Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 035

Wednesday, October 31 2001

• Re: iqqorim
• ikkarim
• Ikkarim as normative
• Re: iqqorim
• Re: iqqorim and R. Moshe b. Chisdoi/Taku
• halacha vs science
• Re: ikkarim
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: Ikkarim:Academics vs Torah
• Re: FW: Ikkarim
• Fish and meat
• Re: Fish and meat
• be mispalleil for Rav Elozor Menacheim Man ben Bas Sheva - not Rav Eliezer MM...

> RDE's discussions about the starting points for an academic vis a vis a
> poseiq's perspective is by and large accurate -- up to a point. And that
> point (ok, line) was crossed when he started to discuss the necessity of
> following hashkofic beliefs in the same way one submitted to halochic
> consensus....

Solid point. Similarly how is rov poskim determined. How is it ascertained
that the majority can't observe a rabbinic decree etc etc. Even though
there are not mechanical rules which are activated - decisions are in
fact made about these issues by rabbinic authorities. My point was that
gedolim do make such decision and they determine the boundaries. I was
not dictating who was on the list of gedolim. Rav Michel Shurkin told me
recently that Rav Moshe would often cite the gemora (Sanhedrin 93b) that
moshiach will determine halacha by smell. Rav Moshe said that a poseik
needs to have a good sense of what is the correct position and that the
basis of these type of decisions are not always readily articulated.

 RDE's remarks about
> dr. Sternberg's BDD article deserve an entirely separate thread. the role
> of to'us in m'tzius and the halochic process is much too source-rich a
> topic to be casually blown off because the error in m'tzius happens to
> be pointed out by a "professor". Unless RDE is actually disputing the
> notion that such factual errors -- undisputed by anyone today, i hope
> -- can have halachic resonance. Neither Dr. Sternberg, nor any other
> academic that i'm aware of, has suggested that the halachic implications
> of such academically uncovered factual errors are to be "legislated" for
> practical purposes by any other than the very pos'qim whose prerogative
> to do so RDE zealously defends. Thus, now that academics have explained
> the facts of blood life, the approach of the chelqas yaacov or (the
> somewaht different approach) of r. shlomo zalman to paternity tests is
> what one may look to -- not the medical encyclopedia. Or, now that our
> academics have explained that internal plumbing and respiratory system
> different than the SA's conception, we might look to a poseiq to draw
> the appropriate practical conclusions etc. etc.

If Dr. Sternberg was simply making the above point I would have no problem
with it. But he is going beyond the point of saying -"I have some facts
that the great rabbis need to consider. I look forward to seeing and
accepting their response". He is criticizing and disparaging the position
of major rabbinic authorities who disagree with him. So even though he
does indicate that the revisions should be done by rabbinic authorities
- he clearly indicates the position they must reach if they are to be
considered competent. Even though he has been described as a very solid
talmid chachom - I did not notice citations of talmidei chachomim who
agreed with him. Doesn't that strongly suggest that there are none? I am
simply faced with the dilema of accepting his views or that of the rest
of the Jewish world. We can loop back to the first point above and it
should be obvious how to resolve this dilema. What is so difficult about
understanding that the valid Jewish position does not exist independently
of the views of rabbinic authorities - no matter how you define them? The
"objective" world of the academic is not that of the Torah authorities
and the conclusions are not foregone as the academic assumes. When
the Torah authority doesn't agree with academic it is not prima facie
evidence that the authority has trouble facing reality or is an ignoramus.

                                                            Daniel Eidensohn

> 1. There's a difference between a Rishon arguing these issues with
> his contemporaries and we spiritual and intellectual pygmies (by
> comparison!) deciding on our own to adopt the view that the Rishonim
> rejected. Translation: a Rishon has the right to say that he doesn't
> believe there was true yesh mei'ayin, but for us the issue is settled
> and we no longer have the right to reopen it. Look at it like the halacha
> of zaken mamrei - the Sanhedrin has paskened already.

Arguing with a rishon is not the same as arguing against a psak of the
sanhedrin. Gra argued against rishonim without being a zaken mamre.
For me to argue with a rishon may be foolish but not zaken mamre.
It is agreed that the Talmud is accepted by everyone and so R. Hillel's
position is not acceptable. There is no corresponding psak about rishonim.

When there is a discussion among rishonim who is to decide what is
settled unless it appears in SA and commentaries. If I think shedim
don't exist does that mean I disagree the consensus since Gra argued
vehemntly against the philosopher Rambam? What if someone agrees with
Rambam that for the average person G-d does not change the world for
reward and punishment in this world which is contradicted by Kabbalah
and the Rosh Hashana davening.

> 2. There's also a difference between arguing on a theoretical plane
> and doing something halacha l'maaseh. While there is no doubt schar for
> understanding why Rabbeinu Tam held as he did with respect to zmanim,
> I think there is also no doubt that someone who is doing melacha thirty
> minutes after shkiya in 2001 is a mechalel Shabbos, regardless of whether
> or not he holds shitas Rabbeinu Tam at the end of Shabbos.

Since major communities accepted R. Tam both le-kula and le-chumra I
don't see how you can that.

Eli Turkel

>> This is a well known machloket I am somewhat surprised that this approach in
>> general is written out of Orthodoxy, but am content to be with Rav Hai Gaon
>> and the rambam.  This disagreement is not between academics and the Orthodox
>> community  but rather, on the extent of da'as torah ("to understand what
>> gedolim say about these things") - one of the major disagreements between
>> haredi and MO.

I don't know whether to be more astonished by the suggestion that R.
Lichtenstein is a liberal on the question of normative ikkarei emuna or by
the claim that the Rambam belongs to that camp.

Isn't it the Rambam who is blamed by the proponents of orthopraxy for
introducing rigorous standards of correct belief?

To the best of my knowledge, the only evidence that would place the Rambam
in the liberal camp is the three places in Perush haMishna where he says
that there is no pesak in certain halakhic matters. None of the Mishnayot
under consideration deals with matters of theological dogma. They concern
rather matters of historical reconstruction or prediction (which
historical figures are excluded from a share in Olam haBa and so forth).

> In this context, there is a clear heritage of the Berlin school - Rav
> Hildesheimer, RDZ Hoffman, and the Seride Esh who halacha lemaa'ase
> allowed objective studies.

In my response to R. Parnes (Torah uMadda J 3) I pointed out what to me is
the obvious fact that the words "objective" and "subjective" have been
given many different meanings by philosophers and by regular people. If I
recall correctly my resort to a dictionary led me to conclude that some of
R. Parnes's statements simply didn't make sense to me.

Likewise here: I have no idea what could possibly be meant by the above
Gedolim permitting "objective" studies unless the word "objective" is
being used in such a "pareveh" sense that it commits them to
virtually nothing at all.

I have similar problems with the quotation below.

> To my mind, the goal of an academic is to find objective truth. (This
> explains academia's trend toward relativism when it can not find anything
> objectively verifiable.)

> The aim of limud Torah is to make the truth subjective. This means that
> Torah can also be supported by subjective experiences, things that can
> not be relayed to a third party.

At 10:49 AM 10/30/01 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
>                     Since [RYGB] is convinced that Dr shapiro's book --
>which has not even appeared yet so surely he cannot have read it -- will
>only prove it to an even greater extent, one can only infer that arguments
>to the contrary which may be adduced in this yet non-existent tome are
>ignorable l'mafre'oh. Not really much point in bothering to read it.

C"V!!!!
I do not want to deprive Dr. Shapiro of sales!!!
By all means, read it!!
Then I am sure you will agree with me!
:-)

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

At 10:54 AM 10/30/01 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
>Lets see if we can identify a problem with this picture. On the one hand 
>we have a card carrying rishon, one of the baalei tosophos no less. An 
>odom godole -- not my own characterization but rather that of the ramban...
>           On the other hand we have mention on this list that: <2. Who 
>exactly cares what this fellow says anyway? Perhaps his fellow medieval 
>Jews did not drink R' Moshe of Taku's wine uncooked!> followed by On a 
>list whose members generally display a commendable sensitivity for the 
>kovode of g'dolei yisroel in general let alone a rishonic talmudic 
>commentator...

Come, come RMF - an admirable mecho'oh on Kavod ha'Torah, but simply
out of place.

(I really shouldn't say this, but I will - I have a strong sense that
those who quote RMofT as an authoritative perspective on what was
acceptable amongst the Rishonim would quote the Malmad in a similar
vein...)

I do not have the reference in the Shapiro essay to check if he quotes
RMofT correctly, perhaps RMF is correct v'lav me'ta'amei, perhaps
DMS misquotes RMofT - perhaps RMofT holds that ther can be corporeal
manifestations of Divine Presence or something of that sort - nothing
heretical about that. Indeed, I like that limud zechus.

But even were RMofT to have held a view that was, by our lights,
heretical, it would prove nothing.

1. Even a "Chochom Godol" can make mistakes.

2. He might have misspoken or been engaged in polemics.

3. A view not confirmed by other Rishonim - is not a view of the Rishonim.

AND, by Rishonim I do not mean the more obscure ones - which, Chochom
Godol as he may have been, include RMofT, kevodo b'mekomo munach - but
Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, the Ri, the Rif, the Rach, the Rambam, the Ramban,
the Rosh, the Rashba, etc.

(No ordering meant!)

We know who they are.

Indeed, we well know that RYBS held that the zayde was greater than some
of the minor GE'ONIM, let alone Rishonim.

Perhaps, as RMF contends, I met up with RMofT in some Tosafos, and then
forgot having done so.

But the point is that I have forgotten. I have not forgotten quite a
few more.

4. Al achas kamma v'kamma that this RMofT's statement is not mentioned
by other Rishonim (at least those in the category of point 3 above). See
on this above, point 1.

In sum, kevod RMofT b'mekomo munach, afar ani tachas kappos raglav,
but I stand by the thrust of my arguments.

P.S. From the Ra'avad's "quibble" with the Rambam over corporeality it
is evident that both of them held there are "right" and "wrong" views
in theology. No?

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

> 1) The summer 2001 edition of Tradition provides an example of the
> traditional Torah approach. Dr. Rosner has an article "Eating fish and
> meat together Is there a danger? ...    He concludes, "the prohibition
> of the consumption of fish and meat together is a rabbinic ordinance
> based on possible unexplained harm that may result...
>                Although the facts may change, the Torah never changes and
> rabbinc decrees and ordinaces cannot easily be set aside...Our knowledge
> of nutrition nowadays is far from perfect. The intimate chewing togetter
> of meat and fish may cause the mingling of certain fatty acids or other
> substances which may be harmful to the body. Until we have scientific
> evidence to the contrary observant Jews will continue to abide by the
> rabbinic wisdom of old which was based on personal observation or first
> hand knowledge....

This is a very unfair example. It is easy to be machmir on not eating
meat and fish together in spite of medical knowledge. Most people would
claim that the prohibition is based on segulot and not medicine.

There is an entire book on contradictions between the Talmud and medicine
where the author stresses he is only talking about halacha le-maaseh and
brings the discussions of rishonim and acharonim that frequently rely on
nishate ha-teva.
In some cases this can be scientifically justified in many other cases
it cannot.

the real questions are as Shlomo Sternberg points out what to do with
a 8 month fetus on shabbat, questions of niddah for a pregnant woman,
questions of terefah etc, in which the posek must decide whether to
pasken like a gemara against science or else to rely on modern science
and give the answer of nishtane ha-teva without any justification. Modern
day poskim have struggled with this issue with various approaches either
explicitly or implictly given.
With the exception of very few poskim have they generally said to ignore
science beacuse of a conflict with a gemara.

Eli Turkel

At 12:36 PM 10/30/01 -0800, Eli Turkel wrote:
>1. Anything decided in the Talmud is accepted and one cannot rely on
>minority opinions e.g. Hillel II etc.
>2. Anything stated by a major rishon or acharon is acceptable and not
>apikorsus.
>However, not everyone who lived at the time of the rishonim or today
>qualifies. I don't see how someone like Taku can be accepted as a
>major rishon. ...
>Recent acharonim would be more controversial as to whom one would accept at
>least as a minority position.

ZGG!
YGB

[Email #1 -mi]

In a message dated 10/30/2001 10:09:11am EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> There's also a difference between arguing on a theoretical plane
> and doing something halacha l'maaseh. 

AGREED!

> understanding why Rabbeinu Tam held as 
> he did with respect to zmanim, I think there is also no doubt that someone 
> who is doing melacha thirty minutes after shkiya in 2001 is a mechalel 
> Shabbos, regardless of whether or not he holds shitas Rabbeinu Tam at the 
> end of Shabbos.
> - Carl

Depends! Some Communities have ALWAYS followed RT. It is arguable that
they can be someich on that Masorah. Where I would agree with you is
that anyone outside that community cannot take on RT willy-nilly.

I agree once the psak is nispashet it cannot be {easily} repealed.
Examples include Ma'ariv as Chiyyuv vs. Rshus and Tefillin of Rashi
vs. RT. But say hypothetically, if there were a community that has
continuously worn RT tefillin all along I would invoke minhag avosom
beyadam to be melamed zchus.

FWIW I just heard today {but I cannot confirm} that there was a shul
or community in Yersuhalayim that maintainted the triennial cycle up to
the 1950's.

[Email #2 -mi]

In a message dated 10/30/2001 10:09:26am EST, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
> R. Aaron Batt told me in the name of R. Solevietchik that
> although individual talmidi hakhamim may be wrong, the masaorah community
> of all talmidei hakhamim of all generations cannot be wrong. This
> consensus is that hilkhot terfot cannot be changed.

Even when a consensus of Gdolim WERE in error in their opinion in a
single generation - that opinion would still be binding. This is similar
to a Sanhedrin that can make a mistake, too. We agree that in the long
run once that opinion was accepted by consensus over time, it is highly
unlikely that that opinion was ever flawed.

{Yet I would not label earlier Gdolim who dissented as apikorsim either.
IF you can show me a "gadol" in Ezra's time who posited that Moshiach
could be born and died and resurrected it does NOT necessarily mean he
was a Proto-Xtian. What it DOES mean is that the matter was not paskened
until after Xtianity became fact and not theory. AIUI, the Rambam is
not preventing new heresies, he is rejecting old ones such as Xtianity,
Islam, Karaism, and Zduki'ism}

Now Klal Yisarel could have institutionalized Albo's 3 instead of Rambam's
13. It chose not to by overwhelming consensus.

FWIW: 
Even liberal Neo-Orthodox types such as Isaac Leeser of the 19th Century
promoted the Ikkarim as is. And I don't recall Yigdal being yanked from
any of Silvernan's or Bopkser's C Siddurim, either.

[Email #3 -mi]

In a message dated 10/30/2001 6:07:13pm EST, carmy@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Isn't it the Rambam who is blamed by the proponents of orthopraxy for
> introducing rigorous standards of correct belief?

I consider myself an advocate of Orthopraxy, but I would say the 13
ikkarim are normative EVEN in my version of Orthopraxy.

That is because I consider it as completely ratified by consensus and
incorporated into the liturgy. Davening ipso facto determines emunos
v'dieos. otherwise Reform would not have felt compelled to radical alter
the Siddur. FWIW Ben Zion Bokser darshened the Siddur into a highly
modern metaphor to get around a few rough spots, neverthless he did NOT
excise the ikkarim.

My point re: ikkarim is that they become a sine qua non both lechumra
and lekula re: emunos v'deios. The fact that no one has come up with
a list of 22 or 45 or 99 ikkarim is indicative of this. Contrast this
with Zchiros where German Siddurim have 4 zchiros, many siddurim have 6
Zchiros and I recnetly found a siddur with about 10. Zchor al tishkach:
Kol hamarbe zchiros harei zeh meshubach! <smile>

Consider the controversy in Chabad re: the late rebbe and the fact that
Chabad {al pi the Ari} excised the 13 ikkarim from Siddur Tehilas Hashem.

It's kinda nice having a common creed despite the skepticism of the
intellegentsia.

[Email #4 -mi]

In a message dated 10/30/2001 6:06:40pm EST, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
> ....All
> scientific statements of Chazl having halachic consequences were
> correct! [the professors astonishment] One must assume infallibity on
> the part of Chazal...The notion of actual changes in nature became an
> ideological position for the Chazon Ish and his followers....we are
> supposed to take this position seriously![the professors astonishment]"

This can be moderated
Any position of Chazal re: Science (or history) can be seen as normative
BUT
we need not believe that position to be true in the physical world

A simple example is controversy re: the Bayyis sheini era is it 420
or 586?
The normative Halacha is 420
That does not mean that we need BELIEVE in our heart of hearts that it was
LITERALLY 420.

Another illustration - if Chazal tell us in a Halachic constrtruct that
we should treat fish and meat as dangerous, we do. But we are not bound
to believe that this is scientific fact.

Lich'ora If believing Chazal as being literally accurate in the scientifc
arena is an ikkar someone would have made it an ikkar by now <smile>

[Email #5 -mi]

In a message dated 10/30/2001 6:06:35pm EST, Maylocks1@aol.com writes:
> But what about Raavad,
> who says that if you believe God has a body you are not a heretic? What
> about R. Yosef Albo who says likewise? What about the Hovot ha-Levavot and
> Or ha-Hayyim (Yavetz) who also say that if you mistakenly believe this
> you are not a heretic? People on this list act as if there is general
> agreement on this issue when in fact it was debated for hundreds of
> years. Sages haven't spoken of it much in the last few hundred years,
> since there is no longer any dispute, but this doesn't mean that if
> confronted by a contemporary anthropomorphist they would regard him as a
> heretic. 

As I see it this is simple - at one time it was not deemed heresy but
later on it was.

If you look at the 13 ikkarim, the were in many ways responses or
reactions to major heresies; to wit: Tzdukkim, Xtians, Moslems, and
Karaites.

It is quite conceviable that until the advent of these heresies that
the specfic deviations were NOT ikkarim.

For example, there were MANY frum yiddn who assumed Shabtai Zvi was the
real thing at one time. But the next generation could no longer adhere
to SZ w/o having gone beyond the pale. Maybe in Hizkiyahu's time it was
OK to regard him as Moshiach, but it is not OK now. Maybe in Bar Kochba's
day it was OK to re: him as Moshiach....

So the WHEN is critical.

[Email #6 -mi]

In a message dated 10/30/2001 11:27:42am EST, michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com
writes:
> (try a test --
> walk into your local yeshivah's bais medrash and pick on a few random
> learners there. explain to them that the rambam's iqqorim today weren't
> really what the rambam meant exactly, but what is required was belief
> in your current version -- not the rambam's. see how far you get.)

And try on this test
Ask the Bachurim if they prefer to daven the Amidah as orignally
formulated by Anshei Knesses Hag'dolah vs. that of Hagaon r. Artscroll
and see which one they pick! <smile>

Thge fact that the average Yeshiva Bachur is unaware of the nuances of
how Halachah can evolve does not mean it does not evolve. Especially
when the formulations are rabbinic. Consider the evolution of the 3
weeks and the 9 days.

Lemashal When the US ratified the Constitution, MANY states demanded
that there be a bill of rights, IOW they put a defacto Tnai on the
entire process.

So the First Congress Drafted and passed TWELVE (no not 10) amendments.
But only 10 of the 12 were ratified. The fact that two did not survive
the process did not diminish the fact that SOME form of Bill of Rights
was established. IOW 10 out of 12 was yotzei.

When bnai Golah took on YT sheini shel Galuyos as minhag Avoseinu
beyadeinu lich'ora it was not necssary as the calnedar had been fixed.
The minhag was ratified but with a caveat. YT sheini is considered chol
legabei a meis. If there was a REAL safeik ashsakul it makes little
sense to treat the 2nd day diffrerently. Point? That although both days
are TERMED YT the 2nd day is implemented as YT minus issues re: a meis.

Similarly, The Rambam PROPOSED Ikkarim. He had no unilateral authority
to implement them. Therefore the ikar is not the Rabmam's formulation
but HOW it was nispashet and accepted by Klal Yisrael.

You can show this is the true by Cherem d'rabbeinu Gershom which had
a sunset clause. If we can show unequivocably that the Cherem expired
would it matter NOW?

If the matbei'a of the Amidah - formulated by a Sanhedrin - can change,
why can't ikkarim formulated by A Rsihon be subject to change?

If the ikkarim were implemented EXACTLY as the Rambam said {as oposed to
what he meant in Judeo-Arabic) then we would have in fact a 14th Ikkar:
Ani ma'amin that the ikkarim of the Rambam are perfect as is and are not
subject to modification EVEN by bona fide Halachic Authroities, and any
inadvertant change is hereby bateil um'vutal; that we can always trump
such modifcations by going back to the original sources.

We can now emend the Yigdal:
Ikkarim meduyakim higid lanu haRambam,
Ein lanu reshus leshanos klal es shitaso.  

<smile>

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

I would restate Prof. Sternberg's five categories into three.

1. Those who are skeptical of the finality of scienctific conclusions
and will never agree to changing halachah based on science.

2. Those who accept scientific conclusions and advocate changing halachah
whenever necessary.

3. Those who accept scientific conclusions but insist on analyzing
halachah on a case-by-case basis. If the halachah was BECAUSE of a
mistaken scientific claim, then the halachah should change when it is
*certain* that the original basis of the halachah is incorrect. However,
if the halachah pre-existed the science and was only EXPLAINED by Chazal's
science then it cannot be changed.

I would suggest that R. Eliyahu Dessler was in category 3 above, as
was R. Moshe Feinstein. I haven't looked into it too far, but based
on one teshuvah (vol. 1 EH 12:5) I would suggest that R. Chaim Ozer
Grodzinski was also in this category.

The reason RMF and RCOG gave for not changing hilchos treifos is that
the treifos of an animal are halachos leMoshe miSinai and pre-exist the
scientific explanation (consider that, according to one shitah, treifos
can live long lives). This is in stark contrast to a human treifah whose
definition they agree (and the Rambam says explicitly) changes based on
the most current medical knowledge.

Gil Student

On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 10:17:15AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: My source is the sichot of Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook on sefer breshit....
: The footnote cites yad Eliyahu, 1, psakim siman 25.  with the following 
: direct quote:
: vegam beemet halila lanu likrot leam rav epikorsim, ki amru hazal shelo
: la'asot ir hanidahat ci im leir benoni, vehalo kriat shem epikoros nokev
: veyored ad hatehom.

This does not imply that the label "apiqoreis" follows different rules
than the rest of halachah.

First, I can not tell from your citation whether he is speaking of the
technical definition of apiqoreis, as required by hilchos tefillah and
stam yeinam. Or if YE is speaking of someone who is writing people out
of the group by applying the label informally.

Second, even if the halachic label is meant, this is a strong case where
being machmir in one din is being meiqil in another. The achdus of Kelal
Yisrael is involved -- and being meiqil in that could very well be
noqeiv veyoreid ad hatehom.

The same terminology would be realistically applied to someone who is
overly free with labeling others "mamzeirim" or "agunos". And yet those
are halachically defined categories that follow the usual rules of
pesaq.

Why shouldn't "apiqoreis", "min" or "kofeir"?

-mi

PS: Which is more authentic: apiqoreis, epiqoreis or epiqureis? (I have
not seen the lattermost used, but it is closest to the guy's name.) Me,
I am going for which is the more common jargon. I am asking merely out
of historical curiosity.

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

I'm quite surprised that my friend Fred Rosner indicated that there is
no medical danger in eating fish with meat. Yoreh Deah 116:2 is quite
explicit: "tzarich lizaher shelo le'echol basar v'dag b'yachad mipnei
she'kasheh l'tzara'at". If one is abreast of the medical literature,
one can easily see how tzara'at [which I'll translate as psoriasis]
can most definitely be exacerbated by eating stearic acid (in beef) and
DHA and eicosapentaenoic acid [in fish]. This ought to be a paradigm of
why Shlomo Sternberg is incorrect in his assumptions. Trust me: Chazal
had it 101% right.

Just in case Dr. Rosner reads AVODAH:

1. TNFalpha implicated in psoriasis (J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;42:829;
Lancet 2001;357:1842)
2. omega-3 fatty acids [from fish] enhance TNFalpha (Thrombosis &
Haemostasis 1999;81:566; Transplantation 2001;72:706)
3. TNF increases COX2 (Cancer Research 2001;61:2720)
4. omega-3 fatty acids decrease intracellular calcium (J Trauma 2000;
49:109)
5. nuclear factor kappaB is activated by arachidonic acid but not by
eicosapentaenoic acid (Biochem Biophys Res Comm 1996;229:643)

So it's literally in the past 2-3 years that research has shown an
interaction between derivatives of stearic acid and EPA.

A group of us at the hospital learned Hilchot Treifot 3 years ago.
I simply can't fathom where Shlomo Sternberg sees a need to chas vechalila
modify hilchot treifot in the light of "modern science". Let's just
say that the chevreh [including some surgeons and trauma experts] were
quite impressed with the bredath, depth and "emes" in Hilchot Treifot
in Yoreh Deah.

Josh

On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:18:00AM +0200, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
: I'm quite surprised that my friend Fred Rosner indicated that there is
: no medical danger in eating fish with meat...
:                         If one is abreast of the medical literature,
: one can easily see how tzara'at [which I'll translate as psoriasis]
: can most definitely be exacerbated by eating stearic acid (in beef) and
: DHA and eicosapentaenoic acid [in fish]....

IOW, there is some not-likely-to-be life threatening but more-likely-to-be
painful risk (not certainty!) to a small subset of the population,
those who already have psoriasis.

What RDJB is suggesting is that:
1- Tzoraas here means something different than it does in Tanach and
   the rest of Shas;
2- Chazal made a general issur because of a risk to people who have
   psoriasis; and
3- They were more concerned about this risk than about the risk of
   eating too much fat or sugars. (Possibly because those risks are
   only related to "too much", and not a simple yes-or-no.) Or of
   going by ship or alone on highways...

As I have posted before, I find this a stretch.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

As R. EMT pointed out [on Areivim -mi], let us make sure to get the name
of HaRav Schach shlit"a correct........

Which raises the question - If someone was mispalleil for Eliezer instead
of Elozor would that negatively impact on the koach of the tefillah? Would
it not reach the right account upstairs (for Rav Schach) ? Would an
error message be generated from upstairs something like the following -

RETURN TO SENDER - Note - your tefilloh for Rav Eliezer Menachem Man ben
Bas Sheva cannot be properly processed as we have no such individual (at
all perhaps - after all, how many people have the name Man nowadays? -
or no such choleh?) here on record. ?

Or perhaps, being that upstairs they (or at least HKB"H) know(s) who the
people intended their supplications for, the tefillos, Tehillim, etc.,
are fully credited to the account of Rav Schach shlit"a, even though
addressed wrongly?

Another idea - perhaps when people say his name wrongly (e.g. in a mi
shebeirach) , that may mess it up / impact negatively - but if they only
think it wrongly when thinking of him in the brocho of refoeinu, e.g. -
if they don't enunciate his name, it is less of problem?

Mordechai

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


[ 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         ]