Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 32

Thu, 01 Mar 2012

• 1. Re: evolution [was: Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals] (T613K@aol.com)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] chareidi soldiers in zahal (harchinam)
• 3. Re: [Areivim] chareidi soldiers in zahal (Liron Kopinsky)
• 4. Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year? (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 5. Evolution (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: evolution (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: The Stars and the Heavenly Orbits Enjoy Pleasure (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] chareidi soldiers in zahal (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Zmanim for Ta'aniyos (Micha Berger)

 
From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom"  <kbl...@gmail.com>

>>Please name some specific  physical/biological processes that would be
required by macroevolution, which  are not required by microevolution....

Once we determine specific  processes necessary for macroevlution, we can
search to see whether evidence  of that process has been reproduced
experimentally on a microevolution  timescale. For example, one might
propose that speciation events (where a  species whose members could all
interbreed splits into two species that can  only interbreed within their
new species) are example of such a process. To  which I could answer that
there is a long list of experiments that have  observed speciation events
at _http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html_ 
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)    <<

 
 
 
>>>>>>
 
The article you linked to is long but very interesting and relevant to this 
 discussion.  It starts by showing how many different definitions there are 
 for "species" and how difficult it is to determine whether two birds or 
two fish  or two ears of corn are different species or different varieties of 
the same  species.
 
It then gives many examples of "new species" that have been observed as  
they came into being in nature or as they were created in the lab.  In each  
of these cases, some kind of hybridization occurred and the new species  
contained only old genes from its progenitors, not brand new spontaneously  
occurring genes or features.
 
You want to know what biological process would be required by  
macroevolution that would not be required by microevolution.  The answer  is:  something 
brand new.  Brand new mutations.
 
Darwin believed that evolution happened by random mutations, and that is  
what modern Darwinists believe too.  He knew only gross anatomy, scientists  
today know genetics and would say that the random mutations happen at the  
genetic level.  
 
For evolution to work according to the theory, you couldn't have birds  
having bird babies forever and grasses having grass babies forever.    You'd 
have to have some process whereby entirely new features appeared that had  
never before been seen.  The accumulation of these tiny but entirely new  
changes, over time, would turn dinosaurs into birds, forelegs into wings, blind  
creatures into sighted creatures, water creatures into land creatures.
 
In nature, random genetic mutations are almost always harmful and inimical  
to the survival of the individual.  Think of serious birth defects, defects 
 in the creature's ability to breathe or to digest food or to move  
normally.  It is hard even to think of a random mutation that improves the  
functioning of an individual. 
 
Maybe it is possible that exceptional speed in a racehorse or exceptional  
intelligence in a pet bird /might/ be the result of such a random  mutation. 
 More likely is that the exceptionally swift or intelligent got a  double 
dose of some genetic something that already existed in its forebears, not  a 
new "swiftness" gene or "intelligence" gene.  Even if these features  really 
are something new that spontaneously appear, these features die  out.
 
What we actually see in nature is that such mutations (if such they  are) 
are rapidly swamped by normal versions of the same gene, such that  over 
several generations we see regression to the mean. Genius parents have  smart 
kids but not genius kids. Exceptionally tall parents have tall kids but  kids 
who are a little shorter than themselves. We would not expect to  see the 
production of a strain of faster horses or smarter birds (unless  humans have 
manipulated the stock, but then we are into the territory of guided  
evolution and not the random evolution posited by the Darwinists).  
 
One place where we may be seeing evolution in action is the Tay-Sachs gene  
and other similar genetic diseases that involve the failure to  produce 
certain enzymes.  These genes seem to be associated with high  intelligence and 
also sometimes confer immunity to disease (Bearers of the T-S  gene seem to 
be immune to TB).  But even in these cases, nothing /new/ has  appeared.   
Rather, the defect, the new mutation, is apparently  a taking-away.  Not the 
synthesis of a new enzyme but the failure to  synthesize a needed enzyme.  
How they make people smarter -- it is  speculated -- is by increasing the 
number of connections in the brain --   because they lack the whatever-it-is 
that is supposed to tell the brain to stop  multiplying connections.  But 
increase them /too/ much, and you get a  severely handicapped individual that 
cannot function.  Inherit one gene,  you're smart.  Inherit two genes, you 
die.  
 
This kind of evolution will never produce a new species, no matter how you  
define species.  It isn't going to happen that Jews will be genetically  
incapable of interbreeding with non-Jews (to give just one of the many  
definitions of "species" -- a breeding population that can't interbreed with  
others).  So this is microevolution at work.
 
Ein chadash tachas hashemesh.  Macroevolution would require chadash  tachas 
hashemesh.
 
 
 
 


--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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

 






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


An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120229/0ff819bb/attachment-0001.htm>

> and in the third the officer forced them to get on board and didn't give
>> them a chance to call."
>>
> I echo RJK's request for someone who actually served to pipe in here, as
> I'm confused. On the one hand, the army seems to have failed their
> obligations to these soldiers by not providing them a male pilot.
>

I'm not confused and the army didn't fail anyone. I think that in the case
of a terrorist who is fleeing one could make a strong case for pikuach
nefesh -- especially if the reason we know he's a terrorist is because he
just proved it minutes before. In such a case, it wouldn't matter if it was
a woman or a man who was the pilot; the inyan is to get there quickly and
catch the terrorist. What if she were the only pilot available at that
moment for whatever reason? And even if you think that they could have sent
a man instead, that was one of those "act now, complain later" scenarios.

Think of it this way: what if a man and his child were on a relatively
deserted roadway and there had just been a terrible accident or a violent
crime and the man had to get his child to the hospital as quickly as
possible. Every second was crucial and here comes a car down the road! But,
alas, a woman is driving the car. Would he let his child die rather than
get into a car driven by a woman?

Is this not the definition of a chasid shoteh?

*** Rena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120301/45739849/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:04 AM, harchinam <harchi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>> and in the third the officer forced them to get on board and didn't give
>>> them a chance to call."
>>>
>> I echo RJK's request for someone who actually served to pipe in here, as
>> I'm confused. On the one hand, the army seems to have failed their
>> obligations to these soldiers by not providing them a male pilot.
>>
>
> I'm not confused and the army didn't fail anyone. I think that in the case
> of a terrorist who is fleeing one could make a strong case for pikuach
> nefesh -- especially if the reason we know he's a terrorist is because he
> just proved it minutes before. In such a case, it wouldn't matter if it was
> a woman or a man who was the pilot; the inyan is to get there quickly and
> catch the terrorist. What if she were the only pilot available at that
> moment for whatever reason? And even if you think that they could have sent
> a man instead, that was one of those "act now, complain later" scenarios.
>
> Think of it this way: what if a man and his child were on a relatively
> deserted roadway and there had just been a terrible accident or a violent
> crime and the man had to get his child to the hospital as quickly as
> possible. Every second was crucial and here comes a car down the road! But,
> alas, a woman is driving the car. Would he let his child die rather than
> get into a car driven by a woman?
>
> Is this not the definition of a chasid shoteh?
>

One could argue that things in the army are different, as they have built
in protocol how to handle things. They could very easily have a squadron of
male pilots who are always used with the Charedi troops. And if they made
this promise to those soldiers, then they have to make sure that they are
available.

Granted, if there were no other pilots available the army should not be
faulted here, but since this is something that they deal with every day,
and not a random occurrence on a deserted roadway, this is something that
should be planned for.

If there was a particular hospital that had some male and some female OBs
on staff, and they had a group of patients who came regularly who always
preferred a female OB. I would think it the hospitals duty to try and
ensure that the rotation always has some women doctor available. If there
was a sudden influx of patients who needed women doctors, and the hospital
just couldn't provide then obviously the hospital isn't at fault, but the
hospital should be doing their best to meet this demand.

Parenthetically, I can't figure out what the issue with a female pilot
could possibly be. She's in the front and they're in the back.

Kol Tuv,
Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120301/fcd9d4ba/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> A person from Beis Avtimas could be maqdish the qetores back to
> the beis hamiqdash for service. Thus, they DID take it home. See
> Sheqalim 11b in the Bavli edition.

This is also in Bavli Krisus 6a, and Lhalacha in Rambam Hil. Erchin 5:10
(see also last Halacha in Hil. Shkolim). This is a possibility, not that
it had to happen. the norm was definately to buy it all back. as to the
exact Cheshbon it is already discussed in Tos. D"H Achas Krisus 6b, and
the Hashmotos of the Shita Mkubetzes (printed in the back of the Gemara).

-- 
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

At 10:27 PM 2/29/2012, Eli Turkel wrote:

><< That said, I can't call evolution "fact". It has strong evidence, but
>nothing
>really rules out RMMS's or R' Avigdor Miller's supposition that Hashem had
>His
>own reasons for laying down that evidence. >>
>
>According to Rabbi Miller there is nothing as science.

I do not understand this sentence unless it was supposed to 
read,  "there is such thing as science."

>  All modern science
>is based on experiment and observations, it is never proved in the
>mathematical sense of the word. Hence, the fact that a ball always falls to
>earth every time doesnt "prove" that gravity exists. Perhaps as others
>claim every time G-d causes the ball to fall but there is no such natural
>fact as gravity. Perhaps the world was created a week ago and all archives
>of areivim and avodah were planted there by G-d for his reasons.

I am not about to defend Rabbi A. Miller's views on 
science.  However, science is based on certain assumptions which 
cannot be proven.  For example,  that the way we see the world is the 
way it really is  and that the simplest explanation for phenomena is 
the one that is to be accepted.  My understanding (and it is limited 
since I am a mathematician and not a scientist)  is that science 
attempts to answer the "how" of things but not the "why" behind them.

My friend Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Ehrenpreis, Z"L,  told me that one can 
assert that the sun rotates around the earth.  "It is just a question 
of how you construct the model." he said.  "It is easier to describe 
things using a model in which the earth rotates around the sun,  but 
you can also describe things with the sun rotating around the earth." 
he explained.

So what does science say about planetary motion?  According to 
Ehrenpreis not much in absolute terms.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120301/e47dd881/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:12:00AM +0200, Ilana Elzufon wrote:
: I don't think one can "disprove" the theory of special creation of
: individual species - after all, G-d can do whatever he wants. I also don't
: think one can "disprove" the theory of evolution based on the inadequacy of
: the current understanding of its mechanisms. I would imagine that
: evolutionary biologists have the humility to acknowledge (and the ambition
: to hope) that there is still much to be discovered in this field.

I think one could, in principle, disprove the "random" aspect of how
evolution is usually formulated.

I believe it is provable, that even with the filtering effect of survival
only preserving the "good" mutations, truly random mutations couldn't
explain evolution's speed.

But more than just evolution and talking about origins in general, it's
acknowledged that the odds are too far against the emergence of intelligent
life to explain reality.

One "in" explanation in the scientific community is asserting the existence
of a "multiverse", so that rather than explaining how physics was so fine
tuned so as to make stars, chemistry, biology and psychology possile, they
just say that among enough universes, one was bound to luck out.

In the past I called this "theology" -- the postulating of an infinite
existence beyond what science could measure to explain how we got here,
and to answer the question of "why". (Okay, this gives an answer of
"there is no why", but still...)

But in any case, it's acknowledged within the scientific community that
even given the number of possible sites for evolution within this universe,
the odds are against anyone being here capable of wondering why we are
here.

Thanks to Xian Fundamentalists abusing the term "Intelligent Design" to
try to sneak teaching literal interpretation of Bereishis 1 into the
classroom (what "Creationism" has come to mean), we have problems using
its arguments to show why evolution couldn't be random. Or at least that
evolution shouldn't be taught using the word "random", and if it is
invoked, then the notion of a "designed" evolution must be given equal
time.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:31:33PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: From:  Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
:> Then you might recall that I posted examples of  documented speciation, and
:> not "just" to explain the fossil record. Check  out the examples  at
:> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation>.

:> "Macroevolution",  as far as I can tell, is used in popular parlance only as
:> a way to divide  off whatever aspect of evolution a Creationist wants to
:> claim hasn't been  seen in today's world from those that have, so that
:> they can deny it  occurs. And as more things are proven, "macroevolution"
: shifts in meaning....

: I read the wiki articles and don't see what they add to the  discussion.  

: The first is entirely speculative.  It uses the present  tense as if it is 
: talking about something that happens right now under our eyes....

??? I pointed you to its examples of speciation that occured in recent
past, cases where scientists recorded the origin of a species, not just
deduced it after the fact from fossil record.

: Example: "There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on 
:  the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated 
: from one  another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric." 

Just picking at random.

One example given of peripatric speciation, was the origin of the species
Pacific Robin, which can no longer reproduce with the Australian Robin,
its source. (The name on the web page is Petroica multicolor.) This was
recorded in 1999. When the Pacific island bird was first identified in
1789, they were one species. The 2 also don't look alike.

: But I do have a question for you.  Why the contempt for  "Creationists"?  
: Aren't YOU a creationist?  Don't you /have/ to be a  creationist to be on 
: Avodah?

You have to believe in creation to be on this list. "Creationism" has
come to mean a belief in the literal interpretation of Bereishis 1, and
in some circles, belief that Bereishis 1 is not only true, but within
the purvue of science.

(It's like antisemitism having nothing to do with hating Arabs or other
non-Jewish semites. Words also evolve.)

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:34:57AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> That said, I can't call evolution "fact". It has strong evidence, but nothing
:> really rules out RMMS's or R' Avigdor Miller's supposition that Hashem had
:> His : own reasons for laying down that evidence.

: According to Rabbi Miller there is nothing as science. All modern science
: is based on experiment and observations, it is never proved in the
: mathematical sense of the word...

Karl Popper also noted that science is founded on inductive reasoning. We
find lots of examples, construct an overarching explanation to unite them,
and call that a theory if we fail to find a "Black Swan" in the first number
of trials. That doesn't mean that our rule is accurate, that no exceptions
to what we thought aren't waiting for us out there.

In 1963 Popper published "Science as Falsification", concluding that
because of this, all science can prove is that a given theory isn't true.
The theories that are ruled out are proven to be ruled out. But no
theory is ever proven in a mathematical sense. Just shown to be more and
more likely (in a Bayesian sense).

So R' Avigdor Miller is in sound company.

But here it goes beyond Popper's issue, because I have multiple data
sources. Beyond the empirical data scientific study collects, I have
revelation.

And if the pieces don't quite fit, then perhaps Poppers' point shouldn't
be entirely ignored.

So, while I don't buy into Creationism myself, I can't dismiss it out
of hand and call the alternative a "fact".

Besides, my own leanings, at least on most days, are more toward the
approach that both are right in a way. Or that neither is fully correct,
just models of a reality that was simply beyond comprehension. E.g. and
this is R' Dessler's point not mine, even something as fundamental as
linear time is a product of perception, and doesn't describe what is
really out there, and can't be imposed on anything before Adam -- and R'
Dessler says that Adam qodem lacheit had a different conceptualization
of what we know of as time as well.

But each is right in their own way, creating a dialectic of understandings,
or a "polylectic" (if that's a word), is a better formulation of what I'm
trying to say. For the subset of the data they explain, these ideas do
so accurately. They only look like they conflict, much like the blind
men and the elephant.

So I'm not in a position to declare an aspect that appears in any
particular model a "fact" or non-fact.

There is also the problem that "fact" means two things: Something
that happens to be true, or something we have an empirical basis for
considering true. And thus when using the word "fact" in religious
dicussion, where not all the data is empirical, that ambiguity can lead
to confusion.

...
: Evolution in the local sense occurs all the time. It is well known that
: viruses evolve to counteract anti-virus drugs and so old drugs like
: penicillin are no longer used.

And evolution in the origins sense regularly explains new archeological
findings, and the resulting taxonomy of biological creatures also serves
us well in predicting future results.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 05:04:23PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I have to admit that I was unaware until I read this that the RAMBAM  
> held that the heavenly bodies are conscious beings.
>
> Can anyone enlighten me regarding what is the basis for his holding this 
> belief?   YL

The spheres aren't the sun, moon, planets and stars themselves, but
transparent spheres in which they are embedded. The spheres spin,
thus causing the circular motions of the objects we see. (Yesodei haTorah
3:1-4, 3:5 is about the multiplicity of galgalim requires to explain
epicycles -- why the planets don't move in our sky in neat circles.)

I have mentioned this here in the past. I believe his source is
Aristotle's De Anima.

In the everyday world, where there is always air drag and other
forms of friction, we don't experience Newton's law of Conservation
of Momentum. Instead, Aristo formulated this notion that an intellect
imparts impetus to an objects, which then is in motion until it runs
out of impetus.

Since the spheres move eternally, there must be associated intellect
continually imparting new impetus.

The Rambam, in line with many Neo-Platonists, places the mal'akhim and
galgalim as links in a chain of intellects from the One Divine Thought
down to us. (This is what Yesodei haTorah 2-4 is all about. Pereq 2-
mal'akhim, 3- galgalim and astronomy, 4- physics below the sphere of
the moon.) IOW, Hashem had a thought, which had thoughts ... that are
the Chayos haQodesh which had thoughts that are the Ophanim ... which
had thoughts that are the Ishim whose thoughts are embodied as the
galgalim, and then physical objects made of the four elements.

The human intellect can raise its percpetion up this chain, which then
allows more Divine Influence to reach it -- Hashgachah Peratis, and
allows for nevu'ah.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

And if it had been a female communication specialist, or a female medic, 
or a female tracker or a whatever, they would have had an issue?

Ben

On 3/1/2012 12:33 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>
>
> Parenthetically, I can't figure out what the issue with a female pilot 
> could possibly be. She's in the front and they're in the back.
>
> Kol Tuv,
> Liron

(Another thread revival due to the topic coming up in Y-mi yomi.)

This could or could not be a discussion of chillul Hashem, but clearly
there is some very severe issur involved with doing things that cause
nakhriim (and non-O Jews) to think less of what it means to follow the
Torah.

We already discussed the obvious.

Avos 2:1, where Rebbe defines the derekh yeshrah sheyavos lo ha'adam
as one that is tif'eres le'oseha vetif'ere lo min ha'adam.

Avos 3:10, R' Chanina ben Dosa identifies the set of things that ru'ach
haMaqom nochah heimenu with those that ruach haberios nochah heimenu.

Well, now I encountered the seifa of the mishnah Sheqalim 3:2. The kohein
making a withdrawal from the terumas halishkah cannot wear anything that
the tongue waggers might use to say he hid wealth.
    She'adam tzairkh latzeis yedei haberios
    kederekh shehu tzarikh latzeis yedei haMaqom.
    Shene'emar (Bamidbar 32):
        vehiyisem neqiyum meiHashem umiYisrael
    veOmeir (Mishlei 3):
        umatza chein veseikhel tov be'eini E-lokim ve'adam.

Interestingly, this mishnah, like RCBD in (Abos 3:10) speaks of "berios"
and "haMaqom". I'm not sure why specifically haMaqom, but "berios"
consistently includes both Yehudim and nakhriim.

The gemara (9a in the bavli edition) adds a pasuq from Yehoshua 23
(after the 2-1/2 shevatim who move mei'ever haYardein actually fulfill
the "veyisim neqiyim" by joining the war effort) to make this concept it
another one of those statements said in each of Torah, neviim and kesuvim.

Gamliel Zuga asked Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Bun [ie Avin, in Bavli-speak]
which was the cleares of the three proofs, and RYBRB asserts "vehiyisem
neqiyim" is.

The Qorban haEidah points out that in all three quotes, satisfying G-d
comes first. The Penei Moshe (on the vilna y-mi ed 14a) talks about
the pasuq'a equating G-d's certainty of our innocence when we are with
man's certainty. This pasuq is the most mechuvar because it demands the
greatest neqiyus in our actions.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.

On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 11:24:13pm CDT, RYGB wrote (yes, I'm reviving a 14 yr
old thread):
> There are prominent Shuls and Rabbonim that announce the onset of a
> ta'anis d'rabbanan as 72 minutes before sunrise (alos ha'shachar).

> There are prominent Shuls and Rabbonim that announce the end of a
> ta'anis d'rabbanan as 50 minutes after sunset (tzeis ha'kochavim).

> The former seems too great a kulla, the latter too great a chumra.

> The 72 minutes is a difficult statement by the Rambam, elsewhere he says
> 90 minutes. The other Rishonim all say 90 min. (this based on the shiur of
> a mil, that most Rishonim hold to be 22.5 min. Even those, like the
> Terumas HaDeshen that say 18 min. are probably referring to Magen Avraham
> minutes, which are = to the period between alos and tzeis divided by 720).
> Regardless, even like the Rambam, the 72 min. is equinox day (16.1d
> beneath the horizon - 90 min. = 19.8d) and must, logically, be adjusted
> for time of year - for summer ta'aniyos, a significant difference
> l'chumra.

> The 50 minutes is really difficult to explain. The main opinions in the
> determination of tzeis are the Gra, who uses sea-level calculations
> (4.81d) and Ba'al HaTanya, who uses mountaintop calculations (5.95d).
> Prof. Levi's astronomical analysis of realtime tzeis is closet to the
> Ba'al HaTanya - almost precisely, in fact. That is also, obviously,
> seasonable adjustable, but never more than about 35 min., tops (in N.
> America). There is, of course, Rabbeinu Tam, who uses  4 mil - either 72
> or 90, the same measure as alos ha'shachar.

> The 50 minutes is really the Ba'al HaTanya with some tacked on time in
> order to rounf off + fulfill Tosefes Shabbos. That is reasonable because
> of the chumra of Shabbos + the mitzva of Tosefes Shabbos. It is not
> clear to me why anyone need be machmir for a  ta'anis d'rabbanan.

FWIW, I think the usual Rabbeinu Tam vs the Gra formulation is misleading.
The Gra is restoring the position of R' Sherira and R' Hai Gaon. And
implied that in their day, it was accepted practice. The position
usually attributed to just Rabbeinu Tam is also that of the Rambam,
Ritva, and Rashba.

R' Saadia Gaon, as quoted by Ibn Ezra on Shemos 12:6, talks about nearly
80 min. But while R Adam Zur and I recently discussed this at length (see
comment chain at
<http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2012/01/wanted-experimental-yeshiva.html
>),
I can't understand what R' Saadia means. He is talking about the latest
time to shecht the qorban Pesach. But I thought shechitah and zeriqas
hadam must always be before sheqiah. So, my first guess was that 80 min
were the end of the day, until sheqi'ah, nothing to do with tzeis. But, as
RAZ pointed out, I missed the words:
    And here we have two aravim:
    The first is the areivas hashemesh, and that is the time it comes under
    the earth;
    and the second is the coming of its light which is seen in the cloudes.
    And there is between them close to 1-1/3 hours.

The IE also talks about this on Berieshis 1:18:
    And know that the time that the sun darkens is erev until an
    hour and a third that you see something like light in the clouds
    and similarly the boqer is light before sunrise.

He doesn't use the word tzeis either time, only erev. I don't know what
this shitah refers to. Plag to sheqiah? Sheqiah to tzeis? Or is his two
aravim the same as R' Tam's notion of two sheqios, and R' Saadia and the
IE hold tzeis is 80 min + another 3/4 mil?! I think the latter best
fits the words and my shechitah problem, but makes for an absurdly late
tzeis.

On Thu, 20 Aug 1998  2:22:03pm +0300, R Shragai Botinick replied to RYGB:
: Doesn't Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe (I believe vol. 4 orach
: chaim) claim that Rabbeinu Tam in America(N.Y.) is around 50 minutes -
: and a mil is around 13 minutes.

And then the next Sun, 23 Aug 1998 13:12:15 +0300, RSB added:
: [RMF] says in Orach Chaim Vol. 4 siman 62 explicitly numerous times that
: 50 minutes fulfills mekar hadin the shita of Rabbeinu Tam (just bnei torah
: should be machmir till 72). That in the U.S. after 50 minutes it is the
: equivalent darkness as it was in Europe after 72+ minutes. (and based
: on the Gra every place has a diff. zman). He therefore says that the
: first 9+ minutes is bein hashmashot of the gaonim, the next 31+ minutes
: is definitely night for the Gaonim and definitely day for Rabbeinu Tam,
: the next 9+ minutes is bein hashmashot of Rabbeinu Tam.

: (therfore the U.S. mil is about 12.5 minutes)

: For a tannit drabbanan he says 50 minutes is enough.

More points from that discussion with RAZ...

R' Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky, in a booklet titled "Bein haShemashos",
said that in practice in EY it takes about 22 min after sunset before
the stars could be seen. R' Yehudah Levi, "Zemanei haYom", says that a
trained eye of average natural acuity can see them in 15 min. The Gra
explicitly says his mil is 22-1/2 min, so RYL's number is in the right
range. BTW, among the Gra's arguments is that Rabbeinu Tam's shitah is
far from the experimental data.

To me, this [shift from most geonim to the rishonim] argues that in EY
and Bavel (same latitudes), the two opinions must be describing something
similar, and it's only after we left Bavel that the two models diverge. I
don't have it worked out how that's possible. It would involve the range
of values for the mil (18 - 22.5 min) and the machloqes about whether
the time is a fixed number of minutes, or the number of degrees the sun
would be below the horizon on the equinox in EY after those minutes.

The Geonim, who lived in a similar latitude to EY, held the way the Gra
later championed. We have written teshuvos from R' Sherira and R' Hai
Gaon, writing in Pumbedisa -- which today is called Falluja, Iraq. To
compare, Y-m is at 31 deg 47' N, Falluja is at 33 deg 21' N. Whereas R'
Tam's hometown of Troyes, France is at 48 deg 19' N and the Gra's Vilna,
54 deg 40' N.

I find it hard to believe that the geonim and the Jewish people when the
majority lived in the Middle East didn't have a plausible definition of
tzeis, when the definition was given WRT a nearby area (EY).

Second, the Gra was no stranger to math and science, even if he
couldn't have done the experiment himself. He raises the astronomical
implausibility of R' Tam's et al's opinion as one of his reasons for
recommending reversion to the position of the geonim. If he were silent,
it would be one thing; but it would seem R' Tam's shitah doesn't fit
the spherical trig.

Last on this plausibility discussion, I went to Wikipedia and the
secular definitions of twilight (looking now only at the evening half
of the discussion) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight>

Secular culture has 3 twilights:

Civil twilight: when the sun is at until 6deg below the horizon. (Or
the reverse, at sunrise.) This is when the brightest stars and Venus --
ayelet hashachar -- are visible.

Nautical twilight: 6-12 deg below the horizon. Before which, you can't
see enough well-known stars to navigate.

Astronomical twilight: 12-18 deg below. After which, it's dark enough
for good astronomy, even diffuse things like nebula and galaxies could
be seen. (Well, not when you're as close to NYC as I live...)

R' Moshe's 50 min comes to 12.5 deg. The frequently used 8.75 deg for
Shabbos (3 small stars) also fits the expectations of the secular world --
for suitable definitions of "small".

In Y-m, civil twilight is 24-28 min, nautical twilight is 52-62min, and
astronomical twilight is 81-100min. Meaning, 72 min in EY is not quite
zero stars, but real close. Not when you see 3 small stars, unless by
this you mean diffuse things like nebula or galaxies, rather than points
of light.

Whereas the Gra holds 3/4 of a mil, 13-1/2 - 16-7/8 min. Well shy of
civil twilight, when one can only see Venus and three bright stars.

It really looks like RMTukachinsky and RYLevi's experimental data, 22
min for most people 15 min for experts (respectively), fits the range
for when astronomers would assume 3 medium stars could be seen.

It also looks like the Orchos Chaim's take on R' Tam, that he was saying
when 3 stars on the western (most lit) horizon could be seen, would also
fit the data. (Also the Minchas Cohen's -- that R' Tam was saying that by
72 minutes you can be sure it is after the actual tzeis even in Troyes.)

But pashut peshat in R' Tam still does not fit the data.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 32
**************************************

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..."