Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 044

Thursday, September 10 1998

• a heter for eating tref???
• [none]
• Re: a heter for eating tref???
• Re: Public Discussions of Arayos
• Rogatchover and Aveirah Lishmah
• [none]
• proof from psukim
• strange sheva brochos
• minhag
• chashash lehachmir
• Re: Public Discussions of Arayos
• Re: Rogatchover and Aveirah Lishmah
• Sheva Brochos Torah
• Re: your mail
• Gomel for a child
• Chazal may have had other ideas
• Re: R Aharon's slant on science, sevara

Today I came across the principle of achila gasa lo shmeh achila, this
says that if I eat matza as an achila gasa I'm not yotze the mitzva. Does
this imply that if I eat tref as an Achila gasa that it wouldn't be
considered eating and thus not assur, maybe an issur drabanan only---if
anyone has any source of info on the matter please let me know
Elie Ginsparg

Eli Clark writes

>> On the question of empirical evidence versus mesorah, everyone should
>> read the famous teshuvah of the Rashba (I, no. 98) in which he rejects
>> eyewitness testimony regarding the viability of a terefah.  The
>> Maharshal disputes his view (Yam shel Shelomoh, Elu Terefot, 80).
>> Another strong proponent of relying on empirical proof is Tosafot Yom
>> Tov, Kilayim 5:5.

On the other hand Rashba seems to hold differently in other teshuvot.
Hence, it seems that he feels terefot are different from other halachot.

As Eli mentioned my favorite is the teshuva that one shouldn't
rely on modern science because that would lead one to believe that
the world is run contrary to an explicit gemara!!
Not all conflicts between chazal and modern science can be explained
by explaining that chazal dealt only with things that are recognizable
to the naked eye.
BTW no one has mentioned the gemaras that show that some chazal did
perform scientific experiments to establish the facts.

Eli Turkel

The gemara says this explicitly concerning Yom Kippur, (that achila
gasah is pattur)On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Cheryl Maryles wrote:

> Today I came across the principle of achila gasa lo shmeh achila, this
> says that if I eat matza as an achila gasa I'm not yotze the mitzva. Does
> this imply that if I eat tref as an Achila gasa that it wouldn't be
> considered eating and thus not assur, maybe an issur drabanan only---if
> anyone has any source of info on the matter please let me know
> Elie Ginsparg
> 
> 

I've been rather far behind in my Avodah reading (not to mention my 
MMGH reading), so this is going back to a topic of a couple of weeks
ago.

1) I disagree with Rabbi Bechhoffer's "psak" that the hashhatat
zera discussion is inappropriate for the list on two grounds:

  a) procedural: R' Bechhoffer and others have said repeatedly
  that email lists are *not* sources of halacha lemaaseh; and

  b) textual: R' Bechhoffer claims that the subject matter of
  the discussion is inappropriate based on the mishnah of "Ein
  Dorshin", but does not give a rationale.  Someone else cites
  Igrot Moshe that extends the *subject* matter of "sitrei arayot"
  to family planning and other matters.  I object to the applicability
  of this mishnah to this discussion based on the *verb* rather than
  the *subject*.  The Gemara, and the Rambam after it (Isurei Biah
  22:17 et seq.) are quite explicit as to the rationale of Ein 
  Dorshin: that if Sitrei Arayot are taught before three, one is
  in chavrusah with the rebbe, and the other two are in chavrusah
  with each other, and they will not hear accurately what the 
  rebbe is saying on the matter.  It's quite clear, then, that "dorshin"
  refers to speech, and speech only.  Jastrow agrees with this reading
  of the verb "dorshin", translating the phrase as "you shall not 
  lecture in..."  I submit, with all due respect to Rabbi Bechhoffer,
  that as a *print* medium, these email lists are not relevant to Ein
  Dorshin, any more than the oft-cited chapters in Shulchan Aruch (OH
  240, EH 23) are relevant to Ein Dorshin.  Since the material is in
  print, all readers can be certain that they've seen all the words
  said by the poster.

It cannot be denied, though, that R' Bechhoffer's "psak" has had a
"chilling" (in the First Amendment sense) effect on the hashhatat
zera discussion.

2) Even on the subject-matter basis, I don't think that anyone in
this discussion has argued with the basic premise that hotzaat zera
levatala is assur, so I don't think that the Gemara's problem with
lecturing before three has been in question - nobody is coming away
from this discussion with a wrong idea of the permissibility of the
action in question.  

Thus, Akiva Miller's question is still bothersome: what is the actual
basis for the ban on hzl?  Is it d'oraita or d'rabanan?  The Rambam
and his nosei keilim don't seem to come to any conclusion (Isurei
Biah 21:18-24).  It's not in the usual mitzvah lists.  There is much
discussion of the severity of the sin, but no discussion of the origin
of the rule.

3) Whatever Dr. Hendel's shortcomings (and evidently Walter Wurzburger
thought enough of him to publish at least one of his articles in
Tradition some years ago), he does raise an interesting way to explain
Er & Onan.  As I see it, there are two major explanations for this:

  a) The explanation of Rashi and of society at large: that it was
  stam hashhatat zera.

  b) The explanation that Er's sin was something else, and Onan's
  sin was not doing yibum.

  I find these both problematic.  The fundamental problem is that 
  this story took place before the giving of Torah.  To make either
  of them work one must make it fit into the 7 Mitzvot Bnei Noach.
  And I don't see either yibum or hashhatat zera included in the 
  Rambam's list of the mitzvot that fall under 7 Mitzvot Bnei Noach
  (Melachim 9:5-8).

  This problem makes Dr. Hendel's solution, that the sin was a tort,
  much more plausible.  Torts fall into the category of "mishpatim",
  civil laws that any society would construct in order to function
  properly.  In which case, they would fall into the mitzvah to 
  establish courts.

4) As a side issue to (3), Mendel's question on the origin of 
  a) 7 mitzvot benei Noach;
  b) hzl;
  c) goy sheshavat chayav mita

can be answered according to the Rambam:
  a) yes (Melachim 9,10);
  b) we don't know (isurei biah 21:18-24);
  c) yes (Radbaz to Melachim 10:9).

5) A note to cvodah Chana Luntz.

>...there is a strong logic to saying that it is not appropriate to 
>discuss & learn devarim shebetzina in circumstances where they are
>not also of practical relevance...even more true when we are discussing
>bochrim.

Pardon my euphemism, but if "self-abuse" isn't of practical relevance
to bochrim especially, and also I suppose Sem. girls, to whom *is* it
relevant?

I understand that most yeshiva men don't learn rules of niddah until
they are engaged.  But this topic is relevant to the married & single
alike.

I agree with others, here, in rereading Dr. Hendel's post on the topic,
that he did go a bit over the edge in speculating about Rashbi"s
motives, and in discussing "positions".  In his defense, though, Rashi
on the chumash also talks about "positions", and some, including the
late Lubavitcher rebbe, hold that Rashi on the Chumash is written for
intelligent five-year-olds.

	Jonathan Baker
	jjbaker@panix.com

What is this concept of "Aveirah Lishmah"?  It's all very well to refer 
us to a book that you happen to have written, but it would be nice if
you could explain it for those of us who aren't attached to a big beis
medrash.

It seems counterintuitive to me.  From R' Zevin's description of the
Rogatchover's behavior on Tisha B'Av, that he would say Torah and
the townspeople would gather around him to learn it from him, it doesn't
quite jibe with his statement of his own shortcomings: I know it's wrong,
but I'm willing to face the consequences in Olam Haba.  How is that 
different from a) someone who says "I know it's wrong to drive to shul
on Shabbat, but because of my great love for shul I'll do it and face
the consequences", in his self-description?  The way R' Zevin describes
him sounds even worse, b) a choteh umachti et harabim, in that he not
only learned Torah for himself but *also taught it to the townspeople*? 
Choteh umachti et harabim is about the only sin I know of which gets a
burning eternal hell.  God forbid such a Gaon would merit such a
punishment.  How are we to understand the Rogatchover's behavior? 

I understand the concept of the "holy fool", as explained by R' Y.Y.
Schneerson in his Bati leGani, from the Gemara, but this is not
"foolish" or apparently "mad" behavior, this is sane, considered
behavior that apparently goes against halacha, not only for himself
but also for the people in Rogatchov.  Is it something like an aseh
being docheh a lo taaseh derabbanan?  In which case why isn't it
generally applicable?

I don't understand this.

	Jonathan Baker
	jjbaker@panix.com

>weaker than a pasuk in regards to ein onshim min hadin. However i'm 
>sure that there are other sevaras, which would make for a fine breakaway

>thread
>Elie Ginsparg
	Since we're quoting daf yomi, how about the sevara of mai chazis
dedamach sumak tfei,  from which the Gemara learns the not
inconsequential halacha of yehoreg v'al ya'avor for retzicha?

Gershon

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>> Many times the Gemmorah will bring down psukim to prove the obvious
>> because...IT CAN!  It isn't so much to prove the obvious that it 
>brings down the psukim, it's that Psukim (i.e. Torah) is the 
>ultimate validator of what is right in the "eyes" of G-d.
	How do you reconcile this with the Gemora's frequent question,  "lama li
kra svara hu"?  Sounds to me like the ultimate arbiter is the human
sechel.

Gershon

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>I was at a wedding recently - under an Orthodox Mesader Kiddushin - 
>where after the traditional sheva brochos were recited, six women were 
>called up to read the texts of the last six brochos in English (not the 
>HaGaffen).
	This is a weird situation.  However,   have you seen anywhere whether
the sheva brochos (I know that you need a minyan,  but if you have a
minyan) can be made by women?

	How about ponim chadoshos-do women qualify?  If there is ribui simcha
for the couple (a relative from overseas, say)?  How about if there is
only ribui simcha for the kalla (a friend)?

Gershon


_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Slowly, until moshiach's arrival stops the process, we'll witness the
>evolution of a minhag America. Israel is further along down this 
>route, since minhagei HaGra were well established before the population
was. Even in Eretz Yisrael, the minhagei HaGr'a are no longer followed as
>universally as they were even 20-30 years ago.
	This is interesting.  I once heard that the reason that Rav Yitzchok
Hutner instituted many minhagei haGra (actually,  more minhagei
Yerushalaim than straight minhagei haGra) in his yeshiva is that because
he had so many American boys who had no minhag or mesora for a particular
nusach,  that minhag Yerushalaim was the "default" minhag for those who
have no other minhag.  How does your observation on the status of
minhagei haGra in Eretz Yisrael impact on that?

Gershon

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>> Would you agree that if chazal said killing lice on shabbat is mutar 
>because they do not reproduce sexually, and we now know they reproduce
sexually, that it would be assur to kill them not mitoch being choshes
for the daat hamachmir but because of the etzem halacha
>Yes I would. But that is included in being choshesh for the daas 
>HaMachmir in this case.  
	In dinei pikuach nefesh on Shabbos it is my impression that the
determination of what is and what is not pikuach nefesh is determined by
modern medicine,  according to most modern poskim (no, I did not take a
poll) not by what the Gemara calls pikuach nefesh.  This extends even to 
*not*   doing melacha for what the Gemara considers pikuach nefesh,  such
as "maka min hashinaim ulifnim" or "makas ha'ain".  (Doing melacha for
what we consider pikuach nefesh but the Gemara did not might fall under
sofek pikuach nefesh.  Not doing melacha for what the Gemara considers
pikuach nefesh is a psak vadai, not a chashash lehachmir)

Gershon

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

While there are certainly parts of Jonathan's post I find valid, I must, I
feel, note that I am not persuaded by his dichotomy between dorshin be'al
peh and e-mail, for reasons having to do with the very nature of e-mail.

Let me add that my personal problem with Russell's posts had to do with
language and insinations about Rashbi and son, as Jonathan himself notes -
not with the topic of the ta'ama d'kra of HZL, discussed properly.

YGB

On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> 1) I disagree with Rabbi Bechhoffer's "psak" that the hashhatat zera
> discussion is inappropriate for the list on two grounds: 
> 
>   a) procedural: R' Bechhoffer and others have said repeatedly
>   that email lists are *not* sources of halacha lemaaseh; and
> 
>   b) textual: R' Bechhoffer claims that the subject matter of
>   the discussion is inappropriate based on the mishnah of "Ein
>   Dorshin", but does not give a rationale.  Someone else cites
>   Igrot Moshe that extends the *subject* matter of "sitrei arayot" 
>   to family planning and other matters.  I object to the applicability
>   of this mishnah to this discussion based on the *verb* rather than
>   the *subject*.  The Gemara, and the Rambam after it (Isurei Biah
>   22:17 et seq.) are quite explicit as to the rationale of Ein 
>   Dorshin: that if Sitrei Arayot are taught before three, one is
>   in chavrusah with the rebbe, and the other two are in chavrusah
>   with each other, and they will not hear accurately what the 
>   rebbe is saying on the matter.  It's quite clear, then, that "dorshin"
>   refers to speech, and speech only.  Jastrow agrees with this reading
>   of the verb "dorshin", translating the phrase as "you shall not 
>   lecture in..."  I submit, with all due respect to Rabbi Bechhoffer,
>   that as a *print* medium, these email lists are not relevant to Ein
>   Dorshin, any more than the oft-cited chapters in Shulchan Aruch (OH
>   240, EH 23) are relevant to Ein Dorshin.  Since the material is in
>   print, all readers can be certain that they've seen all the words
>   said by the poster.

[snip]

> I agree with others, here, in rereading Dr. Hendel's post on the topic,
> that he did go a bit over the edge in speculating about Rashbi"s
> motives, and in discussing "positions".  In his defense, though, Rashi
> on the chumash also talks about "positions", and some, including the
> late Lubavitcher rebbe, hold that Rashi on the Chumash is written for
> intelligent five-year-olds. 
> 
> 	Jonathan Baker
> 	jjbaker@panix.com
> 
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I am sorry, you will have to get the book. $12 plus shipping :-).

In fact, were the Conservatives to have stated that driving to Shul is an
aveira lishma, they would be subject to less ridicule than their claims
that it was "spiritual piku'ach nefesh" or that an internal combustion
engine is not hav'ara - things they actually said.

I do not know how the Rogatchover made his cheshbonos. "Ilu yeda'ativ
hayitiv!" (Were I to know him I would be him.) The Rogatchover's
cheshbonos are beyond us mere mortals.

On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> What is this concept of "Aveirah Lishmah"?  It's all very well to refer 
> us to a book that you happen to have written, but it would be nice if
> you could explain it for those of us who aren't attached to a big beis
> medrash.
> 
> It seems counterintuitive to me.  From R' Zevin's description of the
> Rogatchover's behavior on Tisha B'Av, that he would say Torah and
> the townspeople would gather around him to learn it from him, it doesn't
> quite jibe with his statement of his own shortcomings: I know it's wrong,
> but I'm willing to face the consequences in Olam Haba.  How is that 
> different from a) someone who says "I know it's wrong to drive to shul
> on Shabbat, but because of my great love for shul I'll do it and face
> the consequences", in his self-description?  The way R' Zevin describes
> him sounds even worse, b) a choteh umachti et harabim, in that he not
> only learned Torah for himself but *also taught it to the townspeople*? 
> Choteh umachti et harabim is about the only sin I know of which gets a
> burning eternal hell.  God forbid such a Gaon would merit such a
> punishment.  How are we to understand the Rogatchover's behavior? 
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 98 12:31:50 -0500 From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
> Rav Bechhofer wrote 
> 
> >When relating this episode to my Daf Yomi Shiur, one of the chaverim
> noted >that he had been at a wedding - ostensibly Orthodox - where the
> "real"  >brochos were interspersed with blessings in English by women.
> That is, it >seems, even worse, as some of the brochos are not poseich
> b'baruch >because of semucha l'chaveirta, which, one, of course, loses in
> this >manner.
> 
>  A question about brakha semucha l'chaveirta. (I am currently at work
> without sources) I thought that the principle determined whether a
> bracha needed to poteich b'baruch.  However, I didn't think there was an
> issur of hefsek in such a case (any sources?). Thus, the mishna (berachot)
> views before ahava rabba as being bein haperakim, and therefore being a
> lesser problem for hefsek.  Furthermore, I thought we have another
> principle - that if a brakha is smucha in its main context, and then it is
> said elsewhere, it doesn't now require to start with a baruch.  Therefore,
> it seems that the brakha does not need to be actually smucha l'chaverta
> when said.

Excellent question. R' Moshe asks this very question in IM EH 1:94. He
concludes that bracha ha'semucha l'chaveirta is a parameter in the takkana
of the seder ha'berachos, not necessarily in how they are said. The Tzitz
Eliezer has a more expansive discussion of this kind of answer, and its
basis in Rishonim, in 6:2. He notes the Rishonim who say that part of the
ikkar takkana of birchos kerias shma is that they do nothave to be said in
order, which is grounds for certain leniency (although he is not
discussing there hefsek bein haperakim). 

Nevertheless, the majority of Poskim - including R' Moshe - say it is
preferable not to be mafsik at abetween berachos of sheva berachos. In
that way, as the Tzitz Eliezer says, one can be yotzei the semucha
l'chaveirta via shomei'a k'oneh.

Al kal panim, it certainly is a direct contradiction to matbei'a haberacha
hasemucha l'chaveirta to recite berachos she'einan tzerichos or l'vatala
interspersed with the necessary berachos.

> 
> Furthermore, even if there was an issur of hefsek, it would seem to apply
> only to the person(s) saying the berachot, not others.  At most weddings
> someone announces between the sheva berakhot which rav will be saying the
> next bracha. 

It applies to those saying the berachos, right. The calling up is not a
hefsek regardless because it is mei'nyana d'bracha - like, say "pass the
salt" after hamotzi.

> While the problem of brakha l'vatala is troublesome, and we are leery
> about new minhagim, let me ask:  Assume that there was no issue of brakha
> l'vatala, (say that they said the brakha without shem or malchut) or of
> feminism and nonOrthodox origin. What is the halachic problem with having
> interspersed readings (not brakhot) between the sheva brakhot?  How
> different is this from inserting piyutim?  let me give another scenario.
> at a wedding where most of the crowd was non Orthodox and had little idea
> of what was going on, the rav would have, after the hazzan or another rav
> said each bracha, given a translation and explanation in English (without
> shem or malchut), would you also consider that to be assur?
>

No!
 


> From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
> Subject: RE: Wedding Innovation
> 
> R. YGB writes:
> 
> While I personally remain content with the wedding ceremony in its
> traditional form, I have one or two questions about your analysis of
> these innovative ones.   You point out that the English berakhot are
> probably valid berakhot and therefore would be berakhot le-vatalah.
> 
> Upon reflection, however, I am wondering if that is so. Certainly if the
> same individual recited a berakhah in English and Hebrew, the second
> would be le-vatalah.  But what if two different people recite the same
> berakha under the huppah?  The question turns on the precise status of
> the sheva berakhot recited under the huppah.  If they are birkot shevah,
> is it clear that each may be recited only once?  If so, why?
>

The berachos cannot be recited at will. Otherwise, the whole issue of
panim chadashos at Sheva Berachos would be moot, plus, we could have all
given out a lot more of those kibbudim at our Chasunas!

They actually are a chiyuv on the chosson and kalla, who are supposed to
be yotzei the takkana of birchos nisuin with them. Once they were yotzei,
additional berachos are she'einan tzerichos/l'vatala. See Pischei Teshuva
EH 62:7.
 
> Second, with regard to the interspersing of English and Hebrew berakhot,
> if, as we agree, the English berakhot are valid berakhot, then why would
> they create a problem of semukhah le-havertah?
> 

As above.



> From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Subject: strange sheva brochos
> 
> 	This is a weird situation.  However, have you seen anywhere
> whether the sheva brochos (I know that you need a minyan, but if you
> have a minyan) can be made by women?
> 
> 	How about ponim chadoshos-do women qualify?  If there is ribui
> simcha for the couple (a relative from overseas, say)?  How about if there
> is only ribui simcha for the kalla (a friend)? 

Pischei Teshuva EH 62:14, only men. This is, I think, because, requiring
ten men present it is a davar she'b'kedusha - which pertains only to
males. 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> >weaker than a pasuk in regards to ein onshim min hadin. However i'm 
> >sure that there are other sevaras, which would make for a fine breakaway
> 
> >thread
> >Elie Ginsparg
> 	Since we're quoting daf yomi, how about the sevara of mai chazis
> dedamach sumak tfei,  from which the Gemara learns the not
> inconsequential halacha of yehoreg v'al ya'avor for retzicha?
> 
> Gershon

I'm not 100 percent sure of what your main point is, however, as long as
you brought up this sevara it's worthy to understand it as Rashi does. We
don't merely learn yehoreg v'al ya'avor from the sevara rather we have an
issur to kill. the only heter to sin is the pasuk of vchai bhem. which is
based on the premise that G-d loves jewish lives more than mitzvos.
therefore if an issur will be committed and a life will be lost or a life
will be lost and no issur will be commited then there is no heter of
vchai behem and your left with the original issur. I'm not clear how this
relates to kal vechomer---maybe it doesn't
Elie Ginsparg

Rav Yehuda Henkin shlita has a long discussion on the matter in Resp
Bnai Vanim, volume 1 or 2. He permits the parent to recite ha-gomel for
the child. (By the way, this Teshuvah was Halakhah le-ma'aseh for him.) 
 
> From: Samuel Foxman <Samuel.Foxman@ny.frb.org>
> Subject: Re: Gomel for a child
> 
> Shulchan Orech Orach Chaim Mishna berura discuss gomel for a child and
>  concludes we do not say gomel for a child.  Interesting is the din that
>  we say gomel for a rebbi. 
> 
> ------------------------------

> From: cbrown@bestware.com
> Subject: Re: microscopic bugs/science and halacha/English berachot
> >>>One can't be meikil because the sevarah for an issur relied on bad
> science because sevaros given in Chazal are usually one of many.<<<
> 
> I believe this idea is advanced by the GRA, but I have to hunt down a mareh
> makom.  I imagine this approach has nuances as well to account for nishtana
> hateva, etc.

It appears, among other places, in a Maharil cited by R' Akiva Eiger YD
336:1, regarding use of Talmudic medicine. Of course, this principle was
also at teh core of the Metzizah bePeh debate.

Another interesting view is that of the Maharim Shick, regarding Metzitzah
bePeh (YD 244); he points out that there is debate among the scientists,
too, and so one shouldn't jump on a monolithic scientific bandwagon.
(How's that for a mixed metaphor?)

For a selection of sources on this topic, please see:
http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor/science/contra.htm

Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HaMakor  http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor   Torah Reference Library
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI: http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cbrown@bestware.com wrote:
> 
>           >>>There are those that say that Chazal were not wrong even in matters
>            of
>           science ( As does R. Aaron Soloveichik) and therefore we are wrong and
>           lice do not reproduce sexually. <<<
> 
> R' Aharon does not say science is wrong and Chazal are right.  See R'
> Aharon's book "Logic of the Heart/Logic of the Mind" in the essay on Torah
> UMada where he reads Chazal as consistant with science.  The gemera means
> that killing a bug which reproduces in an environemt of 'ipush'=decay is
> not a violation of Shabbos; the gemara does not deny the bug reproduces.
> Regardless of whether such a reading conforms with the intent of Chazal or
> represents a reinterpretation, it shows a sensitivity to halacha conforming
> with objective scientific data.
> 
> >>>I don't beleive that the Gemmorah PREFERS svara to psukim. <<<
> 
> Lamah li kra-sevara hu!
> 
> -CB
> 
> P.S. You still owe me at least one source where the gemera utilizes a pasuk
> despite having a sevara.
> 
> PPS I apologize for 'implicating' Elie when my response was directed at HM.


Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa.  (Tis the season for apology and I join the fray).

First let me say that I will try not to say things "off the top of my 
head" too often. The are to easily prone to error.  In my enthusiasm to 
make the haskafic point about  "psukim being better than ones own 
perceptions", whenever possible, I hastily said that the gemorrah does 
this all the time.  When I spoke to R. YGB about it this morning he said 
that he didn't agree with me either.  He said that when the gemmorah 
does bring psukim after a kal vechomer argument it does not necessarily 
bring it to "upstage" the argument with psukim. It is more likly that 
the psukim are asmachtos to support what we have already deduced through 
the Kal Vechomer. (It was a rather quick conversation, so, I hope I am 
quoting him accurately).  I still believe it is possible that psukim are 
brought down as the more authorative form of halacha derivation. When 
the Gemmorah asks, "Lamah li kra-sevara hu", it is usually in a case 
where the gemmorah ultimately want's to make the point that the Kra is 
used for "something else" and,therefore, the Svara is needed to make the 
original piont. But I certainly defer to R. YGB.  As for an example of 
such an instance, I admit that I can not do so off the cuff because the 
times I have noticed such instances, is in the daily Daf Yomi where we 
move through shas a breakneck pace.  It is difficult (at least for me) 
to pinpoint the last time such an instance came up.  However I will be 
looking out for an example of "Svara followed by Psukim and when I come 
across it I will post the location.

The other point mentioned by Chaim is the misrepresentation of R. Aaron 
Soloveichik's shita on matters of Science. (again speaking "off the top 
of my head" caused me to speak before I think.)  I not only have read 
the essays on Torah U'Maddah that R. Aaron wrote in "Logic of the Heart, 
Logic of the Mind", I have, also, heard the tape of his original speech 
upon which these essays are based. I am a firm believer in his shita on 
Torah U'Maddah and advocate the reading of that book, all the time. 

Let me try and clarify my original statement:

Of course R. Aaron Believes in Science! But as R. YGB reminded me today, 
 R. Aaron believes that the mesorah that Moshe Rabenu received at Sinai 
included all knowledege of Science. That was ultimately transmitted to 
chazal as well. Science must therefore be consistent with halacha.  When 
they contradict, it is only becuase of our own feeble misunderstanding 
of science, that they SEEM to contradict.  This is where I respectfully 
disagree with my Rebbe.  I personally believe that Chazal knew all of 
the halachik mesorah but in the area of science, they only knew the 
knowledge of that era and not much more.  They were perhaps ahead of the 
world in that regard but were not as knowledgeable as we are today.  
Hakazas dam (bloodletting), for example,as a refuah, would not have been 
as prevalent as it was. I believe there are legitimate haskafic disputes 
in this area, and would welcome discussion.

HM

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]