Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 067

Friday, August 13 2004

• Lice
• RE: Lice
• Grandparent's yahrtzeit
• Re: Og Melech Haboshon
• Re: Lice
• Re: kiddush hachodesh
• Re: Lice
• Re: lice
• Re: Lice
• Re: t'cheiles
• Re: Evolution and Creationism
• RE: evolution
• RE: Evolution and Creationism
• Re: Og Melech Haboshon
• Re: Lice
• Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• WAS Evolution and Creationism
• RE: Evolution and Creationism
• Re: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• Re: Lice

Time to move this over to Avodah:

>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:52:41 +0300
>From: Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il>
>> To the best of my understanding rejection is not deep.
>> It is inherently shallow.

>But your understanding is incorrect.

>"rejection" -- as you mean it -- would be rejecting the entire Torah because
>of these issues.

>Which is NOT what we are talking about here -- or are you accusing RNS of
>not believing in Torah?

RNS evidently holds that the Gemara about lice is not "Torah" and I suspect 
that l'shitaso one should not make a Birkas Ha'Torah on it.

Because it is your understanding that is incorrect. To reject even a kutzo 
shel yud of "Torah" - chas me'l'hazkir!

>> Depth consists of finding the deeper level at which
>> Chazal (or the Torah) are emes.

>Agreed. Which means rejecting a *simple* pshat that contradicts an *obvious*
>scientific fact in favor of a deeper meaning.

I must have missed something: Rejecting a Gemara is deep?

>>>> him that for him it is forbidden to kill lice on Shabbos.

>>>Since it's a suffik D'Orisa, why wouldn't it be assur for *everyone*?

>> Why assume it is a safek?

>If RZNG holds that it's assur to kill the lice, for whatever reason, then we
>have a suffek. If so -- how could RZNG be mattir killing lice for anyone
>else?

Are you not aware of Eilu va'Eilu? How do you think Beis Hillel paskened
when someone from Beis Shammai came to ask about tzoras ervah?

YGB

>If RZNG holds that it's assur to kill the lice, 
>for whatever reason...

And R' Yosef Qafah.

Gil Student
gil.student@gmail.com
http://www.aishdas.org/student

Is anyone familiar with an halachic discussion of whether a grandchild
ought observe a grandparent's yahrtzeit in circumstances where none of
the grandparent's children is any longer alive?

I am not looking for a "chicken soup" response - ie what harm can it do,
but rather whether an halachic obligation devolves upon the grandchild to
recite kaddish, learn mishnayoth, visit the cemetery and light a candle.

One of the gabbaim of my shule told me that he discussed this with
Rav Wosner (senior) many years ago and although he could no longer be
certain, he thought that the answer was to observe the yahrtzeit for 50
years after the passing on of the children.

DJH

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:45:21AM +1000, SBA wrote:
: Or are you also denying OBH's longevity?

Why not? It's an aggadita, which you agree there is a mehalekh (which
frankly seems to be the norm amongst rishonim) not to assume they're
historical.

...
: I'd like to have a look at the Rambam inside. But from your quote we
: clearly see that the Rambam is talking about Chazal - NOT the Torah, CV.
: [See further comment]

: After all,  the Rambam includes in the 13 Ikkarim "Ani maamin...shekol
: divrei neviyim emmess..."?

The Rambam you want describes three katim. The first think that all these
stories are meant literally, find them absurd and therefore ridicule the
Torah. The second kat think that all these stories are meant literally,
believe them, and thereby belittle the Torah. The third kat understand
that the rabbis were speaking in parable.

It's in his haqdamah to pereq Cheileq in his peirush hamishnayos. Funny
that you cite the ani ma'amin (which he didn't write), his version is
shortly after the quote in question.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

Daniel Eidensohn wrtoe:
>Does anyone know of any poskim who say that the halacha 
>has changed because of the scientific rejections of 
>spontaneous generation? 

R' Yosef Qafah in his edition of Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Shabbos, ch.
11 n. 4. Also, R. Shammai Gross in Shevet Ha-Kehasi, vol. 3 no. 126.

R. Menachem Kasher argues that halachah should be changed EXCEPT
that we do not change it so as not to be motzi la'az on earlier
generations. See Torah Shelemah, vol. 1 no. 710 in the notes;
Mefane'ach Tzefunos, vol. 17 ch. 7 n. 2; Ha-Adam al Ha-Yare'ach, p. 50
(http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdf/haadamalhayarayach.pdf).

Gil Student
gil.student@gmail.com
http://www.aishdas.org/student

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< It is clear that the bet din in Israel through
most of the gaonite period announced the date of the new moon. This may
have been purely ceremonious or not. In any case as others have remarked
Rambam disagrees with the above. >>>

Yes, they remarked that the Rambam disagrees. But I'd like to hear someone
tell what it is that the Rambam DOES hold. If the Kiddush Hachodesh
was not done in advance, and each month is mekudash on its own, in the
present, then can someone explain who it is that is doing it, and by
what procedure?

I think we can agree that Kiddush Hachodesh is NOT going to occur in
our shuls this coming Shabbos; that's simply an announcement. Is there
an actual beis din somewhere in Eretz Yisrael which will convene this
coming Wednesday and be mekadesh the month? I never heard of it. Was
there such a beis din 50 or 150 years ago?

Akiva Miller

Micha Berger wrote:
>RAYKook, as cited in previous encarnations of this thread, holds that
>kinim found within meat are treif. His reasoning, that new science can
>introduce chumros by showing that all the criteria for assumed for a
>kulah may not exist, would apply to hilkhos Shabbos as well. (Eliminating
>a single reason for chumrah does not cause a kulah, as other reasons
>lehachmir may still exist.)

I gather that Rav Kook did not state that chazal's understanding
about lice was disproven by the scientific rejection of spontaneous
generation. You indicate that at best we have a case of chumra - not
din. It would appear from this that the halacha has not changed but we
might be machmir because of sofek.

Daniel Eidensohn

An anonymous lurker kindly sent me the following excerpt from Logic
of the Heart, Logic of the Mind (p. 53-54) by HaGaon Rav Ahron haLevi
Soloveichik, zt"l, showing that his reason for the lice-psak was due to
the third of the possible reasons that I suggested:

Another conflict between common scientific knowledge and our first
reading of something in the Talmud is the Gemara in Shabbos (107b)
where the Rabbis say, "One who kills vermin on Shabbos is not guilty [of
desecrating Shabbos]." The Gemara explains that because the prototype of
taking life is the Tabernacle, where the only animals to be slaughtered
were offspring of male-female reproduction, this would exclude vermin,
as Rashi comments, because they are a result not of normal reproduction,
but seemingly of spontaneous generation. How are we to reconcile Torah
with our scientific knowledge?

I would answer this question with an explanation of a difficult Rambam.
The Talmud in Makos (16b) says, "Achal tzirah... lokeh shesh -- one who
ate the small creature called tzirah receives six sets of lashings."
The Rambam, in enumerating the violations involved in eating a tzirah,
lists this creature as a bug which lives in the water and is capable of
flight, among other characteristics and impurities. In compiling these
prohibitions, however, the Rambam seemingly contradicts himself by saying
that the tzirah originates through ipush, or decay, while at the same time
he includes the prohibition of sheretz haaretz, creatures that crawl on
land, which by definition originate through male-female reproduction.
The Rambam himself points out this contradiction in Sefer Hamitzvos
(Negative Commandment #179). I believe that the Rambam knew, as Pasteur
later demonstrated, that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation,
and that all creatures originate through male-female reproduction.
However, the Rambam also knew that certain beings require ipush, a culture
of decay, to reproduce. Such beings which need an environment of decay
and disintegrated living matter do not conform to the high degree of
living of those animals used in the Mishkan, the Tabernacle in the
wilderness. The eilim maadamim, the ewes slaughtered in the mishkan,
represent a level of being that we may not destroy on Shabbos, but a
creature which reproduces only in ipush, or decay, will not obligate a
sacrifice for its being killed on Shabbos. Again, our understanding of
Torah does not contradict our knowledge of science in any way.

* * *

It's still not entirely clear, though, if RAS held that the halachah
is still true for these reasons even though Chazal attributed it to
spontaneous generation, or if he held that Chazal themselves knew that
there is no such thing as spontaneous generation and only meant that
these come about through ipush.

It is difficult to accept the latter for several reasons. First,
since the entire world at that time believed in spontaneous generation,
there is no reason to believe that Chazal held differently unless some
evidence is brought for this - which hasn't happened. I am not aware of
any evidence that Chazal had a perfect understanding of science that was
far beyond the non-Jews in that era (although I've investigated lots of
proposed evidence, all of it fell through upon closer investigation).

Second, the Gemara continues: "Abaye said: And do lice not
reproduce? Surely it was said, 'God sits and sustains from the eggs of
lice (betzei kinnim) to the horns of oryx'? - That refers to a creature
which is called betzei kinnim." But if Chazal were not referring to
spontaneous generation, only to the fact that lice lay eggs in the ipush,
why does the statement about God's providence cause a difficulty? And why
would Chazal have to reject its simple meaning, and resort to difficult
explanations instead? Let them simply state that although lice do hatch
from eggs, these are not significant as they are in ipush! It therefore
seems that they did not accept this possibility.

Third, it seems clear that the Rishonim and Acharonim did not understand
the Gemara in this way. To say that we understand Chazal's reasoning
better than the Rishonim is very difficult.

Finally, RAS's statement that Rambam himself knew that there is no
such thing as spontaneous generation is difficult to sustain. Just
two paragraphs earlier in Sefer HaMitzvos (Negative Commandment #177),
Rambam writes "We are warned against eating sheratzim which come into
existence from ipush - even an unknown type - and which do not come into
existence from males and females... And this is the difference between
that which they spoke of as a sheretz which is shoretz on the ground,
and a sheretz that is romess on the ground - that a sheretz which is
shoretz on the ground is one that has the ability to give birth to its
own kind... And a sheretz that is romess on the ground is a sheretz
which comes into existence from ipush, which cannot give birth to its
own kind..." See too Hilchos Shabbos 11:2. This clearly shows that he
felt that insects which come from dust or dung do not come from males and
females. (Furthermore, if Rambam knew spontaneous generation to be false,
he would have entirely rejected the belief in the mouse that grows from
the dirt, whereas what he did was to reluctantly allow for its existence).

Again, it is quite reasonable to suggest that the Gemara's halachah
still holds true. But it would not be for the reasons that Chazal
gave. (According to Rav Dessler, of course, Chazal were not giving reasons
per se, merely explanations for a halachah that was received from Sinai.)

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com/creatures

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 01:36:44AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I gather that Rav Kook did not state that chazal's understanding
: about lice was disproven by the scientific rejection of spontaneous
: generation. You indicate that at best we have a case of chumra - not
: din. It would appear from this that the halacha has not changed but we
: might be machmir because of sofek.

AIUI, RAYHK writes that the elimination of a single grounds for a pesaq
lekulah requires we *pasqen* lechumrah. I didn't mean "chumrah" in the
sense of your diyuq.

However, the elimination of a single reason lechumrah can not be proven
to be grounds to pasqen lekulah, as other, undocumented, reasons for
the pesaq usually exist. An idea found in the Gra, as well.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

I asked <<< So it would be okay to have some strings which are either
white or the color of the beged, and then instead of a techeles string(s)
I could use pink or green? >>> And R' Micha Berger answered <<< Yes, I'm
suggesting that the only problem would be "al tifrosh min hatzibbur". >>>

Thank you very much. I had always presumed that if one is not using
techeles, then the same halachos apply to all the strings. I stand
corrected.

I recall (but cannot find right now) that the Mishna Brurah says that if
one does not have all four of the Arba Minim, he should take whatever he
does have (without a bracha of course) as a "zecher" to this mitzvah. I
think that same would be said if he did have all four but one was pasul.
I therefore wonder why it was never suggested (or maybe someone did
suggest it?) that for lack of genuine techeles, we could use kla ilan
or some other blue dye, so that the halachos of techeles would be
remembered. And in fact, it seems the for lack of doing this, we have
indeed forgotten some details, like how many of the eight strings should
be so dyed.

My guess is that this "take the three minim anyway" idea is only for
individuals under unusual circumstances. To institutionalize the other
dyes - even if technically mutar as RMB explained - would not be proper.
Any other ideas?

Akiva Miller

what's wrong w/ having your cake and eating it too?

Yes, creation started 15bil years ago, but creation as described by the
torah ended almost 5765 (or is it 5764?) years ago.

>> There are very straightforward and logical reasons to utterly reject 
>> non-directed evolution to produce complex biological systems, an 
>> utterly preposterous proposition.

> From a scientific POV it isn't preposterous -- research in 
> chaos theory and Nonlinear Dynamics (especially at the Santa 
> Fe Institute) has shown that *very* complex systems can 
> spontaneously and quickly arise from simple pre-conditions.

> (Of course, *creating* those conditions is not simple...but 
> that's what a creator is for :-)

According to Stuart Kauffman:
(http://www.iscid.org/stuartkauffman-chat.php
Nov 15, 2002)

"One of the deep puzzles is why the universe has become complex. Why has
the biosphere become complex? Why has the number of ways of earning
a living increased so dramatically? We have no theory about this
overwhelming feature of our universe."

(Stuart Kauffman is a Fellow of the Santa Fe Institute. He is not a
creationist nor is he an intelligent design theorist. 
<http://tinyurl.com/lwkw> [reduced from a www.ncseweb.org page. -mi]

Classical darwinism as well as Santa Fe style complexity theories are
"just so" stories for now.
(with apologies to Kipling, <http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/>).

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan 

[RHM:]
> I agree. Thus is Behe's "irreducible complexity" refuted. The 
> very idea that anything is "irreducible" is illogical because 
> it implies that all matter and energy are innately infinite. 
> What Behe probably meant is that cellular microbiology is so 
> complex it is unreasonable to assume that the randomness of 
> sudden mutations are means whereby the development of single 
> celled organisms into human beings took place. 
> Unreasonable... yes. Impossible... no.

> ... You start with the Null 
> Hypothesis: God does not exist. Then you set up experiments 
> to show that He does, If you can do that repeatedly than 
> science will acknowledge His existence.
> ... HM

The arch Darwinist at Oxford University, Dawkins, wrote:
"Darwinian natural selection, which, contrary to a deplorably widespread
misconception, is the very antithesis of a chance process, is the only known
mechanism that is ultimately capable of generating improbable complexity out
of simplicity."  
(Dawkins in a forward to God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of
Intelligent Design Theory, Niall Shanks).

Some scientists have appealed to what HM calls "unreasonable" or
highly improbable accidents, but this is not true science, just wishful
speculation.

A real scientist looks for a "reasonable" explanation, and that is what
Dawkins believes Darwinian natural selection provides (see his book
"Climbing Mount Improbable").

However, there is currently not a single detailed testable Darwinian
pathway that can explain biologically complex organisms (see my previous
post with a quote from Stuart Kauffman). All that we have in the 150
years since Darwin are promissory notes

But engineers or designers develop complex multi-part means-to-end designs
all the time. Hence the Design Hypothesis does have the explanatory power
to account for biological complexity, while natural selection does not.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

ZT:
> Going back to Og - SBA also claimed that Rashi had a mesorah from
> Sinai that Moshe was literally ten amos tall and Og 300 or so. So what
> of Rambam etc. who held that these were not literal - didn't they have
> a mesorah too?

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> I'll let the Rambam defend himself...but the gemoro seems to talk
> about OMH's size kepshuto - see Shabbos 151b, Eiruvin 48a, Yuma 80b,
> Zevochim 113b

For those following this discussion - 
see the Ramban, Devorim 3:11

SBA

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 05:20:33PM -0400, R Yosef Gavriel M. Bechhofer wrote:
: That Chazal's definition of spontaneous generation is not our definition
: of spontaneous generation; that they knew that "officially" the reproduce
: sexually, but Halacha nonetheless categorizes their reproduction as
: asexual. From RMB's post from RDL it seems that he held the same way,
: as IIRC did REED.

I don't recall how much of the following is RDL and how much my
understanding of my rebbe's position. But I understand my rebbe to have
meant that it is irrelevent whether they knew what "officially", or as
I would have said it, technically, happens. Halakha only addresses that
which we can perceive ourselves, without help. (I am pretty sure the
last sentence was a translation of RDL's words.)

Now for something I know is my own: We speak of "the metzi'us" without
thinking about the shoresh. Metzi'us is that which a person can "find",
not that which technically or "officially" occurs / exists.

This is an issue I made much of in the past. I feel this is a direct
consequence of halakhah being about sheleimus and deveiqus, changes in
the self. It therefore is about how to respond to experience, not to
objectively studied events.

As I thought about this, planning this email, I wondered if I'm willing
to stand by this implication WRT brain [stem] death. It isn't measured
or measurable by an unaided person any more than the microscopic beitzei
kinim. But we all know the lives it would cost to not accept the pesaq R'
Tendler said besheim RMF. (B"H I'm not a poseiq, I can't handle the
responsibilities.)

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In Avodah V13 #66dated 8/12/04  RHM writes:
>> There are means for these to evolve as well. 

> I agree. Thus is Behe's "irreducible complexity" refuted. The very
> idea that anything is "irreducible" is illogical because it implies
> that all matter and energy are innately infinite. What Behe probably
> meant is that....

Have you read Behe's book? It doesn't sound like it. You really should
read it, it's a great book, and fascinating to anyone with some knowledge
of and interest in science.

No one yet has convincingly answered his book. It is easiest to refute
it if you haven't read it, much harder to refute if you have, hardest
of all if you know enough math and science to understand it.

 -Toby Katz
=============

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>I'm therefore not sure it is meaningful to speak about 15
>billions of years of aging that was pre-written into the
>universe. There is no ontological difference between such
>a "false aging" and actual passage of time. The "fake" would
>be too effective -- it would be real.

I agree with your argument, however I can't possibly agree with the idea
that the world was created having already "aged." (Whether defining it in
your terms as above or without taking into account that the aging is in
some sense real.) Saying such a statement allows for the argument that the
world was created ten minutes ago - aged - and that all our memories are
part of that history that never actually played out. Just my two cents.

- Yair

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> However, there is currently not a single detailed testable Darwinian
> pathway that can explain biologically complex organisms. All that
> we have in the 150 years since Darwin are promissory notes

> But engineers or designers develop complex multi-part means-to-end designs
> all the time. Hence the Design Hypothesis does have the explanatory power
> to account for biological complexity, while natural selection does not.

Natural selcetion is a S'vara. The Gammara reffers to this S'vara
as Kol Dalim G'var" It is a logical deductuion based on facts in
evidence. Here's how it works: Those individuals having a variation that
gives them an advantage in staying alive long enough to successfully
reproduce are the ones that pass on their traits more frequently to
the next generation. Subsequently, their traits become more common and
the population evolves. The underlying principle in evolutionary theory
is reproduction. Whatever trait favors reproduction is the trait that
is modst likely to survive. That is the theory in general and it is a
sound one. The details that explain complex microbiological mutations
which have caused a single cell to evolve into Human beings have yet
to be explained, if ever. But whether it can or it can't ultimately be
explained, doesn't prove whether such a process took place or not.

But it doesn't matter to creationists. Creationists are perfectly
consistent in their belief of intelligent design. Creationists simply
say that there is a Creator. If evolution took place and is taking place
as science says it did and does, then it is God directed. In my opinion
evolution was and is directed by God but has an element of occasional
randomness built into it as part of the natural phyiscal universe.

[Email #2. -mi]

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> How do we define when time was created? Since we're discussing the
> creation of time, it doesn't really have a when. Rather, we discuss when
> the first moment was.

> A universe with a complete "fake history" is one in which the moment
> of creation is would be in the middle of the timeline. However, as
> above, there is no literal moment of creation other than the timeline's
> beginning.

The concept of time has always had a certain fascination for me. Here
are some of my random thoughts:

I never really thought of it as related to the arbitrary delineations
we use today in terms of microseconds, hours, days, years, Millenia,
or light years. All these are based on rotations of the earth and
revolutions of the earth around the sun. I had always thought it to
be a measure of motion within space. Time without space and motion has
absolutely no meaning to me. Time equals motion in space. If there would
be no space or motion there would be no time. Time is an inherently human
concept created by God for Man. It has no meaning in the realm of God. God
looks at the present, past, and future simultaneously. God and time are
incompatible with each other. When the Tifferes Yisrael talks about Godly
time vs human time he is STILL talking about time as Man can understand
it, not as a infinite concept. That we cannot measure or understand the
beginning of time or the end of time and see it as an infinite continuum
is a inherent failing of "rational man". Attempts at such understandings
are totally futile, have no real relevance and are meaningless.

But I digress.

What you seem to be saying is that there is no difference between saying
that the earth was created in the middle of a time line or the beginning
of a timeline. In essence you are saying that the dichotomy is really
nothing more than semantics. I disagree. That is Gufah the difference
between those who see the accumulated data as proof of an old universe
and those who see the universe as being created old.

>> Astronomical odds do not preclude something happening, as I tried to
>> demonstrate in an earlier post. As another example, take the power
>> ball lottery. What were the odds that the last winner would win the
>> gazillion dollars? Astronomical, I'm sure. Yet, He won.

> Poor example, as "the last winner" is a phrase defined by his winning. The
> odds of anyone winning is not astronomical, and whomever the winner is,
> he'll be the one amazed by his fortune.

> This is the basis of the anthropic principle. We can't wonder why
> things ran perfectly for us to exist -- the fact that we exist is why
> we wonder. Rather, the question is the odds of anyone bright enough to
> wonder why they exist -- as I wrote above, in any way shape or form --
> would in fact emerge.

According to the anthropic principle, the universe is the way we see it
because if it had been different, we would not be here. And the anthropic
principle cannot be refuted. The only thing that can be said is that
one can choose (Bechira Chafshis) to believe that the universe evolved
randomly and use the anthropic principle explain evolution without the
need for Intelligent design. Or.. one can choose to believe that the
statistical probability is so remote (mindbogglingly unlikely... as
you put it) that there must have been Intelligent design and that the
anthropic principle is just an "out" for atheists. Neither position
is refutable.

HM

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 08:40:29AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Have you read Behe's book? ....
: No one yet has convincingly answered his book....

"Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe"
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html> has a sizable number of
articles on the debate, most anti (as per the webmaster's bias). As
"convincingly" is a matter of opinion, I leave that decision as
an exercise to the reader.

FWIW, they have one article attacking the information theory approach,
and it's deeply flawed. (Speaking about something I actually speant years
studying.) In fact, I think it was originally written in reply to a post
of mine on talk.origins in '91.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Gil Student wrote:
>Daniel Eidensohn wrtoe:
>>Does anyone know of any poskim who say that the halacha 
>>has changed because of the scientific rejections of 
>>spontaneous generation? 

>R' Yosef Qafah in his edition of Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Shabbos, ch.
>11 n. 4. Also, R. Shammai Gross in Shevet Ha-Kehasi, vol. 3 no. 126.

>R. Menachem Kasher argues that halachah should be changed EXCEPT that
>we do not change it so as not to be motzi la'az on earlier
>generations....

Considering those who still permit it as well those who could have
indicated that the halacha changed but don't (e.g., Mishna Berura and Rav
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach) - the citation of only these three recent talmidei
chochomim is rather strong evidence that the halacha has not changed.

[Email #2. -mi]

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> RNS evidently holds that the Gemara about lice is not "Torah" and I 
> suspect that l'shitaso one should not make a Birkas Ha'Torah on it.

> Because it is your understanding that is incorrect. To reject even a 
> kutzo shel yud of "Torah" - chas me'l'hazkir!

Since this discussion was transferred from Areivim - I might be missing
the context to understand it properly. As it stands now the issue of
whether every statement in the gemora must be objectively true - has been
recycled many times in this forum. Rav Moshe Feinstein clearly states
in the introduction to the Igros that a view can be objectively wrong
and yet still have the status of eilu v'eilu and that one can get reward
for studying it and poskening according to this view. Thus there seems
nothing inherently wrong with asserting that some scientific statement
found in the gemora is outdated - though to do so might be problematic
for other reasons. What I find new in the above is the assertion that
every statement in the gemora must be accepted as true - in the identical
way that one must accept every letter in the Written Torah. I would
appreciate a source for this assertion because I must admit I have never
heard of such a thing. Tosfos would appear to violate this purported rule
(Eiruvin 76b) by asserting there is an error in the value of pi found
in the gemora "Shas in Sukkah and R' Yochonan here erred."[Even though
the Gra rejects Tosfos's view - but nevertheless Tosfos did say it].

Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]