Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 090

Monday, June 14 1999

• Re: Avodah V3 #89- Rav Kookand karbanos
• Budgeting time
• Chazal & science
• The lintel of R' Elazar Hakappar
• Trip Assistance
• mail-jewish
• Fish and Meat (was Re: Chazal and Metzius)
• Re: metzius and Chazal
• Re: HALACHA: Land for Peace
• Chazal and Metizus vs. Chazal and Theory
• Re: Avodah V3 #89- Rav Kookand karbanos
• Re: Avos 4:21 questions
• RYBS on the Kosel
• Re: RYBS on the Kosel
• Re: RYBS on the Kosel
• Re: Budgeting time
• Re: RYBS on the Kosel
• Re: RYBS on the Kosel
• Chazal, Science, & Psak
• Tzitzis Double Take - Humor Alert
• Aliyos in Parshas Korach
• Re: Fish and Meat (was Re: Chazal and Metzius)

There is a letter from Rav Kook to Rabbi Haim Hirschenson of Hoboken, printed 
in his Malki Be Kodesh, in which he writes that karbanos will be restored in 
the days of mashiach. There is a discussion of this letter and Rabbi 
Hirschenson's view in Eliezer Schweid's book Demokratia V'Halacha,which was 
translated into English as Democracy and Halacha.

After spending the past week in the hospital I am trying to do the
requisite cheshbon hanefesh, and I have questions for those of you who,
like me, have only a limited time to learn (I can usually manage three
hours a day):

  How do you structure your time?
  What proportion of your time do you devote to review?
  What proportion of your time do you devote to iyun?
  What about mikra/mishna/talmud/aggada/machshava?

The last time I took such a poll I was in yeshiva, I asked mostly
rebbeim, and I was shocked by the answers (which I will withhold until
I've received responses to this email).
  I'd welcome advice from toratham umnatham types as well, but please
give advice suitable to those of us with limited time rather than your
own personal practice.

David Riceman

Lichvod R. RW:

I think you are banging your head against a wall here.  You are arguing one 
point and the others are throwing out a different one.

They argue Chazal made mistakes concerning science.  In that arena there are 
two distinct situations.  
  
The first is halachic conclusions based on scientific observation.  You argue 
for keeping the established halacha, based in part of minhag.  A large part, 
though, based on our possibly not understanding Chazal.  I am reminded of 
another fantastic scientific statement made by Chazal some 2000 years ago, 
based on a pasuk in the Torah.  Isha ki sazria, v'yalda zachar.  Chazal say 
if a woman ovulates and then has intercourse, the child will more probably be 
a boy.  If she ovulation post coitus, the child will likely be a girl.  Not 
until the 20th century, and the scientific development of the understanding 
of X & Y chromosomes did this statement make sense.  At that time it was 
learned about X & Y sperm, and their relative speed and life expectancy.  
Only then did science STOP ridiculing Chazal for their fantastic statement.

Could Chazal replicate their experiment in a lab?  No.  Did they need to?  
No.  Careful observation was sufficient.  And lest you think that Chazal were 
so fantastic at it, no they did not have an exclusive.  People in general 
were more attuned to their bodies.  How many women today can tell you exactly 
when they ovulate or have their menses.  Yet, Chazal speak of vestos as if 
they were regularly occuring, and that women were attuned to them.  So ,when 
it comes to medicine and biology, people were keen not to the specifics of 
anatomy, but rather to how the system works.  And this extends to the Easterm 
medicines also, which have remarkable success at what they do, without the 
benefit of multi-million dollar labs.

I am not here to bash science.  But how many theories, proven in labs, have 
been discarded as not true because of further study.  All we can have from a 
lab is proof that our current thinking is replicable, not that it is 
necessarily correct.  Much of it is, and will stand the test of time and more 
accurate testing machinery, but much will fall by the wayside.  Let us not 
marry ourselves to what we see in the lab today.

But I digress.

Halacha was decided by Chazal based on their understanding of the world 
around them.  We can come up with fancy explanations to understanding 
seemingly simple statements by Chazal, such as spontaneous generation, but 
the very fact that we have to go out on a limb, and a very tenuous one at 
that, argues against its being understood by Chazal that way.  Simple 
statements should be simply understandable.

But what do we do when we see a contradiction.  You argue to keep the old 
halacha built on that understanding.  That position is tenable from two 
points of view.  Minhag- let us keep the old law, as that is what was 
accepted.  Regardless of the ocrrectness of the logic behind the law, we have 
accepted it, and should therefore maintain that standard.

We have discussed in this forum many times the logic of that.  Keeping 
minhag.  And the fact that many throw off minhag avos too easily.  This is a 
very strong argument, one not to be taken lightly.  And even if we concede 
that Chazal were wrong in their understanding, we can still keep their 
halacha.

The other point is to say that we keep the halacha on the assumption that 
science might be shown to be wrong in the future.  While most of science does 
fit into that category, it bristles against our 
Western-science-is-the-almighty upbringing.  I will not get into a discussion 
about outside influences on Torah and halacha, because I fall into the 
category that tries to reconcile Torah and modern science.  And when we see a 
contradiction, to say that I pin my hopes on science being shown to be wrong 
at some future time is not satisfying.  I find that falling back on the 
position of minhag, and that ALL of halacha in reality boils down to what we 
have accepted upon ourselves as binding, is the strongest reason to keep the 
halachic conclusions even without the scientific arguments behind them.

This raises one other issue.  What if I think I understand why Chazal made a 
statement, and based on current scientific knowledge we can resolve their 
problem.  Case in point:  8 month babies.  Having discussed this at length 
with my wife's obstetrician (he's mine too, but he only works on my wife), he 
stated that during the 8th month a fetus's lungs are at a critical point in 
maturation.  We discussed this concerning fasting on Tish'a B'Av.  He said 
that full day fasts often trigger labor (he cited studies in Israel where 
statistically there are more kids born on 11 & 12 Tishrey than any other 
day).  That being the case, he strenuously argued against full day fasts in 
the 8th month.  He said in the 7th month it does not trigger labor, in the 
9th the lungs are sufficiently developed.  He also noted that the process of 
lung development is most sensitive in the 8th month, and that even if born in 
the 7th month, the chances for survivial are better if left untreated.

Now that we know this, do we now say that this is what Chazal were refering 
to when they called an 8th month baby a nefel.  If so, can our medical 
intervention resolve this problem and therefore change the status of an 8th 
month baby.  I would argue that it can, and that therefore we can treat an 
8th month baby the same as a 9th month baby.

But where I don't have a way of understanding a scientific statement by 
Chazal, such as spontaneous generation, then I have to fall back on relying 
on minhag avoseynu.  If a matter of pikuach nefesh arose, though, I might 
argue that we do indeed have a safek, and hatzalas nefashos, together with 
our safek, should trump the standing minhag.

The other area of Chazal statements that have been shown to be incorrect is 
aggadic statements and other non-halachic statements, such as medical advice. 
 In these areas, which most posters have thrown up against the first camp, 
and which are not really the issue at all, we can choose to follow or not 
follow the scientific statements of Chazal as we like.  If I choose to 
believe that the sun exits the universe, and that it revolves around the 
Earth, how does that significantly change the way I run my life?  or the way 
I observe any halacha.  Not in a significant way.  

And a word about Chazal's medicine.  In many areas they are giving standard 
Eastern medical treatments, many of which are still in use today.  Don't 
throw out their suggestions so quickly, just because the Western medical 
profession wants to keep its monopoly on your money.

So non-halachic statements are a different point altogether from halachic 
ones.  To throw one up against the other is to confuse one issue with 
another.  I think we all agree that Chazal worked based on their 
understanding of the world around them, except maybe R. RW.  The question is 
how do we let that affect halacha.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

Eli Turkel wrote about the wonderful archeological find of a lintel that
read "Zehu Beis Medrasho shel R' Elazar HaKapor." It iis indeed very moving
but just two minor corrections.  According to the photographs that I have
seen in archeological publications (I admit that I have only seen
photograhs and not the real thing) It reads L'Beit Medrasho ...and not
"Zehu".  Also whether or not it was a lintel, or a sign giving directions,
or a wall plaque designating some sort of donation, or the top of some sort
of box in which items belonging to the beis hamedrash were stored or some
other thing is all a matter of debate among the archeologists.  In any
case, it is quite remarkable no matter what it was.  By the way, after the
word HaKappar, the stone is obviously broken, leading one to speculate that
maybe the end of the sentence was cut off.  
Shaul Weinreb

My mother and two of our boys, ages 9 and 11, are b'ezras Hashem coming on
a three week trip to Israel beginning July 26th. As I am responsible for
planning their itinerary, I would liike to ask information from anyone who
might be able to help me out as to:

1. A suitable tour guide for hire or organized tours that come(s)
recommended that may enrich their yedi'as and ahavas ha'aretz. (This is
the most important and essential information I need, and any assistance is
very, very much appreciated).

2. Suggestions as to places to visit and stay. They will probably want to
rent or borrow a room or apartment in Yerushalayim for some time, and
travel elsewhere for other parts of the time. If anyone has information on
weekly rentals that are affordable - I realize they are scarce to come by
- that would be most helpful.

3. General ideas. Open to any and all eitzos!

Thank you very much!

YGB

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

I'm a few days behind on Avodah, but just a quick clarification on email
address and web address for me or mail-jewish. The email address to reach
me is: mljewish@shamash.org

Mail-jewish is available both as an email subscriptin, send the message:
        subscribe mail-jewish your_first_name your_last_name
to: listproc@shamash.org

The Mail-Jewish archives, as well as an on-line search capability of the
archives and a link to the Kosher Restaurant database can be found on
the Mail-Jewish Home Page: http://shamash.org/mail-jewish

Hope I have not offended anyone with the minor advertisement for
mail-jewish, and as I have been partially of the air for the last year,
but hopefully back on line now, I welcome any Avodah members who may want
to visit by us as well.

Avi Feldblum 
mail-jewish Moderator 
mljewish@shamash.org

In v3n86, Rich Wolpoe writes:
: Re: fish and meat. I do not know if this is based on physilogicalsakkono or 
: whatever.

Fish and meat is an exception to the rule. In general, we disregard Chazal's
medical advice. An argument based on this particular din is therefore
inherently weak.

Second, if it were not for R' Avraham b haRambam's explanation of his father's
ommission of this practice (that this is yet another example of ommitted
medical recommendations), I'd have a simple explanation for the exception.
The danger named in mes. Pesachim is tzora'as. This statement is made after
tzora'as stopped appearing. It also is about the one disease we know to be
spiritually induced. I therefore would have argued that it's not medical
advice, but something of a more kabbalistic nature.

Perhaps this idea is still salvagable, in the sense that the Rambam may be
a da'as yachid in feeling the statement about meat and milk was straight
medical advice. This would explain why he's a da'as yachid in not listing
it as an issur.


It's hard to see, though, the connection to tzora'as. In general, the causes
of tzora'as are attributes that put another down in order to raise one's own
esteem -- ga'ava, lashon hara, etc... What does this have to do with fish
and meat?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jun-99: Levi, Korach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 328:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 95b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari III 17-20

In v3n85 Saul J Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu> categorizes different ways in which
metzius enters Chazal's discussions and writes:
: 2)When Chazal base a halachah on a sociological fact, e.g. the tav
: lemeytav debate, or the kevius seudah debate

I'd be very careful with this issue, and divide it into two very different
categories:

2a- When Chazal base a new halachah on sociological fact

2b- When they explain already existant halachah on something believed to be
true (whether it be sociological as in #2, historical as in  #6, etc...)

As we don't pasken based on ta'amei hamitzvos, in cases of 2b we can rest
assured that halachah doesn't change in light of new secular knowledge.

What makes the issue thorny is that it's not always clear from the gemara
when a p'sak is new, and when an already existing p'sak is being explained.
Perhaps this can be a second reason for R' Kook's reluctance to repeal chumros
that were stated in terms of bad science -- perhaps the science isn't given
as a basis (causatively) but as a ta'am.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jun-99: Levi, Korach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 328:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 95b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari III 17-20

Among those who ruled the land isn't worth lives (at least currently) is
R' YB Soloveitchik, who said that if giving back the kotel plaza would save
even a single net Jewish life, we'd be m'chuyavim to return the plaza.

The Rav, however, was convinced that lima'aseh (at least at the time of
this speech, in '68) more Jewish lives would be lost by such a return than
without it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jun-99: Levi, Korach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 328:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 95b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari III 17-20

In v3n87, 
: It would be more accurate (and rational) to state that I give the Chazal teh 
: benifit of the doubt when faced with contradictory "evidence" discoverd by
: the scientific method.

If an experiment shows that lima'aseh, X is true, I find this hard to argue.

: I would also say the scientific method is flawed by presuppositions.
: EG, Someone told me that Darwin MUST be right about his theory because ...

This is attacking a different subject -- the association of a given theory
to that experimental data. Yes, any mumcheh, including scientists, can fool
themselves. However, that could only discredit a theory, not an experimental
result repeated in numerous laboratories. (Admittedly, a single non-repeated
experiment could be misreported or the subject of very rose colored glasses.)

IOW, I would put questioning evolution and questioning the existance of dinosour
fossils in very different categories.

So, when Chazal describe a natural phenomenon (such as the gestational period
of snakes) that has been repeatedly disproven by observational data, I'm
inclined to believe they were either wrong, or (more likely) speaking b'derech
mashal and not about snake reproductivity at all.

After all, Shas isn't a science text. What would the science be doing in there
if not as normal aggadic metaphor?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jun-99: Levi, Korach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 328:4-10
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 95b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari III 17-20

In a message dated 6/13/99 7:26:46 PM EST, JoshHoff@aol.com writes:

> There is a letter from Rav Kook to Rabbi Haim Hirschenson of Hoboken, 
printed 
> 
>  in his Malki Be Kodesh, in which he writes that karbanos will be restored 
in 
> 
>  the days of mashiach. 
Leis Man D'palig, Halacha Psukah, see Rambam Hil. Mlochim chapter 11, it is 
also one of the 13 ikkrim Hatorah Hzos Lo Tihyeh Muchlefes.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>  (c) Who exactly is Rabbi Elazar HaKapor? and (d) are any other oral
traditions/laws attributed to him? <<
YGB responded:
> He is a Tanna that shows up mostly in Aggadata. In Katzrin, in the Golan,
the "Keisarin" of the Talmud (most scholars blew this one thinking it to
have been Caeseria) they found a lintel from a Beis Medrash that has
engraved in it: "Zehu Beis Medrasho shel R' Elazar HaKapor." Very moving
to see it! <
Thanks for the info.  After posting the question, I saw the interesting
bio. listed for him in the Ency. Talmudis.  If ET is accurate, he lived
approx. a century after Rabbi Y'hoshua, the Tanna (famous for his "lo
bashamayim hee" proclamation) who "first" listed three items that are
"motzi'im es ha'adam min ha'olam" (a phrase, BTW, which no one can find
used elsewhere by ChaZaL).  The obvious question is what the
latter-generation Tanna's dictum adds to that of the previous generation.
A thought comes to my mind: RY was considering what takes a person away
from the "olam ha'emes" that he otherwise would have a chailek in, hence he
considers three elements that are altogether "ra," the black component of a
black-and-white world; RE was considering (as per CWasserman) what takes a
person away from the "olam ha'm'dab'rim" [down to the "olam hachayos"] and
is listing three elements which can be utilized "l'ro'oh oh l'tovah" in
"olam hazeh."  (As to why RE's dictum was listed after "al t'dakdaik
b'bakbuk," ET notes that RY was not a handsome person, and the orderer of
mishnayos may have been paying tribute to him by listing a latter-day
reprise of his words.)  As always, further thoughts & comments are welcome.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
<MPoppers@KayeScholer.com>

While I am not suited to render judgment, I cannot understand the
perspective that it is worthwhile surrendering the Kosel to save Jewish
lives. Smacks of Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

YGB

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

In a message dated 6/14/99 9:58:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 While I am not suited to render judgment, I cannot understand the
 perspective that it is worthwhile surrendering the Kosel to save Jewish
 lives. Smacks of Yeshayahu Leibowitz.
 
 YGB
  >>
While I am certainly not suited for much of anything, I am curious as to your 
thoughts as to whether if  we were "guaranteed" the following choice - either 
have complete peace with a Jewish Yishuv in all of eretz Yisrael with the 
exception of the Kotel  or  destruction of  the Yishuv with the exception of 
a shearit hapleitah at the kotel, which would you choose?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

I dunno. But look at it this way. Not maintaining a State would sure save
lives. Not having declared it might have saved even more...

> While I am certainly not suited for much of anything, I am curious as to
> your thoughts as to whether if we were "guaranteed" the following choice
> - either have complete peace with a Jewish Yishuv in all of eretz
> Yisrael with the exception of the Kotel or destruction of the Yishuv
> with the exception of a shearit hapleitah at the kotel, which would you
> choose? 
> 
> Kol Tuv, Joel Rich
> 

YGB

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

--- David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> wrote:
>   How do you structure your time?
>   What proportion of your time do you devote to review?
>   What proportion of your time do you devote to iyun?
>   What about mikra/mishna/talmud/aggada/machshava?

I really believe that each person is different and that what works
for one doesn't necessarily work for another.

I'm probably different from most in that I find that (almost) all
forms of bekiut are a waste of time because I remember very little. 
I need to have an analytical structure in order to remember things
(this applies to my work as well--I'm a tax attorney).

My second problem is that I do most of my learning at night, when I'm
quite tired and likely to fall asleep while learning.  Moreover, my
mind tends to wander when I'm studying dry material (and considering
my work hours, it is very unlikely that I could get a steady
chavruta).

As a result, 100% of my learning is iyun (even chumash), though
obviously not as in depth as when I was in yeshivah.  Mostly sugyot
dealing with halacha l'ma'aseh and the sort of things I discuss on
Avodah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Smacks of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai-- "tain lee yavneh
v'chacha'me'ha."

Kol tuv,
Moshe


--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> While I am not suited to render judgment, I cannot understand the
> perspective that it is worthwhile surrendering the Kosel to save
> Jewish
> lives. Smacks of Yeshayahu Leibowitz.
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> I dunno. But look at it this way. Not maintaining a State would
> sure save
> lives. Not having declared it might have saved even more...

1.  On a practical level, I disagree--having the Jewish state has
saved lives of people fleeing persecution.  Remember how the nations
of the world refused to accept those fleeing the Holocaust?  Remember
the British White Paper?

2.  I believe (though I'm somewhat vague on this) that Rav
Lichtenstein differentiated between (a) having a yishuv in Eretz
Yisrael and (b) holding on to as much of Eretz Yisrael as possible. 
He was more willing to lose lives for (a) than for (b).  I don't
remember his reasoning.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

David Glassner:>>Despite some support from the G'ra about Hazal not having 
communicated all their reasons to us, the Dor Revi'i emphatically rejects such 
notions as having no halakhic weight.  The shofet "who will be in those days" 
must decide the halakha based on the evidence before him, that means the best 
evidence available (in light of whatever the best science available has to offer
as well as any other relevant evidence including evidence from accupuncturists, 
herbalists, etc.).  But it must be evidence that can be presented and discussed.
 It can't be evidence that is hidden.  Ha-nistarot la-Hasehm v'ha-niglot lanu 
u-l'vaneinu ad olam.  When Hazal could not fathom the depth of R. Meir's 
reasoning, they did not pasken according to him even though he enlightened the 
eyes of the wise.  Eruvin 13b.  <<

I would agreee with the shofeit in those days princiciple but limit to the case 
of a bona fide sanhedrin were making the decision. IOW a Sanhedrin may 
legitimately choose to ignore halahcic hidden agenda.

However, in the absence of that Sanhedrin, my understanding is that we are 
halachically bound by chazal.  This may work in 1 or more of several ways:
1) We do not fathon chazal's rationale, therefore it is best not to tamper with 
it.  Unlike the case of R. Meir whose Psak  NEVER "took off", Chazal's psak did 
have a period f being binding..
2) We have "estopped" ourselves from overturning Chazal.  This is how the TB is 
binding, etc.
3) Minhog avoiseinu Beyodeinu.  In order to have a stable system of psak, we 
need to maintain a certain degree of continuty that is not subject to popular 
whims but is based upon precedent and mesorah.
4)  Related to #3, we sometimes (see RED Teitz's elaboration) rely even upon 
erroneous decisions.  

Given all of the above, it seems to me that we should do our best to preserve 
the halacha AND to make the most sense of it that we can.

What about the case of melach sdomis, mayim acharonim, and the machlokes Tosfos 
and the GRA as to whetehr or not it still applies?

IMHO, Tosfos could overturn that din because they too had a "hidden agenda", 
i.e. mesoras/minhog Ashkenaz which occasionally ignored, modified , or 
superceded various principles in TB.  W/O said Mesora, I, too would concur with 
the GRA's thesis.  (The GRA leshitoso seems to ignore the halachic weight of 
said Mesorah, at least when it conflicts with TB).

BTW, in respect to Micha's admonition, I will do my best to avoid further 
postings on this thread, unless/until Micha allows it.

Rich Wolpoe





ifRa at and obut aht 

It occured to me when re-reading Parshas Tzitzis for Maftir, that the reason we 
wear 2 talleisim is that  Tallis Gaddol corresponds to Shvi'i (the bigger aliyo)
and Tallis Koton corresponds Maftir (the smaller aliyo) <smile>.

Rich Wolpoe

I am a bit puzzled at some of the stops made in this week's Parsha.

EG, the end of koehin for shabbos Mincho etc. Umadua tisnas'u al kehal Hashem?  
does not appear to be a desibrable place to stop.

Also, koehin on Shabbos ends with kis istoreir oleinu... and Levi begins Af lo 
el eretz...  neither of which appear to be appropriate (at least they beg an 
explanation).  Does anyone discuss this?

Rich Wolpoe 

In a message dated 6/14/99 7:40:39 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> The danger named in mes. Pesachim is tzora'as. This statement is made after
>  tzora'as stopped appearing. It also is about the one disease we know to be
>  spiritually induced. I therefore would have argued that it's not medical
>  advice, but something of a more kabbalistic nature.
>  
See Rambam end of Hil. Tumaas Tzoras and his Pirush Hamishnayos Ngo'im 12:5, 
Tzoras being Pela refers to Batim and Bgodim, WRT human the Halochos are Pela 
(Ngo'im 12:5) not it's Metzius, see also Vayikra Rabboh 15 that it is a 
natural phenomenon, (if I am not mistaken the Rambam in his Sifrei Rfuah 
deals with cures for Tzoras/ngo'im), hence one can get Tzora'/ngo'im from 
natural causes, such as (Byemei Hashas Lchol Hadeios) thru eating fish with 
meat/milk.

As for Tzora'as/ngo'im Bizman Hazeh see Tosfos Brochos 5b.

Also from Brochos 5 and Eirchin 15a we see other Aveiros that Ngo'im come, 
(and see Teitch of Nega in Ramban Parshas Tazria)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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         ]