Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 040

Sunday, November 4 2001

• Re: ikarim
• Re: Talmud and science
• Radzyner Rebbe and murex
• Re: Rabbi Herzog's objections to murex
• errors in pro-murex writings
• Re: Giving aliyos to those who are intermarried
• Re: be mispalleil for Rav Elozor Menacheim Man ben Bas Sheva - not Rav Eliezer MM...
• Re: limits of kedushah?
• avraham avinu
• Talmud and Science
• Re: Talmud and Science
• P'til and Radzyn bashing
• Re: ikarim
• Re: Talmud and Science
• Re: Talmud and Science
• Shape of the Earth
• RE: Talmud and science
• Re: Talmud and Science

On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 10:14:50AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: Second, I am surprised at what you find unclear.  Calling a community
: epithets is not nokeiv veyored al hatehom.

No? Is it not "agudos agudos" when we divide outselves into two camps
that call eachother names?

: 	1) Making someone an epikores totally destroys him and removes him
: from the community (nokev veyored ad hatehom) (not true about mamzerut,
: agunot, etc)

Again, no? An agunah can never marry, and a mamzeir's children are
mamzeirim (potentially) ad olam! How are they not removed from the
community?

: 	2) Destroying large communities is something that is halachically
: forbidden (from ir hanidahat) 
: 	3) Ergo, we can not call large communities epikorsin.

Again, I would think that the same could be true if one is using the
epithet biguzma. If it makes shadchanim shun them, we are destroying
their community.

: We know from the gemara that on almost all issues, including mamzerut, there
: were different shitot, and different communities had different norms, which
: were viewed as acceptable for them, even if not for us.  Do we have anywhere
: a notion that an opinion may be permissible for community x but epikorsut
: for community y?  

In Syria, most ma'aminim believe in the eser sephiros. In Baladi Teimani
communities, he would be considered a kofeir!

-mi

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

On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 01:29:06PM -0500, Gil Student 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, 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.

It would mean, though, that no one had noticed until his time -- or a
short time before, since it often takes the process a while to confirm
changes in halachah. (And it often takes the masses even longer to
accept it.)

: However, this is generally an observable phenomenon. Could Chazal not
: have observed whether this was true or not?

Quite possibly not. The experimental method was not invented yet.
Infant mortality was high, I am sure it was higher for 8th and 7th month
babies. But until someone actually sits down and collects statistics,
it is quite possible no one noticed that 8th month babies are more likely
to survive than 7th.

BTW, an interesting problem for those of us who deny nishtaneh hateva --
Aristotle writes that women have fewer teeth than men. Okay, teeth did
not last as long as they do now. But still, how could you not know?

An interesting take on nishtaneh hateva is R Avraham ben haRambam who
says that teva in this context refers to theory, not reality. IOW, he
holds that nishtaneh hateva is an admission that we now realize that
Chazal were basing themselves on flawed theories.

I think his conclusion is known. I saw it referred to in this discussion
already. I found his peshat in the terminology interesting.

-mi

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

I mentioned in an earlier post that Ptil claims that the Radzyner
Rebbe would agree with Ptil if he were alive. I suspect that there are
some who would call this the height of chutzpah, but let's understand
the premise for this. Ptil has written that the Radzyner Rebbe was
"utterly unaware" of the research of Lacaze-Duthiers on murex. How do
you know what the Radzyner Rebbe knew or didn't know? Is it because
he didn't write about murex? That is hardly surprising, since he did
not write about *any* species other than his candidate. His first
sefer introduced the topic and tried to establish the criteria for
making a decision. His next 2 seforim defended his choice. He does
not write about the species he rejected. I suspect that it is highly
likely that he did in fact know of the research on murex. I believe the
Radzyner Rebbe did a lot of his research at an aquarium in Naples, Italy.
Lacaze-Duthiers did some important work, but it was Bizio, working in
Venice in the 1830's or so, who did the foundational work on murex.
I suspect that the Radzyner Rebbe at the Naples aquarium in the 1880's
would be familiar with the work of the Italian Bizio 50 years earlier.
I think it is a bit presumptuous to state unequivocally that a gadol of
100 years ago didn't know about something (unless there were logistical
reasons why this would have been impossible).

The Radzyner Rebbe approached this subject more scientifically than many
others. He first studied the subject and compiled a list of criteria.
He then did his research and held the candidate to the proposed criteria.
Murex trunculus fails almost all of his criteria. While it is perfectly
reasonable for someone to disagree and to use a different set of criteria,
isn't it a bit absurd to say that the Radzyner Rebbe, if he were alive
today, would abandon his criteria that he set up a priori and support
murex? Yet, Rabbi Tevger (of Ptil, yes?) writes in a letter in response
to an article by R Mordechai Katz that it is "clear beyond all doubt"
that the Radzyner Rebbe, if here were alive today, would admit murex
trunculus is the chilazon. I suspect otherwise.

mendel

Mendel E. Singer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
Department of Medicine

At 11:03 AM 11/2/01 -0500, Mendel Singer wrote:

>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?

I vote "likely".

>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" :)

Generally, in Eastern Europe, certainly in Lita, a Maggid was of much lower 
stature than a Rav.

I believe that there was a Maggid of Kovno, whose Mussar sefer I have 
packed away somewhere.

Kol Tuv,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In an earlier post, I brought up some of the many errors found in
pro-murex writings and suggested that these errors, and the geivah in
the writing style may be why the gedolim are silent on the subject of
murex as chilazon. Ari Greenspan's response that many of the errors I
cited were made by people not formally associated with P'til misses the
point for several reasons:

1. P'til has these articles on their web site without any corrections
or disclaimers, thereby tacitly endorsing the article.

2. My list was hardly meant to be complete. These were off the top of my
head, and I cited the sources I was sure of or could check the quickest.
When I have time I will try to document more completely the errors so
P'til can make corrections to their web site. But, if you want some more
errors that are clearly from P'til - how about Baruch Sterman's assertion
that Rabbi Herzog proved that murex was used in ancient times to dye
blue. He does no such thing.Perhaps Dr. Sterman meant to say "purple",
but the word "blue" is in the book and on the web site without any
correction. I know that P'til argues that the ancients would have known
how to do it (seems reasonable), but there is no evidence whatsoever
that in fact people did it since they had clear financial incentive
*not* to do it, and Rabbi Herzog does not make such a case. As for the
archeological evidence, it only supports purple dyeing. In fact, here
is another error - as I point out in my article, on the Ptil web site
(http://www.tekhelet.com/pilant.htm) is a brochure with a picture of an
archeological find where it is claimed that the dye is blue. In fact it
is purple. This is quite obvious from the picture for people unfamiliar
with the academic literature on this find.

3. When a Rabbi writes an article in favor of murex trunculus as
chilazon, that person has become a spokesman for the "murex movement",
whether P'til likes it or not. People will lump them together with
Ptil unless P'til does something to stop it. My point was how people
perceive things.

4. As for geivah, I have covered this somewhat in other posts, but the
key here is what people perceive, and I have heard this complaint many
times from people, including one *very* prominent Rav whose name I can't
disclose because he told me this in a private conversation.

There are other errors and misrepresentations in P'til writings, some
of which I will deal with in a more complete rebuttal of Dr. Sterman's
response to my article.

mendel

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

I'm glad I'm not an out-of-town rav. My brother-in-law was an assistant
rabbi in this type of shul (assistant, so he didn't actually set the
policy) and I believe that they gave aliyos to those who are not (yet)
shomer shabbos but would not let them daven from the amud. That meant
that the rabbi and assistant rabbi frequently led davening.

It's also not so pashut that you can count someone who is not shomer
shabbos for a minyan. I think we've discussed this before on Avodah,
particularly the Rambam's shitah.
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n156.shtml#09>

Gil Student

On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 02:20:48PM +0200, Rena Freedenberg wrote:
:> I think that if someone was not concerned enough to correct the name
:> and tell others to do so when he hears he had it wrong, his tefillah
:> is obviously not being sent along with the same ko'ach.

: Probably not, but that wasn't really the question...

I avoided the question intentionally, since it does not exist in
my worldview.

: It is true that since the physical act of saying words has an effect in the
: upper worlds...

And this is why it does not exist.

According to R Chaim Vilozhiner's primary thesis for sha'ar aleph of
Nefesh haChaim, man is the sole link between the olamos. In particular,
because man is built of all the kochos, pulled from all the olamos.
So, a hashpa'ah on a person travels back to each olam.

See I:6 and I:21 in particular, but really it is the primary inyan of
the entire sha'ar.

As our long-time chaveirim may have surmised, I understood this in a
relatively rationalistic way.

In our case, it is not the physical act directly, but its hashpa'ah on
people that causes hashpa'ah in the olamos ha'elyonim.

I therefore do not believe that saying the wrong words for the right
reason has any different power in olamos ha'elyonim beyond what it says
(if anything) about the attitude of the person saying it and those who
hear him.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

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.

Consider the midrash in Yalkut Shimoni, Tehillim 633 that David went into
the beis hamerchatz and was distressed that he was naked from the mitzvos.
Then he remembered his milah and was calmed down. The implication is
that one cannot do mitzvos in a beis hamerchatz.

However, I checked the Midrash Tehillim (Buber 6:1) and he has a version
that milah is kenegged kol hamitzvos which gives the story a differen
connotation. Even if David could have done one or two mitzvos, he
could not have done too many. But with milah, it is as if he did all
of the mitzvos.

Gil Student

Can someone explain the recent daf yomi on the coins of avraham avinu
that had zaken, zakena on one side and naar,naarah on the other side.

Why would avraham be issuing coins? He was not king of any place?
According to tosaphot they only had words on the two sides and no pictures
- sounds like it is easy to forge.

With regard to King David/Solomon Rashi also says that it contained
writing and no pictures. Why not use pictures of the Menorah, Lulav,
BHMK etc. as was indeed done in Hasmonean and Bar Kochva days.

Eli Turkel

[RGS:]
> 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.

Of course this makes the problem worse since it implies that the biology
changed after the Mishna Brura, i.e. within about 100 years.

> 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.

I find this conservatism strange since we are talking about pikuach
nefesh. The implication is that poskim would not allow a 8 month fetus to
be saved on shabbat even when they knew that medically he could be saved.
I always remember the phrase of RC Soloveitchik that he was machmir in
pikuach nefesh.

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

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

Actually thats not true. R. Levi has an article (also in BDD) showing
that much of nishtanah hateva can be justified scientifically. It is
well known that many animal features have changed over the years either
by breeding or even naturally. The serious problem is related to human
biology e.g. pregnancy, urinary and semen tubes etc. There is no evidence
that humans have evolved over recorded history of several thousand years.

Dr. Sternberg in fact points out that this shows that halakha is not
intrisically opposed to evolution. In fact with regard to human beings,
nishtanah hateva implies a greater degree of evolution than science is
willing to accept.

As I also implied if nishtanah hateva is merely a legalistic phrase to
avoid problems than the scientific problem disappears though others may
appear instead.

>> 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.

The reference is in Steinberg's article which I dont have access to now.

>> 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).

Please give more details as certainly most rishonim believed the earth was
flat.
The book of Landau brings many gemaras that can only be explained by
assuming they held the earth was flat. The only source I know of a round
earth is a yerushalmi & medrash that talks about holding the earth as
a globe. Landau interprets that gemara as referring to a 2 dimensional
disc and not globe but that seems stretched to me. In any case it is
one isolated source which seems to be contradicted by many gemaras. The
obvious answer is that some tannaim/amoraim knew the earth was a globe
while most did not.

> 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.

My personal feeling is that any good doctor knows the limitation of
medicine, but that is another issue.

shabbat shalom,
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:
>Of course this makes the problem worse since it implies that the
>biology changed after the Mishna Brura, i.e. within about 100 years.

No. It means that the Mishnah Berurah was not willing to go against
the gemara and be lenient, either because of uncertainty regarding the
medical reality or his obvious conservative tendencies.

I wrote:
>Because poskim are, understandably, very hesitant to change halachah to
>contradict a gemara.

Eli Turkel wrote:
>I find this conservatism strange since we are talking about pikuach
>nefesh. The implication is that poskim would not allow a 8 month fetus
>to be saved on shabbat even when they knew that medically he could be
>saved.

Because poskim have to look at the global picture. If you are not slow
when you toss out established halachos then you run the risk of having
much more tossed out with it (I could not bring myself to use the famous
metaphor in this context).

Recall that many early Reform changes were arguably mutar al pi din
(like having a Gentile play an organ in shul on Shabbos).

>There is no evidence that humans have evolved
>over recorded history of several thousand years.

I don't know if it's true, but a prominent rav was trying to justify
doubling shiruim to me and said something about the remains of Columbus'
crew showing that people were much smaller. I wasn't really taking him
seriously so I don't remember the details.


I wrote:
>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).

Eli Turkel wrote:
>Please give more details as certainly most rishonim believed the earth
>was flat. The book of Landau brings many gemaras that can only be
>explained by assuming they held the earth was flat.

I don't know who Landau is or what book he wrote. My source is a
chapter in R. Menachem Kasher's long article in Talpiot 1:3 about the
international dateline. He devotes a chapter to Chazal's view of the
shape of the world. Kedarko bakodesh, he quotes many, many sources.

The gemara in Pesachim 94b has a machlokes between chachmei Yisrael
and chachmei umos ha'olam whether at night the sun goes above the
rakia (chachmei Yisrael) or below the world (chachmei umos ha'olam).
Rebbe concludes that chachmei umos ha'olam are correct that the sun goes
below the world. R. Kasher explains that this is a machlokes over whether
the earth is flat or round and Rebbe's conclusion is that it is round.

The Rambam and his son make a big deal out of the fact that Rebbe was
willing to side with Gentile scholars based on scientific proofs.
However, the Shitah Mekubetzes in Berachos says that Rebbe did not
really concede. He just said that the Gentile scholars had a better
proof, not that they were right. This is also presumably how Rabbeinu
Tam would explain the gemara because in Sefer HaYashar he assumes like
chachmei Yisrael.

R. Kasher also quotes R. Saadia Gaon in his commentary to Sefer Yetzirah
who says that there was a minority among Chazal who believed that the
earth was flat but most believed that it was round.

Gil Student

[I am not thrilled with the direction this is going on either side of
the aisle. Lets try to keep to the ideas, not the people... -mi]

I posted earlier that P'til has been guilty of Radzyn-bashing. I didn't
expect P'til to agree with this. However, I have heard this claim from
people who are neutral on the techeiles issue, and my point was on
perception. But, here are some reasons why they may be saying this.

1. Rabbi Herzog's story about the Italian chemist. P'til claims they
accurately reflect the story, which is purely speculation (note that
Rabbi Herzog spends over 2 pages on this without a single source, in a
dissertation averaging about 3 end-notes per page). Though it would take a
fair amount of time to check for cases of clear misrepresentation, I have
to ask "why" P'til is so fond of this story? It appears in many of their
writings. Why is this story so important? How is this relevant to the
halachic discussion? Considering the story has no corroborating evidence,
and is not relevant to the halachic discussion, why is this story cited
so often? How does this story make the Radzyner Rebbe look? Remember,
my issue is with the impression created. I cannot know the intention.

2. Dr. Sterman's respone to my article goes into R Gelbstein's arguments
against the Radzyner Rebbe's opinion. Why? My article was not about
Radzyn. It wasn't necessary for Dr. Sterman's new set of criteria.
From other posts, we have seen that R Gelbstein was arguing more from
animosity, as it is hard to reconcile the halachic issues with his
interest in burning Radzyner techeiles, posseling Radzyners as witnesses
and not allowing them in the mikveh. When I claimed that perhaps it was
because R Gelbstein was a Kotzker at a time when Kotz was still very
bitter towards Radzyn, Dr. Greenspan replied that R. Gelbstein wasn't
biased because he said he wasn't biased! (Dr. Greenspan's response was
to quote from R Gelbstein). I didn't expect R Gelbstein to write "I am
writing this purely out of personal animosity"! :)

3. Examine P'til writings and tell me how much space and detail is
devoted to listing the claims against Radzyn, and then tell me how much
space and detail was spent explaining the Radzyner Rebbe's answers to
these claims? Typically, the Radzyner's answers are not mentioned at
all! (this applies to most claims against the Radzyner which came during
his lifetime and he addressed).

Again, I have heard complaints about Radzyn-bashing from people who are
not Razdyners or wearers of Radzyner techeiles. There are, I believe,
many people who feel this way. People who knew I was writing an article
about techeiles would tell me this complaint. If people feel this way,
then at some level, it doesn't matter if P'til feels these complaints
are unreasonable, they need to do things to counter this because it
unnecessarily harms their cause.

mendel

In a message dated 11/2/2001 11:35:03am EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> No? Is it not "agudos agudos" when we divide outselves into two camps
> that call eachother names?

I concur and May I suggest that as an alterantive to NOT name names
but to attack offending beahavior and/or beliefs when necessary WTHOUT
specifying indivduals and communities and let hameivin yavin.

This was the practice of my rebbe R. Yercham Gorelick. I also found a
source for this in Artscroll's Biography of R. Baruch Ber - who after
all was from the same school as R. Baruch Ber. {sorry I cannot give
you the page off-hand}

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

> The gemara in Pesachim 94b has a machlokes between chachmei Yisrael and
> chachmei umos ha'olam whether at night the sun goes above the rakia
> (chachmei Yisrael) or below the world (chachmei umos ha'olam)....
>         R. Kasher explains that this is a machlokes over whether the earth
> is flat or round and Rebbe's conclusion is that it is round.
...
> R. Kasher also quotes R. Saadia Gaon in his commentary to Sefer Yetzirah who
> says that there was a minority among Chazal who believed that the earth was
> flat but most believed that it was round.

If I understand this correctly it is really the chachamim who are correct
who say that the earth is flat!
This would also support Sternberg who claims that R. Tam believed the earth
to be flat and so had no trouble with the dependence of shekia on latitude.

If someone else has access to Landau's book he brings many gemaras that
indicate that Shmuel, Rava and others believed in a flat earth.

In any case this is off topic since to the best of my knowledge this has no
halachic significance and Sternberg was concentrating on questions that
require a psak halacha.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 11/2/2001 1:40:05pm EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> Dr. Sternberg in fact points out that this shows that halakha is not
> intrisically opposed to evolution. In fact with regard to human beings,
> nishtanah hateva implies a greater degree of evolution than science is
> willing to accept

AIUI the prat that Haskafa rejects from Darwin is that Adam was evolved from 
primates.  The Torah states Vayivra es Ha'adam implying that Adam was a new 
Briya not a derivative, althouygh even this can be quibbled.

But within species, Darwin was probably on the right track. 

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com

Eli Turkel wrote:
>If I understand this correctly it is really the chachamim who are
>correct who say that the earth is flat!

How so?  Am I misremembering my elementary school education or doesn't the 
earth revolve daily so that any side of the earth only faces the sun during 
daytime?  From our perspective, the sun is underneath us at night.  No?

>This would also support Sternberg who claims that R. Tam believed the
>earth to be flat and so had no trouble with the dependence of shekia
>on latitude.

I think all agree to this.  I am not certain about the history, but I 
believe that all respectable scientists in Rabbeinu Tam's time and place 
agreed that the earth was flat.  Can anyone confirm or deny it?

Gil Student

>>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?

Huge difference. The last month of development is a very important one for
the fetus and one of the major problems with preemies is underdeveloped
lungs. It is only relatively recently that western medicine has figured
out how to compensate for this problem and therefore save many babies
that would have died in previous generations.

I wouldn't hold that this is nishtanah hateva, I'd hold that Hashem
is now allowing the western world to learn more and more as we come
closer to the coming of Moshiach that enables us to save lives that
were unsaveable before. Nishtanah hateva means that something actually
physically changed, such as if a baby's lungs were all of a sudden to
start producing a chemical that they never produced before that nullified
the need for a certain medicine or procedure to treat preemies.

>> 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.

They could look all they wanted -- Van Leuwenhook hadn't been born yet and
they had no idea what bacteria or viruses or anything else they couldn't
see with the human eye was. Observation only went so far in those days.

>> 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

Again, they had to know what they were looking at and why it was diseased
and if one doesn't have a very good microscope many things just aren't
"knowable". Besides the fact that I am not sure that most people really
are literate in either classical or koin Greek and so we really can't say
what Greeks knew or didn't know -- we are dependent on translations of
unknown accuracy and quality. Just remember what the goyim did with their
version of "chumash" when discussing translations [You got horns? Moshe
Rabbeinu did, so why don't you?, etc.]

---Rena

> Eli Turkel wrote:
>> Please give more details as certainly most rishonim believed the earth
>> was flat. The book of Landau brings many gemaras that can only be
>> explained by assuming they held the earth was flat.

> I don't know who Landau is or what book he wrote

I think it is helpful to counter some of the misunderstandings &
criticisms of my comments regarding Prof. Sternberg's writings to quote
from the BDD 1 Summer 1995 review of Dr. Judah Landa's book, Torah &
Science by Prof. Nathan Aviezer.

"...I agree completely with Dr. Landa's principal thesis that,
"it is possible to accept all the tenets of science...and at
the same time subscribe to all the articles of faith of orthodox
Judaism"...Nevertheless, I did not like this book. What I found annoying
is the gross disrespect shown by Landa towards Gedolei Torah. Landa
depicts Gedolim as people who are not only totally ignorant of science,
but who sometimes do not even understand the Torah!...

In his Preface...Landa was surprised to discover this Gadol did not
understand an elementary passage...of the Rambam...Landa informs us that
it was the sheer ignorance of this man - 'great Torah scholar that he
was' - that inspired Landa to write his book: 'I resolved to do something
about the twin problems of ignorance and bias in the name of G-d'....

Unfortunately, Landa's book is riddled with disparaging comments about
Gedolim...In the short space of 6 pages, Landa emphasizes the shortcomings
of the Amora Shmuel...of Rashi....of Talmudic discussion ("the Talmud's
advice...is without merit","preposterous suggestion"...and of Talmudic
Sages in general ("They shouldn't be denying the obvious").....It is clear
that Landa's sole reason for presenting hundreds of pages of science is
to emphasize how completely "ignorant" Gedolim were in all scientific
subjects. Landa repeats this point again and again, concluding with...

"The rabbis' opinions and methods almost always fell short..the rabbis
were so clearly wrong on so many diverse matters...Particularly painful
was that the rabbis' analyses frequently appear woefully inferior even to
those of their contemporaries, the ancients. And not only in scientific
matter was this the cases, but also in mathematics... The unwarranted
glorification of our Sages is not only based on ignorance of science,
it is also found on ignorance of Torah."

...Landa's presentation of modern science can only be described as
completely unsatisfactory. Almost all his scientific errors...are
of the same type - he oversimplifies to the point of error. And I
believe that he does so in order to present scientific explanations as
unequivocal, clear, and well established - which he then contrasts to
the "impossible scenarios" of Gedolim, which "are riddled with internal
contradictions"...The truth is not so simple. Everyone actively engaged
in research at the cutting edge of modern science becomes aware of the
subtlety of the scientific enterprise. Recent scientific results often
appear unclear, controversial, and even contradictory. To present such
results as definitive, as Landa generally does, is almost guaranteed to
lead to error. A few examples will illustrate...

The above criticisms are not intended to detract from the fact that the
twin themes of Dr. Landa's book are messages of the utmost importance
for the Torah Jew of the 20 century.

1) There is no contradiction whatever between Torah and science - nor
can there be - because these two disciplines (Torah & science) operate
within completely different frames of reference. Science describes how the
physical universe operates, whereas the Torah defines Man's obligations
to G-d and to his fellow man

2) Gedolim (both past and present) were not necessarily always up to date
in matters relating to the functioning of the physical universe...science
is not the subject in which these men are "gedolim".

In a book intended for the Torah Jew, it matters not only what you say,
but also how you say it. Surely it should be possible to formulate these
important ideas in the proper manner."

                    Daniel Eidensohn

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


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