Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 077

Monday, August 23 2004

• RE: Evolution, Creationism, Lice and Other Mythical Creatures
• Sources on Hashkafa Relating to Eating and Drinking
• nishtanu hateva and early pregnancy
• tikkun hamidot through eating and drinking
• Re: Public expression by women
• Re: Pi
• Age of the World
• Re: Calendar
• Reliability of Science (was Evolution, Creationism, Lice and Other Mythical Creatures)
• Re: Reliability of Science (was Evolution, Creationism, Lice and Other Mythical Creatures)
• RE: Reliability of Science
• RE: Lice

[Micha:]
> Actually, I think you're both incorrect.

> (a) are phenomena that we believe are repeatable. A skeptic might argue
> that tomorrow an object might not fall as predicted by the formula.

(a) are phenomena *without* a predictive formula. Once you have a formula
you have a theory -- which is why I placed a theory higher than (a)
(since a by itself are just the observations without the understanding of
"why" it's happening.)

> Hypotheses and theories are the means for making the (b) interpolations
> and (c) extrapolations.

Sometimes. And sometimes (b) and (c) are no more sophisticated than
drawing straight lines (or best-fit lines) through the data points. I
don't know if that really qualifies as a hypothesis or theory.

> Both (a) and (d) are never actually proven. Rather, if they stand it's
> because they repeatedly fail to be disproven.

Nothing can actually be "proven" without controlling/knowing the entire
universe -- the best we can do is remove as much doubt as possible.

> RAA later writes:
> : Not really -- Newtownian physics is still useful - and correct at
> : non-relativistic speeds.

> No, it's just negligably inaccurate. Useful, but not correct. Which may
> be good enough for the engineer, but for the philosopher, it's "wrong".

True enough -- My point was that Newtownian physics is still useful.

> Speaking of frustrating reinvention of the wheel, we're debating this at
> a pretty remedial level. The portrayal of "evolution" is on the level of
> a HS bio class.

And most HS Bio class portrayal of evolution is decades behind current
evolutionary theory.

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

Rav Moshe Tzuriel in his sefer Otzros haMussar has a Sha'ar on Eating and
Drinking (Vol. 1, pg 106-131) covering a range of different aspects of
hashlkafa relatinjg to eating and drinking. He collects classic sources
with quotes and citations and some of his own thoughts.

KT, SI

In message , Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> writes
>The issue of when Rav Moshe Feinstein uses the term Nishtanu HaTeva is
>complex. An intelligent discussion of this is found in "Shinuy HaTeva :An
>analysis of the halachic Process in Journal of halacha and Contemporary
>issues. by R' Dovid Cohen of Yeshiva of Far Rockaway.

>Concerning the first issue of a nursing or pregnant woman R' Cohen writes
>on pages 7-8.

>"There are times in a woman's life when she does not have a period.
>During these times, a woman does not have to follow the restriction of
>a veset on the days that, based on her previous periods, would have
>been days of her veset. The Shulchan Aruch [48. Y.D. 184:7, 189:33,
>190:52] cites two of these times as (a) from the time a woman is 3
>months. pregnant until delivery and (b) for 24 months after birth or
>miscarriage. The question that arises is how should the halacha regard
>women in the present, who differ from the description in the Talmud, in
>that typically they stop menstruating close to the start of pregnancy,

I must be missing something basic here - so maybe you can help me, but
I don't understand why this case falls within those that there is any
the need to use the concept of nishtanu hateva.

That is, going back to the Mishna in Nidah 7a - it says that she does
not have to follow the restrictions of a veset when it is known that
she is pregnant (misheyodua ubra), and this is explained in the gemrra
on 8b by Sumchus in the name of R' Meir as being after three months,
and it seems to me that it is on the basis of this that the Shulchan
Aruch is poskening.

So where does it say that women at the time of the Talmud either did or
did not stop menstruating close to the start of pregnancy that we should
need to say nishtanu hateva?

Rather, and maybe I am missing something fundamental here, it seems to
me that the gemora can be understood in a much more simple way.

Today, how do we know that we are pregnant- you go along to a chemist
(pharmacy, drug store) and get an over the counter pregnancy test and
hold it in your urine for a few seconds and either it turns blue or it
doesn't. And even in my mother's time, where they did not have over the
counter tests, the doctors performed the same types of test which is
based on the prevalence in a woman's urine of a hormone which is only
secreted on pregnancy.

BUT, go back even a couple of generations and no such tests existed.
So how did you know you were pregnant. Sure if one was morning sick
for the umpteenth time, one might have a pretty good guess, but all
the symptoms of morning sickness *could* be some sort of disease.
And one's period stopping might well have been a pretty good indication.
But periods can stop for other reasons - if close to menopause, it might
be that, if too much exercise it might be that (Olympic runners tend to
lose their periods) if not enough food it might be that (even today I
believe malnutrition is known to stop periods), especially if it is a
once off.

But at three months a) one is often starting to show; b) a trained
midwife can usually hear the heartbeat, even I would have thought with
a mechanical device such as listening cone, or determine pregnancy in
other ways; c) one is likely to have a chazaka of not having had a period
three times.

So why isn't this what the gemora and the Shulchan Aruch is talking
about - ie that a woman does not get the status of dayah sha'ata until
a pregnancy is established, and it can only be deemed established after
three months, [absent modern technology - and then query whether modern
pregnancy tests is sufficient to change the situation].

> Writing in the late eighteenth and nineteenth
>centuries, Rav Akiva Eiger [ Vol.1, 128. A careful reading of his ruling
>reveals that he is using the haIacha as we have it in Shulchan Aruch
>to be lenient (in a case of mamzeirut). See Noda BIYehuda n Y.D. 88
>and 93, who follows the guidelines of the Shulchan Aruch in a case
>of roah machmat tashmish, such that the guidelines are a stringency].
>and the Avnei Nezer [ Y.D. 238;3.] reason that, although everyone knows
>that women nowadays stop menstruating as soon as they are pregnant and
>may resume menstruation any time after birth, we can not rely on "our
>assumptions" to change the halacha in a case like this where none of the
>earlier authorities mention this change in nature [The Badei Hashulchan
>184:39, footnote 53, accepts this opinion.see also Mishna Berurah 550:3.
>The Noda BiYehuda E.H. 69 is similarly perplexed as to why no one mentions
>this change in nature, as it is as it is relevant to many other haIachot
>as well.]

I am also confused by this reference. My reading of this Noda B'Yehuda
is the opposite. In this case (in which indeed he was using the idea that
women can bleed during pregnancy to be lenient in a case of mamzeirut, and
to avoid yibum) he held that in fact women do bleed during pregnancy, and
the doctors told him that many many women bleed in this way. (This was a
case where the husband died, and the wife went to mikvah two weeks after
the husband died, and among other arguments, there were those who argued
that because she had gone to mikvah two weeks after her husband died,
it showed she was not pregnant from the husband, and since there were
no other children from the marriage, without this child being from the
husband, she would have required yibum (from a minor brother), and the
Noda B'yehuda held to the contrary that women do bleed even once they
are pregnant, and the doctors confirmed this to him, and hence she could
well have gone to mikvah even though she was pregnant from the husband.

Rav Moshe in the Iggerot Moshe YD 111 52 cited below, seems to disagree
very strongly with this Noda B'Yehuda and what his doctors told him,
and says it cannot be true.

Interestingly however, what the doctors told the Noda B'Yehuda is still
the common wisdom of the pregnancy and medical books produced today
- ie that it is very common for a woman to bleed at the time of her
expected period which coincides with the time the egg is implanting
itself into the wall of the uterus. On a personal note, this indeed
happened to me on my second pregnancy, (although not my first where
bleeding stopped as soon as I got pregnant). The second time around,
at the time of my expected period I started what seemed like normal
period bleeding - my pattern is to bleed lightly on the first day, and
then get heavier over night and the next day. But instead of getting
heavier it dried up completely. After a few days of this I thought,
this is odd, and got one of the over the counter pregnancy tests, and
sure enough I was pregnant. That was how come I came to check all the
pregnancy and medical books, because I was worried about the pregnancy,
and whether it was likely to be a viable one but was reassured to be
told that it was, and my son Eli is now doing fine at 20 months.

So, if the gemora in fact says that women can bleed in early pregnancy
I don't think in fact nature has changed, as the modern textbooks
say likewise. But I can't see where in fact it says that. All, it
seems to me that it says is that we need a test to establish whether
there is or is not a pregnancy at the time. That is not to say, that
once a pregnancy is established, one cannot look back and maybe like
the Bach say that mostly you can determine pregnancy from when the
period stopped, or close to it (they generally do that too in modern
medicine - but what they ask for is for your last *proper* period,
and they discount bleeding of the nature I described for tha, but of
course we don't for taharat mishpacha and mikvah purposes). But all
that is a retrospective question - the question of daya sha'ata is a
contemporaneous one, at what point can one ignore the established veset
so as to have relations *now*, and for that it seems to me you need to
know you definitely have a pregnancy, and the test of knowing you have
a pregnancy as per the gemora and shulchan aruch is three months, which
makes plenty of sense based on modern biology (and is not dissimilar to
the test for establishing menopause - which is also in that mishna)

So all in all, why is it that Rav Moshe and even Rabbi Akiva Eiger
(despite him ruling otherwise l'halacha) say that nishatanu hateva
applies?

One additional comment. The National Heath System here in England
also runs on a three month rule - in the general course, they are not
the slightest bit interested in your pregnancy (established though it
may be by means of a pregnancy test) until three months in. That is
apparently because a) there are so many miscarriages during the first
trimester that they wait until they believe there is a definite viable
pregnancy and that is not before 12 weeks, and b) not much can be done or
it makes sense to do before three months. Therefore 12 weeks/three months
is when you get your first midwife visit, you get your first scan etc.
Before that gornisht.

Shavua tov
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

From: "Simi Peters" <>
> Can anyone direct me to sources in machshava that discuss teshuva and/or
> tikkun hamidot in the area of eating and drinking? 
> I am trying to understand is how a Jew should
> relate to food and eating beyond the level of issur ve'heter.

Possibly 'Shulchan Hatohor 'by Rav Aharon Roth zt'l [FIL of the late
TA rebbe]. IIRC it is all about how an erlicher yid approaches a meal -
with all it's preparations etc.

SBA

y.blau@att.net wrote:
> ...The claim that the women, who are "pushing the envelope" in areas where
> there are no explicit halkhic restrictions but women have not performed
> them in the past, are motivated by an anger with halakha and Jewish
> tradition, makes an assumption about a number of different people. Many
> of these women are playing a public role in their professional life in
> areas that were closed to their grandmothers and mothers. Often, they are
> more active in Jewish life teaching and administrating Jewish schools
> and leading the highly successful Jewish women's organizations. They
> simply are functioning in the public arena. To ignore the changes that
> have taken place in Jewish society and to reduce the concerns of these
> women only to the influence of feminism seems unfair.

I understand the differences of life in the 21st century versus life
in the 19th century and before. And it is quite true that women today
have far different roles than did their grandmothers. This is true even
amongst Charedi woman. To a certain degree I credit feminism with some
of the progress Charedi women have in the workplace thus enabling their
husbands to learn full time far beyond what was possible in similar
family circumstances in the past due to the need to support the family
in more traditional male ways.

But it is one thing to be enabled to find a decent well paying job
in the workplace so that a Kollel lifestyle can be pursued and quite
another thing for women who want to take part in traditionally male
modalities because of some spiritual need they felt was lacking because
of limitations they believe exist in their own modalities. It is this
feeling of "lack" that is troubling to me.

To be sure many, even most women who feel the need to participate in male
modalities are as sincere as could be. I am certain that the woman who
asked RYBS if she could wear a Talis felt that sincere. But RYBS showed
her that her feelings were misplaced.

One must ask what the source of the motivation is. It is my contention
that the source ...HAS.. to be in the realm if the current zeitgeist
in liberal Jewish circles, that of feminism. The reason I contend
this is because I look at the profile of a typical woman who desires
to do these things. Although there might be an occasional exception,
it is not the Bais Yaakov trained woman; it is not the Chasidic woman
but it is almost exclusively the modern Orthodox woman who feels such
needs. One can easily deduce that the primary difference is how much one
is influenced by the prevailing culture. And even though the MO woman
might not be aware of it, exposure... perhaps even over-exposure to the
feminist zeitgeist influences them either directly or indirectly. One
rarely finds Charedim who close themselves off from the cultural milieu
interested in reading a Kesubah under the Chupah or wanting to be rabbis
even if they have jobs in the "outside" world.

As has been pointed out Kavod HaTzibur is difficult to define and is
probably quite relative to the place one lives and the times one lives
in. But IMHO it is not too difficult to determine what constitutes
Kavod Hatzibur in the vast majority of cases. It is an uncommon and
somewhat shocking sight to see a woman being given the Kibud of reading
the Kesubah at an Orthodox wedding. To me that spells Kavod HaTzibur
(or lack thereof). Halachicly, no problem... as RHS says. But from the
Kavod HaTzibur aspect there is no question in my mind that the very
shock of such a sight makes it lacking in Kavod Hatzibur.

True, that in those very LW MO communities where such things may be
becoming more accepted because of feminist concerns qualify as not
lacking in Kavod HaTzibur. But that does not mean that the Kavod HaTzibur
aspect has been eliminated from all Orthodox circles. I believe that it
is still rare enough to be under the category of Batel Datam Etzel Kol
Adam. It is the exception... enough so, to still be considered lacking
in Kavod HaTzibur.

Just to be clear, I have absolutely no problem at all with women in the
workplace or in the various leadership roles in Jewish education or as
public speakers. On the contrary, I would encourage women to fulfill
their potential in these fields as best they can, no less than men,
as long as both men and women do not short change their families in the
process. But when it comes to breaking new ground in Dvarim Sheb'kedusha,
I think great care has to be taken that it is done for the right reasons.

HM

I asked <<< So why would they conclude that it is indeed exactly three? I
hope someday to understand their logic. >>>

R' Micha Berger suggested <<< Because Pythagoras demanded that the
universe operates on whole numbers. Letting people outside his temple
learn that sqrt(2) is irrational was punished by death. So, this became
accepted Greek Knowledge. And therefore what was taught in Chazal's part
of the world. >>>

I was GOING to respond that it doesn't make sense for Chazal to be so
obedient to to this Greek that they were willing to pervert halacha for
his sake.

But then I realized that this was not a battle between Greek avodah
zara and Chazal's Torah. Rather, it was information learned from the
highest leaders of the scientific world, harnessed to answer questions of
halacha. And just because we have the advantage of more advanced science,
and that our scientists disagree wih Pythagoras, we should not be so
chutzpadik to criticize Chazal for that reliance.

Rather, we should take it as a lesson: Just as Chazal relied on the
greatest scientists of their day, who were upshlugged by later scientists,
we should realize that our scientists may very well get upshlugged by
tomorrow's. Exactly *which* parts of today's science will get challenged,
who knows? I strongly doubt that they'll ever get a new view about the
ratio of a circumference to the diameter, but maybe in some others ---
physics for sure, maybe archaeology too?

Akiva Miller

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, R' Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> posted:
> RMB:
> But speaking in terms of "from the creation of Adam" is exactly RHM's
> point. The dating is not from yeish mei'ayin, but from the last thing
> created.

We'll have to check with RHM about this, but from what's been said
until now, he's clearly talking about the days after "yaish Mei'ayin,"
and applying the process of evolution to the p'sukim from day one to
the sixth day. Look again.

RMB:
> There is no statement implied about time before Adam.

Hope to post on that soon.

RMB:
> ...[N]either of your ra'ayos say anything about ...  the duration of "days."  

ZL:
I don't see how you can say that. To review: Rabbaynu Saadia Gaon,
Sefer Emunah V'haDeyoss, end of first chapter: "And the third opinion,
the opinion of the k'sillim... And perhaps one [of them] will say,
'How can the intellect accept that THE WORLD HAS EXISTED for only 4,693
years?' And we will answer that once we believe that the WORLD WAS
CREATED, it is impossible that it had no beginning...."

If the six days of creation are fifteen billion years, the count of years
that THE WORLD HAS EXISTED until Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon would not be 4,693.

Again, Rabbaynu Yehudah HaLevy, Sefer HaKuzari, Part One, par. 43ff: 

The Rabbi:... "Moses told them that which is [otherwise] hidden, and
told them HOW THE WORLD WAS CREATED..." [ZL: According to RHM, the Torah
tells us WHAT, not HOW; According to those who want to interpret the
p'sukim al pi evolution, and as not meaning days when it says days,
but millenia, then the Torah is not really telling us HOW the world
was created, is it?] [Kuzari continues:] "... and the years of the
world from Adam until now." {Ah! Here the Kuzari seems to say like you
(in the words of the Chaver, yet)! OTOH, watch how he follows this up
immediately with the words he puts in the Khazar's mouth:

The Khazar King: "This too is an astounding thing, if you have a clear 
count FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD!"

My explanation: This reflects the shita of Rabbeynu Yehudah HaLevy, which
he explicates later, as well as that of the Rambam, that IF there is
absolutely no way out, we can, reluctantly, accept that the world has an
infinite past, and interpet the p'sukim accordingly. But until then, look
how vigorously and vigilantly the Gaonim and Rishonim fought this issue!

> It's simply an attack of an oversiplified
> version of out-of-date theory, a strawman.

Out-of-date now. THEN its believers were as confident and smug about it,
and disparaging to those who failed to fall in line with it, as many
of the believers of this ever-changing dodge from accepting Creation
are now. (And you can be sure that today's "undeniable facts" will
be laughed at tomorrow.) If the theory we're discussing is a strawman
version of the "REAL" theory, then those who are supporting the strawman
version should abandon it. But if the basics are accurate, then the
argument on that level is valid. (I'm sure the idolators of the past,
too, had very sophisticated explanations for their beliefs--maybe they,
too, even changed them slightly every few years they found a hitch. This
did not stop the nevi'im from criticising them on the grounds of their
basic ridiculousness. Oversimplication? Maybe penetrating crystalizing
of the issue.)

Zvi Lampel

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> But speaking in terms of "from the creation of Adam" is exactly RHM's
> point. The dating is not from yeish mei'ayin, but from the last thing
> created. There is no statement implied about time before Adam.

What about our calendar, then, which is from the creation of the world,
not of Adam, and which in fact starts from "molad tohu", which never
existed?

> Which is why neither of your ra'ayos say anything about a shitah of
> literal treatment of Bereishis 1, and even less about proving the lack of
> a shitah of a non-literal treatment. They speak of how long the beri'ah
> has been complete, not the length of time from yeish mei'ayin to day
> one, or the duration of "days" or any of the other issues raised in
> this regard.

That may be true of the Seder Olam's calendar, but not of the one we
use today, which starts nearly a year before there was any time.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[JSO]
>> It's pretty simple really. Not all scientific data have equal 
>> credibility, for our scientific beliefs in the data can be based on:
>> (a) repeatable observable phenomena
>> (b) interpolation
>> (c) extrapolation and
>> (d) deep theory

> [RAA] 
> Your (d) is incorrect -- it should be a "deep hypotheses". A "theory"
> is a hypotheses which has been shown to be correct by 
> observation and testing -- and would therefore be higher than (a).

I take it from your response that you agree with basic classification
that as you go down the list from (a) to (d) the evidence gets weaker
(I will discuss your suggested change to (d) below).

This classification is of some significance because it explains how the
very greatest scientists can make very bad errors in calculating the
age of the universe (errors of infinite orders of magnitude). 50 years
ago we would have had to re-interpret "Beraishis Bara" as talking about
an eternal universe. Scientists now regularly talk about a moment of
creation a finite time ago.

I got the above classification (a) to (d) from Rabbi Gottlieb (as noted in
an earlier post). I believe that Rabbi Gottlieb is correct and there is no
need to change (d) as you suggest from "deep theory" to "deep hypotheses".
This is because a Theory is not a Law:

[Online Brittanica]
"A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised
to explain them in a scientifically rational manner ...Empirical laws
and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably
clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning
of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing
the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are
initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed
relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of
the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it
is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human
mind-the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as
of observation-for they are only suggested by observational information
rather than inductively generalized from it."

That current big bang dating methods rely on extrapolation and deep
theory can be gleaned from the 'Open Letter to the Scientific Community'
by 33 maverick scientists (the majority disagree) in:

[Eric Lerner, Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May
2004] "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and
dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would
be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as
a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at
the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying
theory. But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge
factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does
not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is
observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that
are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same
temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation ... ".

One of the mavericks to sign the above letter is Halton Arp an
astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich. Arp
keeps discovering galaxies that exhibit one redshift value (designated
as "z" in the scientific literature) that are physically associated
with quasars with entirely different redshift values. As science writer
Gribbin noted in 1987: "If a galaxy and a quasar are physically connected,
but have different redshifts, something definitely is wrong.... Arp has
enough evidence that he ought to be worrying more people than actually
acknowledge the significance of his findings".

[David Berlinski in his 1998 Commentary article on the Big Bang] "The
[late] American mathematician I.E. Segal and his associates have studied
the evidence for galactic recessional velocity over the course of twenty
years, with results that are sharply at odds with predictions of Big
Bang cosmology. Segal is a distinguished, indeed a great mathematician,
one of the creators of modern function theory and a member of the
National Academy of Sciences. He has incurred the indignation of the
astrophysical community by suggesting broadly that their standards of
statistical rigor would shame a sociologist. Big Bang cosmology, he writes

"owes its acceptance as a physical principle primarily to the uncritical
and premature representation of [the redshift-distance relationship] as
an empirical fact.... Observed discrepancies . . . have been resolved
by a pyramid of exculpatory assumptions, which are inherently incapable
of noncircular substantiation."

50 years later we are again asked to reinterpret Maaseh Beraishis based
on the Big Bang theory and wildly extrapolated radiometric evidence. Why
should we respond any differently than the Rambam did to Aristotle?

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:22:36 -0400, Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> I take it from your response that you agree with basic classification that
> as you go down the list from (a) to (d) the evidence gets weaker 

Yes and no. interpolation and extrapolation done WITHOUT a theory
to support it (i.e. just drawing a best-fit line through the data
points) is weak. However -- once you have a theory to justify that
interpolation/extrapolation it becomes stronger, because of the (implied)
understanding of cause/effect.

> This classification is of some significance because it explains how the very
> greatest scientists can make very bad errors in calculating the age of the
> universe 

I disagree -- because those "errors" were NOT based on observations and
theory, but on personal belief.

> I got the above classification (a) to (d) from Rabbi Gottlieb (as noted in
> an earlier post). I believe that Rabbi Gottlieb is correct and there is no
> need to change (d) as you suggest from "deep theory" to "deep hypotheses".

But Rabbi Gottlieb is NOT a scientist, so his understanding of the
scientific process is not neccessarily correct.

> This is because a Theory is not a Law:

Agreed -- but I disagree with the definition you used.

IMO a better set of definitions can be found at
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

Based on the definition there I still think a Scientific Theory is more
reliable and useful than (a).

> That current big bang dating methods rely on extrapolation and deep theory
> can be gleaned from  the 'Open Letter to the Scientific Community' by 33
> maverick scientists (the majority disagree) in:

> [Eric Lerner, Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004]
> "The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
> things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy
> are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal
> contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the
> predictions of the big bang theory. 

"Specifics" about the big band process (especially what happened after the
"explosion") rely on those things -- the actual Big Bang itself doesn't.

Once you accept the idea that the universe is expanding then simply
running backwards in time (and thus contracting the universe) brings
you to a time when the universe was a point.

> 50 years later we are again asked to reinterpret Maaseh Beraishis based on
> the Big Bang theory and wildly extrapolated radiometric evidence. Why should
> we respond any differently than the Rambam did to Aristotle?

We can ignore the Big Bang entirely if you wish -- the fact is we have
well over 100,000 years of accurate scientific data about the state of
the Earth's atmosphere, temperature, rainfall, etc. That alone forces
us to take a serious look at Maaseh Beraisis.

Akiva

[JSO quoting Rabbi Gottlieb]
> It's pretty simple really. Not all scientific data have equal 
> credibility, for our scientific beliefs in the data can be based on:
> (a) repeatable observable phenomena
> (b) interpolation
> (c) extrapolation and
> (d) deep theory

[RAA preferring "deep hypothesis" to "deep theory"]
> But Rabbi Gottlieb is NOT a scientist, so his understanding 
> of the scientific process is not neccessarily correct.

Possibly, but the philosophy of science is an area he is very familiar
with: His Ph.D. is in Philosophy [mathematical logic] from Brandeis
University; he was for ten years a member of the department of philosophy
of The Johns Hopkins University; he received a research grant from the
National Science Foundation; and, he published Ontological Economy with
Oxford University Press.

[JSO quoting Brittanica in support of "deep theory" for (d)]
> This is because a Theory is not a Law:

[RAA]
> Agreed -- but I disagree with the definition you used.
> IMO a better set of definitions [for "Theory"] can be found at 
> http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml

I am not sure why we are forced to accept your website's definition
over that of Encyclopedia Britannica. See below for an example of a
Britannica-style theory (Geosynclinal Theory)

> Based on the definition there I still think a Scientific 
> Theory is more reliable and useful than (a).

[Clark, T.H. and Stern, C.W., Geologic History of North America,
1960, p. 43]
"The geosynclinal theory is one of the great unifying principles in
geology. In many ways its role in geology is similar to that of the
theory of evolution which serves to integrate the many branches of the
biological sciences. The geosynclinal theory is of fundamental importance
to sedimentation, petrology, geomorphology, ore deposits, structural
geology, geophysics, and in fact all branches of geological science. It
is a generalization concerning the genetic relationship between the
trough like basinal areas of the earth's crust which accumulate great
thicknesses of sediment and are called geosynclines, and major mountain
ranges. Just as the doctrine of evolution is universally accepted among
biologists, so also the geosynclinal origin of the major mountain systems
is an established principle in geology."

But, by 1965, geosynclinal theory started to be replaced by the very
different theory of plate tectonics. And so Geosynclinal Theory, one
of the "great unifying principles in geology" ("similar to that of the
theory of evolution" :-), took a turn for the worse. Extrapolation and
"deep theory" strike again. Geshmak!

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

[R David Glasner:]
>I therefore don't agree with Rabbi B that the DR holds that Hazal had an
>inherent superiority over later generations that precludes disagreement
>with them. Rather, the situation is simply that the normal halakhic
>mechanism (inherent in TSBP when it was truly an Oral Law) is no longer
>available. However (and this is me not the Dor Revi'I speaking now).
>being a creative and resourceful people, we still find ways around such
>problems by inventing legal fictions like nishtaneh ha-tevah that allow
>us to change the halakhah even though for appearnces sake we pretend
>that we are not doing so.

I cannot agree with RDG in his assessment of the position of the DR -
the DR states explicitly that the sagacity that typified Chachmei Yisroel
b'yoshvam al admasam was lost to later generations, and he then continues
to state that foresight of the impending diminution led Rebbi to write
the mishnah, and that similar foresight led Ravina and R' Ashi to sign
the Talmud, and the Rambam and Mechaber to write their chibburim.

YGB

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


[ 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         ]