Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 124

Wednesday, March 12 2003

• Re: gadol ha-dor
• Re: Who's afraid of dinosaurs?
• Re: Midvar Sheker Tirchak
• 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
• Zecher amalek
• Zakhor, al tishkach
• Re: Shoshanas Yaakov & Purim - Avodah V10 #123
• RE: Toras Purim 5763
• Re: Who's afraid of dinosaurs?
• Re: proving evolution?
• proving evolution?
• RE: Who's afraid of dinosuars?
• Re: earliest mincha
• Re: gadol ha-dor
• shalach manos
• Re: A Divine Whodunnit
• Re: Who's afraid of dinosuars?

In a message dated 2/27/2003 9:58:54 PM EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> I do too. But the reality is that it is quite common to have members 
> of Eidot HaMizrach come into an Ashkenazi shul in EY and say their 
> own nussach for Kaddish. I've only been in one shul in EY which even 
> had a sign requiring that all Kaddishes be said according to Nussach 
> Ashkenaz - and that shul wasn't makpid if someone came in and did 
> otherwise. 

I don't get this. Imagine a Tzibbur has a right to reject a shliach
tzibbur who plays by all the local rules

It seems to me a kal vachomer that anyone who is DAVKA not playing
by the local rules is ipso facto to be rejected as a shaliach for
"oso hatzibbur!"

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/11/03 12:46:45 PM EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> I have come to conclude that while evolution is not a
> proven theory, it is a highly probable likelihood. There is far too
> much evidence of it to be dismissed. One cannot take seriously
> anymore the idea that the universe is less than 6000 years old. There
> is far too much evidence to the contrary.  
> 

The age of the universe and the theory of evolution are two entirely separate 
issues.

Toby Katz

In a message dated 3/3/2003 2:55:02 PM EST, free@actcom.co.il writes:
> And yet, there are specific cases where we are told TO lie, because of
> shalom. Is this not a case where the ends (shalom) justify the means
> (lying)?
> Again we see that an apparently ironclad rule DOES have exceptions.

Many {but not all} of those exceptions can be construed as to be the
hor'as sho'ah of a navi

E.G. Ya'akov deceiving Yitzchak was based upon the direct orders of Rivka
who had previously gone - "vateilech lidrosh es Hashem" and therefore
had the impetus to force this issue based upon nevu'ah.

Hor'as Sho'a is not really an excpetion, rather it is a temporary
suspension in a limited circumstance. The ikkar hadin remains intact

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

>Reb Yosef; a freilichin AdaR!!
>
>One Ha'ara: Why does the Mishna say: 'Lo Pachos v'lo Yoseir' by 11,12,13,14
>and 15. Shouldn't the languag be 'Lo Kodem V'lo Meuchar (or someting like
>that?) Pachos and Yoseir is usually when counting. (e.g. we read it less
>times or more times)
>
>YF

Zehr a gutteh kashya! When I see sets of five I automatically think
nefesh, ruach, neshomo, chaya, yechida.

But in this case, I think, al pi remez, the mechuvan is to the 65th
pasuk in the Torah (the total of 11+12+13+14+15=65).

Lo pachos! Not the 64th! That is Man hiding from Hashem (hester).

Lo yoseir! Not the 66th! That is Man rationalizing his hiding to Hashem
(accepting hester).

But precisely the 65th - the first direct communication between HKB"H
and Hashem in the Torah ha'Kedosha (and the first "Ayecha"). [Note that
in 2:!6 the communication is not direct!

The connection through the hester.

V'yesh l'hosif.

Such as (courtesy of Bar Ilan):

65 is shem Adnus is gematria - the way the shem is nichtav in this world,
which is the ohr in the hester.

BTW, the first place Purim appears as either roshei or sofei teivos in
Tanach is in Bereishis 45:4, the sofei teivos of "vayigashU vayomeR anI
YoseP achicheM" - the breaking of a hester!

Never realized this (at least that I recall): "B'refidim" is gematria
Purim! (336).

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

> The basic oxymoron: the pasuq starts "timcheh" and ends "lo
> tishkakh".

The Netziv asks this kashe and is mechalaik between destroying amalek
and remembering Amalek's mission/ideology of destroying the sense
of hashgacha. That ideological battle will continue till the days of
moshiach and the world recognizes all-encompasing hashgachas Hashem.

> Haman would have long been forgotten if not for Purim. Timcheh es
> zecher Amalek obviously does not mean eradicvating his memory.

All we have left of Haman is a record of his plot to destroy klal yisrael
and his downfall. The historical "memory" of the person Haman has been
forgotten; all that we remember for the record is an archetype of an
ideology of hatred.

Rambam hil melchim 5:5 writes the mitzva is to destroy "zecher amalek",
and there is a mitzvas aseh to always remember "ma'asav ha'ra'im
v'areivaso k'dei l'orer aivaso, shne'emar zachor..." Two diyuking: 1)
by destroying the rambam refers to "zecher", by remembering he refers to
"ma'asav ha'ra'im v'areivaso", not to zecher, avoiding the oxymoron. 2)
whem formulating the mitzva to remember, the rambam adds "l'orer aivaso"
- it must be used as a vehicle to arouse hatred, not a history lesson.

-Chaim

> The basic oxymoron: the pasuq starts "timcheh" and ends "lo tishkakh".

> (It's like the old kids' line: "I'll give you $5 if you're not thinking
> about pink elephants 5 seconds from now." How do you eliminate a thought
> without thinking about that very thing as part of your effort?)

This is an issue that I devoted a chapter to in my recent book on the
Shema in the context of Zekhr ytsias mitsraim in the Shma.

Based on the Sifro in the beginning of Bechukosia, there appear to be
4 types of remeberance in the Torah

1. Awareness - does not require effort or special action. To violate
it one would need to specifically erase this awareness form one's
heart. Ex. Maamad Har Sinai ( until he sits and erases them from his
heart)

2. Recall- remembering through an associated action. Ex. Eating Matza,
Tefilin, Sukka, Tsistsis etc

3. Review - through study of halachos

4.Commemoration - reading parshas Zakhor has the elements of
commemoration; precribed text, torah scroll, minyan, ceremony.

I obviously cannot present all this with sources and argumentation as
done in the book.

Therefore, Zakhor, al tishkach means that one must not drive out awareness
from one's heart but also must recall, review and commemorate. Various
aspects of Purim relate to one or another of these requirements (See
Marcheshes 20).

M. Levin

From: "sba@iprimus.com.au" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> He brings b'sheim the Chida (who is quoting Midrash Elihau b'shem
> Yad Yosef)that Purim is kolel all the yomim tovim...

Another interesting note:
Chazal tell us l'gabei simchas YT we go chatzi lashem and chatzi luchem
Rav Hutner brings b'sheim the Vilna Gaon that Purim and Yom Kipur are
two sides of one coin YK is the Lashem side and Purim is the luchem side

Yoel

At 09:35 AM 3/11/03 -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>But you didn't answer my other question. I wasn't asking on simcha but on 
>ahavah.
>rav Tzaddok clearly says the kabbals hatorah was from ahavah. How does 
>that shtim with yiras ha'romimus.

Where is the setirah between ahavah and yiras ho'romemus?

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> The age of the universe and the theory of evolution are two
> entirely separate issues.

Not really. Evolution in nature requires "evolutionary" time. One must
reject evolution out of hand if one rejects that the universe is only
6000 years old instead of 15 billion years old.

It has been a long time since I studied the elements of theory of
evolution, But I remember clearly thinking that most of the theory is
logic based and not really refutable as a theory. The only question is
whether the animal knigdom and man have all evolved from a single celled
aomeba like ancestor.

Evolution is based on mutations of the species that benefits
reproduction. Sudden mutation which can cause a radical sudden change
in a charcteristic, usually detrimental to reproduction. But in those
instances that it benefits reproduction it is of course carried through
reproductively in the species untill the next mutation which benefits
reproduction. This and other features of evolution such as natural
selection, differentiation, and environmental niches amongst other things
are all part of the physical nature of the universe. None of these
elements contradict our belief in God's creation of the universe. All
science is doing is showing us then method or proccess of the creation.

If one is honest one cannot yet reject or accept the theory of
evolution. One can only wait and see if over time it can be proven
or disproven.

HM

RHM wrote: 
> In the end, we have proven that evolution is in fact taking place. My
> daughter, who teaches biology in Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov does so every
> year with her mosquito experiments. 

Wrong.  Did you see my posting about the pepper moths in England and the 
Galapagos finches?  If a given population of mosquitoes (or whatever) already 
contains a certain amount of genetic variation, and the proportion of variety 
X to variety Y changes in response to environmental conditions, you have not 
"proven" evolution except in the most trivial sense.

[Email #2. -mi]

> I have come to conclude that while evolution is not a proven theory, it is
> a highly probable likelihood. There is far too much evidence of it to be
> dismissed. 

Evidence for evolution in other than the most trivial sense--slim to none.
G-d COULD have created life (and later, human life) through a process
of evolution, but the fossil evidence strongly suggests direct creation
of each separate species.

RHM:
> either the universe is older than 6000 years or
> that it was created with the perception that a star exploded more than
> 6000 years ago but that it did not really happen. IOW, the explosion
> that we are seeing now is the light from an explosion of a planet that
> never exploded. ...
> to my mind it seems entirely ridiculous to assume that God would fool us
> in precisely that way. 

I agree with you in rejecting the thesis that the world was created
to look old, with fossils of creatures that never really existed.
In fact I reject such a hypothesis as essentially meaningless. That is,
I do not see the following two scenarios as differing in any "real"
way from each other:

Scenario 1: I am 21 years old, have a college diploma, am suffering
the pangs of unrequited love, have been crying all over my diary.

Scenario 2: I was created one minute ago, and at the same time, the
whole world was created, including a young man whom I love, and who has
already rejected me, even though we have never met (since we were both
created just a minute ago). Among the artefacts created a minute ago
are a college diploma on the wall and a tear-stained diary.

Some people view the above two scenarios as significantly different
and would accept the second scenario--in which memories and documents
are false--as a plausible explanation of how G-d created the world.
I regard the two scenarios as identical, in that it is not possible, at
least for a creature inside the system, to determine whether she is 21
years old or one minute old. Therefore that distinction is meaningless,
and she is effectively 21 years old.

But as I said, the question of the age of the universe, and the question
of the origin of life (and of human life) are two entirely different
questions. It is a huge mistake to imagine that evidence of an old
world in any way buttresses the notion that life arose by spontaneous
generation from a primordial soup.

Toby Katz

T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> In the end, we have proven that evolution is in fact taking place. My
>> daughter, who teaches biology in Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov does so every
>> year with her mosquito experiments. 

> Wrong.  Did you see my posting about the pepper moths in England and the 
> Galapagos finches?

Yes, I did.  

> If a given population of mosquitoes (or whatever) already 
> contains a certain amount of genetic variation, and the proportion of variety 
> X to variety Y changes in response to environmental conditions, you have not 
> "proven" evolution except in the most trivial sense.


You cannot say that the evolution of a mosquito is trivial. The
reason evolution can so be demonstrated is because the reproductive
lifespan of a mosquito is extemely short thus enabling mutation and
natural selection to take place very quickly. Don't you think this
phenomenon is applicable to all living things? I think it is, but as
I said the only unresolved quetion is NOT whether it is now taking
place but whether this was God's method of creation.

Human beings are constantly undergoing an evolutionary proccess. I
don't think this is even arguable. But in evolutionary terms, the last 6
years, 60 years, or 6000 years is an infinitesimal amount of time. That
we haven't changed during mankind's recorded history is neither proof
nor disproof.

However, as I said I have an open mind on the subject. I can be convinced
either way. But so, also, am I convinced that there is evidence, although
not conclusive, which supports the theory. I choose to be scientific
about the matter.

HM

The Tiferes Yisrael's essay on dinosaurs, while fascinating, is not a
mainstream view; it also does't help with the chronology of Bereishis.

The Netziv's idea about dinosaurs living just before the mabul cannot
be reconciled with the physical evidence. I suspect that if the Netziv
were alive today and knew what we know, he would not have suggested it.

The most authentic and effective explanations are that Maase Bereishis is
not literal, as Rambam states explicitly, and as explained by Rav Dessler.

With regard to evolution, frum people who say that there is no evidence
for it, based on books like those of Denton, Johnson and Behe, are
misinformed. Denton's book is way out of date; he himself has since
changed his views. Johnson is a lawyer, not a scientist, and he fudges
the facts. Gould is misquoted. Behe simple deals with how mutations occur,
not whether species have changed over time. Challenge, while an excellent
work, is way out of date.

In any case, these arguments are irrelevant to us, since the scientific
aspects of evolution are fully compatible with Judaism, as Rav Hirsch
explains. These are all complex topics; I have explained them at length
in my book, The Science of Torah (Targum Press). (Which, incidentally,
Rav Bulman z"l approved of.)

Nosson Slifkin

=====================================
Zoo Torah is a non-profit educational enterprise that offers a series
of books, programs for both adults and children, zoo tours, and South
African safaris, all on the theme of Judaism and the animal kingdom. For
more details and a taste of the experience, see www.zootorah.com. If
you would like to subscribe to a regular ZooTorah essay, please e-mail
nature-subscribe@ohr.edu.

Is anyone aware of where I can find the shitah ascribed to R' Moshe that
one could daven at non-shaot zmaniot noon+1/2 hour year round(ie 12:30
or 1:30)?


There are four places in the Igros Moshe where R' Moshe asserts -
based on a mesora from his father - that the time of chatzos is fixed
the entire year. In one of them - some had asserted that the yeshiva
calendar was incorrect. I was told that after his petira - R' Dovid
conducted the yeshiva according to everyone else's concept of chatzos.

These are listed in Yad Moshe under Zman page 90

OC I #24 page 67
OC II #20 page 191
OC IV #62 page 96
EH I #58 page 147

On 10 Mar 2003 at 23:50, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/27/2003 9:58:54 PM EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
>> I do too. But the reality is that it is quite common to have members 
>> of Eidot HaMizrach come into an Ashkenazi shul in EY and say their 
>> own nussach for Kaddish....

> I don't get this. Imagine a Tzibbur has a right to reject a shliach
> tzibbur who plays by all the local rules
> It seems to me a kal vachomer that anyone who is DAVKA not playing
> by the local rules is ipso facto to be rejected as a shaliach for
> "oso hatzibbur!"

I meant an individual reciting Kaddish, not a Shaliach Tzibur. While
that may happen in some shuls, it is rare (except in shuls whose nusach
is whatever the Shaliach Tzibur happens to use).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

RJB:
>The SA says "two kinds of food", but nothing about two brachot. The
>Baer Heitev cites an opinion that if one sends fish & eggs, it's in
>doubt whether one has fulfilled the obligation - which seems to imply
>a necessity, or at least a preference, of two brachot.

The Baer Haetiv is discussing whether fish cooked with egg ON IT can
count as two manos or is considered only one mana. See also Hilchos
Tisha B'Av concerning seuda hamafsekes. I see NO reference here to any
preference for 2 BRACHOS just that one must have 2 manos.

Happy Purim,
Shlomo

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:58:59AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: A Divine Whodunnit
: Yeshivat Ohr Somayach
...
: One day, the atheist came to visit Newton in his library, and his eyes
: fell upon a most beautiful sight. Sitting on Newton's desk, reflecting
: the rays of the afternoon sun, was an exquisite [orrery], a brass engine
: which depicted the solar system in three dimensions.
...
: "No I don't know! I insist you tell me who is the maker of this priceless
: object. I refuse to believe that this object merely 'fell together'."

This is the standard argument by design. R' Aqiva gave a parallel one,
challenging a Roman to believe that a beautifully calligraphied poem
was the product of someone spilling a bottle of ink.

This version has the beauty of being about a model of the solar system, a
/simplified/ version of one of the very things the same person attributes
to chance.

To me the point was really brought home during a post-grad robotics
class. My project involved walking, and just getting something to balance
and walk on 2 legs challenges current technology.

But the real epiphany was caused by the hand in the far end of the room
used in a different project. This hand had its selenoids placed further up
than the things they were to move -- the fingers were controlled by wire
tendons pulled by selenoids placed in the hand. Real hands use tendons
similarly -- we need power in places too small to hold muscles strong
enough to get the job done. However, this robotic hand only had three
fingers and a thumb. Desigining tendon paths for a full set of fingers
was too difficult. (I assume now, nearly 20 years later, we can.)

This isn't a machine like the eye, the brain, or even the kidney. This
is something we think we all understand. But it's difficult to reproduce.

As I said, it was an epiphany. I'm not surprised if I failed in my
attempt to share that sudden amazement.

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 07:09:37PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
:                     If a given population of mosquitoes (or whatever) already 
: contains a certain amount of genetic variation, and the proportion of variety 
: X to variety Y changes in response to environmental conditions, you have not 
: "proven" evolution except in the most trivial sense.

Anyone in disease control can show hundreds of examples of real mutations,
of new species of bacteria emerging in response to our war on germs.

RnTK, later that post:
: Evidence for evolution in other than the most trivial sense--slim to none.
: G-d COULD have created life (and later, human life) through a process
: of evolution, but the fossil evidence strongly suggests direct creation
: of each separate species.

I really suggest reading up on the state of the debate. Your
arguments have been addressed and rebutted. There may be newer and
better arguments, but that requires catching up on the material.
See <http://www.talkorigins.org>. It's a repository of FAQs for the
talk.origins usenet group. The issues you raise in particular, a lack
of evidence of macroevolution, or a lack of transitional species, have
been addressed at <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html>
and <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4>.

I'd start with "5 Major Misconceptions About Evolution",
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html>.

RnTK, on the notion of Hashem creating a pre-aged universe:
: Some people view the above two scenarios as significantly different
: and would accept the second scenario--in which memories and documents
: are false--as a plausible explanation of how G-d created the world.
: I regard the two scenarios as identical, in that it is not possible, at
: least for a creature inside the system, to determine whether she is 21
: years old or one minute old. Therefore that distinction is meaningless,
: and she is effectively 21 years old.

Even outside the system! Time is part of the system. From Hashem's
perpective, there is no "when" to ma'aseh bereishis. I would say that such
"false time" would be as real as current time.

My thoughts about evolution, speaking as someone with a background in
computer science, telecommunications, and information theory.

There is a problem of irreducible complexity. The term as defined by
Michael Behe (who merits his own page on www.talkorigins.org):
    By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several
    well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,
    wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system
    to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system
    cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the
    initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by
    slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any
    precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part
    is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological
    system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to
    Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)

The opposition dismisses irreducible complexity, showing how parts that
evolved for different purposes could converge to make a new system. Or
a second part develops to assist the first, and then the first changes
to do the job better in a manner that it couldn't do alone. This is
possible, but is it likely?

I believe, that the statistical work for this has already been done,
and the odds are negligable. Behe's "irreducibly complex" system is very
similar to John von Neumann's definition of an "automaton". Von Neumann
was one of the theoreticians who fathered computer science; all current
computers are in the class of "von Neumann" machines. He also invented
the field of math known as "game theory".

Von Neuman measured automata by the minimum number of bits necessary to
produce a working version of a system of interacting parts. If there
are more parts, or they or their placement need to be described to a
greater precisision, the number of bits would be greater. (This is only
a relative measure of two systems made from the same parts.)

The question in irreducible complexity is where do those extra bits
come from? This is much like the argument based on entropy, but with
one major difference: entropy can be decreased in one area, but the
process to do so is guaranteed to give a greater increase elsewhere.
Evolution decreases entropy, but it does so by increasing disorder
due to heat. However, there is no such clause in information theory --
bits of useful information are being created. How?

Random processes increase the signal-to-noise ratio. They increase the
amount of noise more than they increase the amount of useful information.
The same cosmic radiation that causes much of mutation is the same that
puts static on your radio station. Creating bits would be like that hiss
on the radio converging into a stock tip.

In the 2nd lecture collected in a posthumous book, VN actually deduces
the probability of new automata evolving. He finds a vanishingly small
number, but then handwaves the problem away.

There is, however, a filtering process. Does "survival of the fittest"
pass the new information without the new noise?

In this month's Scientific American is an article about designing circuits
by modeling evolution. Each circuit component can be randomly switched,
those that are closer to doing the desired function are more likely to
be chosen for future "generations" where these sequences of components
are combined and randomly altered and reassessed. Eventually you get
the desired result.

When I was in grad school, the same idea was being tried to solve computer
problems under the title "genetic algorithms". For example, rather than
writing a program to solve a maze, evolve one. Each generation contains
sequences of left, right, and straight (eg LLRLLSSSSSRLLL...) These
sequences are fed to a function that assesses how close it brings
you to the end of the maze. The better sequences are more likely to
be crossed with other sequences, randomly mutated, etc... Eventually,
you'll get a solution to the problem. If the problem is one where it's
easier to measure how far you are from correct than to solve directly,
this pattern should work.

(I even had a right-wing Christian co worker at my first Wall Street
job who was asked to write one and refused; he instisted that since
evolution was impossible, it was a waste of time!)

The flaw in the comparison to evolution is that the sequences are being
assessed compared to a desired result. Evolution is about survival in
the present, not the existance of some system that won't exist until
the future. The evolutionary filter isn't for noise vs information in
the automata theory sense.

If someone wants to find the highest point in the area, the simplest
algorithm would be to turn in the direction that has the greatest
upslope, walk, and repeat until you are surrounded by downslopes.
The flaw with this kind of "greedy algorithm" is that you'll find
a peak, but not necessarily the highest peak available.

Filtering for current survival is a greedy algorithm. You'll produce
systems that survive better than others, but you can't descend into the
valley to get to the other side of having a new subsystem.

I think this model argues that evolution is possible -- but only if
guided by Someone with an appropriate final goal. (A position usually
labeled "intelligent design".)

-Mi

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

That's why R. Yitzchak of Akko, a disciple of the Ramban, wrote 750
years ago that the world was created 15 BILLION years ago. (to be exact:
15,340,500,000)

That's why the Midrash states that God created universes and destroyed
them.

That's why the gemara in Chagiga 13b states that there were 974
generations BEFORE Adam.

That's why there are many midrashim noting that the first week of Creation
lasted eons of time (see: Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18;
Breshit Rabba 9).

That's why the biblical day is 1000 Divine years which is equivalent to
365,200 earth years, and the midrash indicates that the world is 42,000
Divine years old.

That's why the Midrash in Breshit Rabba 14 mentions in the name of Rabbi
Yehuda that man was born with a tail.

That's why the Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born before
the time of Noah had webbed fingers.

That's why Breshit Rabba 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces
of men became APE LIKE.

Josh

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


[ 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         ]