Volume 23 Number 93
                       Produced: Sun May 12 22:30:24 1996

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Answer to wicked son
         [Saul Mashbaum]
Ba'omer vs. La'omer
         [Yaakov Azose]
Bar Mitzvah Drasha
         [Eli Lansey]
Creation of Eve and evolution
         [Josh Backon]
Creation of Eve and Genetics (4)
         [Stan Tenen, Avi Feldblum, Alan Rubin, Yonatan Raziel]
Hakheh et shinav
         [Israel Pickholtz]
Lag B'Omer Upsharin
         [Danny Schoemann]
Lag BA'omer
         [Micha Berger]
Modest Clothing
         [David Hollander]
Rings and Washing
         [Josh Wise]
Use of Animals in Research
         [David Charlap]
Yehoshua and the sons
         [Al Silberman]


From: <mshalom@...> (Saul Mashbaum)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:21:40 EDT
Subject: Answer to wicked son

Some readers may be interested in the following explanation (Malbim) of
why the curious term "blunt his teeth" is used in context of the reply
to the wicked son:

Imagine someone is eating something, and it contains a small stone which
he bites into. What "set his teeth on edge"? Something he himself put
into his mouth. How do we relate to the wicked son's question? We reject
his position based on something he himself said - etchem.

Saul Mashbaum


From: Yaakov Azose <yazose@...>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 20:31:02 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Ba'omer vs. La'omer

Just to add to the discussion, the sepharadim use "La'omer", but we put
in in the middle of the sentence. For example, on the 8th day of the
omer, we say:
 Hayom shemonah yamim la'omer shehem shavu'a e'had veyom e'had.
 Does anybody know if other nus'haot have a similar phraseology?

Yaakov Azose


From: Eli Lansey <Rlansey@...>
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 18:23:22 -0700
Subject: Bar Mitzvah Drasha

This posting is from my son, Eli:

	I have learned seder Moed in mishnayot and all throughout it
this question has been bothering me.  Why can you be mechalel Shabbat
and even Yom Kipper for certain things in the avodah?  I would like to
use this subject for my siyum and bar-mitzvah drushah.  Please provide
any reference material to help me give an answer.

		Eli Lansey


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Thu,  2 May 96 19:32 +0200
Subject: Re: Creation of Eve and evolution

There are two genital duct systems in every embryo (wolffian and
mullerian).  In the male, in the presence of testosterone, the wolffian
ducts develop as the epididymides, vasa deferentia and seminal vesicles,
whereas the mullerian ducts fail to develop because of AMH
(antimullerian hormone).  In the female, in the absence of testosterone,
the wolffian glands fail to develop but the mullerian ducts give rise to
the uterus, fallopian tubes and cephalad vagina because there is no
AMH. In the absence of androgen or androgen receptor the body is
feminized *despite* presence of the Y chromosome or even the testes. The
sex-determining role of the mammalian Y-chromosme is limited to the
induction of the testis. In fact, there are cases of XX Male syndrome
(which is present in 1:20,000 births).

There is some evidence that the H-Y structural gene is present in both
males and females but it's repressed in females by other genes.

Up til now has been classical pediatric endocrinology. You'll need to
get the input of an expert in genetics how the above gene is regulated
and if it could be cloned.

Josh Backon


From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:17:33 -0700
Subject: Creation of Eve and Genetics

I am not a geneticist, but, then, it is likely that a geneticist's
knowledge is not what is called for here.  The question comes about
because of a misapplication of the Pshat meaning of Torah.  The midrash
about Adam and Eve being created back-to-back alludes to a specific
kabbalistic image of creation and has nothing whatsoever to do with
human anatomy.

Likewise, to ask if HaShem cloned Eve is also to misuse the Pshat.

I hope someone with a strong Talmudic background will post some of the 
reasons why it is so dangerous to a proper appreciation of Torah to 
ascribe the wrong level of meaning to the Pshat. 

As a person who studies the letter level of Torah, my ability to make
credible statements about my findings is greatly reduced when
kabbalistic teachings are haphazardly mixed with our Pshat level
understanding of Torah.  True kabbalistic insights can be lost in the
blaze of "God and the Big-Bang" or finding DNA patterns or "laser"
technology in the Torah.  This is silliness.

The science in Torah is NOT a science of things.  Things are idolatrous.
To the extent that there is science in Torah, Torah uses the one
"science" that cannot be idolatrous because it deals only with invariant
relationships.  Fundamental topological relationships (like inside vs.
outside) are universal throughout all processes at every level of
creation.  Pshat gives us examples of the lives of our ancestors and how
we are to keep HaShem's commandments in our lives.  Sod expresses
universal relationships that are eternal and all inclusive.  This is
part of what the kabbalists try to explain.

The "siamese twins" are the two halves of the model of continuous
creation understood at the Adam Kadmon level.  Adam Kadmon,
kabbalistically, includes both Adam and Eve.  Their back-to-back form
can be seen in meditation or by the window of mathematics.


From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 09:46:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Creation of Eve and Genetics

Stan Tenen writes:

> because of a misapplication of the Pshat meaning of Torah.  The midrash
> about Adam and Eve being created back-to-back alludes to a specific
> kabbalistic image of creation and has nothing whatsoever to do with
> human anatomy.

While there is a clear Kabbalistic understanding of the concept of
"back-to-back" in the building of the Sefirot, and that is how to
understand that Midrash ina Kabbalistic sense, it is by no means clear
to me that it is the ONLY way to undrstand the Midrash, and a much more
"literal" type understanding involving the physical Adam consisting of
dual (male/female) nature is not a ruled out method of interpretation of
the Midrash. 

Avi Feldblum

From: <arubin@...> (Alan Rubin)
Date: Thu, 2 May 96 22:28 BST-1
Subject: Creation of Eve and Genetics

The condition of Siamese Twins arises when two primitive streaks form in 
one blastocyst.  So Siamese twins are always genetically identical.

I am firmly of the opinion that the account of Adam and Eve is not an 
historical account.  I see no point in attempting a scientific 
explanation of the genetics of Adam and Eve.

Alan Rubin     <arubin@...>

From: Yonatan Raziel <JONNYR@...>
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 09:41:04 +0300
Subject: Creation of Eve and Genetics

Aryeh Frimer asked for genetic explanations to explain problems
presented by the account in breishit that Chava was created out of
Adam's rib and therefore was a clone. I would suggest that we apply the
shita of the Ramban (and common sense), that the entire creation as
described in the torah is 'sod' - i.e. above and beyond our grasp, and
purely allegorical. This will avoid trying to solve an additional
problem, raised by the verse in Devarim 5 ('adam mikatze mikatze') that
the midrash learns that Adam occupied the entire world from the top of
the heavens down to earth. In which case, there would have been no room
for Chava and Adam in one world !

Yonatan Raziel


From: <rotem@...> (Israel Pickholtz)
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:53:25 +0300
Subject: Re: Hakheh et shinav

I heard a nice vort [word, explanation - Mod.] about hakheh et shinav,
tho I don't recall where:

minus shin+nun+yud+vav=366

gives 204=tzadi+dalet+yud+kuf

Don't knock him out - bring him around.

Israel Pickholtz
Elazar, Gush Etzion


From: Danny Schoemann <dannys@...>
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 11:09:10 +0300
Subject: Re:  Lag B'Omer Upsharin

In Volume 23 Number 86 Mia Diamond <midiamond@...> asked about
 Lag B'Omer Upsharin

As far as I'm aware, he only halachic consideration of an Upsharin (or
any haircut, for that reason) as the issue of not cutting off Payot
(Halachic sideburns).

The exact Halachic details can be found in Yore De'a Siman 181 (if my
memory serves me correctly.)

 | | <DannyS@...> <<  Danny Schoemann  >> | |      Tower of 
 | | Ext 273               << Tel 972-2-793-723 >> | |      Babel !!


From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:34:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Lag BA'omer

Do people who count omer using "sheheim ... shavuos vi... yamam LAomer"
call the holiday Lag LA'omer? :-)

This question was raised by my LOR's 9 year old. I'm glad to see that
the Yeshivah teaches some awareness of the text.

Micha Berger 201 916-0287        Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3448 days!
<AishDas@...>                     (16-Oct-86 -  1-May-96)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>


From: <David_Hollander@...> (David Hollander)
Date: Fri, 10 May 96 09:40:07 EST
Subject: Modest Clothing

My wife picked up a catalog in the grocery from "Any Wear You're Frum"
offering "Fashionable Modest Attire".  They are a frum company in
California. For a catalog call toll free 1-888-4-modesty (888-466-3378)
Fax 1-818-222-6887. I'm not affiliated with them nor have we purchased
from them.


From: Josh Wise <jdwise@...>
Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 22:27:58 EDT
Subject: Rings and Washing

Adam Schwartz asked:

> Does anyone know the source for NOT removing rings
> for washing?  I've seen/heard that many people, who rarely if ever take
> off their rings for anything, are not required to remove them
> for washing Netilat Yadayim.  What defines a Hatzitza for this case?

The Mishna Brurah primarily addresses the issue of women wearing rings
removing them for netilat yadiyim.  He says that if a woman would remove
her ring while she kneads dough, then she should remove it for netilat
yadiyim. Regarding men, he says that since men don't usually knead
dough, this doesn't apply to them. (It would seem to me, but I could be
wrong, that if a man were to knead dough, the same rule would apply to
him as well.)
	Additionally, the Rama discusses the possibility that if a ring
is "loose", it doesn't have to be removed.  But, he continues to say
that since we don't know what "loose" really means, we should be
stringent on this.
	The general rule seems to be that if you would remove a ring to
wash dishes or some other task where it would be subjected to unusual
"punishment", you should remove it for netilat yadiyim.
 Source: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 161:3, 
	Mishna Brurah 17-19.

Josh Wise


From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Tue, 7 May 96 10:04:38 EDT
Subject: Use of Animals in Research

<davisa@...> (Amy Davis) writes:
>Does anyone know what the halacha is surrounding the use and sacrifice
>of animals for biomedical research?  If they can be used in some/all
>research, is there any halacha surrounding how one should sacrifice them
>so as to cause as little pain as possible?  Thank you.  Feel free to
>respond to me privately.

I'm pretty certain that it is permitted in most cases.  I asked about
this in high school, years ago, and got an answer something like:

- There is a halacha regarding "tza'ar ba'alei chaim" - causing pain
  to living beings.  This is not permitted.

- However, there is also a halach that allows you to do almost anything
  if it is to save a human life.

 From what I remember, the halacha regarding animal research will depend
on what the research is being used for.  If it is to find a cure for a
disease or some other life-saving goal, I think it is permitted.  But if
it is for some other goal (like cosmetics), I think it would be

But don't trust this posting.  This is what I remember from years ago,
and I may have gotten something wrong.


From: <asilberman@...> (Al Silberman)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 08:31:16 -0500
Subject: Yehoshua and the sons

Apropos to the ongoing discussion about the four sons in the Hagadah I
would like to point out a similar set of questions in chapter 4 of sefer

The subject there concerns the twelve commemorative stones which
Yehoshua was required to set up near the Jordan River (aside from the
twelve he placed within the river). Yehoshua explains the purpose of the
stones twice, once to the group selected to do the placement (verses 4 -
7) and once to the whole assembly (versus 21 - 24).

In his first statement he says (JPS trans) "When your children ask -
What is the meaning of these stones FOR YOU (note: lachem) ...etc.". In
his second statement he says "In time to come, when your children ask
their fathers - What is the meaning of those stones? (note: no

Are these also to be understood as questions by different types of sons?
Who is missing besides the "one who doesn't ask"? Does the lachem imply
the rasha and the chacham is missing?


End of Volume 23 Issue 93