Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 30

Wed, 29 Feb 2012

• 1. Re: The Superbowl Maariv (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: The Superbowl Maariv (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: The Superbowl Maariv (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: superbowl maariv (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Evolution (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: evolution [was: Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals] (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 7. Re: Evolution (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: Co-education (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 9. lochlei quinoa (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 10. Re: Evolution (Ken Goldman)
• 11. Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year? (Micha Berger)
• 12. The Superbowl Maariv (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 13. Re: superbowl maaariv (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 14. Re: marrying a sister [was: Clear Thinking about Male Homosexuals] (T613K@aol.com)
• 15. co-education (Eli Turkel)

 

In a message dated 2/28/2012, hmary...@yahoo.com writes:

To answer your comment. I did not suggest that Halakhic Man would approve  
of re-arranging a minyan to accomodate the super bowl. My point was that  
Halakhic Man would see every circumstance through Halachic eyes. As it  
pertains to the Superbowl and Maariv Halakhic man would see his obligation to  
Daven Maariv with a Minyan as an imperative regardless of the location. And  
would make sure to have a Minayn even at the cost of missing part of the game  
he paid top dollar to attend). 
 
HM


 
>>>>>
OK thank you for that clarification, I mistakenly thought you were saying  
the opposite -- that in a conflict, Halachic Man would somehow synthesize 
the  Super Bowl with Maariv.
 
I still think that RYBS's students make a mistake in trying to use his  
unique, personal, esoteric philosophical language to express ideas  that are 
not really all that complicated or difficult to express in everyday  language.
 

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


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120228/cf66e007/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 05:14:32PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Actually, he quotes his father as saying that the sunset of ne'ilah is
>> prettier than others.

> How would he know?  Which Jew has ever seen it?

    I remember how once, on Yom Kippur, I went outside into the synagogue
    courtyard with my father just before the Neilah service. It had been a
    fresh, clear, day, one of the fine almost delicate days of summer end,
    filled with sunshine and light. Evening was fast approaching and an
    exquisite autumn sun was sinking in the west, beyond the trees of the
    cemetery unto a sea of purple and gold. Rav Moshe, a Halakhic Man par
    excellence, turned to me and said: "This sunset differs from ordinary
    sunsets, for with it forgiveness is bestowed upon us for our sins"
    (the end of the day atones). The Day of Atonement and the forgiveness
    of sin merged and blended here with the splendoir and beauty of the
    world and with the hidden lawfulness of the order of creation, and
    the whole was transformed into one living, holy, cosmic phenomenon.
                                    - Halakhic Man, pg. 38

"Just before ne'ilah".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 02:42:02PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I still think that RYBS's students make a mistake in trying to use his  
: unique, personal, esoteric philosophical language to express ideas  that are 
: not really all that complicated or difficult to express in everyday  language.

As I hope I showed, they really are that complicated and difficult to
express in everyday language. Veharaayah, RYBS, for all his pedagogic
skill, couldn't figure out how to do it either.

You reminded me, BTW, of scjm conversations where some non-O participant
on scjm objects to the use of "melakhah" in a discussion of Shabbos --
"this is an English forum". Then, a few posts later, when the placeholder
for "melakhah" shrunk down to "work", he objects because driving to shul
is less work for him than a 10 block walk. Jargon exists for a reason.

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

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:51:20PM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: ----  i assume  this  was  referring to  bedieved davening  times  during 
: the week ie before neitz...

Which hawk do these shuls daven before?

Haneitz is not "the neitz", it's the time when the sun "causes sparkling".
The hei is from hif'il (causative), and take a qamatz, not a patach. Even
worse, the Mitzri sun-god had a hawk head, so referring to "neitz hachamah"
is a REALLY weird thing for a Jew to do. (And assur to daven before.)

(Similarly, when a minyan vasiqin davens, none of them are young; but
you could daven kevasiqin.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:45:08PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Macroevolution is also a proven fact if it is defined very simply as  
: "change over time." You can look at ancient fossils and see horses and dogs that  
: are recognizably horses and dogs, but different from modern-day horses and  
: dogs.

: What scientists claim is that evolution can explain the origin of species,  
: which is the very thing we dispute. Not gonna loop to that because it's 
: been  done and done and done...

Then you might recall that I posted examples of documented speciation, and
not "just" to explain the fossil record. Check out the examples at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation>.

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

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 21:18 -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:

> 
> You are correct, and it is unfortunate that we have only one word --
> "evolution" -- to describe two different processes, which have been
> loosely and somewhat clumsily called "micro-evolution" and
> "macro-evolution."
> Microevolution -- e.g., microbes developing immunity to antibiotics --
> is a fact, as you say.  Macroevolution -- the development of one
> species into another completely different one, like dinosaurs to birds
> -- is an unproven hypothesis.  Darwin's "explanation" of the mechanism
> -- "natural selection, survival of the fittest" -- is a trivial and
> tautological "explanation" that explains nothing, except that those
> individuals that survive and reproduce, were capable of surviving and
> reproducing.  

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

I'm convinced that the only difference between "microevolution" and
"macroevolution" is either the time scale (and therefore the ease with
which we can watch all of the parts work in concert, which is inversely
related to the ease with which a denier can wave his hands and dismiss
the evidence), or the theological necessity for denying it. I'm not
convinced that there is any fundamentally different process at work.
However, I challenge you to name some.

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

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:45:08PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> : Macroevolution is also a proven fact if it is defined very simply as
> : "change over time." You can look at ancient fossils and see horses and dogs that
> : are recognizably horses and dogs, but different from modern-day horses and
> : dogs.
>
> : What scientists claim is that evolution can explain the origin of species,
> : which is the very thing we dispute. Not gonna loop to that because it's
> : been  done and done and done...
>
> Then you might recall that I posted examples of documented speciation, and
> not "just" to explain the fossil record. Check out the examples at
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation>.
>
> "Macroevolution", as far as I can tell, is used in popular parlance only as
> a way to divide off whatever aspect of evolution a Creationist wants to
> claim hasn't been seen in today's world from those that have, so that
> they can deny it occurs. And as more things are proven, "macroevolution"
> shifts in meaning. See<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Misuse>.
Simply put, the idea that evolution/speciation can account for the whole 
gamut of life forms we see on this planet is a far reach, and certainly 
not scientific fact.  The absurdity of extrapolating a process like this 
back billions of years before we have any evidence at all to a single 
point doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory.  It's simple fantasy.

The fact that speciation happens is probably a fact.  Some examples have 
been found, although the term "species" has been jiggered a little to 
make it fit.  But the "Theory of Evolution" is that one single life form 
developed into everything alive that exists on Earth.  And that's 
science fiction.  Maybe someday it will be found to be the case.  Today 
isn't that day.

Lisa


Lisa

I asked R' Micha if he could give us the citation to his claim that RYBS 
"writes the co-education was the only way to get as many children into the 
school as possible, and not an ideal he himself believed in."

R' Micha replied:
> See the two letters RYBS wrote R' Leonard Rosenfeld of the Hebrew
> Institute of Long Island (HILI). His defense of coed at HILI is pragmatic
> despite ideology. His defense of gemara for women is more ideological,
> but not for mixed classes.
>
> Also, RYBS was vehemently against moving Stern (the women's college)
> to Washington Heights (near RIETS and YC -- the men).

I have, of course, read those letters (in fact, I have a Hebrew copy of the 
letter R. Rosenfeld (a close family friend) sent to RYBS which elicited this 
response), and they say no such thing; i.e., they say NOTHING about what 
"ideal" RYBS did, or did not, believe in.  Moreover, they do not contain a 
"defense of coed at HILI."  Rather, he answered a very specific question 
about the curriculum that HILI should use in teaching Torah to girls.  (BTW, 
HILI completely ignored RYBS's advice.)  He was not asked, and did not 
answer, about whether coed classes were an ideal, a bedieved or anything 
else.

As for Stern, it is clear RYBS was against having coed classes at Yeshiva 
University where RIETS was located.  That tells us nothing about his 
thoughts regarding coeducation in lower levels (i.e., elementary and high 
school).  If one wants to deduce what he thought about that, it would be 
more appropriate to see what he did at Maimonides in his later years when he 
could have, if he wished, make the classes separate -- which he did not.

But I think it's a bad idea for anyone, R' Micha or me, to put words in the 
Rav's mouth.  So I make no statement about what the Rav thought about 
coeducation, notwithstanding what he did at Maimonides, and I believe it 
would be proper if R' Micha retracted his statement about what the Rav 
thought about this issue based on his advice regarding HILI.

Joseph Kaplan 

see the crc  or star K  websites  for  info on  non-chametzdig   quinoa, 
for those who hold it's  not  kitniyos.  they discuss sources with no 
chshash of barley exposure....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120228/ab356d23/attachment-0001.htm>

> If evolution is a fact,? then how come it is referred to as the Theory
> of Evolution and not the fact of evolution?

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. After a few experiments
seem to confirm it, it becomes a theory. E.g., the theory of evolution
or the theory of relativity. After a lot more experiments all confirm
the hypothesis, it becomes a law. E.g., the laws of thermodynamics,
the laws of gravity, Newton's laws of motion.

We can use 'laws' to design things (bridges, computers, antibiotics)
and have a reasonable expectation that the end result will work.

However, laws are not facts in the 1+1=2 sense. They cannot be proven.
We have faith that they were valid in the past and will continue to be
valid in the future.

Newton's laws are not facts, and they are not even correct when one
approaches the speed of light. However, they are still useful laws when
designing jet engines.

On Jan 2, 2005 -- yes, 2005 -- I wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n052.shtml#10>:
In a message dated 12/31/04 1:22:14pm EST,  mi...@aishdas.org writes:
>> Check Pitum Haktores, and continuation in Tanya Bar Kapara " Achas
>> Lshishim Oi Lshivi'im Shana Hoy'sa Va Shel Shirayim Lachatzoin"

> What would you hope I'd conclude from that?

> I am adding, the amount of Ketoras was 368 portions 365 for Kminyan
> Yemos haChama, plus 3 for Yom Kippur, because of the discrepancy of 11
> days per year despite the additional leap year every 60 - 70 years there
> would be 1/2 supply.

The 3 qav minus one fistful in 60 or 70 years of Yom Kippur is enough
to account for the shirayim reaching half a year's worth -- 184 qav (=
61-2/3 * 3 qav). The year averages a solar year, so really only
the difference between the 3 qav for YK and the melo chafnav of the
kohein gadol will add up.

An upcoming daf Y-mi (Sheqalim 4:3, 11a-b in the Vilna Bavli edition)
reopened the question for me. 

You can't use last year's terumas halishkah (the sum of machatzis
hasheqel) for this year. Qetores, which is bought with terumas halishkah,
would therefore need to be worked around this problem. One thing they did
was pay people on the last day of Adar in leftover qetores and then podeh
it back with new terumas halishkah on Nisan on the new year's budget.
The family that made qetores, Beis Avtinas, therefore took up some of
the year's leftover qetores. And the gemara even discusses the case where
someone from BA sanctifies his property, that the qetores could be used.
(As this is the only way we could have qetores made in keli shareis, which
Shemuel requires, and the beraisa could still ask whether someone could
donate qetores.)

So it would seem the amount the workers take away from the running total
is measurable. How then did the extra add up to 184 qav as quickly as it
did?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> Actually, he quotes his father as saying that the sunset of ne'ilah is
> prettier than others.

How would he know?  Which Jew has ever seen it?

MOST SHULS HAVE WINDOWS!        

I wrote about
> Allowing a combined Mincha-Maariv minyan in the same post-Plag
> and pre-Night block of time, which ought to be avoided, but is
> allowed simply to maximize minyan attendance. Basically it comes
> down to balancing the convenience and desires of the attendees,
> against the goals and ideals of Torah, does it not?

When I wrote this, my primary intention was for the most glaring example of
it, which occurs in the summer, when many communities (mostly in Chu"l, but
I think it is becoming popular in EY too) begin Shabbos early, with
Mincha-Maariv which are both after Plag and before Shkiah. From what I've
seen, only a small number of "early Shabbos" minyanim are careful to
schedule Mincha *before* Plag.

But I had a secondary intention as well, and for this purpose I
deliberately used the vague word "night" rather than using a more
unambiguous halachic term. It seems that some listmembers did not catch my
point, so now I'm going to be more explicit.

For example, R' Dorron Katzin wrote:

> In most (but not all cases), Mincha is before sunset and
> Maariv is after sunset.

For Sunday through Thursday, I'd agree with this observation. But my point is: Is sunset relevant to this halacha?

If one is going to say Mincha after Plag, then one should delay Maariv
until after the day is over, and there is a wide range of possibilities of
when this occurs. Sunset is certainly among the candidates for this, but it
happens to be the earliest of them.

If Mincha is said just before sunset, and Maariv is said just after sunset,
has he satisfied the halacha of not saying the two in the same halachic
period? In my opinion, the correct answer is: "sort of". The time just
after sunset is certainly not considered nighttime regarding melacha on
Motzaei Shabbos. To consider it nighttime for this halacha involves a
compromise on how strict we're going to be for the situation.

Do not misunderstand me! I am NOT saying that davening Maariv right after
sunset is wrong! The ONLY thing I'm saying is that it DOES involve a
compromise between what is halachically correct, and what is convenient,
which is exactly what this "superbowl maariv" thread is all about.

R' Eli Turkel made a point very similar to that of R' Dorron Katzin. He wrote:

> In my experience this is a difference between EY and outside
> EY. In EY we wait some 20-25 minutes between mincha before
> shkia and maariv after shkia. In the US all the shuls I went to
> had a 2 minute break between mincha and maariv.

Yes, but that's earlier than you end Shabbos, isn't it? (The luach in my
Siddur Minchas Yerushalayim shows Motzaei Shabbos to be about 35-40 minutes
after shkia.) So this too is a compromise.

Again, I'm not saying that anyone is doing anything wrong. I'm just
highlighting that the community must find some balance between ideals,
practicality, and convenience.

Merely as an illustration, I'll close by mentioning the practices of the
various shuls in my community. In most shuls, Maariv is delayed until about
10-15 minutes after shkia during the week, but on Motzaei Shabbos it begins
about 5-10 minutes before Shabbos ends (as determined by the Mara D'Asra,
whose calculations are irrelevant to this discussion). One shul, however,
takes a very different approach: During the week, they begin Maariv
immediately after shkia, and after Maariv the gabbai always reminds the
tzibur to repeat Krias Shma "in the proper time". In that shul, Maariv does
not begin on Motzaei Shabbos until Shabbos has ended (when, of course, no
reminder about Shma is needed).

(Note: It may appear to some that this post places an undue weight and
significance towards equating the zman of Motzaei Shabbos with the zman of
Tzeis Hakochavim. I plead guilty. There are many different shitos and
calculations for all of these, but ultimately, decisions have to be made,
and those decisions always need to strike a balance between various
considerations, which is what this thread is all about.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f4e25355e36216e751bst06vuc

 

From:  Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
: As I was re-reading this, I  remembered that Avraham marrying a 
half-sister  
: IS stated in the  text--he told Avimelech that Sarah was his half-sister. 
  [--TK]

>>  "Achosi hi", nothing about halves (21:2). Similarly  Avraham in 
Mitzrayim
(12:12,19) and Yitzchaq in Gerar (27:7).

I like  R' Hertz's explanation.

There is a law in the Hammurabi code by which a  father in law can "adopt"
a child for the sake of inheritance....  <<
 
--  
Micha  Berger             

 
 
 
>>>>>
 
Nothing about halves?!  See Ber 20:12
 
 
"Vegam amnah achosi vas avi hee (she is indeed my sister, THE DAUGHTER OF  
MY FATHER) ach lo vas eemi (BUT NOT THE DAUGHTER OF MY MOTHER)"
 
However, based on the assumption that Sarah and Yiskah were the same  
person, we know that Sarah was really the granddaughter, and not the daughter,  
of Avraham's father.  She was the daughter of Haran, Avraham's brother who  
died young (and she was therefore the sister of Lot, who was Avraham's  
brother-in-law as well as nephew).  She and Lot may well have looked on  Terach 
as their father, since their actual father died young.
 
How do we know, BTW, that Sarah and Yiskah were the same?  Because  
Yiskah's yichus is given (11:29), as if there is something important about her,  
and yet she is never mentioned again in the Torah!  And in the same pasuk,  
the name of Avraham's wife is given -- Sarai -- yet nothing is said about who  
she was or where she came from!  The inference that she IS Yiskah is  
therefore very strong.  (I heard this from R' David Fohrman, who spoke  here 
recently.)
 
I don't see any need or place for the Code of Hammurabi or adoption here at 
 all, Avraham's words are straightforward:  she is my sister.  Niece,  
sister -- he called Lot his brother ("Anashim achim anachnu") so why not call  
Sarah his sister?
 
But anyway, he clearly said to Avimelech that Sarah was his  half-sister, 
and with no apparent embarrassment, as we've said.
 

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


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120229/d0454160/attachment-0001.htm>

<< "He [RYBS] writes the
co-education was the only way to get as many children into the school
as possible, and not an ideal he himself believed in."

Can you please give us the citation to where he writes this. >>

RYBS never addressed the subject. Maimonides school in Boston was founded
by RYBS
and was run by his wife and is co-ed. A number of articles have been
written as to whether
RYBS was in favir lechatchila or bidieved and why the policy was never
changed.
Bottom line everything is speculation and we dont know.

I believe that RAL has a teshuva to a real question.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120229/45cc9335/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 30
**************************************

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..."