Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 152

Wednesday, March 8 2006

• Re: Mabul and scientific support therof
• Re: killing kinim on Shabbat
• Not treating wounded terrorists on Shabbos
• Why we get drunk on Purim
• The Beginning of a Pshetl
• "Simple" Mishloach Manos
• Re: One woman make a berakha for another by a MASZ"G
• Re: Avodah V16 #151
• Re: zebu and turkey
• Re: zebu and turkey
• Re: zebu and turkey
• Room Service
• Was: chazal and science -- Also: Rabbeinu Tam's shikiyah
• Re: Chazal and Science, is Nishtaneh Hateva a realistic answer?

On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 06:36:30AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: There are MANY myths that disconnected cultures around the world share --
: which is one reason Jung developed his theory of archetypes -- to explore
: the psychological processes that give rise to these myths/images.

>> Occam's razor would IMHO lead to common ancestry of these myths,
>> not archetypes.

No -- because a common ancestry is NOT the simplest answer (given the
conflicting evidence)

>> According to the Torah's account, once we go that far back those
>> cultures weren't disconnected yet. The premise you give in the first
>> line isn't a given.

Sure it is -- becaue *within the time period mandated by the Torah
Account* those cultures weren't connected.

Since fitting these myths together  "According to the Torah's account"
requires a MAJOR creative effort, much larger than that required to
accept the idea of archetypes, IMO Occam's Razor would favor
archetypes over a massive and creative reinterpretation of history
according to many different scientific fields.

Akiva
--

Most people act on their own account; they pursue personal ambitions
without seeking God's guidance and grace. By asserting the self they
will achieve nothing.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 04:51:46PM -0500, Glasner, David wrote:
:> Rather, I'm trying to distinguish between the kinah which is einah
:> parah veravah and the louse whose eggs are obvious and well-known in
:> antiquity. The louse that is currently most common has visible-sized
:> eggs, so RDL's sevarah wouldn't work. However, because the eggs are so
:> obvious, the gemara's lashon doesn't either. So, the issue isn't really
:> RDL's sevara, but the text vs obvious observational fact.

:> By saying there are lice and there are lice one avoids both problems.
: 
: Then please explain why, when confronted with the saying of the master
: "yosheiv ha-qadosh barukh hu v'zan mi-qarnei re'eimim v'ad beitzei kinim"
: the spokesman for the Hakhamim in the Gemara didn't take the opportunity
: to distinguish between those kinim with visible eggs...

Take III:

Chazal were unconcerned with the scienc; they /were/ conceerned about
establishing the din. Thus, once they eliminated the existence of visible
eggs, the din is established, and they had little motivation to explore
further.

I agree that in all probabliulity, they personally believed in
abiogenesis. As in my old post on the evolution of astronomy in various
statements of Chazal, Chazal consistently show acceptance of the "in"
theory of their respective generations. (Except in naaratives
specifically about conflict with Roman thinkers.) See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n183.shtml#11>.

But none of this has to do with emunas chakhamim. First, because the
assertion is that to the extend that is needed for the din, the science
was correct enough. Second, because the other claims simply aren't scientific
teachings, they are teachings that simply presume contemporary science

As I wrote in that post of exactly 7 years ago (7 Mar 1999):
> HOWEVER,
> With the exception of computing the molad, I don't think the
> Gemara intended to share scientific data. Interestingly, when discussing
> the molad (eg: R's Gamliel I & II and R"H 10a, 11a), observations are
> described -- BUT NOT THEORY!

They're willing to use theory to couch other ideas. But when it came
to din, they simply quoted uninterpreted observation. Which then lead
to what grew into my "taam and taste" theory: that halakhah is about
the world as observed, not some attempt to ascertain objective reality.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/691320.html
<<In response to a question posed by a combat medic who was called on
to treat a wounded Arab terrorist on Shabbat, Ronsky wrote in 1996
that "if it's possible to get out of it and not treat him [this
doesn't mean that another Jew should do it, but that he doesn't get
treated at all on various pretexts], one must do so."

The sentence appears in the fourth of five paragraphs, in an opinion
that actually reaches the opposite conclusion - that the medic should
treat the terrorist, for two primary reasons: the fear of "loathing"
(it is liable to become known that the terrorist was left to die,
leading to attacks on Jews), and the Shin Bet security service's need
to question the wounded terrorist.

Ronsky's comments generated a stormy discussion in religious circles
when they were first published, in a book of responsa on the army and
wartime. Yosef Ahituv, an educator at the religious kibbutz of Ein
Tzurim, wrote to Ronsky that the religious ruling "contradicts the
ethical code" of the IDF, and is "unacceptable from my perspective"
because Ronsky did not mention that the life of a non-Jew has value.

Ahituv said the explanation for why the terrorist should ultimately be
treated is "shameful," and that people are liable to conclude that
they should avoid treating the terrorists if they think they won't be
caught, and asked, "Are you not concerned about the terrible
desecration of God's name that could be caused by the mass publicity"
of the comments?

Ronsky minimized the importance of the disagreement this week, saying
the bottom line is that medics must treat wounded terrorists on
Shabbat. He said he had not been writing anything original in
referring to a situation in which a medic could refrain from treating
someone, and that he had relied on the opinions of great sages.

"The life of a non-Jew certainly has value ... but the value of
Shabbat is more important," said Ronsky. "When there is a clash
between a directive in the spirit of the [IDF ethical] code and an
order of Jewish law, it is clear that one must listen to the opinion
of Jewish law." >>

Comments?

I heard the following explanation for why we get drunk on Purim. The
idea of Purim is that we are supposed to see the hand of God in
everything. Purim was a nes nistar, it could easily have been explained
away as coincidence etc., yet the Jews realized that it was all from
Hashem. A person who has true bitachon is a happy person. he doesn't let
things bother him because he knows that everything is from Hashem even
what seem to be problems/difficulties. It is like the old story about
the guy who is rushing to catch a plane and just misses it, he gets
really upset. An hour later he hears that the plane crashed. At that
point he realizes that it was for the best that he missed the plane. We
are supposed to view everything in life that way. Someone who is drunk
isn't bothered by anything and therefore we get drunk on Purim to reach
this state (even artificially) of not being bothered by lifes problems.

2 manos, when we take the word "maneh" to refer to a weight of silver,
would come to 200 zuz, which is the poverty line WRT tzedaqah recipients
as described in the mishnah Pei'ah 8:8.

So what does it mean to have a chiyuv to send two manos ish
lerei'eihu? That we are somehow supporting him for the year? I don't
know; there is a reason why I called it "the *beginning* of a pshetl"
in the subject line. I'm asking for people to chime in with sources or
ideas of their own.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      		      -Rita Mae Brown

Re: extravagent mishloach manos, Gil Student wrote [on Areivim -mi]:
> As I frequently say, just give a bag of potato chips and an orange.

While I am certainly not a proponent of the extremes to which the
community has taken the non-mitzva aspects of mishloach manos (themes,
gifts, etc.), I'm not certain that R' Gil's "potato chips and an orange"
approach is appropriate, either. Worse, it may also be halachically
insufficient based upon several concerns:

1. The Beiur Halacha 695:4 based on the Ritva and Chayei Adam rules that
someone who sends common, inexpensive food items to a wealthy person
does not fulfill the

mitzva since such items are meaningless and unappreciated by him.
I'm fairly certain that most people that one might send to would find
potato chips and an orange to be relatively meaningless at best and an
insult at worst.

2. The Ma'asei Rav 249 maintains that mishloach manos should be
specifically items which will be used at the Purim seudah. Few people
include "potato chips and an orange" at their seudas Purim

3. According to the S'dei Chemed, Purim 6, a wealthy person has not
fulfilled the mitzvah by sending inexpensive items of food. Since
mishloach manos are an expression of friendship, their cost must be
relative to the sender's wealth. Most of us, I believe, are in a relative
financial position that "potato chips and an orange" are so inexpensive
as not to be an item we would send as a gift in any other circumstance.

4. The Sha'arei Teshuvah 694:1 quotes the Zera Ya'akov 11 regarding
matanos l'evyonim and rules that there is a minimum shiur of 6-7 ounces;
the Zera Ya'akov rules the same way concerning mishloach manos. The Aruch
ha-Shulchan 695:15 rules that the shiur is that which one would normally
serve a guest. It's doubtful that "potato chips and an orange" meets
either shiur.

[Note to the new reader: RnTK's "natal home" was the home of R' Nachman
Bulman zt"l <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nachman_Bulman>, although the
hespeidim at Ohr Samayach and elsewhere are more moving. -mi]

[Micha:]
> Bombay Baghdadi women (and perhaps
> Babylonian  altogether) make the berakhah on 4 minim, but not leisheiv
> baSukah (reported  on scjm by a woman of that eidah).

That was also the minhag in my natal home -- I assume it is the general
chassidish way? -- women make a bracha on the lulav and esrog but not
a leishev baSukah. (A possible reason: we show that we are not sitting
in the sukka for the mitzva of it, but only for convenience to be with
the rest of the family, by the fact that we do not necessarily eat all
our meals in the sukka. When it was too cold outside the women would
eat inside, when we wanted a snack or breakfast during chol hamo'ed we
would eat inside the house etc.)

 -Toby Katz
=============

In Avodah V16 #151, Micha Berger writes:
> "So, first explain the concept of why my wife makes these berakhos
> [birkhot haMitsva] for herself, then perhaps we can see if the sevarah
> holds when making them for other women."

The answer to this question is too long for a post, so I gladly refer
him to read Text and notes of Section A of our paper on Women's services
where we discuss the various shitot. "Women's Prayer Services: Theory
and Practice. Part 1 -- Theory," Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer,
Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Winter 1998).
PDF File available online at: <http://www.jofa.org/pdf/Batch%201/0021.pdf>;
HTML file available at:
    <http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer1.htm#start>;
Word file available at: <http://www.mail-jewish.org/Womens Prayer Service.doc>.

Be happy, it's Adar!

        Aryeh

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 21:21 +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
> The Gemoroh (chullin 47a) records the following incident.
> Rav Ashi was presented with a lung that had a "inunisa devarda". (This is a
> small lobe on the front of the lung extending from the right side and is a
> common feature.) He wanted to declare it treifo (He thought it was an
> un-natural feature) They told him that healthy animals have this. There is
> much discussion about whether the absence nowadays of this lobe is a treifo.
> The Ramo (Y.D. 35) holds that its absence is a sign of treifo. We see that
> something as small is a little extra lobe can be significant and will depend
> on was is common in healthy animals. Does anyone imagine that just this
> little lobe will make zoologists classify such an animal as a different min?
> And yet an animal where this is common will have a different din of one
> where this is not common. Apparently, what is good for the zoologist is not
> for the rabbi.

what does the above case have to do with the price of a mixed bred
Zebu-Cow in Argentina?

In case A we have Turkey's and Geese and Zebu's and Cows, i.e. are they
1 min or 2, do we have a mesora, do we need a mesora.

In case B we have a treifa. Treifa and non treifa are talking about
one min. Nothing to do with minim, nothing to do with mesorah about
the animals actually kashrut (as if not ever kosher, why bring up tarfut)

the little lobe has nothing to do with min, it has to do with tarfut.
If the animal is not a healthy animal, or had a wound that didn't
heal fully, it's considered a treifa. On the other hand, if it's an
animal that was wounded, but did heal fully (i.e. perfectly, can't tell
that it was wounded), it's kosher according to at least Rav Belsky.
(Rav Bleich disagrees).

On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 13:19 +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
> As I've mentioned before, the reasoning of the CI as mentioned in his sefer
> is because we are not familiar with the treifos of another min, and there
> may be a small but significant difference. I merely point out that here is
> an example of a small but significant difference, for which a zoological
> definition would be inadequate.

but there are 2 different points.

If you believe its a different min from a cow, then yes, while it might
fit the characterization of what we view to be a non treifa for a cow,
it could actually a treifa for a zebu, but since we don't know, we don't
know and don't eat it.

However, if you believe its the same min as a cow, then the
characterization of what makes it a treifa or not should apply.

Now, there are 2 safeikim that you can have

1) is it the same min or not. (or you could not be safeik and say
either way)

2) if it's not the same min, is it a treifa. (or it could obviously be
a treifa)

I don't know enough about the halachos of tarfut to say how these safeikas
would affect the question.

another question could be, why can't we do the same thing the gemara
apparently did ("They told him that healthy animals have this."), take
a poll of apparently fully 100% healthy zebu, and see what their lungs
look like.

I wrote:
>> The Gemoroh (chullin 47a) records the following incident.
>> Rav Ashi was presented with a lung that had a "inunisa devarda". (This is a
>> small lobe on the front of the lung extending from the right side and is a
>> common feature.) He wanted to declare it treifo (He thought it was an
>> un-natural feature) They told him that healthy animals have this....
>>                                      Does anyone imagine that just this
>> little lobe will make zoologists classify such an animal as a different min?
>> And yet an animal where this is common will have a different din of one
>> where this is not common. Apparently, what is good for the zoologist is not
>> for the rabbi.

"Shaya Potter"<spotter@yucs.org> asks:
>In case A we have Turkey's and Geese and Zebu's and Cows, i.e. are they
>1 min or 2, do we have a mesora, do we need a mesora.
>In case B we have a treifa.  Treifa and non treifa are talking about one
>min.  Nothing to do with minim, nothing to do with mesorah about the
>animals actually kashrut (as if not ever kosher, why bring up tarfut)

>the little lobe has nothing to do with min, it has to do with tarfut.
...

As I've mentioned before, the reasoning of the CI as mentioned in his
sefer is because we are not familiar with the treifos of another min,
and there may be a small but significant difference. I merely point out
that here is an example of a small but significant difference, for which
a zoological definition would be inadequate.

Akiva Blum

RDJB commented on Areivim about the Rabbanut's new policy of requiring
that plates sent up to the room with room service be disposable, so that
plates aren't treifed up by non-frum guests.

In reply, RZSero wrote:
> Since people can't cook in their rooms, what are the odds that they will
> have treife food which is yad soledes bo, and will then order expensive
> room service and decant the treife takeaway onto the room service's
> dishes?

> There is also another solution: the kosher kitchen at one hotel catering
> hall in Melbourne (which no longer exists) had a policy of kashering
> everything that came back from the hall into the kitchen.  I guess the
> dishes were metal or some glass-like substance, rather than china.

What if you simply put the returns away for a day. That plus the
unlikelihood of yad soledes bo non-kosher food in the hotel room should
be more than sufficient for mashgichim, no?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      		      -Rita Mae Brown

R. Eli Turkel wrote: 
> BTW Rabbenu Tam's shita on sunset assumes not only an ancient astronomy
> that no one believes in but also a flat earth. Though it is not completely
> clear the Gra may have disagreed also based on this physical argument.
> I have been told by very charedi poskim that in the crunch one does
> not use Rabbenu Tam because it is obviously wrong. By that he meant
> that on motzei shabbat he holds like Rabbenu Tam (ie Minchat Cohen)
> because that is a chumrah. For friday evening very few still hold like
> Rabbenu Tam. However, for Chanukah one has to make a decision and there
> is no chumrah position for the lechatchilah. Hence, one should light
> candles at physical sunset or shortly afterwards and not at the sunset
> of Rabbenu Tam. When one has to make a choice we acknowledge that the
> science of Rabbenu Tam is wrong.

Although I agree with most of R. Turkel's post, the problems with Rabbeinu
Tam are not associated with the flat earth issue. Rather, it is based
on an observational point as to how long someone could walk in a day
(Pesachim 94a), and the gemara's understanding of how much the sun
travelled (as it appeared), compared to certain estimates of the same
phenomena of sun movement in Shabbat 34b. What I am saying is that the
relevant computation is not the absolute values, but the relative values
in terms of the observations and experiences of chazal as to when the
sun sets and how quickly someone could walk as the sun rose, travelled
across the sky (so its seemed) and set.

Rabbeinu Tam as popularly understood measures the end of shabbat as 4
mil (the briskers will say 5 mil) from sunset, classically 72 minutes,
and to treat the 3/4 mil in Shabbat 34b as defining tzeit hacochavim
as beginning from a theoretical second shikiya which starts 3-1/4 mil
after sunset. The Gra's objections, apart from citing various gemarot, is
that the sky is filled with stars even in European climates well before
the time posited by this understanding of R. Tam, so this measure would
not square with the 3 stars test which the gemara in Shabbat treats as
generally equivalent to the 3/4 mil measure. My own view (too complex
to elaborate fully here) is that R. Tam's first shikiya is 3-1/4 mil
BEFORE sunset, as a theoretical entry of the sun into the window in the
sky (per the language in the sefer hayashar, where the R. Tam view is
explicated most fully), which is also the shikiyat hachama deadline
of the sprinkling of the blood, per the gemara in menachot 20b and
tosafot there. This puts tosafot's views akin to that of the yiraim,
but leads to the same conclusion that in contrast to past practice,
bein hashmashot concerns for shabbat begin at sunset, and not 54 (72-18)
minutes later. As for motzei shabbat, it provides a time far more lenient
than even the Gra, based on depression of sun under the horizon measures,
but in deference to all these centuries of tradition, it is not something
I advocate halacha le-ma'aseh.

Leo Levi's book is an very useful introduction to many of these complex
issues.

Shalom L. Kohn

Dr. Josh Backon wrote an interesting missive citing various Talmudic
medical discussions, to suggest that there could be merit to some of
them from the standpoint of contemporary medicine.

This is not a surprise. Even if chazal reflected only the science of
their day, it is certainly conceivable that the contemporary science
did note certain correlations which gave rise to the medical opinion in
question. Thus, no one -- whatever their hashkafah -- should dismiss
chazal's comments out of hand, any more than they would dismiss other
contemporary physicians' comments (like Galen). On the other hand, there
is quite a gap from that to saying that chazal's medical pronouncements
are correct because chazal did not err, and should be followed.
I assume that Dr. Backon does not prescribe diets of fat meat etc.,
which as I recall were recommended in the gemarah, nor have I heard on
these lists that even the most vocal advocate of "chazal does not err"
has chosen to adopt Talmudic medicine as a life choice.

It would be interesting for someone knowledgable in this area to compare
the medicine of the gemara to that of Galen or others of the time.
Perhaps that has been done.

                           Shalom L. Kohn

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


[ 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         ]