Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 129

Thu, 10 Jun 2010

• 1. Re: Rav Yisroel Belsky on Anisakis Worms (r...@aishdas.org)
• 2. R' S. Mandel (S & H)
• 3. Re: R' S. Mandel (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Rav Yisroel Belsky on Anisakis Worms (Rich, Joel)
• 5. ethics outside of halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Ethics Outside Halacha (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: better not to have been born (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Friedrich von Schiller (Harry Maryles)
• 9. Re: better not to have been born (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: better not to have been born (Arie Folger)
• 11. Re: better not to have been born (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: better not to have been born (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Rav Yisroel Belsky on Anisakis Worms (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Rav Yisroel Belsky on Anisakis Worms (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Re: Rav Yisroel Belsky on Anisakis Worms (Micha Berger)

I have said that the rabbis dealing with this are divided into exactly
the same three groups that the Rambam describes in Perush haMishnayot in
the introduction to the 10th Pereq of Sanhedrin. He is talking there
about rabbis dealing with medrashim and Aggadita; but the groups are
exactly the same. Some say science is wrong, and Chazal were right;
some say Chazal were in error (as Slifkin says); and the third group
(whom the Rambam says comprises too few people to really be called a
group) understand that Chazal knew the reality, but expressed the ideas
of Torah in the terminology that they could.

There is no need to claim that Chazal were ignorant of science (although
they did not have microscopes to view items not visible to the naked eye):
Chazal had a tradition about many things, what was muttar and what was
osur, that was part of the Oral Tradition. They may have given a reason
in the G'moro for the tradition, but the tradition exists independently
of any reason they gave. That applies to honey, as well, even though we
know that there are some bee secretions mixed in. The Rambam says this
in Moreh N'vukhim about asmakhta's.

Since some Anisakis nematodes are visible in fish after death, both in
the gut and in the flesh, then it is a bizayon haTorah to claim that
Chazal did not know about this.

Rabbi Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
11 Broadway, New York, NY  10004

"Since some Anisakis nematodes are visible in fish after death, both in the
gut and in the flesh, then it is a bizayon haTorah to claim that Chazal did
not know about this."

Why is it a bizayon haTorah to say that this worm was not prevalent in the
times of Chaza'l?
S Kramer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100608/a0149844/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 03:22:39PM -0400, S & H wrote:
: Why is it a bizayon haTorah to say that this worm was not prevalent in the
: times of Chaza'l?

I don't think that would be bizyon haTorah.

But I think it's false.

Filariasis, which is caused by the ingestion of nematodes (roundworms)
like anisakis, was known to Ancient Greeks (ie beginning of Bayis Sheini
period), who discuss how to differentiate its symptoms from those of
leprosy. The fact that it could be caused by eating uncooked fish was
also known centuries before the mishnah.

The folk remedy was to consume ginger, which current studies actually
indicate would help. (In Japan, wasabi is the herb known for killing
nematodes.)

So, assuming you did know that Chazal must have known about this worm,
it would be a bizayon haTorah to second-guess their -- and 1600 years
of Jews inbetween -- eating the fish anyway.


I am wondering how large the larvae are when they enter the fish's
flesh. Are they of visible size?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 


There is no need to claim that Chazal were ignorant of science (although they did not have microscopes to view items not visible to the naked eye):
Chazal had a tradition about many things, what was muttar and what was
osur, that was part of the Oral Tradition. They may have given a reason in
the G'moro for the tradition, but the tradition exists independently of any
reason they gave.
========================================================

I have seen this explanation given in a number of instances, but isn't the
logical implication of this that extrapolation from the reasons to new
cases is not guaranteed to give the correct result ( or put differently,
isn't any extrapolation a safek)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

> Ramban's Naval Bershus haTorah, that one can keep all the mitzvot and still
> be evil, does not imply there is a definition of evil not formally stated in SA.
> Firstly, is Naval the same as Evil? Perhaps it only means not nice,
> unpleasant, perhaps even ugly.

> We are certainly bound to repent for bad Midos as per RMBM Hilchos Teshuvah.
> Does that not make midos part of Halacha? Such a Naval is certain to face BD
> Shel MaAlah. Bershus HaTorah perhaps means using a v narrow view but
> ignoring more subtle aspects of Halacha.

Granted that naval means not nice etc by definition it does not mean
someone who has committed an averah.

I have no problem that middot are part of halacha many are certainly
listed in the Rambam. The question is what defines what are good or
bad middot. Some are mentioned explicitly in various halachic sources
however much is what society at large considers good midot - what I
would call being a mensch.

Perhaps the title of ethics outside of halacha was not accurate
enough. The meaning is not that these things do not count in bet din
shel maalah but rather that the source of these behaviors is not from
any explicit halacha but rather from "natural law" or as R Chiya would
express it learning from animals.


[Email #2. -micha]

The discussion of ethics outside of halacha reminds me of a problem I
have and stories I read about gedolim

I once read about the CC (with the usual disclaimer that we dont know if
the stories are true) that late at night some poor boy had the job of
cleaning the floors in the bet medrash He would ask the last remaining
chavruta to move while he cleaned that section. The story goes that
CC remarked that the cleaner would pay in Gan Eden for disturbing the
learning of the talmidim. I have read stories also with the opposite
message.

In fact in one chavruta I have at night it is on the time that the cleaner
mops the floor and we always have to move around him. If we dont move
either our places dont get mopped or we demand that the cleaner stay
around until we finish learning neither of which seems fair

-- 
Eli Turkel

The whole "outside of halakhah" is paradoxical. As I noted here in the
past, one is saying it is ASSUR to be a naval biRSHUS haTorah. In which
case, how do we define "reshus" in that idiom?

So the question becomes how do we define "outside of halakhah". Are we
asking about ethics we would know even before the Torah was given? Do
we mean values relayed in aggadita that we must follow even though they
aren't amenable to codification as halakhah? Both?


On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:55:27AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Whether there exists an ethic outside of halacha. The two most obvious
: proofs are
: 1. Naval Bershut Hatorah...
: 2. Avraham's argument with G-d of Sdom...

3. As RnTK already noted, Derekh Eretz Qodmah laTorah -- HQBH created 26
generations just to demonstrate the point that there is an ethic that is
a prerequisite to the Torah in general, and thus halakhah in particular.

"Derekh eretz" here appears to be defined as that pre-existing ethic
that I mentioned above.

4. Ve'asisa hayashar vehatov implies that man already has a definition
of yashar and tov other than all those mitzvos bein adam lachaveiro
listed until then in Vayiqra 19.

5. The Rambam obviously considers Aristo's midah habeinonis to reflect a
mandatory ethic, even though there is no specific halakhah and it could
be (and was) deduced by an Artistotle without aggadita.

On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 07:37:35PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Firstly, is Naval the same as Evil? Perhaps it only means not nice,
: unpleasant, perhaps even ugly.

It's still an ethic.

I think RMR's question raises a question of whether there is only one
inherent ethical value, which we label evil, or there other values. If
there is only "evil", that the Ramban is clearly saying it's evil to be
"not nice, unpleasant, perhaps even ugly". Perhaps not evil enough to
be prohibited, but still on the same spectrum.

However, if there are multiple axis, neveilah could simply be one of them.

As is, we do have conflicting positive values -- din vs. chesed, emes
vs. shalom, etc... I don't know if tov and qedushuah always coincide,
or yashar... It's an interesting question.

And that question applies even within the bounds of [the values implied
by] halakhah.

: We are certainly bound to repent for bad Midos as per RMBM Hilchos Teshuvah.
: Does that not make midos part of Halacha? Such a Naval is certain to face BD
: Shel MaAlah. Bershus HaTorah perhaps means using a v narrow view but
: ignoring more subtle aspects of Halacha.

As I wrote above, it must.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:33:24PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: any connection between this article and Bet Shammai?
: Doesnt seem to be a Jewish attitude since Halakhah demands
: that no abortions are allowed even if the child will have major difficulties

And the whole mitzvos of piryah verivyah and "lasheves yotzerah".

And it's not just Beis Shammai -- Beis Hillel after 2-1/2 years eventually
give in!

And earlier, Qoheles 4:2-3 "veshabeiach ani es hameisim... min hachaim...
vetov misheneihem, eis asher eiden lo hayah..."

: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/shou
: ld-this-be-the-last-generation/?hp
: Should This Be the Last Generation?
: By PETER SINGER

Peter Singer is the same "moral genius" who was in the news a few
years ago for identifying the right to life with a being's ability to
hold preferences, and therefore argued in favor of both abortion and
infanticide.

So, taking him out of the discussion... How do we understand "ashrei mi
shelo nivra", the mitzvah of piryah verivyah, and "derakheha darkhei
no'am" implying that the mitzvah tells us it's better for new people
to exist?

Rabbeinu Bachya (on Bereishis 6:6) asks a similar question based on
"vayar E-lokim es kol asher asah vehineih tov me'od". The Ikkarim (3:2)
simply says "ki tov" excludes humanity. I'm not sure how that fits the
pasuq, though.

The Maharal gives an answer based on the number 2-1/2 given as the length
of the machloqes in years before nimnu vegamru. He says that there are
5 aspects to the person (nefesh, its vehicle, ruach, neshamah, and its
vehicle. This is why eirukhin are all in multiples of 5. The answer
to the question of whether it's better to have been created depends on
which perspective one is answering it from -- the loftier half of man,
or his more base side.

R' Hutner, kedarko beqodesh, develops the Maharal's approach further
(Pachad Yitzchaq Rosh haShanah #7). Why is it "hakol biydei Shamayim
chutz miyir'as Shamayim". If operating out of ahavas H' is superior,
why is bechirah described in terms of yir'ah?

He answers that yir'ah expresses the frightening aspect of bechirah --
the possibility of making the wrong decision. The oheiv wants to step
in for the Ne'ehav, he embraces bechirah. The yarei would instinctively
not want bechirah.

 From a position of yir'ah, noach lo le'adam shelo nivra. However,
a person can rise above that to ahavah and find nachas in being a baal
bechirah.

This duality is also found in the Iqarim's answer (4:29), which says that
"noach lo shenivra" is from the perspective that the nefesh is koach
hayulani (the potential of pure substance without form), and thus has the
ability to reach lofty heights. Whereas the notion that noach lo shelo
nivra is from the perspective that it is "etzem ruchani qayam mitzad
atzmo" and it would be better off "shelo nimtzeis beguf ha'enoshi".
And this was the point in Qoheles.

When the nefesh was placed in a body, though, that's when it became
a baal bechirah. That's when the mal'akhim wanted to worship Adam (Bereishis
Rabba). So that even from the perspective of the nefesh as an etzem ruchani,
it may be worse for the nefesh, but the whole is better off.

To frame my overall conclusion... As RYBS would say, it's a unresolvable
dialectic. Nonetheless, both "noach lo shelo nivra" and "vehinei tov
me'od" are true.



The Alter of Slabodka's discussion of a different dialect appears relevent
to me here...

"Bishvili nivra ha'olam" vs "Va'anokhi afar va'eifer".

Bishvili nivra ha'olam speaks to the world as I experience it. That was
customized just for me. And it contains all of my potential.

However, WRT the shared universe, all that exists is how much of that
potential I actualized. "va'anokhi afar va'eifer".

It sounds similar to what the Iqarim was saying.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

--- On Mon, 6/7/10, Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

Please see http://tinyurl.com/2d7r7hr and click on the link there for the pdf file for this article by Marc Shapiro. 

The first paragraph of the article reads

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch?s philosophy of Torah im Derekh
Erez finds expression in many texts, and these have been available
in English for many years. The one exception is his famous
speech about the Romantic poet, dramatist and historian Friedrich von
Schiller (1759-1805), which until now has not been translated into any
language from its original German.The reasons for the absence of a
translation are not hard to see. For one, R. Hirsch?s attachment to
Schiller has not been shared by more recent generations. Especially in
the post-Holocaust years, R. Hirsch?s great attachment to German culture
would have been very painful for many to see. Also significant is the
fact that a great rabbi could find such spiritual value in writings outside
of the canon of Torah literature. As R. Hirsch?s position in this matter is
so far removed from contemporary Orthodox culture, it has been easier
to ignore what he said, rather than try to come to terms with it.

This article gives a translation of the entire "Schiller Speech."? I think
you will find it somewhat surprising when viewed from the perspectives of
certain Orthodox circles. 

My understanding is that this speech is to appear in a forthcoming book by
Feldheim that will include some other writings of RSRH that were not
included in the 8 volumes of The Collected Writing of RSRH. 
------------------------------------
?
Truly an amazing article about an amazing speech given by an amazing man. I
wrote about it on my blog today. It remains to be seen whether it will
indeed be included in a new book. If it is I wonder how it will be treated
in the Yeshiva world. It wouldn't surprise me if it got the MOAG treatment.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100609/93466401/attachment-0001.htm>

On his blog, RAF discusses this article by Peter Singer and why Beis
Shammai wouldn't agree with Mr Singer. See
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/should-humanity-call-it-qu
its/

Here's the more Torah-oriented 2/3 of the post. Whereas I read in
the sources a dialectic between two humanist perspectives -- Is life
worth living by the person's own standards? -- as I understand him,
RAF questions the underlying use of a human metric.

    Neither the House of Hillel nor that of Shammai are comparing
    non-existence to existence. They are, instead, positing a preexistent
    soul, which exists and "lives" in a celestial realm, until it is
    called upon to inhabit a developing foetus.

    The dilemma being explored is best expressed in terms of 16th
    Century Lurianic Kabbalah. Prior to inhabiting a body, the souls have
    never had the opportunity to have any benefit whatsoever, and thus
    exist by Divine fiat and beneficence. Lurianists call that nahama
    dekhissufa, the bread of shame, underscoring that we generally are
    quite embarrassed to get benefits we didn't earn. By being born
    into a body, the soul, together with the body, earn some merit,
    even though they forever are indebted to G"d's goodness, both for
    having created them and for being merciful and forgiving of sin.

    The dilemma the Talmud explores is whether the initial total
    unworthiness of the soul is reason enough to come to life and earn
    some merit, despite the overwhelming likelihood that we will sin,
    as well, or whether the likelihood of sin is an even greater
    source of shame and discomfort for the soul, than the shame of
    total indebtedness.

    Thus Talmud's argument differs in two important ways from Peter
    Singer's thought. First of all, the discussion is entirely theoretical
    and is devoid of the kind of practical consequences Singer would
    advocate. Whatever the merit of life may be, does not impact one's
    obligation to procreate, as can be seen in the following passage:

        For so it says, In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And
        Isaiah the prophet, son of Amoz, came to him and said unto him,
        Thus saith the Lord, Set thy house in order, for thou shalt die
        and not live etc. (II Kings 2; Isaiah 38 )

    What is the meaning of 'thou shalt die and not live'? Thou shalt die
    in this world and not live in the world to come. He said to him: Why
    so bad? He replied: Because you did not try to have children. He said:
    The reason was because I saw by the holy spirit that the children
    issuing from me would not be virtuous. He said to him: What have
    you to do with the secrets of the All-Merciful? You should have done
    what you were commanded, and let the Holy One, blessed be He, do that
    which pleases Him. He said to him: Then give me now your daughter;
    perhaps through your merit and mine combined virtuous children will
    issue from me. He replied: The doom has already been decreed. Said
    the other: Son of Amoz, finish your prophecy and go. This tradition
    I have from the house of my ancestor: Even if a sharp sword rests
    upon a man's neck he should not desist from prayer. This saying is
    also recorded in the names of R. Johanan and R. Ele'azar: Even if a
    sharp sword rests on a man's neck, he should not desist from prayer,
    as it says, Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him. (Babylonian
    Talmud, Berakhot 10a)

    Secondly, nowhere does the Talmud indicate that the soul's shame or
    discomfort should be the deciding factor in establishing whether a
    soul ought to be born. In fact, the initial investigation is termed
    whether or not it is "more pleasant for man" to have been created,
    i.e., this is not an investigation into the duty to participate in
    life, but about what the egotistical choice of the soul would be.

    However, as it happens, our purpose is not to life egotistical life,
    but to be part of history's grand plan. To quote the Mishna in Avot
    (4:22):

        He [R' Eli'ezer haKappar] used to say: the born [are destined]
        to die, the dead to once be brought again to life, and the living
        to be judged; [therefore for all] to know and to make known,
        so that it become known, that He is God, the Fashioner, the
        Creator, the Discerner, the Judge, the Witness, the Prosecutor,
        and that He, blessed be He, will judge, before Whom there is
        no unrighteousness, nor forgetting, nor respect of persons, nor
        taking of bribes, for all is His.And know that all is according
        to the reckoning. And let not thy [evil] inclination assure
        thee that the grave is a place of refuge for thee; for without
        thy will wast thou fashioned, without thy will wast thou born,
        without thy will livest thou, without thy will wilt thou die, and
        without thy will art thou of a certainty to give an account and
        reckoning before the King of the kings of kings, blessed be He.

    The purpose of life is for man to facilitate the dissemination of
    people's knowledge and appreciation of G"d, and in His Image, to
    seek to create a just and spiritual society.

    Not only does the above differ markedly from Singer's utilitarianism,
    in that the coming about of life is disconnected from any speculations
    about what the soul would personally find more pleasant, but as it
    turns out, but keeping the unborn unborn, we are depriving them of
    the ultimate pleasure: to join with G"d in perfecting the world.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On his blog, RAF discusses this article by Peter Singer and why Beis
> Shammai wouldn't agree with Mr Singer. See
> http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/should-humanity-
> call-it-quits/
>
> Here's the more Torah-oriented 2/3 of the post. Whereas I read in
> the sources a dialectic between two humanist perspectives -- Is life
> worth living by the person's own standards? -- as I understand him,
> RAF questions the underlying use of a human metric.

Yasher koach for the publicity. I am indeed very interested in your reactions.

I should state here that in writing that post, I was inspired by R'
Menachem Leibrtag's approach to Navi, with mankind and particular
Mensch Yisroel's mission being to proclaim G"d's Name in the world and
to found a just society based upon His commandments, so that knowlegde
of G"d will spread in the world (ki maleah haaretz de'ah et H). Since
becomming acquainted with that understanding, I have found it
confirmed over and again by many of our sources, whether in TSBK or
TSBP.

(Caveat: To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Should Humanity Call it Quits
* Sollten wir alle Kohanim sein?
* Videovortrag: Wer hat die Psalmen verfasst?
* Die Gaza-Hilfsflotte kritisch betrachtet
* Offenbarter Vernunft - Aufsatz zu Ethik und Offenbarung
* Helping Patients Face Death, She Fought to Live

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:48:17PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: I should state here that in writing that post, I was inspired by R'
: Menachem Leibrtag's approach to Navi, with mankind and particular
: Mensch Yisroel's mission being to proclaim G"d's Name in the world and
: to found a just society based upon His commandments, so that knowlegde
: of G"d will spread in the world (ki maleah haaretz de'ah et H). Since
: becomming acquainted with that understanding, I have found it
: confirmed over and again by many of our sources, whether in TSBK or
: TSBP.

I am inspired by R' Shimon Shkop's approach, that mankind's mission is
to continue HQBH's goal to be meitiv others. And sure enough, to this
screwdriver everything looks like a screw.

Not that the difference in goal changes your answer to Peter Singer's
questions. IIUC, it rests only on agreeing that the value of life inheres
in Hashem's purpose for it rather than in our pursuit of happiness.

Speaking of Hashem's purpose for our lives...

Lekhavod and lezeikher R' Mordechai Eliyahu, I translated the introduction
he wrote for his siddur and blogged it. (It was a rush job, and surely
could stand for some proofreading --
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/06/rme-prayer-influence.shtml>) RME
defines the role of man as bringing Hashem's world to the purpose fo
which He made it, talmud Torah is to learn that purpose, asei Retzono
kirtzonekha, and tefillah is because human ratzon alone has no guarantee
of success without ze'aqah to HQBH.

We therefore daven prewritten words, as we are crying out for help doing
what He created me to do.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> First of all, the discussion is entirely theoretical
> and is devoid of the kind of practical consequences Singer would
> advocate. Whatever the merit of life may be, does not impact one's
> obligation to procreate, [...] He said to him: What have
> you to do with the secrets of the All-Merciful? You should have done
> what you were commanded, and let the Holy One, blessed be He, do that
> which pleases Him. [...]
> 
> Secondly, nowhere does the Talmud indicate that the soul's shame or
> discomfort should be the deciding factor in establishing whether a
> soul ought to be born. In fact, the initial investigation is termed
> whether or not it is "more pleasant for man" to have been created,
> i.e., this is not an investigation into the duty to participate in
> life, but about what the egotistical choice of the soul would be.
> However, as it happens, our purpose is not to life egotistical life,
> but to be part of history's grand plan.

This reminds me of the gemara about gerim: From our egotistical point
of view, they are difficult for us like a leprous adhesion, and we'd
be better off without them.  But from Hashem's point of view, He wants
them so much that He sent us out among the nations for the sole purpose
of finding and recruiting them.  So much as it might be to our selfish
benefit to close the door and refuse to accept them, we have no right
to do so.  (And doing so would be rather like Cham's sin; denying our
Father more children, in order to protect our own inheritance.)



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 05:28:37PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> There is no need to claim that Chazal were ignorant of science (although
:> they did not have microscopes to view items not visible to the naked eye):

:> Chazal had a tradition about many things, what was muttar and what was
:> osur, that was part of the Oral Tradition. They may have given a reason
:> in the G'moro for the tradition, but the tradition exists independently
:> of any reason they gave.

: I have seen this explanation given in a number of instances, but isn't
: the logical implication of this that extrapolation from the reasons to new
: cases is not guaranteed to give the correct result ( or put differently,
: isn't any extrapolation a safek)

Isn't that the whole basis of the position we've discussed besheim the Gra
and RAYKook?

Since we don't know, we can only extrapolate lechumerah. And if we see the
science in a way that brings us to a kulah, we have to be concerned that
perhaps there is more going on than we're aware of.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

: I have seen this explanation given in a number of instances, but isn't
: the logical implication of this that extrapolation from the reasons to new
: cases is not guaranteed to give the correct result ( or put differently,
: isn't any extrapolation a safek)

Isn't that the whole basis of the position we've discussed besheim the Gra and RAYKook?

Since we don't know, we can only extrapolate lechumerah. And if we see the
science in a way that brings us to a kulah, we have to be concerned that
perhaps there is more going on than we're aware of.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
To me it's more than science issue, it's an issue of any new case that was not previously dealt with for whatever the reason.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 07:12:46PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
::: I have seen this explanation given in a number of instances, but isn't
::: the logical implication of this that extrapolation from the reasons to new
::: cases is not guaranteed to give the correct result ( or put differently,
::: isn't any extrapolation a safek)

:: Isn't that the whole basis of the position we've discussed besheim
:: the Gra and RAYKook?

: Since we don't know, we can only extrapolate lechumerah. And if we see
: the science in a way that brings us to a kulah, we have to be concerned
: that perhaps there is more going on than we're aware of.

: To me it's more than science issue, it's an issue of any new case that
: was not previously dealt with for whatever the reason.

I would agree that it's more than science. However, halachic process
works in *defining* application to new cases. You can't guess wrong what
their reasons were, you're using the process to pasqen new cases.

So then what did I mean by "more than science"? Taamei hamitzvos in
general. We don't create heterim from them either. Formal halachic process
grounds have to exist to matir before we use a taam hamitzvah -- whether
based in science or not -- to choose that heter over a different valid
pesaq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 129
***************************************

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..."