Volume 17 Number 28
Produced: Thu Dec 15 21:51:21 1994
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Mesorah, Science and The Flood (again)
[Moshe Shamah]
Re. Rarest Amidah
[Yossi Halberstadt]
strict vs. restrictive
[Aleeza Esther Berger]
The Value of Secular Studies
[Hayim Hendeles]
The very first syag
["Yaakov Menken"]
Yeshiva before med school
[Erwin Katz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MSHAMAH@...> (Moshe Shamah)
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Mesorah, Science and The Flood (again)
This is in response to points 2-5 that Yosef Bechhofer directed
toward me in MJ16#98.
>2. Rabbi Shama notes that Rav Kook liked the theory of
>evolution... [and] claims that this theory requires
>allegorization of Biblical verses. Rav Kook never made that
>claim, and I challenge Rabbi Shama to present such verses.
It is obvious that if we posit G-d's creative activity working through
evolutionary circuitry, verses such as "G-d formed man dust from the
earth"; "G-d cast a deep sleep on man and as he slept took one of his
ribs... and built it into woman" and many other verses necessarily
require new, non-literal and sometimes allegorical interpretation.
(BTW, I have been asked for a copy of Rav Kook's statement on evolution,
which I carefully read and reread years ago in an early edition of his
works and to which I have been referring from memory. It appears that
it is not readily available today. As far as I can determine it has
been expunged from recent editions. This probably is another example of
zealous posthumous censorship.)
>3. Rabbi Shama quotes the Rishonim who regarded Shaul's vision of
>Shmuel as hallucination. This too is not allegory. It is not a
>"mashal." You are interpreting the Flood as a "mashal" & to this
>I have objected.
The right to interpret passages non-literally, against the previously
prevalent consensus of understanding them, in order to reconcile them
with results of science, is also the right to interpret a passage as
prophetic allegory.
>4. Rabbi Shama cites scientific evidence that the Flood could
>not have occurred. Science, by definition, denies miracles.
>Krias Yam Suf could not have occurred either by scientific rules.
G-d governs the world and science is at his disposal. He reconfigures
the forces of nature as and when He wills to achieve His purposes. His
relationship with the world is beyond so-called "scientific rules".
However, there is no reason whatsoever to assume - and it is contrary to
our common sense to believe - that He totally eradicated the effects of
His intervention concerning an event such as a literal Flood is supposed
to have been, recreating vegetative growth, creature development and
acclimation, natural formations, ancient records, structures, ruins and
remains and myriad details in such a way that it will appear to man as
if there hadn't been the Flood.
>>5. Rabbi Shama never answered why he accepts, if he does, the
>Exodus and Lawgiving as literal...
A literal Exodus and Lawgiving are much more essential elements of our
historical tradition and much less problematic than is a literal
interpretation of the Flood. Some reasons I accept them as basically
literal (there probably is some degree of metaphoric language or detail
here) are because the Biblical narrative in what might be called a
"modern" historical context indicates it; they are specifically attested
to by prophets as basically literal; they are so transmitted by sages
and they are deeply intertwined with the Torah legal code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <fx_joe@...> (Yossi Halberstadt)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 14:23:09 GMT
Subject: Re. Rarest Amidah
The following article was prepared by Dr. J.H.E Cohn and distributed in
shul (GGBH) last Friday night. Posted with permission of the author.
Yossi Halberstadt
A calendar curiosity
by J.H.E. Cohn [e-Mail <J.Cohn@...>]
As a recent note on the Net has mentioned, on Motzai Shabbos
Mikketz, there was an unusual Sh'monei Esrei, in that all three of ato
chonantonu, y'alei veyovau and al hanisim were said. This is not really
so very unusual, as it occurs if and only if in that year Rosh Hashonoh
falls either on Tuesday or on Monday, and the year is sholaim, i.e.
Cheshvon has 30 days. In addition, since this year everything falls so
early, outside Israel we were still saying vethain b'rochoh. It was
pointed out that this last occurred 95 years ago. As will be seen from
the table, it also next occurs in 95 years time, but the conclusion that
someone mentioned "that it occurs only every 95 years", implying that it
is periodic with period 95 years, is incorrect.
It is fairly well-known that the main aspects of the Hebrew
calendar are based upon Rav Adda's tekufoh, with the result that any
fixed date, in this case 1st. Teveth, tends to fall later on average in
the solar calendar over a long period of time. However, the beginning of
the saying of tal umotor is based on Shmuel's tekufoh, which is even
longer. Thus this will fall successively later on average, even relative
to a fixed date in the Hebrew calendar.
The result of this is that the particular combination of ato
chonantonu, y'alei veyovau, al hanisim and vethain b'rochoh occurred FOR
THE VERY FIRST TIME in 1652, and prior to the present year, had occurred
only three times in all. As might be expected, the present fixed
calendar would result in it occurring steadily more often, but
irregularly, in the future. This can be seen from the table, which I
hope is now complete up to the Hebrew Year 7000, the civil dates being
in the Gregorian system.
Hebrew Year tal umotor 1st. Teveth Civil Year
starts on falls on
December December
5413 2 1 1652
5508 4 3 1747
5660 5 3 1899
5755 5 4 1994
5850 5 4 2089
5907 6 4 2146
5934 6 5 2173
5945 6 5 2184
6002 7 5 2241
6029 7 6 2268
6097 8 6 2336
6124 9 8 2363
6154 8 5 2393
6181 8 6 2420
6192 9 7 2431
6249 8 5 2488
6276 10 8 2515
6344 10 7 2583
6371 10 9 2610
6401 10 6 2640
6428 11 8 2667
6466 11 10 2705
6496 12 8 2735
6523 11 9 2762
6550 11 10 2789
6591 11 8 2830
6618 11 9 2857
6645 11 10 2884
6648 12 7 2887
6675 12 9 2914
6713 12 10 2952
6740 13 12 2979
6743 12 8 2982
6770 13 10 3009
6797 13 11 3036
6824 14 13 3063
6838 13 9 3077
6865 14 11 3104
6892 15 13 3131
6895 14 9 3134
6922 14 10 3161
6960 15 12 3199
6987 14 13 3226
6990 14 9 3229
Sincere thanks are due to Mr. P. Berlin, who pointed an omission out in
an earlier version.
Joe Halberstadt <HALBERSTADTJ@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 17:17:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: strict vs. restrictive
> >From: David Maslow <MASLOWD@...>
(I think it was from him; it was difficult to tell what the > levels
meant, sorry if it was from someone else):
> discussing glatt vs. non-glatt, then it is wrong to suggest that
> Chassidim "demand...higher tolerances of kashrut" when all that is
> involved is a different interpretation. All too often, the
> non-Chassidic world accepts itself as being a little less careful than
> its Chassidic counterparts rather than affirming its strict and positive
> approach to halacha.
I think all that was meant was that the Chassidic slaughtering is more
*restrictive*, i.e. has an extra regulation or two. In this sense, yes,
the Chassidim are demanding a higher standard, and the non-Chassidic
world *is* being a little less careful.
Aliza Berger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hayim Hendeles <hayim@...>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 94 10:01:28 -0800
Subject: The Value of Secular Studies
The RAMBAM (Maimonides) in his Perush ha-Mishnayot (Explanation
of the Mishnah) explains:
"You should know that the ratio of the diameter of a circle
to its circumference is not known and can never be stated
with accuracy. This is not due to any lack of understanding ...
As this can never be known except as an approximation
they (chaza"l, the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Gemara)
rounded it off the to the nearest whole number and said that
"anything which has circumference of 3 tefachim has a
diameter of one tefach" and they rely on this wherever the
Torah requires a measurement."
In addition to the subject matter this also provides one more
indication, as if that were needed, of the RAMBAM's study and
knowledge of the science available in his day and of the importance
of the study of science to the study of Torah.
Abe Lebowitz
Pardon me for being the devil's advocate here, but I can't resist the
bait. How does this example tell me anything about the "importance of
the study of science to the study of Torah"? Aside from my ignorance,
why would I be any worse off if I did not know any math, and believed
the value of PI to be exactly 3. So what? And even if I were told
that this so-called-science has established a value of 3.14, and
I couldn't reconcile it with my literal interpretation of the Bible,
so what?
Sure it's a nice tidbit to know that PI is really irrational, whose
value is in the neighborhood of 3.14, and Chazal only used an estimation
when using the value 3, but I don't follow the poster's point that
"this establishes the importance of the study of science to Torah".
Hayim Hendeles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Yaakov Menken" <ny000548@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 13:53:01 -0500
Subject: Re: The very first syag
>>From: <jeremy@...> (Jeremy Nussbaum)
>Subject: Re: The very first Syag
>
>> >From: Michael Shimshoni <MASH@...>
>> >The very first game of telephone tag:
>> >G-d to Adam: Don't eat the fruit of that tree.
>> >Adam to Eve: (unrecorded)
>> >Eve to Serpent: Don't eat or touch the fruit of that tree.
>>
>> Perhaps we have here the very first case of making a "syag laTorah"? :-)
>
>This is indeed the topic of commentaries there.
>We saw a comment in the Da'at Zekeinim on Rashi about the fact that
>Chava added to God's command, and that opened up a path for the serpent
>to "seduce" both Adam and Chava.
I didn't find a corresponding Da'as Zekeinim, but Rashi says that Chava
_added_ to G-d's command (and "added" is critical here). I recall
hearing (Midrash?) that it was Adam's fault, actually: Note that G-d
gave him the command before creating Chava, and therefore it fell to
Adam to transmit it. Adam, intending to keep her from sin, told her not
to even touch it - but made the mistake of explaining this AS IF THAT
WAS G-D'S ORIGINAL COMMAND. The snake then fooled her by shoving her
into the tree and saying "see, nothing happened!" [I'm not certain what
punishment (if any!) was to be expected for involuntary contact with the
tree, but I'm sure the source discusses it.]
Now this is not a "syag" (fence) at all, but today would be called a
transgression of "Bal Tosif" - not adding on to G-d's command. The
lesson: making fences around the Torah is _good_ - but claiming that
they are themselves Torah commandments is _bad_.
Yaakov Menken
<menken@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ERWIN_KATZ_at_~<7BK-ILN-CHICAGO@...> (Erwin Katz)
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 15:02:05 CST
Subject: Re: Yeshiva before med school
You refer to a tshuva of Reb Moshe to his son-in-law regarding autopsies
for medical knowledge. Firstly, which of his sons-in-law are you
referring to? Secondly, are refering to the question of Tumah for a
Kohen or to the issue of "nituach mesim?" Thirdly, where did you see the
t'shuva? There were many differences of opinion regarding nituachg
mesim. You can find a compilation of some of them in Eisensteins "Otzer
Dinim Uminhagim. Both Reb Moshe and Reb J.B. Soloveitchik refused to
permit a Kohen to be m'tameh mes. Reb Goren is rumored to have given
private heterim. Your analogy to "being prepared" is inapposite. Are
you arguing that each one of us should be required to go to meed school
in proparation for emergencies?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 17 Issue 28
