Volume 62 Number 17
Produced: Mon, 02 Jun 14 00:55:30 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Moderator's note - Referencing
[Martin Stern]
Additional Reason for Breaking Glass at Chuppah
[Yisrael Medad]
Dairy on Shavuot (2)
[Perets Mett Irwin Weiss]
Darwinian Evolution (3)
[Orrin Tilevitz Louis Steinberg Leah S. R. Gordon]
Men and Women: Equal Kedusha? (2)
[Len Moskowitz Josh Berman]
Sedra divisions
[Menashe Elyashiv]
Sfeika d'yoma of Yom Ha'atzmaut in Chutz La'aretz (2)
[Yisrael Medad Menashe Elyashiv]
Tachanun on 29 Iyar--shouldn't it be omitted? (2)
[Chaim Casper Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Moderator's note - Referencing
Wearing my moderator hat, could I ask contributors to give a reference to anything quoted from previous
digests, e.g. Ploni Almoni wrote (MJ 66#27): .... While it might be clear to them as to whom and what they
are referring, it may not be so obvious to others and will be even more confusing to anyone in years to
come who might wish to search for discussions. I have been trying to insert these references but it would
be much easier all round if the submitter did so. This will also avoid mistakes that otherwise inevitably
crop up.
Wishing all members of Mail Jewish a Chag samei'ach
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Additional Reason for Breaking Glass at Chuppah
>From the NY Times, May 31:
"Mr. Sutton beamed down at his bride as [Reform] Rabbi Eric Polokoff led
the ceremony, including the age-old tradition of breaking a glass. He
likened the fragile glass to marriage. Both require special care lest they
shatter, Rabbi Polokoff said."
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Dairy on Shavuot
Martin Stern (MJ 62#16) wrote:
> Whether this would apply during the day meals is more problematic, though an
> argument could be made that so long as one had one meat meal at which
> shalmei simchah were eaten, one could have a light milchig kiddush prior to
> it, which is the custom in many families even nowadays (see Torah Tidbits).
The RMO (494:3) endorses this, putting it in a slightly different fashion.
"It seems to me the reason (for eating milchigs) ... we eat a dairy dish and
then eat a meat dish, for which
it is necessary to have two loaves of bread on the table [one may not eat from
the same loaf with meat and
milk as explained in Yore Deah] which is in place of the mizbeach, and this
serves as a remembrance of
the Two Loaves which were brought in the Beis Hamikdosh on Shovuos."
In other words, we eat milk and meat at the same meal to require us to have two
loaves on the table.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Dairy on Shavuot
Apropos Martin Stern's question / proposition (MJ 62#16), the Torah says,
Minchah Chadasha LShem, BeShavuotechem (Vay. 23:16-17).
The first letters of this phrase ... M CH L B, spell MeChalav - From Milk. This
might be a textual allusion for the custom of eating Milchigs.
Have a wonderful Chag Sameach!
Irwin Weiss
Baltimore, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 10:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution
In response to Martin Stern (MJ 62#16), I am really shocked at this posting on
this list, and am not quite sure where to begin.
He wrote:
> Evolution . . . is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which,
> when stripped of its technical jargon, states that, in its absence, the degree
> of disorder in a physical system increases. . . .
It isn't, for reasons perhaps best explained by the professional scientists on
this list, but Martin might want to start with the following:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=441
> In fact, Evolution is not really scientific at all. As Karl Poppers, one of
> the foremost philosophers of science of the last century, put it, to be
> scientific a theory must be capable of being disproved - anything else is a
> faith system. Since nobody has ever observed the change from one species
> to another in nature, evolutionists claim that this is merely a matter of
> not having had enough time for it to happen a non-scientific argument.
I don't know what Martin calls a "species". Bacteria evolve in real time - it's
called developing resistance. But if Martin's objection to evolution is that
nobody has ever seen a dinosaur evolve into a human being (by way of umpteen
intermediate steps), the only other possibilities seem to me to be that
(1) dinosaurs and all the intermediate forms of life, including earlier homo
species, never existed and the fossil record is a lie,
(2) all of these species existed simultaneously, and again the fossil record is
a lie, or
(3) the Almighty created each species separately at the time it first appeared
on earth -- which strikes me as just another way to look at evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Louis Steinberg <lou@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 62#16):
> Evolution ... claims that more complex organisms arise from
> simpler ones through natural processes without any outside intervention.
> This is inconsistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, when
> stripped of its technical jargon, states that, in its absence, the degree of
> disorder in a physical system increases.
This particular argument does not work, because in stripping the Second Law of
its "technical jargon" you have misstated what it says. One of those pieces of
"technical jargon" is the term "closed system": the second law speaks only about
closed systems. Closed means that no energy is added to or removed from the
system. (And "energy" here is also a technical term.) The earth receives
energy from the sum, so it is not a closed system. Even apikorsim don't claim
evolution could happened without the sun or some other source of energy.
Consider the growth (not the evolution) of a sugar cane plant: it takes in
water and carbon dioxide, both simple molecules, and creates sugar, a much more
complex molecule. Does this violate the Second Law? Not at all. If you
include the sun's energy in the computation, you find that total "disorder" does
increase. (Note that the technical term is "entropy", which is not exactly the
same thing as disorder.)
By stripping technical jargon, you come up with something equivalent to the
argument from the other side that since "work" is forbidden on Shabbat, driving
should be OK, because it is less "work" than walking (stripping the technical
term "melachah").
Louis Steinberg
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 01:01 PM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution
In MJ 62#16, Mr. Martin Stern objects to the teaching of what he
calls "Darwinian Evolution," and Mr. Eliezer Berkovits questions children's
exposure to dinosaurs.
Many people with greater background than mine have addressed the enormous
scientific background, research, and support of evolution and dinosaurs,
but I will do my best to explain briefly what I consider to be the most
important points:
1. It is a common mistake for religious people to attempt to discredit
evolution by referring to "Darwinian Evolution" or other variants that have
been refined in the theory over the past 150 years. Just as a steam engine
doesn't run a cell phone (and couldn't), the science has ...um... evolved.
2. There is a preponderance of evidence in both the fossil record and now
the genomic record of evolution, including variations in how much DNA is
shared by various species, bones/evidence of "bridge" species, and more.
3. There is of course a preponderance of evidence of bacterial evolution
(the rise of "antibiotic-resistant bacteria" etc.) even on very short time
scales (consistent with the reproductive time scale and size of the
bacteria) demonstrating the processes of evolution and speciation.
4. The fossil record has supported and explained the existence of
dinosaurs, and many other extinct species, for generations, with air-tight
evidence. (Would you believe a medieval claim of "no dinosaurs" over C-14
dating, archaeological finds, seeing the actual bones with your own eyes in
the museum....?)
5. The straw-man arguments shot down by fundamentalists are actually never
put forth by scientists: "there hasn't been enough time" - no one says
this. Scientists demonstrate the archaeological/genomic/bacterial
evidence. "look at the finches" - this was the first sign, centuries ago,
to the first evolutionary scientists. It's not the keystone argument or
explanation.
5. I find it extremely problematic that Jewish schools in the UK are
following what in the US is concentrated mainly in Christian Fundamentalist
communities, i.e. to refrain from teaching about dinosaurs/evolution.
Don't we want our young people, whatever country they live in, to know the
science? To be able to interact and converse intelligently with the
society at large? They will grow up to be ignorant bumpkins if we withhold
knowledge like this.
6. The most important issue here is that there is no contradiction with
Torah in any way, when we accept and refine scientific knowledge. Rambam
was a big supporter of this. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly
supports evolution. By neat coincidence, or according to Orthodox Jews, by
divine knowledge, the Torah's order of Bereshit neatly follows what
scientists think happened in the Big Bang and following evolution.
7. Regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: the nature of life and a big
part of life's definition is the *local* reduction of entropy. Of course,
the universe tends globally to the increase of entropy, but that says
nothing about what happens in an individual system, let alone an individual
animal.
Let me close by saying that if any school my children attend were to teach
anti-evolution or anti-dinosaurs, I would be removing my children as soon
as possible.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Len Moskowitz <lenmoskowitz@...>
Date: Sat, May 31,2014 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Men and Women: Equal Kedusha?
Josh Berman (MJ 62#15))wrote:
> Neither of these statements are true.
The Mishna (Horayos 12b) is discussing only the precedence of specific
sacrifices. It has nothing to say about the relative k'dusha of men and women.
The k'dusha mentioned on 13a is not the k'dusha of Mikdash that I mentioned
(which is the primary meaning of k'dusha in the chumash), but rather an
interpretation of how relative religious obligation impinges on social conventions.
If you're serious, you'll consult the Igrot Moshe that Aryeh Frimer mentioned.
Len Moskowitz
Teaneck NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Josh Berman <mesechetbrachot@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 1,2014 at 02:01 PM
Subject: Men and Women: Equal Kedusha?
In response to Chana Luntz (MJ 62#16):
No one is "paskening" from Reb Artscroll I merely added the Artscroll link
because it is very popular and can be read by people who can't read Hebrew.
Look in the Bar Ilan and you will see many sources. As for paskening, I
made clear I consult my personal rov for my questions as should everyone
else. There are many other places in the Rishonim that state this but my
question is specifically about the Rambam who clearly says that men have
more kedusha than women. Someone hinted that this might "really mean
something else" which is a complete fabrication and the point of the Rambam
is clear, men have more kedusha than women do. Regarding saving a man
before a woman in modern times, this is not my main question and I do not
want to go off on a tangent.
If anyone can comment on the Rambam who clearly says men have more kedusha
than women please do. I saw one post which claimed the Rambam can be read
differently which is pure nonsense.
Unfortunately, I have noticed that my posts stay up for only one day while
others' stay up on the main spot for 1-2 weeks at a time. Which is why I
can no longer dialog using this medium. This was simply an intellectual
conversation, and I certainly did not wish to offend anyone.
[The frequency of digests is determined by the volume of submissions. There is
absolutely no favoritism involved. In any case all previous digests are
available in our archives which are available at http://mj.bu.edu/mj/ so there
is no question of their disappearing. - MOD]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Fri, May 30,2014 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Sedra divisions
Martin Stern (MJ 62#15) asked about sedra divisions.
The correct word is parasha: sedra is the old Erez Israel division, smaller
portions in a 3 or 3 1/2 year cycle.
The common division is the Bavli year cycle. The last portion of Bamidbar should
be the start of Naso. However, this would make Naso even longer...(today, Rosh
Hodesh, with reading 2 mikra & 1 targum, had me awake at 4 a.m.....)
OTOH, the candles of Aharon should be the start of Bahalotecha, it is a drash
that connects it to the end of Naso. The parsha starts with the candles,
continues with the Leviim, Pesah Sheni etc, and seems logical.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Thu, May 29,2014 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Sfeika d'yoma of Yom Ha'atzmaut in Chutz La'aretz
Reuven Miller (MJ 62#15), responding to Rose Landowne (MJ 62#14), wrote:
> The celebrations and fires in Meron were held as usual on lag b'omer - motzei
> shabbat.
While correct, what is missing is that the Haredi camp preferred to light on
Motzei Shabbat rather than follow the Rabbanut's rulings (despite dominating the
system through its voting council). It announced that, in any case, it knew how
to keep Shabbat. This was perceived in the general media as adopting a position
of self-righteousness regarding its own level of observance and aiming to
highlight what it saw as the difference between a "Jewish community" and the
"Jewish state". It was, in consequence, heavily criticed because it forced the
police and other providers of auxiliary services to be Shabbat desecrators while
it attacked them for this in its media outlets.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <Menashe.Elyashiv@...>
Date: Fri, May 30,2014 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Sfeika d'yoma of Yom Ha'atzmaut in Chutz La'aretz
In reply to Martin Stern (MJ 62#15):
Changing bonfire hours cannot change the minhagim of tahanun. Whatever happened
on Lag laOmer (Rashbi died, or the plague stopped, or R. Akiva found new
students), happened on that day, and one cannot transfer the non-saying of tahanun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chaim Casper <surfflorist@...>
Date: Thu, May 29,2014 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Tachanun on 29 Iyar--shouldn't it be omitted?
My dear friend, Doniel Kramer (MJ 62#15) repeated a shiur by our revered
teacher, the Rav, Rabbi Joseph Dov Halevi Soleveitchik, zt"l, as to why tahanun
should be said on Sivan 2, also known as Yom Ham'yuhas.
His basic point was that one could say that the days of preparation for Shavuot
might start on Sivan 4 (and not Sivan 3 as most of us observe) and therefore
there are two regular days between Rosh Hodesh (Sivan 1) and the start of the
days of preparedness (Sivan 4). As a result, there is no special nature to two
regular days that would enable us to skip tahanun.
I do not understand how or why that applies to the day (Iyar 29) between Yom
Y'rushalayim (Iyar 28) and Rosh Hodesh Sivan (Sivan 1). I am unfamiliar with
any configuration of the calendar that would allow for anything more than 1
regular day between those special days.
Granted, those that do not give a special significance to Yom Y'rushalayim will
always say tahanun. But those of us who do give significance to it would have
reason to skip tahanun.
I posed this question as to why Iyar 29 is not considered a Yom Ha'm'yuhas to
Rabbi Ronen Neuwirth of the Israeli rabbinic organization, Tzohar. His answer
was that he had never seen or heard of such a discussion.
That avoids the question. If one holds that we say Hallel (with or without a
brakhah) on Yom Yerushalayim and then again on Rosh Hodesh Sivan (even with the
understanding according to the Rav that the only reason we say Hallel on Rosh
Hodesh is because it is a custom, not that there is any historical reason for
saying it), then it would stand to reason that the one day in between would
benefit from an elevated k'dushah on both sides and would warrant calling the
day between, Iyar 29, a Yom Ha'myuhas and result in the non-saying of tahanun.
I must also disagree with the Moderator's comment at the end of the post where
s/he said it is a moot question this year because Sivan 2 falls on Shabbat.
We in North Miami Beach will be skipping Av Harahamim at shaharit in line with
the standard practice that Av Harahamim is skipped if that particular day would
have been a weekday upon which tahanun would not be said. Shabbat minhah would
warrant no zidkatekha because that is erev Three Days of Preparation, and (with
one exception of 7 Adar) usually tahanun is skipped on those afternoons prior to
the start of a day that tahanun is not said.
B'virkat Torah and b'virkat Hag Shavuot Sameah,
Chaim Casper
North Miami Beach,
FL 33162
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, May 30,2014 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Tachanun on 29 Iyar--shouldn't it be omitted?
I fear Chaim Caspar is in error when he writes (above):
> I must also disagree with the Moderator's comment at the end of the post where
> s/he said it is a moot question this year because Sivan 2 falls on Shabbat.
> We in North Miami Beach will be skipping Av Harahamim at shaharit in line
> with the standard practice that Av Harahamim is skipped if that particular day
> would have been a weekday upon which tahanun would not be said.
Av Harahamim was specifically composed to commemorate the massacres during the
First Crusade (Tatenu - 1085) which mainly took place during Sefira, especially
in the week before Shavuot. As a result those following the West German minhag
originally said it only on the Shabbat before Shavuot (it later added the
Shabbat before Tisha b'AV), EVEN if it was Erev Yom Tov! The more common (East
European) minhag is to say it every week with a few exceptions including the one
Chaim mentions. However during Sefira the standard practice is always to say it
since that is the main period of persecution for which it was composed.
Therefore I suggest that North Miami Beach should not omit it on the Shabbat
before Shavuot if it follows minhag Ashkenaz (East European version).
Incidentally the community of Worms had a communal public fast day on Rosh
Chodesh Sivan since that was the day on which the massacre took place there.
> Shabbat minhah would warrant no zidkatekha because that is erev Three Days of
> Preparation,
As the moderator responsible for the comment, this was precisely the point I had
wanted to make.
> and (with one exception of 7 Adar) usually tahanun is skipped on
> those afternoons prior to the start of a day that tahanun is not said.
This is not entirely accurate. The original Ashkenaz minhag does not regard a
Yahrzeit as being a reason to omit tachanun. It therefore is said on 7 Adar.
As regards the minchah prior to a non-tachanun day, tachanun is omitted except
on the days before Erev Rosh Hashanah and Erev Yom Kippur. On the days before
the very minor festivals of Lag B'omer, Tu biShvat and Tu B'avit it was also
said in a few communities including Frankfort am Main (who also said it at
minchah on those days).
Though the original Ashkenaz minhag was to say tachanun on Pesach Sheini, those
who follow the Pri Chadash, and omit it, also still say it at the preceding minchah.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 62 Issue 17
