Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 56

Wed, 24 Feb 2010

• 1. kol hamoseif gorea (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: do gentiles have more teeth (Chana)
• 3. Re: kol hamosif, gorea (Zvi Lampel)
• 4. Re: Chief Rabbis Favor Fur Ban (Gershon Seif)
• 5. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (hankman)
• 6. Re: Chief Rabbis Favor Fur Ban (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (Micha Berger)
• 8. any makor (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: any makor (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Right foot forward (Gershon Dubin)
• 14. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: any makor (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: kol hamoseif gorea (Micha Berger)

<<I could only imagine that for some reason these notions were known
to chazal and deduced from their limud of Torah but not revealed since
they were considered as being "sodos" of Maaseh Beraishis.  However, I
could not understand why? If Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Watson & Crick
et al. could reveal them why not Chazal? The only alternative to this
is that Chazal did not have any better scientific knowledge than the
rest of the world around them, but this is rejected by the chareidi
world. So all I have are questions but no satisfying answers. (Or
perhaps flesh out the Zohar mentioned previously in this thread,
explaining WHY only after 5600??)>>

I assume that even in the charedi world the claim is that statements
in the gemara are true
even when they contradict modern science.
Is there anyone who claims that chazal knew modern physics, could have
constructed airplanes
or PCs or heart transplants had they wanted to?.


-- 
Eli Turkel

> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 07:38:14PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : 2.  R Chaim Kanevesky quotes R. Y. Zilberstein that some dentist
> : actually uses this difference
> : in teeth to identify Jews. So it is not being used merely
> theoretrically

And RMB replied:

> He repeats a rumor. However, it looks like the question involved was a
> way to matir healing an unconscious patient on Shabbos, since he would
> have 32 teeth.
> 
> The bottom line is, though, that you're bringing our interest in
> halakhah lining up with scientific realia (or in my case, lining up with
the
> world as observable without mediation of tools), and criticising someone
else
> who apparently doesn't share that assumption.

Well if it was said in a shabbas context, then the whole issue changes.

In a shabbas context, most would agree we are allowed to rely on reasonably
remote sfakos in order to invoke pikuach nefesh.  Now if the Midrash
Talpiyot was in fact right, then what would have to be the explanation for
the fact that it is observable today that most non Jews have 32 teeth? -
obviously that in fact they are not non Jews!  They are really true tinokos
shenishbaru (ie descendants of women who intermarried) and/or really
destined to be gerim (assuming you hold that in such a case they would be
born with 32 teeth).  So of course, going to ask a doctor or dentist is not
going to help, because maybe such doctors/dentists have spent their lives
dealing with hidden Jews (remember the whole argument about the Palestinians
really being Jewish).  

Ie it avoids any complicated questions about aivah and other such issues.

In such a context I can well understand the decision *not* to go discussing
with doctors.  Nor, btw, would you really need to fully believe the Midrash
Talpiyot, you only need to be choshesh for such an opinion to allow shabbas
to be docheh for pikuach nefesh.

Actually, I think it could be argued to be a brilliant chiddush even if it
upsets the scientific purists.


> If RCK thought that the medical reality were important, he would go to
> medical authorities. He asks engineers about the devices used Shabbos,
> psychologists about the contents of 12 Step programs, doctors about
> piquach nefesh, etc...
> 
> This one case he is relying on what he believes to be a maamar chazal
> that we don't have recorded until the end of the 17th cent CE. It's not
> a pattern. So the question is what's missing from our analysis.
> 
> I proposed one possibility -- that he cares more about living according
> to chazal than making statements based on physical reality. That that's
> how halakhah ought to work. I'm open to others.

Not sure what you are saying here.  But as I am trying to point out, we
don't have to say that this is not in accordance with physical reality *if*
you conclude that the numbers of people who are really (or safek) Jewish is
much wider than we normally assume.  Now that is not such a ridiculous
assumption.  There have been so many many Jews who have disappeared over the
years into the non Jewish population, that it is not at all unreasonable to
say that any given non Jew, today, has Jewish blood (unless you are talking
about a full blood Australian Aborigine).  Taking it one step further and
saying that is on the matrilineal side is not such a huge step (especially
if you believe there might have been divine assistance in weeding). Ie there
is an assumption here about what RCK holds about the numbers of non Jews
really being hidden Jews out there that has not actually been articulated.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

>
> From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
>
>     you need to explain why Hazal would be willing to deprive the
>     world for so long of so many life saving innovations like
>     vaccination, refrigeration, and the green revolution. 

Some of the /payrushim/ on why they hid the /sefer ha-refu-os/ may shed 
some light on this.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100224/07dbd39e/attachment-0001.htm>

While it's true that we can't hunt for pleasure, doesn't the Noda B'Yehuda
say that where it involves hunting to provide for human needs it is
permitted even though the animal will suffer? Are we no longer permitted to
wear shoes, belts and gloves?

Or is tis new psak a reaction to some inside info indicating the animals killed for shtreimels are being tortured and they are the exception?

<<http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/181175
Chief Rabbis Favor Fur Ban
<snip>
Rabbi Metzger writes that "it is our obligation to
prevent cruelty to animals and to be a light to the nations in rejecting
the use of products that were made as a result of the suffering of
animals.">>

 

RET wrote:

>
> I assume that even in the charedi world the claim is that statements
> in the gemara are true
> even when they contradict modern science.
> Is there anyone who claims that chazal knew modern physics, could have
> constructed airplanes
> or PCs or heart transplants had they wanted to?.
>
>
> -- 
> Eli Turkel

CM responds:

No one authoritative that I am aware of, but many of my chareidi friends 
clearly believe this, possibly based on their own dispositions.

The logic is at least sufficient troubling to require explanation or 
refutation. given that all the sodos are hidden in Torah somehow as per the 
quoted medroshim, an axiom I assume you agree with,  then there are only two 
possible outcomes, the greatest exponents of Torah in history either found 
this buried scientific knowledge (to our level and beyond) and repressed it 
or kept it secret amongst a highly limited group, or they never found this 
hidden knowledge in Torah which we will find hard to accept of our greatest 
Torah scholars (Chazal and the neviim).

I guess the upshot is if they were (all) not aware of  true and correct 
science, then this implies a failing in their gadlus in limud haTorah not 
just in their knowledge of secular studies, which in turn implies we have a 
lack in "emunas Chazal" if we do not reject this? (Please understand these 
are all questions - not positions I am staking out!).

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:34:07AM -0800, Gershon Seif wrote:
: While it's true that we can't hunt for pleasure, doesn't the Noda
: B'Yehuda say that where it involves hunting to provide for human needs
: it is permitted even though the animal will suffer? Are we no longer
: permitted to wear shoes, belts and gloves?

: Or is tis new psak a reaction to some inside info indicating the animals
: killed for shtreimels are being tortured and they are the exception?

Why would you think CRs Yonah Metzger and Shelomo Amar are speaking
about shtreimelach? There is no mention of them in the A-7 story, nor
would too many of the people who follow their pesaqim wear shtremelach.

The only difference I can see from the NbY's case is the quality of
vinyl streimelach. But I agree in a failure to follow how this is really
a halachic tzaar baalei chaim (TBC) issue.

But, to see what RYM actually is quoted as saying:
: Rabbi Metzger writes that "it is our obligation to
: prevent cruelty to animals and to be a light to the nations in rejecting
: the use of products that were made as a result of the suffering of
: animals."

RYM's argument appears to be more about a requirement for a mamlekhes
kohanim be further lifnim mishuras hadin than our "qehillah". Not that
it would actually be TBC mei'iqar hadin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:57:02PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I assume that even in the charedi world the claim is that statements
: in the gemara are true even when they contradict modern science.
: Is there anyone who claims that chazal knew modern physics, could have
: constructed airplanes or PCs or heart transplants had they wanted to?.

You didn't ask for my opinion, but I'd like to remind people of my post
(which Google isn't helping me find) which shows that Chazal's astronomy
roughly kept pace with Roman scientific consensus.

It's not that there was a machloqes as to whether the raqi'ah was a dome
that the sun went behind at night, or the sun went under a flat earth at
night (and thus heated up the water on the ground, since it was closer),
or the earth was round. It's that the tanna or amora who said each lived
at a time when that was what the current theory was. Even down to finding
that the amoraim of EY, directly under Roman rule, was about a generation
ahead of their Bavli contemporaries. (Which didn't always mean they were
more accurate. The Romans stepped back from the Ptolmeic model sometime
close to Rebbe's lifetime.)

Which is why the Y-mi speaks about dawn and dusk in terms of the sun's
travel across the thickness of the raqi'ah. The discussion, at less
length but still involving R' Yehudah, R' Chanina and other Israeli
amoraim, is also in the Bavli.

That in turn gives me a chance to share a more recent thought. In Y-mi
Berakhos 1:1 (3b-4a), R' Yosi bei R' Bon raises the following topic: If
it is day when the sun is traveling up and around the inside the raqi'a,
and nighttime when it is above the raqi'ah (going over the dome back
from west to east), what is it when the sun is traveling the thickness
of the raqi'ah from one side to the other?

If both are night, then the night and the day are not equal on the
equinox, and yet we learn that tequfos Tishrei and Nissan are defined
when laylah veyom shavin! R' Huna learns it out from the respect
accorded to a king. We say the king is here when the first of his
entourage arrives, we say he is gone when the last departs. Even though
it is assymetric, maximizing the time we say the king is present.
Similarly, it is day while the sun is 

How do we understand R' Huna pragmatically, as a pesaq halakhah?

R' Goren's commentary on the Y-mi (which was cited by RYGB in
<http://yerushalmionline.org/audio/002.mp3>) suggests that Chazal were
talking about refraction.

What's refraction? It's why light bends when it enters a lens, or why a
spoon that sticks out of a glass of water looks broken at the point
where the spoon breaks the surface. It's the bending effect of entering
something denser (loosely speaking: the real term is "higher refractive
index") at an angle. It goes slower through glass or water than through
air, so one side is slowed before the other, causing bensing.

Light also goes slower through air than through a vacuum. So there is a
bending when sunlight enters the atmosphere.

We therefore see the sun slightly before it is physically at the
horizon. We also see it slightly after.

Second, because of this bending, the image of the sun when it's near
the horizon is going noticably slower than during most of the day.

I would therefore suggest something less radical than RSG's suggestion
that Chazal figured out about the top of the atmophere and refraction.
Let's take them at face value, they were discussing things in terms of
a pre-Ptolmeic astronomy. But what they were describing was something
very real.

They saw that at dawn and dusk, the sun doesn't move up or down much.
And as RYbRB says, even on the equinox, the day is assymetric -- we see
the sun for more than half this trek.

So they saw something real, that we would attribute to refraction,
but they attributed it to the width of the raqi'ah. This would allow us
(meaning: people who know the refractive index, how high the atmosphere
goes, etc...) to define R' Huna's implications about zemanim into our
own terms, and (if we hold like him) come up with a formula for the time
between alos and haneitz, and between sheqi'ah and tzeis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

have  seen in MO  synagogues , usually by mincha of  shabbos  zachor  ,  a 
 second 'layning'  of  zachor  for those  who missed.  is  one yotze with 
this---with no bracha before  and after?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100224/0f1593bd/attachment-0001.htm>

> I guess the upshot is if they were (all) not aware of ?true and correct
> science, then this implies a failing in their gadlus in limud haTorah not
> just in their knowledge of secular studies, which in turn implies we have a
> lack in "emunas Chazal" if we do not reject this?

The gemara explicitly asks questions of doctors including nonJewish ones.
The gemara implies that doctors in Egypt knew medical procedures not
known by anyone else. Why would chazal ask outside opinions
and even do experiments if they knew everything from sodot?
R. Akiva explains pesukim based on what he learned in his travels to
Africa and other places. Abaye quotes his nurse with her advice.
The maid of Rebbi Yehuda haNasi was admired for her knowledge
of  Hebrew more than most tannaim. So we explicitly see that chazal were
willing to take advice and knowledge from all sources.


Eli Turkel

RET 
> Is there anyone who claims that chazal knew modern physics, could have 
> constructed airplanes or PCs or heart transplants had they wanted to?. 

I find this fascinating [apologies to Commander Spock!] 
Anyone who follows science fiction could easily answer this w/o a piqpuq 

Could Hazal know about 
    + Radios 
    + Helicopters 
    + Heart transplants? 

Of course! 
Did they know HOW?! 
Probably NOT 

Digression: 
When I was kid Dick Tracy taught me about 2-way wrist radios, which
evolved into 2-way wrist tv's.
Well now, We have cell phones 

And StarTrek has taught me about space warp and travel faster than the
speed of light. Since Zefram Cochrane hasn't yet been born, we don't
know the HOW yet. [Google Cochrane and space warp for more information]

My 7th grade rebbe -- a Morocccan -- told us that the Zohar talked about
radios and space travel. Well Jules Verne also had a man in the moon in
the 19th century -- fired out of a cannon IIRC.

Da Vinci foresaw helicopters 

Point? Even if Hazal knew of every WHAT re: future advanced medicine
does not mean they knew any of the HOW'S.

So could Hazal say -- one day man will land on Moon? Yes!

Could they construct a Saturn V rocket? I doubt it. 

Same for heart transplants. Having a vision of a future product or
process does not create it.

Freilichen Purim 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 06:47:21PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Could Hazal know about 
:     + Radios 
:     + Helicopters 
:     + Heart transplants? 

: Of course! 
: Did they know HOW?! 

But RET is talking about the claim that they knew all of science, not
that they got glimpses of future devices.

IOW, the claim under the discussion is bedavka about knowing the "how".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

have  seen in MO  synagogues , usually by mincha of  shabbos  zachor  ,  a 
second 'layning'  of  zachor  for those  who missed.  is  one yotze with
this---with no bracha before  and after?
=============
From the VBM:



The Acharonim note that both the reader and listener must have the proper
intention to fulfill the mitzva.  The Taz  claims that this applies even to
the berakhot recited before the reading, and that one who does not hear the
berakhot does not fulfill the obligation. This raises the interesting
question of the extent to which the Rabbis defined the mitzva of zekhirat
Amalek as the reading (or listening to) the portion from the Torah with its
blessings.  The Taz apparently believes that the mitzva must be fulfilled
within the formal context of keriat ha-Torah, which of course includes the
blessings preceding and concluding the portion.

KT
 Joel Rich


________________________________
As of February 22, our New York Office is now located at:
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100224/881504bd/attachment-0001.htm>

When we were about to walk our son to the chupa, the caterer asked us to
stop, and start out "the last mile" on the right foot.	Is there any Jewish
reason/source for this?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=UO0QycxzGJZJRU6Lq9vWUwAAJ
1BiYjhMSt0qMJcLz_08tNkJAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100224/8a31f723/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha 
> But RET is talking about the claim that they knew all of science, not 
> that they got glimpses of future devices. 
> IOW, the claim under the discussion is bedavka about knowing the "how". 

And I'm saying those who stake that claim labor under a
mis-understanding. They take the knowledge of the WHAT to mean the HOW
also. It's a classic hiluq

The fact that I know that a shochet does sh'chita or even having learned
it in SA, does not make me a schochet.

RET: 
> The gemara explicitly asks questions of doctors including nonJewish ones. 
> The gemara implies that doctors in Egypt knew medical procedures not 
> known by anyone else. Why would chazal ask outside opinions 
> and even do experiments if they knew everything from sodot??

P'shita: 
Again Hazal knew OF advanced medicine and so they consulted the hands-on
experts.
Their knowledge was simple -- they knew the potentials. The actual
engineering details often belonged to secular sources.

I know the Rambam wrote the sod ho'ibbur, it doesn't mean I could
teach it.

Simple: posit that Hazal had awreness of advanced science and dismiss
anyallegations that they could always pull it off themselves! Why make
life difficult? Isn't this classic Ockham?

Hazal had insight and imagination re: "science fiction" w/o being experts
themselves. Prophets see visions
EG Elisha knew tomorrow's price of bread w/o necessarily seeing how it
would be pulled off!

Did Zeresh et al. know HOW Haman would fall when they prophesied "ki
nafol tipol" I say no way, they knew the finale w/o knowing not HOW it
would play out!

Freilichen Purim 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Related is the subject of whether when Chazal specify a particular qiyum
of a deOraisa, did they therefore also "shut off" the ability to fulfill
it on the deOraisa level in other ways.

I would have thought pashut that they didn't. That someone who bentches
with sheim but not malkhus (e.g.) still fulfilled the deOraisa. That's
the basis of the Gra's wariness about saying Tzur miShelo -- it's
a qiyum deOraisa of bentching, leaving you wondering about actually
bentching afterward.

However, RCBrown blogged about this topic today. See first his post of
2006 at
http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2006/11/where-failure-to-fulfill-din.
html
    The Pri Megadim (Pesicha haKolleles 3:8) questions whether in a case
    where the Chachamim added extra criteria to the performance of a
    mitzvah and one failed to meet those criteria, is the kiyum d'oraysa
    of the mitzva also negated? One of the proofs to this issue comes
    from the case of a small sukkah which can fit a person's head and
    body but not a table -- although this sukkah is kosher m'doraysa,
    Tosfos (sukkah 3, brachos 11) writes that since it is pasul
    m'derabbanan one would not get any kiyum d'oraysa by using this
    sukkah.....
    When Rabban Gamliel's children came home past chatzos from a party,
    they asked their father whether they should recite kerias shema or
    not. Explains the PM"G, even though one cannot gain a kiyum mitzvah
    d'oraysa done deliberately not in accordance with the parameters set
    up by the Chachamim, here R' Gamliel's children missed the cutoff
    of chatzos only b'ones, unintentionally. R' Gamliel's children
    argued that violating a d'rabbanan b'ones should not negate a kiyum
    d'oraysa.....

Then, today's posting
http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2010/02/takanah-derabbaban
-to-listen-to-parshas.html
or http://bit.ly/bA8zLH
    [O]ff the cuff I was wondering whether this rule should apply to
    parshas zachor as well. M'doraysa there is no requirement to read
    parshas zachor this particular shabbos. According to many, if not
    most Rishonim, there is no need to ever do a formal krias hatorah to
    fulfill zachor -- one can simply "remember" Amalek through some
    verbal declaration .... Does that mean, based on the Pri Megadim,
    that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah d'oraysa in some other way,
    e.g. by hearing the parsha when Ki Teitzei is read in the summer?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:18:37PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Micha 
: > But RET is talking about the claim that they knew all of science, not 
: > that they got glimpses of future devices. 
: > IOW, the claim under the discussion is bedavka about knowing the "how". 

: And I'm saying those who stake that claim labor under a
: mis-understanding. They take the knowledge of the WHAT to mean the HOW
: also. It's a classic hiluq

Now apply what you're saying to teeth number, or 8th month babies.
Because I need an example to understand how your comment answers the
question.

Also, are you including RCKaniefsky among those who misunderstand
Chazal?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 56
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."