.
Nothing. The only thing I could find was a cute vort from the Torah
VaDa'as (vol. 6) where he talks about "mutav lo le'adam shelo hayah
nivra". And, of course, the Rashi regarding Paroh's birthday party.
But why should we be following Paroh's minhag?

I'd be interested if anyone came up with anything.

Gil Student

Stuart Fischman wrote:
> With regards to to your question as to why a gentile cannot plead "tinok 
> shenishbah"(=ignorance) to explain his failure to fulfill his Noachide 
> obligations. This issue is raised in the first essay of Rav Elchanan 
> Wasserman zt"l in his "Kovetz Ma'amarim" titled Ma'amar al Ha'emunah" 
> paragrph 4.

R. Elchanan Wasserman (REW) was leshitaso in that he doesn't hold of
"tinok shenishbah" (in the current colloquial sense) for anyone, Jew
or gentile.

Interesting mareh makom, R. Hershel Schachter (RHS) in his Be'Ikvei
HaTzon (p. 50) says that whether one can be mechalel Shabbos for an
"apikores beshogeg" is dependent on the machlokes between REW and the
Chazon Ish regarding tinok shenishbah bizman hazeh.

In the same paragraph, RHS proceeds to quote the literature about chillul
Shabbos for a gentile (eivah, sakanah,...) and DOES NOT bring up the idea
of tinok shenishbah (which would then require a discussion of whether
one can be mechalel Shabbos for a frum Ben Noach).

Gil Student

Isaac A Zlochower
>   The physical
> bases for the above takonot are certainly valid, but the explanations
> are questionable.   The above dinim can be made consistent with
> scientific knowledge by changing the rationales to concern about food
> poisoning due to bacterial or fungul growth, and to the effect of the
> enormous heat capacity of the earth in keeping well - water at a
> relatively constant temperature (which will be warmer than the overnight
> surface temperature of an unheated room in the springtime.

This dovetails well with my understanding of Mimetics and Mesraoh that at
times practices were preserved but rationales were forgotten - primarily due
to persecutions.  The Given Rationale given might be an attempt at
speculatively reconstructing the Original Rationale.

At times, there is a secondary point, that is Chazal were intetnionally
being coy.  Several of my chevra have concluded that at times, Chazal had a
hidden agenda.

Illustration:  A Chassan must separate from his kallah for 11 days after
relations with his kallah.  The stated reason is that dam bsulim might
camouflage dam niddah.

BUT

This halachah holds even in the absence of any dam?  This is equivalent of
saying, the blood you see as well as the blod you DO NOT SEE, might be
Niddah.  kinda strange?!

Furthermore why 4/11 days and not 5/12 days?  If you REALLY want her to be
as a Niddah why not go all the way?

Conclusion:  The Chazal said Nidah blood was the issue <pun intended> but it
is not necessarily the REAL issue.  Rather there was a hidden agenda at work
here.

That is why I am reluctant to hcange old minhaggim even after the underlying
rationale has changed.

Illustration:  Burial on Yom Tov.  Some poskim seem to feel that the
Gemoro's heter of burial on Yom Tov was ONLY in the absence of
refrigeration, but nowadays there is no kavod hameis in delaying burial
until after Yom Tov.   Well, I would say that the Gemoro's agenda wrt kavod
hameis might not be limited to bodily decomposition.  There may be other
factors (e.g. spiritual) that are at work here.  This played out during the
recent, tragic levaya on Shavuos in the Satmar Kehillah.   The KAJ kehillah
is another prominet Kehilla that will bury on Yom Tov.  (background: Shavuos
was Erev Shabbos this past year, meaning YT sheini was not an option).

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 11:13:25PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Less than three words is nisht ken posuk, nor a pasuk fragment.

What about 6 words, such as "E-lokei Avraham..."?

There are many times we weave pesukim into the body of davening, not as
quotes. Does the same issue apply?

-mi

Shoshana L. Boublil
> A friend of mine recently told me that a person's birthday is a
> special day of Kirva to HKB"H and an especially good day for prayer
> and asking things.

> Does anyone know any sources for this?

Chabad has a lot of information on the subject.

Akiva

> The only thing I could find was a cute vort from the Torah VaDa'as 
> (vol. 6) where he talks about "mutav lo le'adam shelo hayah nivra". 

Sorry. Torah LaDa'as.

Gil Student

[Written by R' Matis Blum. Torah LaDa'as is a weekly parashah sheet,
possibly the first such, that RMB originally put together decades ago
when he was a talmid of Torah vaDa'as. He is still at it. RMB's favorite
divrei Torah from the sheets periodically get collected into sefarim. -mi]

A very interesting issue:

R. Gershon Dubin wrote:
>> In the lower grades they should be taught the entire tefila, according to
>> their age and abilities. In the upper grades, however, they should be taught
>> to daven LESS than they had previously been taught;
>> i.e. they should daven only what they are required to me'ikar hadin.

I think that they shouldn't be taught to daven less, rather Mincha
should be added as a requirement.  Based on the opinion that women
have to say one prayer a day -- Mincha _is_ the shortest and the one
that a woman with children is most likely to be able to pray in the
future.

But, if you don't get used to it in school when you truly have time,
it probably occurs less to women once they marry.

Shacharit is always problematic, especially with 6:00 nursing and 7:00
getting the other kids to school, and unless you wake at 5:00 (after
nursing at 2:00 am) you can find it's 10:00 before you have a moment
to think.  If you have to be at work at 8:00 -- it's even worse.

Rav Kook describes Mincha as a break in the work day to remind us of
Hashem (intro. to Olat RY"H).   Women should have a good lunch and a
short prayer break sounds great.

>> The reason is that when they get older, and are busy with families, they
>> should not make the mistake of thinking that if they cannot daven the entire
>> davening,  they have accomplished nothing and eventually wind up not davening
>> at all.  Comments?

There is a special prayer book for women, Tefilat Channa, (all
nusachim available) which has only the sections that women are
obligated to say.  They also have an everyday version that is
extremely thin.

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> There seems to be two derachim in chinuch.  One is to teach so people will be
> prepared for the future.  The other is to teach by having people do now.  For
> example, giving a child a lulav that is not his.  He is not being mekayem the
> mitzvah of lulav but does not know that so is being trained to be mekayem the
> mitzvah when he gets older.  This case is a machlokes rishonim and a stirah in
> the Mishnah Berurah.

> In a slightly different vein, RYK's case seems to be should these young
> women be preparing for their (I"YH) imminent future when they will
> not have time to daven fully by getting used to davening the minimum
> necessary or should they chap arein (?) now while they have the chance
> and fulfill the mitzvah as best as possible.

One thing that truly bothered me (still does) is that we spent a
month's worth of Dinim classes on Hilchot Tzitzit -- learning how to
sew them from scratch and how to tie the petilim etc.  We spent barely
5 minutes on Hadlakat Neirot and perhaps 15 minutes on Challah.
Niddah was taught but in such vague terms -- if you didn't know what
the rabbi was talking about -- you remained clueless.

A few years ago when preparing for a Parshat HaShavu'a lecture I was
going to give I happened upon Rav Chaim David HaLevy's introduction to
the laws of Hadlakat Neirot Shabbat.  It is a few pages long and would
have easily supplied material for a month's worth of Dinim classes --
and would have been much more relevant.

> A similar case is whether shuls should keep their ezras nashims open
> and lighted for Minchah/Ma'ariv on erev/Shabbos for single women.
> It is certainly a mitzvah for them to daven with a minyan. However,
> if they get used to that, when they are married and unable to go to shul
> at those times they will feel cheated. In other words, should they be
> preparing for the future or living for the moment. It seems like RYK
> would want the ezras nashims closed and/or unlighted at those times.

YES!!!!  Please leave Ezrat Nashim open and lit at all times.
Sometimes I go visiting and the mother of the house doesn't need my
help, so I can go to shul at night, despite being married and a
mother.  It is extremely frustrating to come and find the Ezrat Nashim
locked and dim (so that even if someone can find the key, I still
can't daven there).

On another note, for the many mothers out there who like to pick up
their feet on Erev Shabbat -- if the single girls are home (b/c they
can't go to shul) -- mommy can't rest!

Shoshana L. Boublil

Joel Rich wrote:

> chiyuv-probably not, strong preference -definitely yes. If this is not the 
> case for women too, then why does everyone (not to reopen an old thread) get 
> bent out of shape about women's tfila groups that don't do dvarim shebikidusha
> - unless this is a macro halachik issue and the issue of davening with a 
> "real" minyan is only very ancillary)

Because, if you're going to do it, do it the best way.  If you are going to 
leave your home and travel to a public prayer gathering, make it a gathering 
that is halachically best, one that is mekayem the most mitzvos.
     
> Hmmmmm! Sounds like a chinuch problem to me - but again not a reason not to to
> mitzvot "basher hu sham"
     
That is exactly a reason not to do optional mitzvos when the emotional effect 
can be negative.

Gil Student

re: 2-word fragmetns how about Rabba Emunsoech?

AFAIK it's a fargament of Chadashim labkorim, Rabba emunosecha.

See KSA 1:2 where it's implicit...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

Me:

>> out that on the most obvious level, this doesn't present a problem, because
>> there weren't different continents until Peleg's time. 

RAA:

>Source?

I heard this p'shat years ago in yeshivah, can't remember who said it. A
sefer that I believe you typeset - The Mysteries of Creation, by Rabbi
Dovid Brown - also has a discussion on the idea, although he says that the
intial split was in the time of Enosh, and that a second great split took
place in Peleg's time. See page 91 onwards. Let me say that I'm not a
scientist, but find these topics fascinating. I hestitate to get into a
discussion of Torah and science books both because I'm not a trained
scientist, and don't want to get involved in any L.H. shailos about the
authors, but having said that, I know some of them personally, and their
integrity is beyond a doubt.

Now I'd like to throw out a kasha: what is the difference between
a lashon and a safa? In 10:31, it states that these are Sheim's
descendants... according to their lashonos, and in 11:1, the earth was
one safa. The obvious question is, how could the divisions of Sheim's
descendants be according to their lashonos, if in those generations,
there was only one language? A friend told me a Rav (can't remember name)
said it was al da'as l'asid. According to the TT and the DZ, everyone knew
two languages: Ivris and their own. According to either p'shat, what's the
signifigance of the two different terms, and what is the meaning of each?

Eli

[Before answering, please see the discussion titled "Dor haflagah":
    http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n055.shtml#16 - me (mi)
    http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v04n057.shtml#04 - RYGB
    http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n056.shtml#15 - RRD
    http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n068.shtml#01 - me
-mi]

MSB:
> R' Aharon Lichtenstein offers the idea that kibbush's potential is
> both litov and not. For a Noach who ran "vayichal" -- to get drunk
> and enjoy olam hazeh, the latter would dominate.

FWIW I don't see Noach's drunkeness as a result of hedonism.  I see it as a
depressive episode following his "survivor guilt" or his guilt over not
intervening on behalf of his generation. 

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 10:00:59AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> RSRH writes that the differences in flora and fuana are part of HKBH's
:> processes in separates us in different cultures and languages. IOW,
:> this is part of the neis of dor hahaflagah.

: That still doesn't answer the question of how physically animals
: moved from Ararat across oceans when there is no land connection
: between Asia and America or Australia or myriads of islands like Hawaii.

It does, since the haflaga (note the "the" before the "ha-") was lima'alah
min hateva.

IOW, presumably some neis caused mankind to diversify. RSRH says that
this very thing was that neis -- they, animals and plants were dispersed
to give different communities very different experiences.

-mi

Joel Rich wrote:
> Hmmmmm! Sounds like a chinuch problem to me - but again not a reason not to to
> mitzvot "basher hu sham"

Gil Student
That is exactly a reason not to do optional mitzvos when the emotional
effect can be negative.

Hyptohetically speaking:
Let's say I resent very high prices for esrogim... 

Would I be better off buying a minimally kosher esrog at a moderate price as
opposed to spending a lot of $$$ on a high priced alternative that I resent?

Of course you COULD say spend the extra money and change that atitude, but
let's just say it's not so easy to change ...

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes
> A similar case is whether shuls should keep their ezras nashims open
> and lighted for Minchah/Ma'ariv on erev/Shabbos for single women.
> It is certainly a mitzvah for them to daven with a minyan. However,
> if they get used to that, when they are married and unable to go to shul
> at those times they will feel cheated. In other words, should they be
> preparing for the future or living for the moment. It seems like RYK
> would want the ezras nashims closed and/or unlighted at those times.

And then in a later Post:
> "Mutav..." does not apply here because these women are not violating
> any prohibition.

> It is less a matter of communication than one of hergel and emotions.
> There are far too many men and women who get used to the single way of
> life and then resent their spouses when they finally get married.

But in the case you cite here (ie women davening b'tzibbur on Friday
night) it is not their spouses they are resenting.  A married but
childless woman is perfectly able to go to shul on Friday night, the
existance or absence of a spouse really has nothing much to do with it
one way or another.  It is once the children come along that the
situation changes so dramatically.

And yet another thing that a woman with small children is unable to do
on a Friday night (even with an eruv) and all shabbas (without), which
she was perfectly able to do as a single, and even as a married couple,
is be hosted by somebody else (ie not have to do all the cooking and
washing up).  Do you think that RYK would argue that single women and
married couples should refuse all shabbas invitations because in the
future they will not be able to?  (And that should apply to men too.  If
once you have children you are restricted to eating at home  because
your wife can't get out, maybe you should train the men early and not
let them accept hospitality).

Regards
Chana
Chana/Heather Luntz

> I know some of them personally, and their integrity is beyond a doubt.

So do I -- and I agree with you about their integrity.

Integrity, however, is no indication of the correctness of the person's
hypothesis. All "integrity" tells us is that the person isn't consciously
lying. It doesn't rule out the possibility of the person being mistaken.

In most areas where the Frum community endorses pseudoscience, the people
involved *are* sincere in their beliefs. That doesn't mean they aren't
wrong. They honestly believe that what they believe in is *true*, even when
people more knowledgeable and more qualified challenge their beliefs.

This becomes problematic when Gedolim rely on these people about the
validity of the ideas; especially when they elevate the belief to a "Torah
truth" level.

Akiva

Eric Simon wrote:
: My question for you experts (from someone who does not have Breshis Rabbah
: or Mishna Yadayim): is the minumum of 85 letters derived from the fact that
: there are two inverted nuns and the Medrash -- *or* -- is the Medrash an
: _application_ of the "85-letter rule" derived elsewhere?

On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:37:48AM +0200, Ari Kahn wrote:
: The 85 letters are learned from this section in Behalotcha, tradition records
: that this is a separate book, this is found in the Gemara of Shabbat
: 115b-116a, as well as the Mishna and various midrashim.

The gemara tells us that R' Sh'mu'el bar Nachman quotes R' Yonasan
that "Vayhi binso'a" is a sefer bifnei atzma -- making 7 books of the
Torah. (Bamidbar up to the inverted nun, Vayhi binso'a, and from the
2nd inverted nun to the end makes three sepharim whereas we call it one
chumash. Thereby adding 2 to make 7.)

I couldn't tell from the gemara if "Vayhi binso'a" is cited as a makor
or as a ra'ayah. Which was RES's original question.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 09:09:09AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: The esnachto consititues enough of a hefsek to not violate the rule of Kol
: Passuk.  IOW the rule does apply but it is lav davkathe sof passuk.

Why then is there a shittah that holds that one must correct a leining
mistake involving a sof passuk -- even if it's confused with an esnachta?
One would think that if either closes a passuk, no real harm was done.

-mi

On Fri, Nov 03, 2000 at 12:36:54PM -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
:> A while back, R. Chaim Brown and I discussed whether the halachic
:> category of Tinok Shenishbah also applies to Bnei Noach.

: Don't recall, but why should it - tinok shenishba is a ptur from korban,
: not a catch-all heter?

You presume that tinok shenishba (TsN) is a p'tur, definable purely in
terms of it's halachic impact, and not a chalos sheim in itself. This was
an argument we had here recently that sort of tapered off with no clear
conclusion.

I think (and this is mainly a sociological statement) that most people
think of TsN in terms of dinei Shamayim -- who is it HKBH is going to
judge leniently?

In that sense of the term, why wouldn't He show rachmanus on AKu"M who
couldn't have known any better? It certainly fits in with REED's notion of
"bechirah point".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

>  The above dinim can be made consistent with
> scientific knowledge by changing the rationales to concern about food
> poisoning due to bacterial or fungul growth...

> An extensive, referenced treatment of this topic has been given by Rav
> Shlomo Sternberg, a mathematics prof. at Harvard,  in the BDD journal
> published by Bar - Ilan

While I personally find the issue of science and halacha to be very
interesting - gedolim seem to disagree. Rabbi Shurkin told me that Rav
Soleveitchik felt it was a waste of time to "reconcile" science and Torah
and ridiculed the whole enterprise. Rav Moshe Feinstein also seemed to
have a similar attitude. Why this is true is an interesting question
but it doesn't change the reality.

Prof Sternberg's article B.D.D. 4, Winter 1997 was very interesting,
well organized, cited many sources and clearly points out many points of
conflict between science and Torah and displayed an impatience with those
who don't share his point of view. However a talmid chachom I know well
went over the article with a fine tooth comb and told me he seriously
disagreed with Prof. Sternberg's understanding of the Torah sources. (I
assume that Prof Sternberg would disagree with the disagreement.) I
personally was bothered by the following page 87, "There is a fourth
position, that taken by Rabbi Herzog z"l, Rabbi Feinstein z"l and many
of the great rabbinical authorities of the generation of my youth. This
position asserts that we must recognize that Hazal were influenced by
the scientific assumptions of their time, and that we must take into
account advances in scientific knowledge. We must use the best theories
currently available, even if this means on occasion, that some details of
Halakhah are modified. These problems cannot be solved wholesale and must
be resolved in individual cases, the more pressing problems being dealt
with first. It is up to the current generation of Rabbis and halakhic
authorities to do the best job possible with the knowledge currently
available in as honest a manner as possible. This is the ideology to which
I subscribe, even though it is old-fashioned and currently out of mode."
..."A fifth possiblity is to take some mixture of the above approaches:
to accept the necessity of modifying some Halakhot but not others. For
example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein z"l decided to allow a husband to undergo
biopsy...but he differentiates very firmly between the law in this case
and the terefah laws which he declares to be immutable."

I have difficulty with his attempt to impose a classification of attitudes
of various gedolim to this issue based upon inferences drawn from some
selective sampling. In particular I don't see that he is accurately
describing Rav Moshe's attitude to the issue. In most cases gedolim
do not directly address this question and I think Rav Soleveitchik's
viewpoint is typical - the issue of science and halacha is basically
ignored or held to be irrelevant. A letter from R. Menachem Goldberger
says, "R. Aaron Batt told me in the name of R. Soloveitchik that although
individual talmidei hakhamim may be wrong, the Masorah community of all
talmidei hakhamim of all generations cannot be wrong. This consensus
is that hilkhot terefot cannot be changed". To which Prof Sternberg
replies, "...I confess that I am confused as to Rabbi Goldberger's
position...The 8th month fetus as unviable...was an established halakhic
dictum...but completely false medical doctrine...I need not go down
the list. Does Rabbi Goldberger deny these statements? What, in fact,
does he propose?...A more rational approach, taking scientific advances
more seriously into account is needed...."

In sum, Prof Sternberg's criticisms leave us with two basic alternatives
1) the gedolim and consequently the halacha have been seriously out
of step with reality for thousands of years c.v. 2) the concern with
agreement with science described by Prof Sternberg is seriously out of
step with the halachic process.

Daniel Eidensohn

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]