Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 092

Wednesday, June 16 1999

• Hypothesis, Chazal were 3000 years ahead of their time
• Re: R. Elazar Hakapar
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• Re: Hypothesis, Chazal were 3000 years ahead of their time
• Re: R. Elazar Hakapar
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• snakes
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• Hazal's knowledge of embryology
• Re: Hazal's knowledge of embryology
• Re: Hazal's knowledge of embryology [2]
• Re: To have a State or not to have a State
• Re: Hazal's knowledge of embryology [2]
• Nishtaneh Hatevah
• Re: To have a State or Not to have a State
• Re: Fish and Meat
• Re: To have a State or Not to have a State
• New e-mail list: Jewish medical ethics and medical halacha
• Re: To have a State or Not to have a State/ darchei noam
• Re: To have a State or Not to have a State/ darchei noam
• Re: New e-mail list: Jewish medical ethics and medical halacha
• Re: New e-mail list: Jewish medical ethics and medical halacha

In discussing Tehicyas haMeisim to the baalei Batim in my shul, I mentioned 
about the chazal that states the little bone in the back of the neck will start 
the regeneration process...  While I do not know how this will happen, in the 
age of cloning, we at least have a clue as to how a single cell can be used to 
generate a "duplicate".  While it might be a big leap to go from generating a 
clone to resurrecting a dead person, pieces of the puzzle are just beggining to 
come to light.

Rich Wolpoe

R. Elazar Hakapar is also the author of a beraita recorded on Hulin 28a in which he states the opinion that there is no Biblical obligation to perform shehita on a bird ("ein shehita l'ohf min ha-Torah").  Interestingly his name is given in the beraita as R. Elazar Hakapar Ba-rebi.  Even more interestingly, immediately after quoting R. Elazar Hakapar, the Gemara asks which Tanna disagrees with R. Elazar Hakapar, to which the reply is Rebi.  The Gemara then quotes the very famous beraita which begins by quoting the verse in Re'eh "v'zavahta v'akhalta ka'asher tzivitikha" from which Rebi deduces from the extra word tzivitikha that the laws of shehitah (i.e., the obligation to perform shehitah on cattle and fowl and the minimum shiur required to avoid creating neveilah) were given to Moshe orally.  (This by the way seems to be a direct contradiction of the Rambam who says that there was never a disagreement about halakhot l'Moshe mi-Sinai.  But R. Elazar Hakapar obviously does no!
!
!
t agree either that there was a halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai on the main point of Rebi's drasha which is that there was a Biblical obligation to perform shehitah on a bird.  Furthermore this all goes according R. Akiva (Hulin 16b-17a) who held that shehitah was limited to sacrifices in the desert and hulin only required nehirah.  R. Ishmael disagrees and says that shehitah was required except that there was a separate prohibition to perform shehitah on Hulin.  So according to R. Ishmael the verse ka'asher tzivitikha does not refer to halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai but to the oblibgation to perform shehitah on kodshim.  This is all explained at length by the Dor Revi'i of course, but he never raises the point that this clear dispute about the halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai directly contradicts the Rambam's assertion that there was never a dispute concerning a halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai.  Of course, the Havot Yair in his famous t'shuvah (192?, 198?) brings numerous other examples of disputes abou!
!
!
t halakha l'Moshe mi-Sinai, but I don't remember if he included this one.

That actually was a digression.  The point I had originally wanted to raise was just that one might assume from the text that R. Elazar Hakapar was the son of Rebi.  But Rashi seems to want to preclude such an interpretation by commenting directly on "Ba-rebi" that he was the Gadol Hador.  However, Rashi does not let us know who this Gadol Hador was.  Does anyone know who R. Elazar Hakapar's father really was?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> R' Teitz is not saying it emphatically enough. The (unprovable) fact is,
> there would be very little left of Yahadut without the State of Israel.
> The small Yishuv would have been annhilated long ago, and there would
> probably be a few enclaves of learning based communities in the U.S.,
> but the very fact of the existence of Medinat Yisrael has been what has
> sustained the post- Holocaust generation of Jews. As great as the
> Yeshivot in the U.S. are, they pale in comparision with what has been
> achieved in Israel. The real forward motion in Psak, in scholarship, in
> Jewish thought, has passed from the last of the Europeans living in
> America, to the vibrant Torah community in Israel. This applies across
> the whole spectrum of the Jewish world. 
>

Right. And similar statements can be made about the Kosel. My point
precisely. 

YGB

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> In discussing Tehicyas haMeisim to the baalei Batim in my shul, I
> mentioned about the chazal that states the little bone in the back of
> the neck will start the regeneration process...  While I do not know how
> this will happen, in the age of cloning, we at least have a clue as to
> how a single cell can be used to generate a "duplicate".  While it might
> be a big leap to go from generating a clone to resurrecting a dead
> person, pieces of the puzzle are just beggining to come to light. 
>

Baruch she'kivanta l'R' Aryeh Kaplan. 

YGB

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

"Berebi" does not mean "Son of Rebi". It is not a contraction. It is a
word unto itself.

YGB

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

--- Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > R' Teitz is not saying it emphatically enough. The (unprovable)
> fact is,
> > there would be very little left of Yahadut without the State of
> Israel.
> > The small Yishuv would have been annhilated long ago, and there
> would
> > probably be a few enclaves of learning based communities in the
> U.S.,
> > but the very fact of the existence of Medinat Yisrael has been
> what has
> > sustained the post- Holocaust generation of Jews. As great as the
> > Yeshivot in the U.S. are, they pale in comparision with what has
> been
> > achieved in Israel. The real forward motion in Psak, in
> scholarship, in
> > Jewish thought, has passed from the last of the Europeans living
> in
> > America, to the vibrant Torah community in Israel. This applies
> across
> > the whole spectrum of the Jewish world. 
> >
> 
> Right. And similar statements can be made about the Kosel. My point
> precisely. 


 
I thought my mind might be playing tricks on me, so I went back to
the archives.  Here is the previous thread:
<<
[RYGB:]
 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.
 
[Joel Rich]
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?

[RYGB:]
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...
>>

Basically, RYGB believes that it is worth keeping the Kotel even in
the face of losing lives.  And similarly with respect to Eretz
Yisrael.  Joel Rich argued that the ultimate goal should be saving
lives.  RYGB countered that if that's the case, we should never have
declared a State.  R. ED Teitz and TROMBAEDU@aol.com argued that a
state--unlike the Kotel--has saved both physical and spiritual lives.
 
Personally, I believe that the issue of spiritual lifesaving muddies
the waters.  The classic heter of pikuach nefesh applies only to
physical lives; in some cases it may be extended to spiritual lives,
but it's not clear to me that that is always the case.

RYGB seems to believe that if something (Israel, Kotel) is important
to the Jewish people, we should lose lives for it.  I believe that
pikuach nefesh is paramount and that the State of Israel, unlike the
Kotel, has saved physical lives.

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> Personally, I believe that the issue of spiritual lifesaving muddies the
> waters.  The classic heter of pikuach nefesh applies only to physical
> lives; in some cases it may be extended to spiritual lives, but it's not
> clear to me that that is always the case. 
> 

Hmmm, what about the halacha that one may be Mechallel Shabbos to save a
Jewish soul from Shmad?

Double Hmmm: So all of you hold that it is worthwhile having a Jewish
State only if more physical lives will be saved as a result - is that the
basis of the fourth mitzvas aseh added by the Ramban?

YGB

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

>>>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.<<
> 
> And my point is, why PRESUME they are wrong when they might have been correct 
> all along at a non-literal level?
> 
When it comes to aggadata one can interpret things as non-literal.
However, whenever a psak is involved one has decide whether to take
the Chazal's statement as literal or an exaggeration or misinformed
or that nature has changed. Whatever, is decided it has real implications.

For example, Tosafot mention that "our" cows have an extra lobe in
the lung that makes every cow a tereifa. Do we stop eating beef
or do we somehow reexpalin the gemara (tosafot suggests nishtany hateva).

As is well know there is a cherem hakodmonim against using medicines from
the Gemara.

How come there are exceptions to this rule and is there any rule to
the exceptions (sorry for the contortions).
As being discussed - eating fish & meat
Shulchan Arukh harav has other cases like eating peeled garlic,
eating olives is bad for memory, etc. 
None of these are mention in Rambam or SA but later poskim frequently
accept them. I once saw an entire book on things to avoid.

Eli Turkel

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> > Personally, I believe that the issue of spiritual lifesaving
> muddies the
> > waters.  The classic heter of pikuach nefesh applies only to
> physical
> > lives; in some cases it may be extended to spiritual lives, but
> it's not
> > clear to me that that is always the case. 
> > 
> 
> Hmmm, what about the halacha that one may be Mechallel Shabbos to
> save a
> Jewish soul from Shmad?
> 

That's the "some cases" I referred to.  On the other hand, no one I
know allows you to drive your car on Shabbat to bring a non-religious
Jew to your home in the hope that he'll become religious.  Isn't that
the more relevant comparison to the case of the Kotel, which may have
inspired some Jews to be chozer b't'shuvah?

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

REDT writes:

> 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.

I have very much enjoyed the efforts of R. Teitz and other listmembers
to demonstrate that Hazal's statements in fact anticipated various
scientific discoveries or may yet do so.  There is no doubt in my mind
that such attempts to reconcile divrei Hazal with current or anticipated
scientific advances are laudable.  But they should be tempered with a
clear appraisal and understanding of divrei Hazal and (le-havdil) both
contemporary and ancient science.

R. Teitz's reference to Niddah 31a is a case in point.  From the same
daf, it is clear that Hazal had absolutely no idea that the male
contributes chromosomal material in the fertilization process. [Note how
the term "fertilization" reflects an agricultural analogy that Hazal
embraced, but that predates the contemporary understanding of that
process.  Ve-ein kan makom le-ha'arikh.].  I refer to the famous ma'amar
regarding the three partners in the creation of a fetus, which gives a
detailed account of what the male and female contribute, an account that
cannot be squared with the contemporary understanding of fertilization.

Before anyone begins to debate this point, I would point out that
Hazal's description of what the male and female contribute is virtually
identical to the list established by Galen, the great Roman physician.
Moreover, one should recognize that Hazal were siding with Galen against
Aristotle, who writes in his De Anima that the woman contributes all of
the physical material to the fetus and the male contributes only the
"animating force."  Thus, in following Galen, Hazal were far closer to
today's consensus than Aristotle was.  I think that significant, but it
does not obscure the fact that Hazal do not demonstrate any familiarity
with the X and Y chromosomes, the discovery of which awaited the
invention of the microscope.  For a brief survey of this issue, see the
comments of Ramban (also a physician) on the pasuk "Ishah ki tazri'a."
For what it's worth, I think Ramban himself is engaging in a somewhat
creative interpretation of Hazal.  In any case, he clearly equivocates
on the exact role of the egg, which Hazal do not.

In sum, we revere Hazal as masters of the Mesorah, as exemplars of
spiritual excellence and inspiring giants of morality.  And they were
clearly current with the scientific knowledge of their time.  But let us
also recognize the limitations that they and their contemporaries faced
in scientific fields such as embryology.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark



 

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> Before anyone begins to debate this point, I would point out that
> Hazal's description of what the male and female contribute is
> virtually
> identical to the list established by Galen, the great Roman
> physician.
> Moreover, one should recognize that Hazal were siding with Galen
> against
> Aristotle, who writes in his De Anima that the woman contributes
> all of
> the physical material to the fetus and the male contributes only
> the
> "animating force."  Thus, in following Galen, Hazal were far closer
> to
> today's consensus than Aristotle was.  
 
I would like to add to Eli's learned words that the (previously
mentioned) Tradition article entitled (something like) "Chazal's
Conception of Conception" by Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman (my
brother-in-law) has an in-depth discussion of Galen on this very
point.

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

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> In sum, we revere Hazal as masters of the Mesorah, as exemplars of
> spiritual excellence and inspiring giants of morality.  And they
> were
> clearly current with the scientific knowledge of their time.  But
> let us
> also recognize the limitations that they and their contemporaries
> faced
> in scientific fields such as embryology.
> 

I agree with Eli as to Chazal's actual knowledge of science. 
Nevertheless, I still think that it is possible that where halacha is
based on science that Chazal may have had siyata d'shmaya in reaching
the correct result even where their understanding of science was
incorrect.  OTOH, I have no conceptual problem in believing that 
some halachot found in chazal are incorrect because chazal were human
and did not understand science the way we do.

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

 
> That's the "some cases" I referred to.  On the other hand, no one I know
> allows you to drive your car on Shabbat to bring a non-religious Jew to
> your home in the hope that he'll become religious.  Isn't that the more
> relevant comparison to the case of the Kotel, which may have inspired
> some Jews to be chozer b't'shuvah? 
> 

Lav davka. If the car was provento restore the non-religious Jew, maybe.
But it is not, and the Kosel is. Not that this is the sum total of the
Kosel's significance...

YGB

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

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> incorrect.  OTOH, I have no conceptual problem in believing that some
> halachot found in chazal are incorrect because chazal were human and did
> not understand science the way we do. 
>

Without getting into specifics, I am curious as to the source of this
belief expressed by REC and RMF. R' Aharon Soloveitchik told me that he
would, were it in his power, place anyone who held said belief (including
the Pachad Yitzchok - R' Lampornati himself) in Cherem.

YGB

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

Reb Yitzchok Zirkind writes: "Rachmonoh Litzlan, however we do apply the
rule of "Nishtanu Hativi'im" see in the end of the Sdei Chemed the
Birzanher Rav's Kllolim under Nishtanu Hativi'im."
Please tell us what he writes there I don't have a Sdei Chemed and I am
curious to find out. Incidentally, my great grandfather was a Talmid Muvhak
of the Brezhaner Rav.  He used to tell my father at the Pesach Seder how
the Brezhaner Rav used to be mekayem the mitzvos of the evening.  My father
remembers how his grandfather used to imitate his Rebbe (with whom he used
to spend the pesach yom tov for many years) and before eating Matzah he
would pick up a small olive size piece of matzah and say, "Does this look
like a zayis?" then he would nod his head and eat eat it L'Shem Mitzvah.
My greatgrandfather would tell him this story every time the subject of the
proper shiur kezayis would arise  in conversation.  This sort of flies in
the face of what I was told by many people during my yeshiva days that
nishtaneh hatevah and that "our olives" are not the same as "their olives"
were.
Shaul Weinreb

<<
> With no intention of getting involved in the issue, (and I don't think this 
> is what RYGB meant), I am just pointing out that IMHO this is circular 
> reasoning, had there not been a Medina the hijacking would not have 
happened.
>>

Chevron 1929.  A few years BEFORE the Medina.  Still think we're safe?  And 
how about all the other examples?  From one line you discard the rest of the 
questions?  If Entebbe was the ONLY objection you could raise, it still seems 
to me that the good (and protection) of the Medina FAR outweighs the risks, 
aside from all the hakaras ha-tov that the right wing owes all the chilonim 
whose tax shekalim they use to further their own anti-Medina agenda.  Shame 
on the right wing!

EDT

<<
So please, let's not ridicule what Chazal wrote about eating fish with meat !
>>

No one is ridiculing, only questioning.

All the scientific data are fascinating, but I have a question.  Does a piece 
of bread and a drink of alcohol somehow alter the mixing of the dangerous 
compounds?  Chazal forbade eating them concurrently, not consecutively.  
Seems that what goes on in the digestive system was not Chazal's issue at 
all.  So all the scientific data quoted are irrelevant.  One has to show a 
danger only when eaten simultaneously.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> right wing owes all the chilonim whose tax shekalim they use to further
> their own anti-Medina agenda.  Shame on the right wing! 
> 

Darchei Noam?


YGB

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

My brother-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman ("Eddie" to all who know
him), is starting an e-mail list dedicated to Jewish medical ethics
and medical halacha.  It is a group devoted to frum health care
professionals in training (e.g., medical, dental, PA or nursing
students, medical residents, etc.). It is in its early stages and
will begin more formally in the fall.

All interested people can e-mail saraneddie@aol.com for information.

P.S.: The exact reference for his article which I've mentioned is
"The Rabbinic Conception of Conception: An Exercise in Fertility,"
Tradition 31:1 (1996), 33-63. 

_________________________________________________________
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:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > right wing owes all the chilonim whose tax shekalim they use to
> further
> > their own anti-Medina agenda.  Shame on the right wing! 
> > 
> 
> Darchei Noam?
> 

When chilul haShem is being perpetrated by certain circles, should we
treat them with darchei noam with respect to the object of chilul haShem?
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> When chilul haShem is being perpetrated by certain circles, should we
> treat them with darchei noam with respect to the object of chilul
> haShem? 
> 

Yes.

Especially when it is your judgment only, not even an halachic one (or,
which Posek has been consulted about this chiyuv mecho'o of whos psak I am
unaware).

YGB

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

There already is such a list, Nehorai. Their address appears in the cc
section of the address above.

On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> My brother-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman ("Eddie" to all who know
> him), is starting an e-mail list dedicated to Jewish medical ethics
> and medical halacha.  It is a group devoted to frum health care
> professionals in training (e.g., medical, dental, PA or nursing
> students, medical residents, etc.). It is in its early stages and
> will begin more formally in the fall.
> 
> All interested people can e-mail saraneddie@aol.com for information.
> 
> P.S.: The exact reference for his article which I've mentioned is
> "The Rabbinic Conception of Conception: An Exercise in Fertility,"
> Tradition 31:1 (1996), 33-63. 
> 
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 

YGB

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

I think that the main difference is that my brother-in-law's list
will be devoted solely to frum health care professionals in training
(e.g., medical, dental, PA or nursing students, medical residents,
etc.).  I will also ask Eddie for more clarification of any other
differences between his list and Nehorai.

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> There already is such a list, Nehorai. Their address appears in the
> cc
> section of the address above.
> 
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
> 
> > My brother-in-law, Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman ("Eddie" to all who
> know
> > him), is starting an e-mail list dedicated to Jewish medical
> ethics
> > and medical halacha.  It is a group devoted to frum health care
> > professionals in training (e.g., medical, dental, PA or nursing
> > students, medical residents, etc.). It is in its early stages and
> > will begin more formally in the fall.
> > 
> > All interested people can e-mail saraneddie@aol.com for
> information.
> > 
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

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


[ 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         ]