Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 039

Friday, November 2 2001

• Re: the Maharsham was the poseiq ha-dor
• Re: the Maharsham was the poseiq ha-dor
• Talmud and science
• Birkat haBanot - 2
• chasidim harishonim
• Re: Ikkrim
• Re: Mesoros and Minhagim (was Re: ikkarim)
• Re: Tevilas Kelim
• Re: Tevilas Kelim
• Re: Tevilas Kelim
• Birkat Banim U'Vanot
• Giving aliyos to those who are intermarried
• RE: Giving aliyos to those who are intermarried
• [none]
• Re: limits of kedushah?
• Re: T'kheles
• Rabbi Herzog's objections to murex
• Re: Talmud and science

From: "David Glasner" <DGLASNER@ftc.gov>
>Sorry to resuscitate a point tangential to a thread that seems to
>have expired a while back.  However, it seems to me that the following
>interchange (8:32) between Shlomo Taitelbaum and Seth Mandel about
>the appropriateness of refering to the Maharsham as the poseiq ha-dor
>requires further comment.

I am always happy to be corrected. I am still not sure that anyone,
including R. Yitzhoq Elhonon, was considered the poseq of the generation;
I believe that each community had its own Rov who paskened for that
community, and he turned to well-respected rabbonim of other communities
with shayles on difficult matters, perhaps only to one, sometimes to
many. But were the latter ever considered as being "the poseq hador"?
My original statement should not have referred to the posqim of the
generation but the g'dolim of the generation.

And my follow up question, then, still stands: if the Maharsham was,
if not the poseq of the generation, but at least one of the preeminent
g'dolim, how is it that we have no record of other people, either in
Brezen or elsewhere in Galicia, following his lead and wearing Radzyne
t'kheles, either on their tales qoton ala RYGB, or at least to the kever?
It seems to me that if he did not wear it during his life, he must have
considered it a very weak sofeq, and indeed you can be meqil on tzitzis
for a mes. Or perhaps since he was a shtot rov, he did not want to
stir up any possible mahloqes. I am eager to be enlightened by R. David
Glasner or anyone else on this point.

Whatever the explanation, it does not change my other point: that the
Litvishe roshei yeshiva were open to new ideas, and not as subject to
communal pressure, did not wear the Radzyne t'kheles even as a sofek.

Seth

RSM writes:
> And my follow up question, then, still stands: if the Maharsham was, if not
> the poseq of the generation, but at least one of the preeminent g'dolim, how
> is it that we have no record of other people, either in Brezen or elsewhere
> in Galicia, following his lead and wearing Radzyne t'kheles, either on their
> tales qoton ala RYGB, or at least to the kever?  It seems to me that if he
> did not wear it during his life, he must have considered it a very weak
> sofeq, and indeed you can be meqil on tzitzis for a mes.  Or perhaps since
> he was a shtot rov, he did not want to stir up any possible mahloqes.
> I am eager to be enlightened by R. David Glasner or anyone else on this
> point.

As I wrote in v8 #32:
<Because the Maharsham didn't really believe it was techeles; just on
the minutest sofek that it was, "better play it safe"--a chumra only
for yechidai hador.>
<[T]he Kutner Rov, the Rashab, even the Chafetz Chayim ("I wouldn't stick
my head in the fire on the Radzyner's Torah) all say that the Radzyner's
Torah was hasharos.>
Actualy, I am surprised the Maharsham was choshesh at all for Radzyner
t'kheles. But since his opinion was that it doesn't hurt, I guess he
figured (for himself) better that than nothing.
Furthermore, as far as following his example, from what I understand,
no one (except maybe for some b'nei bayis) knew that he wore t'kheles
till his tsava'ah was read. In other words, only after is it already was
accepted as being incorrect did people know this Gadol wore b'chayav. Noy
exactly m'chayev...

Shlomoh

> If it is true that the Mishnah Berurah was the first posek to permit
> chillul Shabbos for a baby born in the eighth month, it does not mean
> that the physical change necessarily happened in his time. It only
> means that he was the first to codify that change into halachah.
> It could have happened centuries before.

If the biologu had changed much earlier why didn't poskim note that that
would change the halachah. Besides medically no doctor would accept a
change in the last 2000 years.

> However, this is generally an observable phenomenon. Could Chazal not
> have observed whether this was true or not? I seem to recall that
> non-Jewish medical texts of the ancient world concurred that babies
> born in the eighth month could not survive (IIRC, this is discussed by
> R. David Feldman in his Birth Control in Jewish Law). Were they all
> blind or was the reality different?

They couldn't survive because of the different levels of medicine.
Again, chazal assumed there were different types of babies one whose
normal delivery was 7 months and one whose normal delivery was 9 months.
I don't think modern medicine accepts this.

Your question is a general one, how could Greek medicine be wrong why
didn't they just look. Obviously they didn't always work on observation.

One fact that has bothered me a long time is that one can do a simple
anatomy on killed animals. Their knowledge of even animal anatomy was
not up to par

>> A further point of Shlomo Sternberg was that a major problem is that almost
>> no major posek knows anything about modern science and medicine.

> What major posek does not consult with doctors and engineers before
> paskening important she'eilos? (rhetorical question)

The fact they they consult doctors does mean they understand scientific
reasoning. The Minchat Yitzchak explicitly says that he consulted with
a frum doctor and then rejected the doctors opinion that a baby could
survive in the 8th month because it contradicted a gemara.
There is also the famous teshuva that rejected a globe for the earth
because it contradicted gemara. Thus, we see that many poskim consult
with scientists but dont always use that knowledge.

I was referring more to rabbanim who use the fact that scientific
knowledge changes to prove that science can be wrong. This totally misses
the picture. Science has a base which is based on observation. Some
hypotheses can be tested and others are theoretical. Furthermore, the
frontier of science is a state of flux. Because some latest theories
change doesn't mean basic facts can change.

As a trivial example because doctors can argue whether eggs are healthy
to eat (it seems to constantly change) has nothing to do with whether
the circulatory theory of blood is correct. One can't argue (as rabbanim
have argued) because theory X has changed therefore many the theory that
8 month fetuses can survive is also wrong.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

> From: "Rabbi Y.H.Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il>
>> ...But I have never been satisfied with the version "yesimeich
>> Elokim k'Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel v'Leah," for a number of reasons:
>> 1) There is no source for it in Scripture or in the words of Chaza"l.
>> 2) It is not parallel grammatically. It lacks the repeated 'kaf' of
>> "...k'Efraim u'ch'Menasheh."3) It is not parallel in content.
>> We do not bless the boys that they
>> should be like the three Patriarchs; why, then, bless the girls that
>> they be like the four Matriarchs?

[Here RSBA quotes his own earlier post: -mi]
> We probably would have used the Avos (...as it is written: "Veyikoreh
> bohem shmi vshem avosai"), but because YO specifically instructed us
> to use E&M - we do so.
> Not having such an instruction for females we revert to the Imahos.
> KNLAD. (Personally, I am seriously thinking of changing back to -
> my newly-found - family tradition and saying both...)

Further to the above, I have now found that the Maharam Schick al Hatorah
has some nice drush on why YO used E''uM and not the 'Patriarchs'.

SBA

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Was there any discussion as to whether the "hour" referred to was to be
> taken literally (did they spend 9 hours a day in tfila related activities?)

Normally not, but in this case yes. 
B'feirsuh MA [93:1] b'shem Talmidei Rabenu Yonah.
See the Machtzis Hashekel's simple explanation.

SBA

In a message dated 11/1/2001 5:35:01pm EST, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
>> 1) how did Avraham Avinu arrive at emunah?
> 
> There is a fundamental split. Michtav M'Eliyahu (5 page 211) cites Rav 
> Simcha Zissel (Chochma and Mussar #445) "Avraham Avinu was the head 
> philosopher and he - relying totally on his intellect...               In 
> constrast we have sources such as the Avodas HaKodesh (3:19) who strongly 
> criticise those who make such statements and he insists that Avraham had a 
> mesora. A middle position is the Akeidas Yitzchok #16 who says Noach had 
> emuna which was simple - meaing unexamined mesora as opposed to Avraham 
> that everything was studied and analyzed. Then you have Rav Elchonon 
> Wasserman  who says according to the Rambam - emuna is so obvious on a 
> rational level everyone will readily acknowledge it...

FWIW I learned at Ner Yisrael - perhaps based upon R. E. Dessler above
- that Avraham Avinu arrived at Emunah on his own based upon a process
of elimination.

IOW I have a Masorah that AA found Emunah via Investigation and not
Masorah.

But if I were to academcially and skeptically challenge this Masorah,
I would discover competing models and thereby learn via investigation
that Avraham Avinu actually learned about HKBH via Masorah!

It is ironic conundrums such as this that convince ME that there MUST
be a G-d <smile>

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

In a message dated 11/1/2001 5:36:45pm EST, yadmoshe@bezeqint.net writes:
>> 1) Daven before shkia w/o a Minyan?
>> or
>> 2) Daven betzibbur very late - but OK according to at least RT?

> Igros Moshe O.H. I #24 "Regarding Mincha - do not pray after shkia - but in
> emergency one can rely on those who are lenient.

I am still fuzzy re: the trade-off - IOW is beyachid on time better than late 
with a Minyan?

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

> My questions are: Where did this "popular belief come from"? and Does
> anyone really think that it is okay to use a keli just once prior
> to tevilah?

I'd guess that since a disposable keli is patur (according to many) from
tevila, many erroneously make the connection that since a diposable keli
is being used once (and only once, to be cconsidered disposable), _all_
kelim are patur from tevila for the first use.

On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> My questions are: Where did this "popular belief come from"? and Does
> anyone really think that it is okay to use a keli just once prior
> to tevilah?

I assume the origin is that since a disposable kli does not require
tevilla, pleople extrapolate and assume that you can you any kli
temporarily without tevilla.

> My questions are: Where did this "popular belief come from"? and Does
> anyone really think that it is okay to use a keli just once prior
> to tevilah?

apparently this "popular belief" can be found in the Igros Moshe YD 3 #
32 also look at the previous tshuva #31.

There is also the psak of Rav Yaakov Kaminetski that aluminum does not
need to be toveled.

I happened to hear the end of a shi'ur (on the radio) by Rav Avraham
Yosef, the Chief Rabbi of Cholon (son of Rav Ovadia Yosef).

He was discussing the procedure from when walks in the door on Erev
Shabbat: what you do and don't do and he gave a variety of situations
and what to do in each case.

One interesting thing he said was that after immediately after Kiddush,
the kids go to the father and mother, kiss their hands and get a
B'racha. He stressed that a father is Chayav to encourage the children
to go to the mother to kiss her hand and get a B'racha, and that the
mother is Chayav to encourage the children to go to the father and kiss
his hand and get a B'racha.

Shoshana L. Boublil

In South Africa, all shulls including the the chassidishe and livishe
Shtieblach follow arullinf of the Beth Din of South Africa disallowing
intermarried people to have alliyot excepting if they are chiyivim.

In a shull in fl where i visit every summer I mentioned the above rulling
to the rabbi of the Chabad House who told me in his shul he could keep
most of the aliyos for himself if he were to follow the above rulling.

I heared that a Rov in South Africa was once asked by a congregant if
it is permitted to sell his Chometz to his wife!

KT
Reuvein

From: Gil Student [mailto:gil_student@hotmail.com]
> My reaction when I first read this is that the American Jewish community has 
> changed alot since 1959 and many sectors no longer discourage intermarriage. 
> Therefore, perhaps tinok shenishbah would apply.  However, my feeling is 
> that in an Orthodox environment it still would not.

What's your feeling about an out-of-town Orthodox shul with very few
shomer-shabbos members?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Stein, Aryeh E. writes:
<<It is brought down in the Halichos Shlomo (p. 247-8) that one should
not read a book about "tikun hamidos" that was written "b'kashrus,"
even if it is not based on divrei chazal but rather on psychology,
in a beis hakeisa. Reason: when one reads about how one, for example,
should not embarass another person, he is actively performing a mitzvah,
and one should not perform mitzvos in this place.>>

I believe the term "one should not perform mitzvos in this place" is
an incorrect statement, it is correct that one should not *learn Torah*
in the bathroom but performing a Mitzvah (DEPENDING which type e.g. all
Halochos concerning such a place) must/has to be done there if it arises.

kol tuv
yosef stern

Stein, Aryeh E. writes:
<<It is brought down in the Halichos Shlomo (p. 247-8) that one should
not read a book about "tikun hamidos" that was written "b'kashrus,"
even if it is not based on divrei chazal but rather on psychology,
in a beis hakeisa. Reason: when one reads about how one, for example,
should not embarass another person, he is actively performing a mitzvah,
and one should not perform mitzvos in this place.>>

Stern, Yosef writes:
> I believe the term "one should not perform mitzvos in this place" is an
> incorrect statement, it is correct that one should not *learn Torah* in the
> bathroom but performing a Mitzvah (DEPENDING which type e.g. all Halochos
> concerning such a place) must/has to be done there if it arises.

Actually, I believe the statement "one should not perform mitzvos in
this place" is correct (at least according to the Halichos Shlomo),
with the important (and obvious) exception for those mitzvos that,
by definition, must be performed in this place. While everyone knows
that one should not learn Torah in this place, this Halichos Shlomo
seems to broaden the isur to include more than just learning Torah;
it includes all mitzvos (except for those related to this place) (for
the reason that one should not perform any mitzvos "b'derech bizayon,"
and doing mitzvos in this place is obviously "derech bizayon.")

Of course, this seems to raise more questions than it answers, such as:
can one learn astronomy in this place if the knowledge is to be used to
understand mesechta Rosh Hashana....

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh
aryehstein@yahoo.com

R. Mendel Singer: <It is at least a little conceited to think that he
[Rav Herzog] would agree to P'til's answers to all of his objections,
let alone think the Radzyner Rebbe would also accept P'til's position.>

R. Baruch Sterman: <I disagree with this assertion. We have to
differentiate between halachic principles and the application of those
principles to a given situation. Just as it is not "conceited" to discuss
the Rambam's opinion regarding turning on a light on shabbat, it is
perfectly acceptable to examine what the Radzyner or Rav Herzog would say
about a particular candidate for the chilazon -- given their writings on
the halachic criteria for accepting or rejecting a chilazon... Assuming
that the color of tekhelet is indigo (an assumption that many, though
not all, poskim accept), then according to the Radzyner, tekhelet from
Murex would be kosher... If we look at the opinion of Rav Soloveitchik
that without an unbroken tradition as to the identity of the chilazon,
one can not consider a chilazon to be halachically valid, then neither
Radzyn nor Murex tekhelet would be acceptable... If one accepts the
position attributed to the AR"I, that the mitzvah of tekhelet will/can
not be reinstated until Mashiach comes, then you can draw the appropriate
halachic conclusions...

The bottom line -- and really the only line -- that P'Til Tekhelet asserts
is that according to some views, Murex dye is kosher for tekhelet. As
such, we make the strings available for those people whose understanding
of the various and complex halachic issues lead them to the conclusion
that they would like to wear tsitsit with Murex tekhelet. If someone feels
in light of the different opinions and data that they would rather wear
Radzyn tekhelet or wear only white -- or even that they would rather not
wear tsitsit at all -- that is a halachic decision that any bar-hachi
has the right to make.> I applaud R. Sterman for his measured words. I
support P'til's efforts to research t'khelet and make it available for
those who wish, even as I argue that none should so wish. I also agree
that one can draw appropriate conclusions from the words and statements
of various rabbonim. I believe that I and R. Singer were saying that we
believe that R. Herzog had several problems with Murex, and P'til has not
answered all of them, but I agree that the color fastness issue (perhaps
his main one) has been addressed. After reviewing the correspondence
with R. Shlomo Taitelbaum, I don't think I wish to reply to it all. With
absolutely no malice aforethought toward him, it seems to me that he has
ignored my attempts to introduce some good humor into the conversation,
and has even argued with my statement that the Rambam was a Brisker
(which I made with the caveat of ";-)"). Mefears he is decidedly grim on
the subject; I shall leave it to Di Brider Grimm to explain to him what
happens if you don't leaven your arguments with some levity. I think
most understand me: I continue to believe that the evidence is not much
better than it was 85 years ago. The only change has been that it has
been discovered that you can make a color fast dye of the right shadeof
blue from Murex. There is no evidence that anyone in antiquity tried to
make such a dye; the large-scale purple dye industry apparently liked
the purple colors better, although I agree that they probably knew how to
make blue. There is absolutely no evidence from anywhere of the t'kheles
industry or what it used as the source of the dye, and I continue to hold
that there is no evidence from the rishonim who could have known about
the t'kheles industry. And there are many fish in the sea (c'mon, to show
we are light hearted about this, let's all join in a chorus of that),
and some that are now extinct; I have not investigated about getting a
color fast blue dye from any of them. I will point out again that you
can make indigo from Murex brandaris and Thais haemastoma by the same
process that you make it from Murex trunculus. If they are all good,
then the identification of the hillazon as the source of t'kheles must
mean that hillazon just means some sort of mollusc or gastropod. The
problem with that is that there are many, many gastropods around in the
Mediterranean, most of whom do not produce the dye. So why do the g'moro
and the Rambam make a point that it has to come from a hillazon? Just
to exclude kala ilan? I will also point out that it seems to me that
the Rambam at least had a more specific word to describe the Murex:
shabb'lul, which he uses in hil. Tzitzis in talking about the test to
distinguish t'kehles from plant indigo. (The g'moro has the same word,
but other rishonim interpret it differently.) It at least indicates that
the Rambam did not think that Murex was the hillazon. That, of course,
is not proof against is, since I have argued that the Rambam clearly
did not know what it was.

There are a lot of unknowns, too many, I feel, for people to start
wearing in light of the fact that none of the Litvishe, Polish, or German
g'dolim wore, and only a tiny minority of Hungarian and Galiciane. (There:
I have qualified it, since there is the sole example of the Maharsham,
a Galicianer godol who felt it was a sofeq, and R. Shlezinger who may
or may not be considered a gadol, although he certainly was a great
talmid chokhom). I have given one possible reason, which I believe is
true. R. Taitelbaum's objection that none of the g'dolim used it is
specious, since they did not give any of their reasons. His inference
that my "kashya on the CI is more "it sounds like he doesn't agree with
me, maybe if he would explain the lomdus I could show how it isn't soseir
what I say" is a gratuitous attack on my integrity in learning; those few
on the list who know me know that I learned from my Rebbi that it is a
mitzva to admit when you are wrong. I was just pointing out that there
is no discussion by the CI himself on the subject, since his writings
are usually well-reasoned. If the CI indeed held that way, I will have
to disagree with him; many, including R. Velvel and RYBS and R. Shlomo
Zalman Auerbach, disagreed sometimes with the CI, and I do not know why I
have to agree with him on everything, although I respect his opinion. As
I clearly said, R. Elyashiv apparently agrees with my line of reasoning,
so this is not Seth Mandel vs. the CI (now THAT would be a real joke).

I cannot read the minds of the g'dolim of 100 years ago. I would be
extremely gratified to find that I was m'khavven to the opinion of some
of them; if they did not agree with my reasoning, then there were other
reasons, some of which we may not know. But I insist that social pressure
does not explain the refusal of the roshei yeshiva -- every single one
of them -- to wear it. R. Micha has suggested that they might have been
waiting for a better sofeq. If they were, I will argue they would still
be waiting, and the burden of proof lies on those that argue that the
discovery that you can make a blue dye from Murex would have made them
change their minds. I have not argued for the rejectionist front. I
have not said that "the P'til society can never prove that Murex is the
hillazon." I think I have laid out what would be needed for such a proof:
showing how the Murex dye meets the test of the g'moro to distinguish
it from plant indigo, which P'til apparently is working on, and finding
archeological evidence about the t'kheles, either finding real tzitzis
or finding evidence of a t'kheles dying facility. These proofs may not
be easy to find, but withoutout them I have almost nothing.

So if my position is clear, there is little point quibbling with grim
gremlins of gratuitousness (my sincere apologies to R. Taitelbaum for
calling him that. It is my fault. For years I have labored under an
inferiority complex resulting from the idea that I shall never come up
with something as inspired as the line that William Safire created for
our late unlamented VP Spiro Agnew, and the juxtaposition of "grim" and
"gratuitous" in one post was too much to resist). If someone wishes me
to explain how I would answer one of R. Taitelbaum's points, I should be
glad to respond. But I think that most have tired of the subject already
(do I hear choruses of hear, hear! in the background?). The only point
that I can see a need to deiscuss now is R. Taitebaum's claim that my
argument against wearing sofeq t'kheles is only true according to Rashi
and the Rambam, and not the Beis Yosef himself, nor the R'mo'. So my
position is only theoretical, since we do not pasken that way.

I am not so sure that he is right concerning the R'mo. I have stated
in the past that it is clear that Tosafos holds that the color of
the tzitzis make no difference, and that they do not understand where
Rashi gets his shitto from. There are several rishonim that follow the
Tosafos' shitto. The Beis Yosef quotes the S'MaG that you can put colored
tzitzis on a white beged, and quotes the Rashba as agreeing. However,
the T'rumas haDeshen that the Beis Yosef quotes is slightly different:
"lo nahaginan haidna b'shum maqon raq b'tzitizyot shehem l'vanim v'lo
tz'vu'im, va'afilu b'talit qatan shehu mimine tz'va'im lo ra'iti miyamai
ehad shehaya m'tzuyyatz raq b'tzitzit lavan." Pretty clear to me that he
is saying the tzitzit cannot be any color other than lavan. Then the Beis
Yosef quotes his rebbe who quotes the Ba'al ha'Ittur "tzitziyot shel lavan
qod'min l'khol hatziv'onim.. stam talitot shelahem hayu l'vanim aval im
'ein lanu lavan az tzarikh sheyihye mitzeva' hattalit." So the 'Ittur
agrees with the Rambam and Rashi. The Beis Yosef says since Rashi and the
Rambam agree that the tzitzit MUST be the color of the talis, and Tosafot
and the Ra'avad agree that they should be, "nakhon l'hizzaher baddavar
v'khen ra'iti ham'daqd'qim nohagim la 'asot hatzitzit mitzeva' hatalit."

The R'mo says about that in the Darkhei Moshe: "va'ani lo ra'iti miyamai
tzitzit ela lavan v'ein l'shannot." It seems clear from his loshon
that he is agreeing with T'rumas haDeshen, that lavan must be white,
not like the Rambam and Rishi that the color changes with the beged,
but also not like Tosafos, that it is just a matter of hiddur and noy
and the tzitzis can be whatever color they want. I will therefore argue
that the P'til society has Tosafos and the Rashba on their side, but I
have the Rambam, Rashi, the Raavad, T'rumas haDeshen and the R'mo on my
side, that it DOES matter what the color of the strings are that are not
t'kheles. (The Beis Yosef, as is his wont, is too cautious to know what
he really thinks or himself would pasken.)

R. Taitelbaum argues that the strings that were t'kheles in the time of
the g'moro can be any color at all nowadays, and the rishonim were only
talking about the strings that had to be lavan. I see little point in
repeating my arguments; it seems clear to me (and to other people that
I show Rashi and the Rambam to) that they held that without t'kheles
all strings must be lavan and not any color you want. It still seems
to me as well that Rashi for sure and probably the Rambam believe that
the din that lavan has to be the color of the garment is a d'orayso,
although the taqqono that I claim exists that without t'kheles all
strings must be lavan is d'rabbnon. But not a sofeq d'rabbonon, just a
taqqono d'rabbonon. I am sure R. Taitelbaum will disagree, and I leave
it to the reader to analyze the sources himself.

And to show I do admit mistake, I humbly apologize for R. Taitelbaum for
attributing to him calling R. Yitzhoq Elhonon the maggid of Kovno. The
quotation was indeed in something that he posted, but, looking back, it
was a quotation from R. Mendel Singer that R. Taitelbaum was responding
to.

And that's it from me.

Seth Mandel

After traveling and meeting some deadlines at work, I would like to
respond to some of the recent techeiles posts.

Rabbi Herzog's opinion on murex trunculus:
I suggested that it was at least a bit conceited to think Rabbi Herzog
would agree with Ptil if he were alive. That was partially a response
to having seen his name listed as one of the people who holds this view,
which is absurd. Nobody is claiming he did hold this. Ptil feels they
have answered his objections. However, his objections have not always
been stated accurately or completely. Ari Greenspan's post, for example,
cites the "primary" objections to be with the dye. This ignores the
fact that Rabbi Herzog considered the descriptions in Menachos to be
of paramount importance. He then says that it is not clear how murex
trunculus fits any of these descriptions.

1.	Comes up once every 7 or 70 years. 
Rabbi Herzog considered this to be an important criterion. His candidate,
Janthina, had a periodicity, and he devotes a fair amount of space to
this idea in his dissertation. Currently, there is no reasonable way to
explain how murex trunculus fits this description. That doesn't mean
there won't eventually be such evidence, but this objection of Rabbi
Herzog remains.

2.     Form is like a fish.
Rabbi Herzog notes that it is not clear how murex trunculus fits this
description. Ptil has argues that Briaso refers to spawning. This is
quite a stretch. I believe Seth Mandel has shown that this word is never
used to mean creation in this sense. It is used for creation ex nihilo,
out of nothing, but not for birth. The word is used to mean "form".
This is how the commentaries understand it in the gemara. Why would
someone assume Rabbi Herzog would accept this re-interpretation that
contradicts the meforshim with a translation of a word that has no
precedent in Tanach or Shas?

3.     It's body is like the sea.
Rabbi Herzog says that this should mean the flesh, but might be used
to refer to the shell (as he himself later needs to defend his choice
of Janthina). Ptil's argument that it refers to the sea fouling fails
for several reasons: why would you feel Rabbi Herzog would now extend
the "it's body", gufo, to refer to external organisms? Furthermore,
why would we think Rabbi Herzog would accept the phrase "domeh l'yam"
to mean green? As I argue in my article, the phrase "domeh l'yam" is
used for the color of techeiles, blue, a few lines earlier in the sugya.
And, we find that Rabbi Herzog liked Janthina because its shell is violet.
It seems reasonable to say that violet is similar (domeh) to blue. (BTW,
to say that gufo must refer to the shell since it would be difficult to
get to the flesh, as Baruch Sterman says in his response to my article,
assumes a priori that the chilazon is totally enclosed in its shell,
which is not at all clear)

I will leave it to the readers to decide if Ptil has reasonably answered
the above objections of Rabbi Herzog. Certainly it is quite a stretch to
say with any certainty that Rabbi Herzog would feel satisfied. Let's not
forget that Rabbi Herzog did a lot of his writing on the subject in the
secular academic environment. As such, he had to deal with people who were
both ignorant and largely uninterested in Gemara, and had to deal with the
secular approach to techeiles. In his dissertation he spends a great deal
of space from the secular approach showing why murex trunculus seems such
a great choice. He then says that the person armed with this information
would look to the gemara fully expecting complete confirmation, but, he
says, the person is in for a surprise. He then shows how murex trunculus
fails to meet the Talmudic descriptions. Nonetheless, his PhD committee
and his academic colleagues at conferences and such, might not allow for
a quick dismissal of murex on these grounds. Therefore, it is logical
that Rabbi Herzog would also focus arguments on the dye itself.

So, who thinks Rabbi Herzog would agree with Ptil if he were alive today?
We know Ptil votes "Yes", I (and it seems, Seth) vote "No". What about
others on the list? I would like to hear how those not actively in the
fray are thinking?

mendel

P.S. I apologize for referring to the Rabbi Spektor as the Maggid of
Kovno. I am sure I have seen it that way in print before, and I did
not want to "lower" him to the level of "Rav of Kovno" or "Kovno Rav" :)

I wrote:
>If it is true that the Mishnah Berurah was the first posek to permit
>chillul Shabbos for a baby born in the eighth month,

I did not see the Mishnah Berurah permitting it. In his commentary to
SA OC 330:7, he seems to forbid violating Shabbos for a baby born in
the eighth month. R. Chaim Kanievsky in his Shoneh Halachos summarizes
the Mishnah Berurah that way but notes that his uncle, the Chazon Ish,
permitted violating Shabbos. The Piskei Teshuvos also quotes the Chazon
Ish as permitting, as well as the Minchas Yitzchak and Kinyan Torah.

I wrote:
>(IIRC, this is discussed by R. David Feldman in his Birth Control in
>Jewish Law)

I couldn't find it in R. Feldman's book and think I was mistaken.

Eli Turkl wrote:
>If the biologu had changed much earlier why didn't poskim note that
>that would change the halachah.

Because poskim are, understandably, very hesitant to change halachah to
contradict a gemara.

>Besides medically no doctor would accept a change in the last
>2000 years.

That is a kashya on the entire concept of nishtanah hateva.

>They couldn't survive because of the different levels of medicine.

Is that not also nishtanah hateva? But then why were babies born after
eight months any different from babies born after nine months?

>Your question is a general one, how could Greek medicine be wrong why
>didn't they just look. Obviously they didn't always work on
>observation.

>One fact that has bothered me a long time is that one can do a simple
>anatomy on killed animals. Their knowledge of even animal anatomy was
>not up to par

Or, perhaps, nishtanah hateva. Maybe animals have evolved since then? (I'm
just tossing that out there, I'm not a big fan of nishtanah hateva)

>The fact they they consult doctors does mean they understand scientific
>reasoning. The Minchat Yitzchak explicitly says that he consulted with
>a frum doctor and then rejected the doctors opinion that a baby could
>survive in the 8th month because it contradicted a gemara.

Where? I see in 3:145:1 he says not to trust doctors when they say that
there is no danger with regard to milah. Even if doctors say you can do
a bris, the MY says that based on the gemara we should be choshesh for
sakanah and delay the bris.

>There is also the famous teshuva that rejected a globe for the earth
>because it contradicted gemara.

I'm not sure why. It is a mefurash gemara in Pesachim 94b that the
world is round (except according to Rabbeinu Tam who reads the gemara
shelo kifshuto).

>I was referring more to rabbanim who use the fact that scientific
>knowledge changes to prove that science can be wrong. This totally
>misses the picture. Science has a base which is based on observation.
>Some hypotheses can be tested and others are theoretical. Furthermore,
>the frontier of science is a state of flux. Because some latest
>theories change doesn't mean basic facts can change.

True, some rabbonim do argue that way. But do all? What I see is a
healthy reliance on medicine with a dose of skepticism. Sometimes those
too close to science do not realize the limitations of their understanding
while those too far away overestimate them.

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]