Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 344

Tuesday, February 8 2000

• Re: Louis Ginzberg Anecdote)
• interesting story
• limiting posts
• Re: interesting story
• Re: limiting posts
• Ein Dorshin
• Re: smoking
• Re: Observations on Los Angeles
• Re: Kos shel ikkarin
• Re: 3 questions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)
• Gezel Akum
• Calendical Issues
• Re: Avodah V4 #332
• Re: informing relatives of a death
• Re: Yayin Mevushal
• Re: Science and halacha

Whoops!

I read the book, and my memory, is obviously, therefore, failing on the eve
of my 38th birthday (which, should coincide, being a multiple of 19, but is
off by two days).

As to elevators, there are inherent problems in their use, which have to do
with the nature of electric motors and the generation of electricity - which
is why a proper Shabbos elevator is far more complex than simply having it
stop at every floor. Seeing that Prof. Ginzberg was an "illui atzum" (there
is a general consensus, I have heard, that until RYBS's arrival in the USA
he was the greatest Talmud scholar here, although I think this underrates
the Meitchiter, v'yesh gorsim even after RYBS's arrival), I assume he was
awar of this.

In general, R' Herschel Maryles and myself have an ongoing debate as to
Prof. Ginzberg's level of emunah, I taking a dimmer view thereof -
particularly after having read the book that R' David mentions here.

As to the motivations for stories I tell, all three motivations that RDR
proposes here have been reasons for me to tell over anecdotes, in various
forms and sundry audiences. Today's motivation was some lightbulb inside the
head effect generated by RRW's humorous aside.

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



----- Original Message -----
From: David Roth <droth@pobox.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 3:17 PM
Subject: Louis Ginzberg Anecdote (was Re: Smoking - Humor alert)


> In v4n341, R. Bechhofer repeats a story of when "an old yiddele once
> walked Prof. Louis Ginzberg of JTS into a high rise apartment
> building on Shabbos."  I'd like to bring the original source for the
> story, which gives a slightly different perspective.
>
> The following is found in Eli Ginzberg's biography of his father,
> _Keeper of the Law_:
>
>         His legal opinions covered a wide range of subjects,
>    including those on which he could bring his sense of humor to
>    bear.  He was fond of telling the story of being asked by his
>    colleague Dr. Marx, shortly after the latter's arrival in this
>    country, whether one was permitted to use an elevator on the
>    Sabbath.  My father replied that it was not permitted, and Marx
>    started his climb of six stories.  My father, always restive when
>    confronted with the rigidities of German orthodoxy, awaited the
>    return of the elevator to the ground floor, stepped in, and rode
>    up.  Marx, astonished, reminded him that he had just stated that
>    using an elevator was not permitted.  He replied: "I didn't ask
>    for an opinion!" [_Keeper of the Law_, p.214-215]
>
> I found this to be curious, but upon further research, one learns
> that at that time (1903, according to my calculations), most
> elevators had operators (presumably not Jewish), not buttons, so
> this doesn't indicate Ginzberg's views on using electricity (In his
> recently published responsa, which I have not seen, he apparently
> forbids turning on a radio, and indeed, asking a non-Jew to turn on
> a radio).
>
> In this version of the story, it doesn't seem to me that Ginzberg is
> flouting the halakha, but rather answering the question in a manner
> appropriate to the questioner, regardless of his personal approach to
> the issue, in a rather playful manner.
>
> I am curious about how widespread stories about famous JTS professors
> (I've heard stories about Ginzberg and Lieberman, to be sure) are in
> the frum community, and the purpose they serve.  It would be
> inappropriate to bury Avodah in postings of anecdotes about non-O
> scholars (though I'd be interested in hearing them via private email,
> which I could pass on to anyone who's interested), but I think the
> question of why we tell these stories could be interesting.  When I've
> heard the stories, they seem to fall into a few categories:
>
> 1) Positive story => JTS used to have "real" scholars, and now
>    that they're gone, JTS is "bankrupt."
>
> 2) Negative story => even JTS's best scholars were inherently
>    flawed, and JTS was "bankrupt" from the beginning.
>
> 3) No polemical content, just a story about an interesting Jewish
>    scholar.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Kol Tuv,
> David
> droth@pobox.com
>
>

	I heard an interesting story tonight before Maariv.  It appears that
there was a Rav Miller in America around the turn of the century who
wrote pamphlets advocating certain construction changes which would have
allowed any home bathtub to be a kosher mikva.  His halachic points were
apparently valid,  but he was disapproved of by gedolei hador (Rav Chaim
Ozer was mentioned) for practical reasons.

	Has anyone heard of this?

Gershon

As an incentive to take certain discussions off list (especially the more
incendiary or pointless ones), why don't  we institute posting limits per
person per week -- if every listmember was limited even to 7 per week it
would cut down on a lot of the bandwith and people would think twice or
thrice about whether someone they wouldn't know from the Satmar Rebbe
agreed or didn't agree with another such person.  
   

Actually, R' Nissan Telushkin in Taharas Mayim quotes R' Dovid Miller (a
Slabodka talmid who was, I believe, in LA) with some deference - his shiur
of 40 se'ah is regarded, however, as too meykil (85 gallons). He actually
proposed building mikva'os as consoles and cabinets and provides plans and
drawings (I do not have the book, but have seen it). This is the first I
have heard of opposition.

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


----- Original Message -----
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2000 10:19 PM
Subject: interesting story


> I heard an interesting story tonight before Maariv.  It appears that
> there was a Rav Miller in America around the turn of the century who
> wrote pamphlets advocating certain construction changes which would have
> allowed any home bathtub to be a kosher mikva.  His halachic points were
> apparently valid,  but he was disapproved of by gedolei hador (Rav Chaim
> Ozer was mentioned) for practical reasons.
>
> Has anyone heard of this?
>
> Gershon
>

On 7 Feb 00, at 23:19, Alan Davidson wrote:

> As an incentive to take certain discussions off list (especially the more
> incendiary or pointless ones), why don't  we institute posting limits per
> person per week -- if every listmember was limited even to 7 per week it
> would cut down on a lot of the bandwith and people would think twice or
> thrice about whether someone they wouldn't know from the Satmar Rebbe
> agreed or didn't agree with another such person.  
>    
> 

7 posts per person per week would cut this list to a digest every 
two days (my best guess - Micha?), and would be a stiff limit 
relative to lists I have seen that have limits. We are on one very 
high volume list that has a listwide maximum of 125 posts per day, 
an enforced (per person) maximum of 4 per day and an unenforced 
(per person) maximum of one off topic post per day. 

In my experience, this list's volume is not at all unreasonable.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

"Ein Dorshin" is found in the Mishnah Chagiga 2:1, and in the Rambam
Issurei Biah 22:17, and I suppose elsewhere as well. Given how difficult
it is to find a shiur on such subjects, it certainly seems to me that
this is an *accepted* halacha, which we should violate no quicker than we
violate other halachos. In other words, the Avodah memberhsip agreement
should not need to explicitly point out that our discussions will adhere
to the limits imposed by "Ein Dorshin"; this point is already included in
our acceptance of Halachah as binding.

But the question can still be asked: What is included in Ein Dorshin, and
what is not included? For example, does it apply to e-mail lists?

In Sept 98, almost a year and a half ago, we had a discussion similar to
this one, and then too, Rabbi Bechhofer argued that it should NOT be
discussed in Avodah, because of Ein Dorshin. In a lengthy post in Avodah
1:45, http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n045.shtml#12 I reluctantly
agreed with Rabbi Bechhofer, and I explained how I understood that
Mishna, and why I believe that it DOES apply to email discussions such as
this one.

In summary, the essence of Ein Dorshin is NOT that certain subjects are
taboo and not to be talked about. Rather, in most classroom situations,
there is a very real danger that one or more students will miss part of
the lesson. This is sad but tolerable most of the time, but it is not
acceptable for Arayos, where the yetzer hara is particularly strong, and
people are likely to jump to the wrong conclusion if they catch only part
of the shiur. The proverb says, "If he had half a brain, he'd be
dangerous", meaning that there are subjects where total ignorance is
preferable to partial knowledge. Arayos is in that category. "Ein Dorshin
B'arayos Ela B'shlosha" - "Arayos may not be taught except in groups of
three [or less]", because if there are only one or two students, the
teacher is sure to have their full attention the entire time, whereas if
there are three students or more, the others may get distracted while the
teacher answers a particular student's question. This sort of
inattentiveness also occurs in Cyber Batei Medrash such as Avodah, and I
agree that Ein Dorshin does prohibit certain conversations from appearing
in Avodah.

Having referred to my Sept 98 post, I feel obligated to address a point
which I mentioned there, and promised to revisit, but did not. I will
now:

In that post, I also explained why I feel that (in contrast to email,)
printed seforim are NOT included in this issur of Ein Dorshin. If I am
correct in this, then there ought to be printed seforim available from
which married people could learn how the Torah expects them to act when
they are *not* in nidah, and in that posting I bemoaned the lack of such
seforim. In my last paragraph there, I mentioned that I had heard about a
sefer which has been published in Israel which deals specifically with
these topics. I was able to obtain a copy, and am pleased to report that
it certainly does offer an extensive explanation of Orach Chaim 240, and
how to apply those concepts in practice. However, the author (who
published it anonymously) is trying to avoid publicity, so just send me a
little note, and I'll tell you the title. (I obtained my copy from
1-800-EICHLER with just the title. Be warned that it is written in
Hebrew.)

(PS: I also agree that moderating this list is a good idea, but I don't
want to impose on Micha. I wish I could volunteer, but I don't have the
time either. If no one else comes forward, maybe we should move to
Mail-Jewish?)

Akiva Miller


________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

----- Original Message ----- > Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 22:47:05 +0200
(IST)
> From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
> Subject: smoking
>
> >
> > I know that in Bnei Akiva Yeshivot smoking is less prevalent than
it
> > was 20 years ago, though  I couldn't say if it is b/c of western
> > influence or b/c of these shu"t.  The reason is that teachers and
> > rabbis who smoke won't present these shu"t to their students....
> >
> I don't think there is any single reason. It just isn't "cool" as it
> is discouraged by both  rebbeim and parents. I don't think they go
through
> responsa in detail.

Actually, many do read responsa in detail, and responsa are many times
the basis for heated discussions both in the Yeshivot/Ulpanot and on
Shabbat at Bnei Akiva meets.

If you look through Rav HaLevy's shu"t, for instance, you will find
many shu"t that are actually in response to questions from Israeli
teenagers and first year Hesder students.

Shoshana L. Boulil

I just returned from a long weekend in Los Angeles, where I stayed with a 
friend who lives in Hancock Park, which is just east of the heart of the 
Orthodox community centered on Fairfax near Melrose (for those of you who 
know L.A.).

I had a wonderful time, and was quite surprised and delighted by what has 
been happening in L.A. I lived in the Westwood area for a year and half in 
the late 1980s. Back then the Fairfax district was worse than moribund -- it 
was dirty, closed-up, defeated. Now the whole area is teeming with joyous 
Yiddishkeit. There are rows and rows of Kosher restaurants, both Middle 
Eastern and old-time fat-laden heart-stopping Ashkenazi fare. Jewish 
bookstores are next to even better Jewish bookstores, and real Judaica shops 
of the sort one sees in New York (but, alas, not in Chicago anymore) sit next 
to inviting little shuls. There are lots of young families, children 
everywhere. The sidewalks are full. Everyone smiles. The day schools are 
housed in new buildings that look as fresh (and almost as expensive) as the 
L.A. County Art Museum, which is up the street. Everything is hopping, 
everything is upbeat. I davened at a storefront Chabad that was just lit up 
with the California sunlight. Everything seemed fresh, and new, and genuine.

I should note that the frum neighborhood sits right next to the ultra-hip 
Melrose strip, which, block for block, packs in more pure L.A. weirdness than 
anywhere else in the city. (Hair colors come in various rainbow hues. All 
body parts are pierced. The storefronts are bizarre, selling things I've 
never heard about, and would be afraid to try to describe. The Kawasaki 
bikers, all 150 of them, park on a different corner than the Harley-Davidson 
guys, who tatooed to the nostrils. Old men with payyes shuffle along the 
street oblivious to all of this -- and probably unoffended by it, after all 
these years. Pure L.A.)

There is a real joy in this place. I can't explain it completely, but it 
comes more of less down to this: Renewal is happiness. We can parade it on 
the street -- tzitzit out, who cares? -- and revel in it. Otherwise, what's 
the point? 

Maybe we all need to open up the shades and let this spririt in.

David Finch

It seems lichora that EVEN TEMPORARY reversal of fertility may come under
the rubric of *kos shel ikkarin*. I suggest you look in the Minchat Chinuch
(Mitzva 291) quoting the lashon of the Sefer HaChinuch re: makkot mardut
for "v'chen hamoshiv chaveiro bamayim o basheleg AD SHEBATEL MIMENU KOACH
EVREI HA'ZERA". And that's why *sirus* is assur even "mesares acharei mesares"
(EH 5:11). Indeed, the Minchat Chinuch writes that's it's assur eve to give
*kos shel ikkarin* to someone who was mesuras (it's from a mefrash gematra
in Shabbat 111a).

Josh

Hi All,

I apologise for not having read any of the rest of the thread and may be
reiterating what others have said -

However -

According to almost any classical source that I have seen  - the machlokes
is whether or not the amen is a hefsek.  Ashkenazim (ramoh, etc) seem to
uniformly pasken that it is not a hefsek and therefore goal yisroel should
be said out loud and the kehilla should answer.  The sefaradi
poskim(mechaber, etc) disagree and say that amen is a hefsek ad it should
not be answered - however, they do not say not to say the brochoh out loud
- just that you can't answer.  Some of the poskim suggest that in order to
appease both shitos - the kehilla should say the brochah with the chazan
and not come into the shayla of whether to answer or not.  This eitzah
clearly implies that both shitos hold that the brochah is said out load.  I
have never seen the eitzah of saying the goal yisroel quietly in a primary
source.  However, the Chasam Sofer (maybe the Ksav Soffer - I can't remeber
right now) brings down in his tshuvos this minhag of not finishing the goal
yisroel brochaha and praises this minhag. As far as I know - there is no
other mekor to the minhag.  (See sefer minhagei yisroel torah chelek 1(?))

Take care,

Joel

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:

> On 7 Feb 00, at 16:19, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
>
> > R' Henkin is adamant that the Shatz must say "goal yisrael" out loud.
> > IIRC, he compares it to the first bracha ("yotzer ohr oovorai
> > choshech..."), which must also be said out loud by the Shatz.
>
> See Mishna Brura 66:35 who apparently also assumes that Goal
> Yisroel is said out loud.
>
> > On one more related note:
> >
> > R' Moshe (don't remember exactly where offhand, but if anyone's
> > interested, I can look it up) states that the shatz, during kedusha,
> > should say all the words out loud.  (This is for the benefit of those
> > still in the middle of shemona esrai.)
>
> See Biur Halacha 125 s"v Elo Shoskin. I have seen this done both
> ways. The prevalent minhag among Bnei Ashkenaz here seems to
> be for the Shaliach Tzibur to say it with the kahal.
>
> -- Carl
>
> Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
> Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
> Thank you very much.
>
> Carl and Adina Sherer
> mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

--
--------
Joel Margolies
joel.margolies@msdw.com
W-212-761-2134

Anyone have some m'koros regarding gezel akum? I need to 
convince someone that it's assur.

TIA.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 07:22:20PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:    my 38th birthday (which, should coincide, being a multiple of 19, but is
: off by two days).

The cycle of shanos me'ubaros is 19 years long, not the system for Kisleiv
and Cheshvan. The pattern of 7 leap months in 19 years is called the Metonic
Cycle. On inyana diyoma, the Chinese calendar also uses the Metonic Cycle,
but they're at a different point in the rotation than we are.

The Bavliim also used the Metonic Cycle to correct their calendar.
Interestingly (to me, at least) their change of leap month from Ellu (Ellul)
to Adu (Adar) coincided with Galus Bavel.

I was under the impression that the pre-computation of Shanos Me'ubaros
started with Anshei K'nesses haGdolah. But when I was called to prove this
point, I was unable to find my makor. (Help anyone?) If it is correct,
it would be unsurprising that we used the results already in use by the
surrounding culture.


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

In v4n332, Carl Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
:                                                       the State of 
: Israel, where for all its shortcomings, every child with R"L every 
: type of problem under the sun is entitled by law to a fruhm 
: education.

First a disclaimer. I'm a nogei'ah bidavar as I have a son with PDD (perhaps
Asperger's Syndrome) who is in public school.

I would NOT make aliyah in hopes of finding frum education for Yoni. It's not
there. Yes, programs exist that combine Yeshiva with facilities for the
functioning autistic and related conditions. However, if they aren't of the
quality that will teach Yoni how to be a mentch, there is little to be gained.

When I looked at making Aliyah, I could not find a dati or chareidi school
of even close to the same *therapeutic* quality as the non-sectarian school
Yoni is in now. I found many caring people, but no schools that could boast
of being able to mainstream a significant segment of their student bodies.

According to the Novominsker, the emotionally handicapped child's need to
learn DE is literally kadmah laTorah. A good special ed school can, at times,
be the halachically correct choice over recieving regular limidei kodesh.

OTOH, Shu'a (who we didn't have when we last looked at Aliyah) has Downs, for
which we could find good frum facilities in either country.

:                                                  Forget that a Jew's 
: parnassa is determined on Rosh HaShanna and there is nothing 
: that any of us can do to change it except tshuva, tfilla and tzedaka ...

To go off on a tangent...

While this may be true, arguments against hishtadlus, or those that smack
of "somchin al haneis" aren't going to carry much weight. Yes, bitachon has
a role -- but not the only role.

BTW, I though parnasah wasn't decided until Shemini Atzeres, which is why
we add "umorid hageshem" then.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

In v4n334, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
: << But from my point of view, all these factors are secondary to the main
: question, which is: "Would this person *want* to be informed? What will
: his reaction be if he is told? What will his reaction be if the news is
: hidden?">>

: 	Why is this the main question,  if the halacha is otherwise?

I think many of us fall into a trap of confusing two categories of mitzvos:
mishpatim (in distinction to chukim), and bein adam lachaveiro. Because
there is such a large overlap, we tend to assume that all interpersonal
mitzvos must be rational WRT what would I want done to me.

I would therefore think the main question is: What does this mitzvah teach
us, in light of the fact that I personally would want to be informed? In
what way is my desire incorrect, that it should not be supported by halachah?

Perhaps we are undervaluing simchas chasan vikallah in relation to
his happiness when not a chasan. Perhaps those few hours of happiness,
particularly in light of it enabling the zug to enjoy his/her chasunah as
well, outweighs the extra pain caused overall. Perhaps not. I want to pose
the question, not provide an answer.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Feb-00: Revi'i, Mishpatim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 108b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 15

Thank you for clearing up the issue about yayin mevushal.  That type of post is 
an excellent example of the Torah/information sharing that Avodah can do.

>>In other words, the KIC is inaccurate if not downright incorrect (if indeed, 
what was written in that post is accurate).>>

In KIC's defense, the information was given as part of a friendly conversation 
and was not "official."

R. Blau (yoblau@ymail.yu.edu), wrote (Avodah V4 #341), on Sun, 06 Feb
2000 09:59:31:

<<The Rambam rejects the science of his time when it contradicted
the halachic definition of treifah, which is based on a halacha
l'moshe
m'sinai (hilchos shechita 10;11,12).  Yet in hilchos rotzeach
u'shmiras
nefesh 2;8 he defines a human tereifah as one whom the doctors
conclude
will certainly die from a particular wound.>>

This is a fascinating Rambam, and I thank Rav Blau for pointing it out.
The distinction between animal and human treifos sheds great light on
the problem of science and halacha.  

The eight categories of animal treifos which are a halacha l'mosheh
m'sinai, were extended by chazal to include 70 specific instances.  IOW,
nimnu v'gamru that  these are what are defined specifically as treifah. 
Animal treifa, then, has gone from being an open, defined set (category)
with innumerable elements, to a closed set with a finite number of
elements.  Animal tarfus is no longer defined as inevitable death from a
makkah, but rather as one of the 70 injuries (72 for birds).  In that
case, future medical knowledge cannot change the elements of the closed
set.  We are no longer interested in establishing the fact of inevitable
death, only verification of one of the 70/72.

Human treifos, however, were never considered true treifos in the
animal sense (basar tamei eino treifah...), only in the sense of being
doomed to die due to a makkah of any sort.  The set of human treifos was
never closed like that of animals or birds.  In that case, all one
requires to establish tarfus is to override the chazaka of shleimus with
a rov (pronounced "rove"), and this is simply verification of fact;
medical knowledge can accomplish this. 

So, it seems, medical (which for the moment we will equate with
scientific) knowledge can be used to establish facts when that is all
that halacha requires.  It can teach us that something belongs in an
established open halachic set, but it cannot change the elements of a
closed halachic set.  Similarly, for sakana in general, Chazal
established parameters relating to dangerous behavior, but did not tell
us that there are only X members of the set; that is for progress to
define.  This differs from the opinion that scientific knowledge should
only be used l'chumra, since the Rambam's example in Shechita 10:12 can
definitely be l'kula too.

<<Should DNA evidence be accepted in a Rabbinical court?  What if it
contradicts eyewitness testimony from two witnesses?>>

This, too, must be defined in established halachic categories. 
Firstly, DNA evidence does not speak for itself in court; a person must
present it.  Furthermore, if the science is done properly it would be no
challenge to find two "expert witnesses" to state that the evidence
suggests X.  So the evidence should simply be treated as would that of
any contradicting witnesses. (This obviates the problem created by the
fact that the halachic judicial process requires not only establishment
of fact, but rather a specific process of "al pi shnayim eidim....") 
The presenters of the evidence, however, are neither eidei hakchasha nor
eidei hazama.  They are not testifying as witnesses to the ma'aseh
(presumably a bi'ah assura in this case), nor as to the possibility that
the original eidim were there to see, but rather as to the feasibility
of the eidus itself.  Is there precedent for that type of eidus in
halacha?

One other question that must always be kept in mind with the
science/halacha issue is what do we consider science.  Are the social
sciences included?  What if a psychologist tells us that "tav l'meisav
tan du..." is invalid in 21st century America?  What if a sociologist
tells us that "ein adam oseh b'ilaso b'ilas z'nus" is wrong most of the
time?  What about if a veterinary psychologist told us that a certain
shor had congenital violent tendencies?  How do we utilize manuscript
evidence in psak?  R. Lichtenstein once quipped (in a similar context)
that in a few thousand years someone will dig up Y.U. and think there
was a machlokes about which way was mizrach.  If we admit scientific
evidence we have to decide what is scientific, and I'm not sure how
halacha can do that.  I would guess that hilchos rov would play a
significant role here.  In this context I would add that I don't think
much of "medical/clinical" knowledge in its present state should be
treated as weightily as molecular biology, genetics and math (for
examples).

I don't agree that this is simply a question of whether we believe
nishtana hateva.  The gemara (Pesachim 94b) seems to indicate that
Chazal recognized that their scientific knowledge could be incorrect,
but it does not tell us whether they thought this could have normative
impact.  So the issue is not whether we accept that their science could
be wrong.  Once we see that Chazal themselves were aware that their
science (and therefore science in general) could be wrong, we have to
determine what they defined as reliable evidence of fact (which is
loosely what all science is), and when they felt determination of fact
plays a role in the halachic process and when it is irrelevant.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

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


[ 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         ]