Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 072

Wednesday, August 18 2004

• lice and change of nature
• Re: lice and change of nature
• Reading the ktuba - from Avodah
• Re: Reading the ktuba - from Avodah
• Re: Age of the Universe and Creation
• Re: Age of the Universe and Creation
• RE: Evolution, Creationism, Lice and Other Mythical Creatures
• measurements
• Tikun Olam
• Re: Age of the Universe and Creation
• Re: Yom Tov in the Torah
• Re: Children Carrying Tallis
• RE: lice and change of nature
• Lice
• Re: Lice
• Re: lice and change of nature

RDE writes
> That is the basis of my question. The fact is that the poskim do not
> take this approach but simply ignore the findings of science in this case.
> One simple answer is that we generally do not state that there has been a
> change of nature - without some source in the rishonim or early achronim.
> In sum. I just wanted to demonstrate that by and large contemporary
> halacha is not necessarily concerned with scientific reality - but
> rather precedent in the halachic literature. Lice is a good test case
> since the science is clear and universally accepted. In contrast in the
> world of halacha - except for the Pachad Yitzchok - there is absolutely
> no interest in whether spontaneous generations is a reality.

I don't agree. One famous example is the 8 month fetus. Almost all
poskim allow one to violate shabbat on behalf of a 8 month fetus even
though it is against all gemarot and rishonim. Even the earlier achronim
(though MB) allow only a fetus in the beginning of the 9th month but
not one in the middle of the 8th month. In fact the Minchat Yitzchak
disagrees with almost all other poskim exactly on the grounds of RDE
that it is not mentioned in early poskim. However, he is a daat yachid
(Rav Weisz does point out that in practical cases we almost never can
be sure it is an 8 month fetus and so from safek we do save the fetus).

Another case, without a practical psak, is the use of nishtane hateva
by CI to explain the contradiction between the gemara and science about
the connection between the urinal and semen tracts. Again, there is
absolutely no precedent for this. I have asked some experts whether the
CI really believed that the nature changed over 2000 years or this was
just a halachic answer. The people I spoke to said that it seems that
CI really believed that the human body changed in recent times.

RMF Feinstein and other poskim do have chiddushim that change halachot
from one seems to be in SA. This could not be done if the only concern
was precedent. I am not presently in Israel with my seforim but I think
R. Gutel brings numerous cases where "nishtane hateva" has been used by
achronim without a precident in rishonim. In fact the use of nishtane
hateva occurs in only a very few cases in rishonim.

Hence, IMHO lice is one of the rare exceptions that nishtane hateva is
not used to explain differences between the gemara and modern science
and in many other cases to indeed change the halacha.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

eli turkel wrote:
>I don't agree. One famous example is the 8 month fetus. Almost all poskim
>allow one to violate shabbat on behalf of a 8 month fetus even though
>it is against all gemarot and rishonim. Even the earlier achronim
>(though MB) allow only a fetus in the beginning of the 9th month but
>not one in the middle of the 8th month.

The basis allowing the 8 month is the Rashbash (#513) who was a rishon
(1400-1467) and is cited by R' Gutel on page 249. He is also cited by
the Rema. This is discussed in detail in BDD #4 in a review article of
R' Gutel's book by Prof Zeev Lev. It is of interest to note that R'
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach said the reason for the change in the halacha
was not because of a change in nature but rather because medical care
had advanced (Shemiras Shabbas 36:12 note 24) and the Minchas Yitzchok
(4:123) offers the same explanation.

>RMF Feinstein and other poskim do have chiddushim that change halachot
>from one seems to be in SA. This could not be done if the only concern
>was precedent.

Rav Moshe does utilize the concept dealing with patzuah daka. But as
is with the case of Rav Shlomo Zalman - he seems to mean is that the
medical procedures' have changed and thus an action which would have
caused sterilization in the time of chazal does not in fact cause
sterility and thus it is permitted.

> I am not presently in Israel with my seforim but I
>think R. Gutel brings numerous cases where "nishtane hateva" has been
>used by achronim without a precident in rishonim. In fact the use of
>nishtane hateva occurs in only a very few cases in rishonim.

Would appreciate citation of cases. Another example is the Chasam Sofer's
discussion of female anatomy where he acknowledges that the view of Rashi
and Tosfos don't correspond at all with what he has read in medical books
and discussed with doctors. He accepts however the view of the Rambam (
which is less problematic but still does not correspond to anatomy). He
does not however say that nature has changed. We also have the fact stated
in Chullin that the heart has 3 chambers - when in fact it has four. We
also are told in Shulchan Aruch YD. 34:10 that the windpipe divides into
three parts one to the heart, one to the lungs and one to the liver. Again
I have not seen this explained by saying that nature has changed.

I will repeat my original assertion. Change in nature is generally not
cited by modern poskim when there is a clear cut contradiction between
the scientific views of chazal and that of modern science. In fact the
disparity will generally be ignored [i.e., it is of no interest to the
posek] unless it is mentioned in the rishonim or early achronim and unless
there is some major consequence. Rejection of spontaneous generation
is relatively recent [Francesco Redi disproved it with maggots in 1660,
Spallanzhani in 1768 demonstrated it with microorganisms and Pasteur 1862]
however realistically most people are not concerned with whether lice
can be killed on Shabbos or not. A similar attitude is stated clearly
in a letter of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach published in Shmiras haguf
v'hanefesh page 54 regarding the fact that poskim ignore the disparity
between the seriousness of illnesses from the view of chazal and that
of modern medicine.

Daniel Eidensohn

In the course of a discussion on areivim of reading the ktuba, RMB wrote
> The kesuvah is in Aramaic -- not a holy tongue. Is
> there all that much importance to using correct grammar over the usual
> mangling?

I responded
> Clearly, the premise of both these postings (those of RMB and RGD)
> that the reading of the ktuba per se is an act of minimal, practically
> non-existent religious significance - is true...

RMB clarified
> Not my underlying assumption at all. I'd ask the same question about
> qaddish.

In SA EH 126:1, the mechaber says that a get may not be written in two
different languages. The Rama says that some permit this. He then goes
on to say that even according to those who forbid two languages, a get
written in Hebrew and Aramaic (as our gittin are) is kosher, "for both
were given at Sinai, and are similar languages, and are considered as one
language." The Rama regards Aramaic as at least a partially holy tongue,
having been given at Sinai. See the Taz there.

The statement that the kvuba is written in Aramaic is only partially true;
its beginning is in Hebrew. It is reasonable to say that the entire ktuba
should be read with proper grammar, since one should start grammatically
because of the Hebrew, l'shitat RMB.

What else starts in Hebrew and then continues in Aramaic? Right,
the qaddish. In siddur Ashira Lashem, RMB writes "The Rav agreed
with the opinion that the first two words of Kaddish are in Hebrew"
The vowel under the dalet in each of these words is a patach, as in
Hebrew, not a tzeire, as in Aramaic. RBM cites Yechezkel 38:23, the
source of the phrase "yitgahdahl ve-yitkahdahsh", which is in Hebrew,
and in which patachim appear under the daletim. See Siddur AL at
http://www.aishdas.org/siddur_pg.pdf

As far as I can see, RMB treated the qaddish in siddur AL with the same
impressive care and precision that he treated the Hebrew parts of the
siddur (Just noting each and every shva na, as he did, would have driven
me nuts, even assuming I could figure them all out, a far from obvious
assumption). RBM carefully notes that according to the Vilna Gaon, there
is a pause before the word "kirutei", and therefore the kaf is d'gusha,
and not refuyah ("chirutei"), despite its following a word which ends
in an open syllable (b'ra). I think that we're pretty far from mangling
mode here.

Taken together, I believe that the above points form a firm basis for
the conclusion that there is value and importance in reading the ktuba
with precision, l'shitat RMB.

Saul Mashbaum

On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:08:36PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: In SA EH 126:1, the mechaber says that a get may not be written in two
: different languages. The Rama says that some permit this. He then goes
: on to say that even according to those who forbid two languages, a get
: written in Hebrew and Aramaic (as our gittin are) is kosher, "for both
: were given at Sinai, and are similar languages, and are considered as one
: language." The Rama regards Aramaic as at least a partially holy tongue,
: having been given at Sinai. See the Taz there.

This denies my supposition. I disagree with much of the rest of your
argument, but this forces my maskanah. If Aramaic is significant for
reasons beyond its use by Jews, than colloquial usage need not be the
more important factor.

...
: What else starts in Hebrew and then continues in Aramaic? Right,
: the qaddish. In siddur Ashira Lashem, RMB writes "The Rav agreed
: with the opinion that the first two words of Kaddish are in Hebrew"
: The vowel under the dalet in each of these words is a [tzeirei], as in
: Hebrew, not a [patach], as in Aramaic....

Tangent: It's not that simple, as the patach is valid Hebrew too, which is
why there's no parashas "Va'eschanein".

...
: As far as I can see, RMB treated the qaddish in siddur AL with the same
: impressive care and precision that he treated the Hebrew parts of the
: siddur...

You can't read too much into that. My care in diqduq while davening is
motivated by a need to pay attention to the words well enough to think
about what they mean. Not for its own sake. As you later site:
:              RBM carefully notes that according to the Vilna Gaon, there
: is a pause before the word "kirutei", and therefore the kaf is d'gusha,
: and not refuyah ("chirutei"), despite its following a word which ends
: in an open syllable (b'ra). I think that we're pretty far from mangling
: mode here.

I wrote that because it's important to think about whether we're saying
Hashem created the world as He desired (bera chir'usei) or that He should
make Himself great and holy in the world, as he desired to be (great and
holy). Which is what the phrase means with the comma.

RMS wrote (I believe here, but perhaps on Mesorah) that proof for the
latter position could be found in the words we say before leining "Al
hakol ... kirtzono vekirtzon kol yerei'av". A parallel text that clearly
can't take ratzon to be about creation (kirtzon kol yerei'av?).

Besides, there are numerous midrashim about the gap between how the
world emerged and Hashem's original intent.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

<hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> RHM replied:
>> The Torah was not meant as an explanation of how God created the world. He
>> told us WHAT He did, Not HOW he did it,...

> It tells us how He did it to some extent, which could use exlanation to
> expand upon it and fill in details. But not to contradict it. 

How DID He do it? I don't see that anywhere in the P'sukim. Would you
care to expound?

> the
> Torah tells us WHEN He did it, which is the issue under discussion. It
> tells us He did it in six days, about 5,000 years ago.

It says six days. Where do you see 5764 (to be exact) years ago?

> RHM:
>> ...and used terminology that we could
>> understand ...at many different levels: Lashon Bnei Adam. 

> What would be hard to understand about "In the Beginning, G-d created
> the earth over a very long time," or "...over billions of years," or
> over a period of six epochs?" 

It doesn't say how long ago. It only says six days. And it isn't a
question of being hard to understand.

> Do you think people who can deal with the
> original human lifespans of upwards of 900 years could not deal with this?

God did not go into that detail in the Torah for His own reasons...
known only to Him. Nowhere does it say that age of the universe is 5764
years old. All we know is that we start counting at some point after
Brias HaOlam and the count began 5764 years ago. If you want to say that
we start the count at the moment of the creation that's up to you. But I
do not believe that we are required to belive that. If you have a source
in the Gemmarah or Rishonim that requires us to count that way I'd like
to see it.

> RHM:
>> Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki explains that...  he actually
>> created the the sun and its luminaries then as well ...

> Rashi is citing a medrash, not subjecting the Torah to his own theories,
> and, as others have pointed out, is dealing with conforming otherwise
> conflicting p'sukim.

Rashi is quoting the Gemmarah in Chaggigah 12A. 

There is no contradiction. The existence of light is not dependant on our
sun. It is an independant creation. In fact the heavens and the earth
created on the first day, were created from fire (which by its nature
emits light) and water prooving that light was created before the sun. So,
where's the contradiction? But I do not see in Rashi any refference to
contradiction in verse 14, 15 or 16 to any of the preceding verses.

HM

> However, the fact is that Evolutionists have a bias to their
> faith which causes them to interpret data to favor their religion

A claim which would equally apply to many proponents of traditional 
perspectives as well. Probably even more so. 

Avi Burstein

>> Up until this century the IDEA of "mass extinctions" would
>> have been considered impossible on theological grounds -- How
>> could God create a system where such a thing takes place...

> I find your statement rather puzzling as I thought the material below
> was well-known on Avodah:

I was talking about non-Jewish theological grounds -- since most
scientists of those days were non-Jews.

But keep in mind most frum Jews today have no idea that that specific
Tiferes Yisroel exists...

> creating and destroying worlds. R. Yitzchak of Akko, who lived at the
> time of the rediscovery of the Zohar (approx. 13th century) , arrived
> at an age for the universe of 15 billion years based on this Midrash

I've seen conflicting reports about this -- List member R' Ari Kahn,
for one, shows this claim to be in error.

> appeared in 1859. Cuvier stressed the lack of evidence for the change
> of species contra Darwin, and of course the fossil record in no way
> supports Darwinism.

It does, actually -- but it depends on your understanding of what
Darwinism is.

> The Tiferes Yisroel rightly felt that all of creation proclaims the
> glory and wisdom of G-d.

No doubt about that.

Akiva

--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

You are oversimplifying the issue. There is a major discussion of this
issue in R' Beinishe's sefor Midos v'Shiurei Torah Chapter 3 page 43-48.
At the end he states: Concerning halacha many achronim write that it is
possible to use approximate measures since they are brought as halacha.
[Maharal, Aruch HaShulchan, Igros Moshe, Chazon Ish. However the Chazon
Ish writes elsewhere that it is necessary to have precise measurements
where he argues on the Biur Halacha (363:30) who asserts that measurement
of the wall of a mavoi can be determined by what appears to be correct
even if not measured.] Others say use of approximate measures is for
rabbinic halacha (Mishna Berura and others). Others assert that even
though chazal were not precise we must be (Tosfos Yom Tov, Toras Chaim) -
and this is the conclusion of the Tashbatz

The question is not whether we can approximate or need to be precise.
The question is whether we need to be more precise than chazal. i.e. if
they thought some set of tefillin were square and with a microscope we can
tell the deifference in the lengths that does make any difference. RMF
states that sqrt(2) = 1.4 exactly to teach us that we need not be more
exact that that. It is not an approximation. The halachah le-moshe
mi-sinai is that Teffilin need to be square defined as within 1/140 or
about 1%. If so maybe using pi=3 for some halachot falls into the same
category.
The problem is that there exist gemarot in which changing the value of
sqrt(2) or pi might change the maskana. I think it is clear that chazal
did not know the "exact" values of these quantitities and it is obvious
that Rashi and other Rishonim did not know. However, it is not clear
it makes a difference.

Eli Turkel

[R Zev Sero] writes:
> On the contrary. There is a huge obligation of tikun olam in terms of 
> encouraging the moral development of goyim. But that obligation is
> entirely on us, not on them. A goy has to worry about his own moral
> development, and has no mitzvah to educate his neighbour. A goy can be 
> a Noach, and when the flood comes he will build his tevah and be saved.

I guess what I find strange about this whole discussion is that
goyim have a total of seven mitzvos, and only one of those seven is
positive, and that positive mitzvah is to set up courts of justice.
And if setting up courts of justice is not tikun olam, then what is?
After all, is not a judge's responsibility to pursue justice, right wrongs
and punish evildoers, thus making the world a better place to live in.
And if this is true for the Rambam's understanding of what the mitzvah
of setting up courts of justice is, how much more so is it true of the
Ramban's understanding of the mitzvah.

RZS then writes:
>5. German citizens had a different obligation, because the evil was being
>done in their name, and to the extent that they consented to be governed
>by the Nazis they shared vicariously in the responsibility for their crimes.
>This is part of what is meant by 'metzuvin al hadinim', and why the men of
>Shechem shared in the guilt for the crime committed against Dinah. Not
>that they had an individual obligation to act, but that as a society they
>had the responsibility to make sure that the rules of civilisation are
>enforced, and that such things don't happen.  But again, they're not
>obligated in Kidush Hashem, so those who didn't support the Nazis can't
>be blamed for keeping their heads down and not endangering themselves
>by taking up arms.

I'm afraid I can't understand the distinction that you draw. Every goy
today lives within a society. And therefore you can always run this
argument that they "consented to be governed by their government" -
certainly in a democracy, (and the Nazis only kind of got in by democratic
means, and yet the argument still seems to be being applied).

But, and this gets back to the positive mitzvah, if nobody in society
is willing to do the work of setting up the courts and being the judges
and enforcing justice and punishing evildoers, it will not happen.
So surely it must be incumbent upon the individual to act in a way to
enable such courts to be set up and function, unless he/she looks around
and is satisfied that enough is being done already, and the courts are
already just, and there are enough judges judging. So must it not be
the other way around - the individual non-jew may be patur from tikun
olam if and to the extent that other people are acting as their agents
in setting up the necessary system, but to the extent they are not, then
each individual ought to be working to fix the situation, otherwise the
collective will be in violation of the positive mitzvah? And fixing the
general social situation is about as close to a translation of tikkun
haolam as I think you can come to in English.

Rather, it seems to me more logical that the distinction is not between
having an obligation and not having an obligation - but what happens if
it turns out the situation is impossible. That is, if the society is so
evil that there is little to nothing one can do to be metaken it. At what
point is one allowed to give up hope, and withdraw into one's ark. Or is
one in this kind of extremis situation required to make heroic efforts
even though those heroic efforts will not stop the global evil, but just
might affect a small number in what might be a minor way. Noach did
not attempt to save anybody but his family. Avraham attempted to save
many thousands - but, lets face it, only succeeded with his family, and
then only part of it (Yitzchak) the souls he made in Haran ultimately
disappeared into the ether, never to be heard of in history again.
Avraham failed in tikun haolam with these souls, they came, they were
made, they disappeared. They left no permanent fixing in the world,
the way Yitzchak did (ie us). There is no evidence that they had enough
influence to even set up just societies for a little while.

Kiddush Hashem seems to me to be something quite different. Kiddush
Hashem, is, as the name states, about sanctifying G-d's name, so that
people will see what is done and be drawn to bless Hashem. Clearly that
will only happen if there is an association between the people doing the
actions and Hashem, ie with Jews. So anybody (Jewish or non Jewish) who
sees a Jew doing something (which may well include tikun olam) *because*
they are following the commandments of Hashem, will be inclined to bless
HaShem, giving the result. Non Jews are not identified with Hashem and
hence is not capable of (and certainly cannot be commanded to engage in)
kiddush Hashem.

Perhaps with this we can understand Avraham. Even if he knew that
nobody was going to go forward into history and improve the world except
Yitzchak, it was worth it to make those souls in Haran, for it meant
that, for at least a small period of time, there were additional people
blessing Hashem, and that was a kiddush HaShem. While Noach was not
prepared to expend that energy.

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

RNS, zoorabbi@zootorah.com posted on Aug 14, 2004:

> It MUST be pointed out that some explain this [the famous Gemara about
> things being created in their final form] to mean that things would
> eventually reach a perfect form, not that they were created that way.

Lampel: Please cite the source. Thanks.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 08:33:14AM -0700, HG Schild wrote:
: There are "really" 4 counting Ki Tissa. Do any mefarshim elaborate why
: this was necessary and the meaning of the exceptions within this rule
: (as in Shofar being mentioned in Pinchas)?

I can't answer your first question, but R' Chaim Brisker discusses the one
exception you name. He holds that teqi'os deme'umad are part of tefillas
mussaf, parts of the same mitzvah. Shofar is therefore mentioned with
the qorbanos mussaf.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

> It is quite clear that this was a fairly common practice in Eastern

IIRC, RHS once mentioned that RYBS related that RCS saw this practice
in Warsaw and refused to drink the wine of the Chasidim who had done so
because they had been Mchallel Shabbos .

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

[RDE:]
> I will repeat my original assertion. Change in nature is 
> generally not cited by modern poskim when there is a clear 
> cut contradiction between the scientific views of chazal and 
> that of modern science. In fact the disparity 
> [between the scientific views of chazal and that of modern science]
> will generally 
> be ignored [i.e., it is of no interest to the posek] unless 
> it is mentioned in the rishonim or early achronim and unless 
> there is some major consequence. Rejection of spontaneous 
> generation is relatively recent [Francesco Redi disproved it 
> with maggots in 1660, Spallanzhani in 1768 demonstrated it 
> with microorganisms and Pasteur 1862] however realistically 
> most people are not concerned with whether lice can be killed 
> on Shabbos or not ...

In my experience with at least one competent posek, the actual metzios is
very important and the discriminating use of science can and is used to
establish the reality before a pesak is issued. Of course, the halacha
may circumscribe the so-called scientific reality (e.g. if a mite is
too small to see then you do not transgress Shabbos by killing it). But
a disparity will not necessarily be ignored.

Let's take a look at lice and divide the modern opinions into two
rough groups (the actual situation is much more nuanced; please see
the originals):

A -- Lice may be killed on Shabbos
-------------------------------------------------
Mictav MeEliyahu
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky. Derech Sicha
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Aurbach. Meor HaShabas.

B -- Lice may NOT be killed on Shabbos
----------------------------------------------------------
Pachad Yitzchak
Shevet Kahati. vol. 3 no. 126 (Belzer Dayan)
Rabbi Nissan Karelitz -- Chut Shani
Rabbi Elyashiv as quoted in Orchos Shabbos

Obviously there are great Poskim on both sides of the issue. In category
A, the usual reason given is that one cannot really see lice reproduce
(you would need a microscope). In category B, our lice of today obviously
reproduce (zachar unekeva/betzim) and hence we may not kill them.

According to Poskim in both categories we need to understand the metzios
(size or reproduction method).

===
I believe that the following is significant. Even if lice do reproduce
the *yesod* of the Gemora in Shabbos still stands.

Rabbi Herzog in Heichal Yitzchak (OC 29) writes w.r.t. disinfecting
milk containers on Shabbos that we are permitted to kill bacteria
[which reproduce asexually through fission or spores] on Shabbos, even
if they are not harmful, because even science agrees that bacteria do
not reproduce in the normal sense of this expression.

Thus, should we find a category that fits the Gemora the halacha would
apply.

[Of course, it may be permitted to kill bacteria because we cannot
see them. The point is, even if we did not have the microscopic rule,
it would still be permitted to kill them because of the gemora in
Shabbos 107B.]

My current understanding of the metzios is that nits [eggs of headlice]
are about .8mm by .3mm. This is the size of a pin head and can thus be
seen, as those who check for lice at the beginning of the school term
know. Headlice do not reproduce through parthenogenesis nor do they
need a damp environment within which to grow. Thus I would need more
information in order to understand the opinions in category A.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

I have argued previously on the issue of talmudic views that are in
conflict with scientific evidence that we must distinguish between
explanations that may be contrafactual and the basic halacha. The
issue of killing lice on shabbat is one such example. The matter was a
subject of debate among Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai prior to the churban
and between Rabbe Eliezer and his colleagues after the churban (T.B.
Shabbat 12a). The pesak follows Bet Hillel and R' Eliezer's disputants
that killing lice is permitted. The basis for the dispute is not given
by the Tana'im. However, the Amora, Rav Yosef, (T.B. Shabbat 107b) holds
that it involves a question of how to generalize the Av Melacha which
is considered to be based on the preparation of the "reddened" rams'
skins for the Mishkan covering which involved first killing the rams.
Bet Shammai and R' Eliezer, in this view, held that just as rams are
living beings so too all living beings - including lice fall into the
same category; all fall under the prohibition of killing on shabbat.
If, on the other hand, that generalization is considered too broad and
should be limited instead to creatures that sexually reproduce, then lice
are to be excluded from the killing prohibition since they, allegedly,
do not sexually reproduce. I can only assume that Rav Yosef was not
aware that the nits produced by head lice (which are not microscopic
- being about a millimeter) are actually the eggs laid by the louse.
Either that, or he was thinking only of body and pubic lice whose eggs
are more difficult to see. In any case, the existence of male and female
lice is well established. The fact that subsequent authorities have
followed the rationale of Rav Yosef - now known to be contrafactual,
does not, by itself, prove that this was also the view of the Tana'im.
Indeed, Abaye invoked several adages of the sages that mentioned lice
eggs. Rav Yosef's response that Beitzei Kinnim refers to a species by
that name appears to be forced.

We are left with a dilemma. Should we allow ourselves to disagree with an
Amora, or should we assume that Bet Hillel and the disputants of Rabbe
Eliezer were mistaken about the facts of lice reproduction and that
the halacha therefore rests on false premises? Consider the following
possibility:
The generalization of the prohibition of killing on shabbat from the
melachot involving the obtaining of rams' skins (or Tachash skins) is
limited to those creatures that have skins and blood. This would exclude
insects (more generally, arthropods) who have an exoskeleton instead of
a skin and no blood (their circulating fluid is more like a plasma - no
red blood cells). The generalization to cover all living things would
then be Rabbinic in nature. The sages could then have exempted lice
from the killing prohibition because they cause considerable discomfort
(itching). Others more learned than I can offer arguments against or in
support of this conjecture. My aim is primarily to preserve the validity
of the basic halacha even if it involves a fairly radical approach.

Yitzchok Zlochower

>Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>> Dr. Eidensohn conflates psakim in doros acharonim with dina d'gemara.
>> IMHO this is a grave error, and there is no basis for such a comparison.

>The above would seem to be an issue that bears further discussion and
>clarification. But I am simply not sure what you mean.  I would greatly
>appreciate your elucidation and expanation as to what your concerns are
>- it would also be especially helpful if you could connect your comments
>to the active exchange that preceded your comments.

What Chazal say is ex cathedra. So much so that even if in on an
objective, klapei shemaya galya plane the spiritual (or physical) reality
is otherwise. Of course, the archetypical instance of this principle
is BM 59b. V'hu ha'din b'nidon didan. If Chazal ruled that it is muttar
to kill kinim on Shabbos, heim gozrim v'HKB"H mekayem. It is therefore
permitted to kill kinim on Shabbos ba'zman ha'zeh as well.

YGB

> Obviously there are great Poskim on both sides of the issue. In category
> A, the usual reason given is that one cannot really see lice reproduce
> (you would need a microscope). In category B, our lice of today obviously
> reproduce (zachar unekeva/betzim) and hence we may not kill them.

It would be helpful if you indicated whether any of the poskim you cited
actually state your reasons. A more common explanation is that we don't
know how to differentiate the lice from dirt from other lice and therefore
we should be machmir. Analysis which looks primarily at the conclusion
of poskim and not their actual reasoning is not of any use in this issue.

I am looking for contemporary poskim who 1) acknowledge the scientific
reality 2) acknowledge that it apparently contradicts Chazal 3) state
that because the reality is not in accord with chazal therefore so
the halacha has changed. This is the view of the Pachad Yitzchok. I am
not really concerned with whether it is permitted to kill lice but the
reasoning for either retaining the halacha or changing it.

> ===
> I believe that the following is significant. Even if lice do reproduce
> the *yesod* of the Gemora in Shabbos still stands.

> Rabbi Herzog in Heichal Yitzchak (OC 29) writes w.r.t. disinfecting
> milk containers on Shabbos that we are permitted to kill bacteria
> [which reproduce asexually through fission or spores] on Shabbos, even
> if they are not harmful, because even science agrees that bacteria do
> not reproduce in the normal sense of this expression.

> Thus, should we find a category that fits the Gemora the halacha would
> apply.

It is interesting that you cite Rabbi Herzog who states clearly in the
first paragraph of this very tshuva that "even though scientists have
declared that lice come from sexual reproductions and thus it should be
prohibited to kill the lice - their view is irrelevant for the halahca
since only the view of chazal matters." He makes no attempt to say that
nature has changed - but only that science is irrelevant to halacha when
it contradicts chazal.

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         ]