Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 028

Thursday, November 18 2004

• Re: An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?
• Re: An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• RE: Torah and science (do scientists believe in the Creator)
• Re: Asking questions
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Re: Torah and science
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: Two observations in a beis olam
• Re: An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?
• Re: caretakers
• Re: caretakers
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• Choni HaMagel vs. Musar masters
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Choni HaMagel vs. Musar masters
• chazarah on shabbat
• Sanhedrin
• Re: Orthodox Conservative Rabbi
• Re: An Orthodox Conservative Rabbi?
• pardon my ignorance
• Re: pardon my ignorance
• Re: Torah and Science

RMYG asked:
> What do my fellow Avodites think is the Halachic status of a  
> conservative rabbi who considers himself Orthodox?
> Would he be kosher l'edus?

Not according to Rav Soloveitchik zetzal, would he? (re geires;
rabbis identifying with an ideology that denies toure min hashomayem
notwithstanding their personal lifestyle)

> Does his "lifestyle choice" show that he doesn't accept the 13 ikkarim  
> (as conservative judaism doesn't)?

But he wouldn't have to, would he?

Now how about a community rabbi who has a Conservative smiche, changes the
tefilles in some "minor" places etc., but insists on being considered O
and let's an O woman's stretched hand float in the air? (I know, we had
that on arvm...)

ELPh Minden

MYG <mslatfatf@access4less.net> wrote:
> What do my fellow Avodites think is the Halachic status of a conservative
> rabbi who considers himself Orthodox? The one I am thinking of (no names)
> is a rabbi for many years in a conservative synagogue, and yet considers
> himself Orthodox - to the degree that (I am told) he davens at home
> before he goes to the synagogue.
...
> Would he be kosher l'edus? Does his "lifestyle choice" show that he
> doesn't accept the 13 ikkarim (as conservative judaism doesn't)?

It's a question of identifying with apostate views in an official
capacity. To the extent that this rabbi "davens at home" (I also know a
rabbi like that) is to the extent that he deceives his congregation. I
suspect that they do not know he does this and would be upset if they
found out. OTOH This rabbi might view his role as that of Kiruv... and
he may even be succesful at it (by sending kids to an O day school). But
thist is a flawed aproach in the end IMO since he is using deceptive
practices. As to the question of his Halachic status... I don't know. A
lot depends on whether he publicly violates Shabbos. Does he for example
use a microphone? Is that Chilul Shabbos in any case? If so why is it
different than a hearing aid which also is electronically of a similair
principle. I have been advised in the past that the Issur of using
a microphone on (How's that for awkward sentence construction?) Is
Mashmiyas Kol a Toldah of any of the Av melachos? If so, which one?

Also how does he handle some of their apostate views?

HM

R' Zev Sero wrote <<< go to any cemetery, and the paths are marked to
tell the kohanim where they can go and where they can't. >>>

I have been at many cemeteries in the NYC-NJ area, and have never noticed
anything of this sort. Have I seen it and not noticed, or is this only
in Israel?

Akiva Miller

R. Akiva Atwood wrote in answer to Rn.TK:
> Actually, the *majority* of hard scientists, according to every survey
> ever done, express belief in a Creator.
> The group you are thinking about is a small minority -- the "NK" of the
> science world.

Could you please quote your source for this very rosy statement?

Rn.TK is, I believe, correct, at least according to one relatively
recent survey:

[1] Larson, E.J. and L. Witham. Leading scientists still reject
God. Nature. 394(6691): p313, 1998.

According to [1], in 1998, 60.7% of randomly chosen scientists in
the USA express disbelief or doubt in the Creator. For *leading*
scientists (members of the NAS) there is near universal rejection of the
transcendent, G-d and the immortal soul -- 92% of *leading* scientists
express either outright disbelief (72.2%) or doubt (20.8%).

This is to be contrasted with the surer opinion of the average American
who has deep personal beliefs. It seems that 1000 PhDs and members of the
National Academy of Science can indeed be badly wrong and prejudiced by
the dogma of methodological naturalism -- regardless of the facts. As
David Berlinski writes in the latest Commentary: "At some time in the
history of the universe, there were no human minds, and at some time
later, there were. Within the blink of a cosmic eye, a universe in which
all was chaos and void came to include hunches, beliefs, sentiments,
raw sensations, pains, emotions, wishes, ideas, images, inferences,
the feel of rubber, Schadenfreude, and the taste of banana ice cream. A
sense of surprise is surely in order. How did *that* get *here*?"

Here are some quotes from [1].

===
Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey,
"You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't
think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word
because they are such alien categories of knowledge."

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the
teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction
between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in
the United States. The booklet assures readers, "Whether God exists or
not is a question about which science is neutral". NAS president Bruce
Alberts said: "There are many very outstanding members of this academy
who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of
them biologists." Our survey suggests otherwise.
===

As I stated in an earlier post, I respectfully suggest exercising extreme
caution when examining the pronouncements of academic thought leaders
especially when it comes to origins (creation of the universe, origin of
man "beyom hashishi") and the special role of Am Yisroel as a "mamleches
kohanim vegoy kadosh" who received the devar Hashem behar Sinai.

KT. JSO

R Elazar M Teitz wrote:
>As I recall reading Reb Chaim Brisker's comment (I believe it was in
>R. Zevin's "Ishim v'Shitot"), it was not about asking of questions on the
>Torah per se. He referred specifically to questioning a contradiction in
>commands, as in the case of the Akeidah: Avraham does not question the
>apparent contradiction between "ki v'Yitzchak yikarei l'cha zara" and
>"ha'aleihu l'olah" until _after_ he has been told "al tishlach." (See
>Rashi on 22:12.) He posits that we must not ask about shnei k'suvim
>hamachchishim zeh es zeh "ad sheyavo hakasuv hash'lishi." -- until we
>have the resolution in hand. He did not say that there was a blanket
>injunction against asking questions about the Torah's words.

I don't see any meaningful difference between R' Zevin's account and
the version I posted before.

R' Chaim is placing limits on questions and that is also how R' Zevin
understands R' Chaim Brisker.

A copy of R' Zevin's account is available
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/questionsRChaim.pdf>

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Zev Sero:
>> But  the boxes certainly seem the most convenient and practical way of
>>  getting a kohen through a cemetery.

[R Gershon Dubin:]
> In my naivete' I thought kohanim were not supposed to be in a  cemetery.

Can someone please explain to me how a kohen-box works? Is it a platform
of some kind upon which the kohen stands or sits--like a soapbox--and
someone carries the platform through the cemetery? If so, the kohen is
at some risk of being toppled. Or is it a box inside of which the kohen
sits or lies while being carried? If so, does it have to be closed on all
sides or can it be open at the top? Or even open at the sides? Does it
have airholes cut out, or glass windows for light, or a self-contained
atmosphere as in a spacecraft--or what? I keep picturing a box of toy
soldiers, only this is a box of toy kohanim, except we are talking
about boxes for full-grown men? Or--another possibility--is this a box
that the kohen himself can propel from inside, with wheels he can pedal
perhaps? [But if wheels or rollers touch the ground does that "spoil"
the kashrus of the box for a kohen?] This is not the first time I have
heard of kohen-boxes but it is the first time I have admitted to myself
that I have NO IDEA what they are.

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

> Can someone please explain to me how a kohen-box works?

Most of your question was not about how it works, but how it looks. Since
I didn't see it in action, I can only describe its general look. Imagine
the old political cartoons with some guy wearing a barrel that he holds
up around his middle. Square it off and you've got the general look.

Caveat: I didn't get out of the car (the guy I was with wanted to go to
the Ohel; I had no such interest and much laziness) so I may be wrong
on this description. Perhaps R' Zev can chime in.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> I utterly reject Stephen Jay Gould's suggestion that religion and
> science deal with different kinds of "truth."

Actually, I take the same position'; I also maintain that history and
science deal with different kinds of "truth". I think I've written
about this on Avodah before. Science does not deal with the past,
and cannot say anything about it. When a scientist *qua scientist*
makes a statement about the past, she is really talking about the
present, and is using the past tense only to avoid awkward language.
For instance, when a scientist examines a clock that shows 4:00, and
determines it to be in working order and properly calibrated, she can
say with abosolute confidence that 'half an hour ago this clock showed
3:30'; what she is really saying is 'the present state of the clock is
consistent with it having shown 3:30 half an hour ago, and inconsistent
with anything else'. Since science cannot say anything about the past,
within scientific discourse such statements are *understood* to really
be about the present, and no explanation is necessary.

Another way of putting this is that every scientific statement about
the past must be read as including the phrase 'assuming nothing has
changed between then and now'; this phrase is necessary, not because of
any uncertainty about the situation, but because it is inherent in the
definition of scientific truth. Even if we actually know that something
*did* change, that doesn't change the scientific truth, it just means
that the scientific truth isn't the same as the historical truth; in
that situation the implied disclaimer should be read as 'had nothing
changed between then and now', and every 'was' should be read as 'would
have been'.

The problem is that scientists can get so acclimatised to 'scientific
truth' as I have defined it above, that they forget there's any other
kind of truth.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

It's just a four-sided box that the kohen stands inside, holds up, and
carries with him as he walks. I haven't actually looked inside to see
how he holds it, but I assume some kind of handle/s. The point is that
it creates a mechitza around him, so that he may pass within 4 amot of
a kever, just as he may do if there's a fence around the kever.

It has nothing to do with ohel hamet, and doesn't help at all with
that; the kohen-in-the-box may not walk over a kever, or under a tree
that covers a kever, and of course he may not enter a building that is
ohel hamet. (The Lubavitcher Ohel, despite the name, does not have the
status of ohel hamet, and there is no problem with kohanim entering it;
the problem is *getting* there. As I said before, other solutions are
to walk inside a ring of people forming a human mechitzah, or to drive
right up to the fenced-in path that leads to the ohel, and step directly
from the car to the path.)

I assume the same arrangement would also allow someone to carry in the
street on shabbat. At least, I know the human mechitzah works on shabbat,
and offhand I can't think of a reason why the box wouldn't work; driving
is obviously not a practical solution.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In a message dated 11/16/2004, zev@sero.name writes:
> It's  just a four-sided box that the kohen stands inside, holds up, and
> carries  with him as he walks.  

But this kohen-box--how much of a mechitza does it have to be? Is it
OK if his feet can be seen under it? How about if his head protrudes
above it? Or are there eye-holes cut out? Or a camera inside it,
with a view-finder, so he can make sure he doesn't stray or stumble?

 -Toby Katz

> But this kohen-box--how much of a mechitza does it have to be?  Is
> it OK if his feet can be seen under it?  How about if his head
> protrudes above it?  Or are there eye-holes cut out?

It has to be 10 tefachim high, just like an actual fence around a kever,
or like a mechitza for shabbat.  So he can easily see above it.

And it doesn't have to touch the ground. I think the rule of gud achit
applies, just as it does on shabbat, but even if it doesn't, lavud
surely does, so it doesn't have to actually scrape the ground, he can
lift it up to three tefachim above the ground, which should be plenty
for comfort and convenience.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

In Avodah V14 #27 dated 11/16/2004 "MYG" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
writes:
> What do my fellow Avodites think is the Halachic status of a conservative
> rabbi who considers himself Orthodox? The one I am thinking of (no
> names) is a rabbi for many years in a conservative synagogue.... Does
> his "lifestyle choice" show that he doesn't accept the 13 ikkarim
> (as conservative judaism doesn't)?

It's clear to me that as long as he is the "rabbi" of a non-kosher place
of worship, his halachic status is that of a non-frum Jew. But I have
another question, suggested by yours: What is the halachic status of
a retired C rabbi now living in Century Village in Florida and davening
in the local Young Israel of Century Village? Surprisingly, there are
quite a few of these retired Conservative rabbis who daven in that shul!
May/must one assume that they have all done teshuva?

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

From: Akiva Atwood  <akiva.atwood@gmail.com>
> On  Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:00:28 EST, t613k@aol.com <t613k@aol.com>  wrote:
>> We are not "the world's caretakers" except in a moral  sense.

> Eicha Rabba would  disagree.

care to fill me in?

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:27:19 EST, t613k@aol.com <t613k@aol.com> wrote:
> care to fill me in? 

Sorry -- that's Koheles Rabba (7:28)

When the Holy One Blessed Be He created the first man he took him and
showed him all the trees of the Garden of Eden and said to him - "see
my works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are; and I created all
of it for you. Be careful not to spoil or destroy my world because if
you spoil it, there will be no one after you to repair it."

Akiva

-- 
there are no dilemmas without confusion, there's no free will without
dilemmas, and there's no humanity without free will.

[RnTK, earlier post:]
> the  scientific method will never discover
> or prove anything that  contradicts the Torah, because the Torah is true
> and the scientific  method is a way of finding out facts. FACTS cannot
> contradict truth, by definition.

[R' Akiva  Atwood:]
> Depending on your definitions, of course. And shouldn't that be "Truths"
> with a capital 'T' to differentiate them from truths with a small 't',
> which *can* be contradicted by science?

No, that should be truths without quotation marks, clearly distinguishable
from "truths" with quotation marks, which are not true at all, and
therefore easily falsifiable by the scientific method. The scientific
method cannot contradict truths without quotation marks, however,
which according to my definition, are truths that are actually true.

 -Toby Katz

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> No, that should be truths without quotation marks, clearly
> distinguishable
> from "truths" with quotation marks, which are not true at all, and
> therefore easily falsifiable by the scientific method. The scientific
> method cannot contradict truths without quotation marks, however,
> which according to my definition, are truths that are actually
> true.

You make it sound like the scientific method is some sort of nefarious
means of falsifying the truth. That is the furthest thing from the
truth. The Scientific method is simply an objective way of determining
FACTS. Not truth. It is not infallible and by definition new facts can
invalidate old "facts", which were not really facts at all in the end,
but conclusions based on observable data which have been now disproven by
newly discovered additional data often through the use of the scientific
method.

HM

Shalom,

In the gemora about Choni HaMagel, he awakes after a 70 years slumber,
finds he has no friends, then states: Chevrusa o'Mesusa.

There are stories of Hasidic and musar masters who all they wanted was
solitude to learn.

Choni was at least as great as those people, so why would Choni want
to die?

Thank you,
Avroham Yakov

In a message dated 11/17/2004 <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes:
> You make it sound like the scientific method is some sort of nefarious
> means of falsifying the truth. ... The Scientific method is simply an
> objective way of determining FACTS. Not truth.

You misunderstood what I wrote. When I said that the scientific method
can falsify "facts", I did not mean that it can deceive and misrepresent
the truth. I meant that it can prove false what was previously believed
to be true.
 Whenever we speak of a realm where science can NOT falsify or disprove
facts, we are speaking of a realm beyond that in which science operates.
For example, the scientific method can falsify--i.e., prove false--the
hypothesis that the moon is made of green cheese. OTOH it can neither
prove nor disprove that angels exist, nor that the world was Created.

Just for the record, truth = facts. The scientific method is a method
of determining both facts and truth; they're the same thing. I do not
recognize such a category as a truth which is not a fact or a fact that
is not true.

But there ARE some facts which science cannot prove--or disprove. There
are facts that are beyond the current capacity of science to measure
or to determine.

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

R' Avroham Yakov wrote:
> In the gemora about Choni HaMagel, he awakes after a 70 years slumber,
> finds he has no friends, then states: Chevrusa o'Mesusa.

> There are stories of Hasidic and musar masters who all they wanted was
> solitude to learn.

> Choni was at least as great as those people, so why would Choni want
> to die?

My brother once explained the matter in the following manner. "There is a
debate as to when Choni lived. One view is that Choni lived between the
first and second Temples which had distinctly different types of avodas
HaShem. In the first Temple there was prophesy and a direct immediate
connection to G-d. In the second the prophet was replaced by the chochom
and the world of the Oral Torah. Correspondingly the relationship with
Gd was distant and intellectual. When he went to sleep he awoke in the
world of the second Temple. This change is alluded to by the fact he
couldn't understand why someone would plant a tree that would only bear
fruit after the planter was dead. Choni related to the world of direct
experience and immediate consequences. When he awoke he was given honor -
but in fact he had no one to communicate with. He thus woke into a world
in which he was totally isolated."

 Solitude is nice but never as a permanent condition and irrevocable
 state.

This idea is also reflected in Menachos 29b that Moshe did not understand
the words of R' Akiva. Also Moshe is compared to the sun and Yeshoshua to
the moon. Moshe had to die before the Jews entered Israel because he was
totally inappropriate for the new generation in Israel. Each generation
is uniquely matched with the appropriate leader (Sanhedrin 38b). Thus
a leader of a one generation would be incapable of functioning in
another. Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his - but you can't
mix leaders and generations. Noach was a tzadik in his generation .

Similarly Rambam (Rotzeach 7:1) rules that if a person kills accidentally
he must go into a city of refuge and his rebbe must go with him. That
is because life without his rebbe is considered a death sentence. If
the Rebbe is sent to exile his yeshiva must go with him.

Daniel Eidensohn

Chana wrote
>The understanding of the Sephardi poskim has always been that that is
>in relation to a dvar lach, not to a dvar yavesh (ie liquid rather than
>solid), hence the divergent minhagim with Sephardim putting cold fully
>cooked solid food (with a minority of gravy) onto a covered stove and
>Ashenazim not (actually, even that is not quite true, some Sephardim ha
>the minhag of holding ain bishul achar bishul also in relation to a dvar
>lach, and poskening against Maran, but that is not and has never been the
>mainstream minhag). The Sephardi poskim read 253:2 as relating to a d'var
>lach, and 253:5 as relating to a d'var yevesh that has been fully cooked.

>... and while it is still
>(according to most opinions) pretty b'dieved for Ashenazim, even in
>Israel, to be relying on such opinions, I suspect it is likely that
>a bit more tolerance can be elicited if she understands that half of
>the halachic world does not read the sugya the way she and her halacha
>teacher does, even if it is not her half of the halachic world. >>

Adding to Chana's nice post - even in Ashkenazi circles not everyone
accepts this halacha. I received a personal psak from R. Soloveitchik
that if the dry food is on the blech with candle lighting then one can
take the food off the flame, put it in the referigator and take it out
the next morning and return it to the stove . I have heard from some
that there is even a written (unpublished) teshuva about this. Though
even some talmidim of RYBS deny it I have heard this same story from
several other sources and have re-verified it with my chavrusa in that
shiur. I have also heard of other ashkenazi poskim that agree.

Even if this is not mainstream ashkenazi psak here are enough such poskim
to justify such a minhag and elicit the tolerance of others.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

> In other words, the Sanhedrin b'm'komo was either 100 per cent Saducee
> (twice in history) or 100 per cent Chochmei Torah, except for the period
> in which Shimon ben Shetach was strategically replacing the Saducees,
> one by one, with chochmei Torah. There is every reason to repudiate the
> idea that the Tannaim would participate in Saducee-membered courts if
> such courts would claim to be Torah courts. (See R. R. Margolios, Y'sod
> HaMishnah V'Arichasah, p. 9 note 9, and the chapter of R. Y.I. HaLevy
> Rabinowitz's Doros HaRishonim.)

There is a major problem with this position. We know quite well from
Josephus and even the Talmud that many leaders of the nation including the
high priest and the Hasmonean kings were Saducees. As such it is highly
unlikely that they would have agreed to a 100% Pharisee high court. Hence,
either the Sanhedrin of Hillel and Shamai and the others mentioned in
Avot was not "the" Sanhedrin but a Pharisee version or else there were
representatives of all the parties that existed at that time. There was
no way that everyone else would allow the pharosees to completely dominate
such an important institution as the Sanhedrin which held wide powers.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Someone emailed me off-list that (he thinks) the Rav accepted a
conversion performed by a conservative rabbi. If this is so, that would
imply a certain legitimacy. Does anyone know if this is so, and if so,
the details?

Moshe Yehuda Gluck
mslatfatf@access4less.net
www.esefer.blogspot.com

On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 09:57:04PRM -0500, MYG wrote:
: Would he be kosher l'edus? Does his "lifestyle choice" show that he
: doesn't accept the 13 ikkarim (as conservative judaism doesn't)?

RMYG assumes this "rabbi" keeps chovos ha'eivarim but not chovos
halvavos. What if he actually believes the 13 ikkarim in some form, but
doesn't hold they define Jewish belief. Such a person may feel comre
comfortable affiliating with the broader umbrella of C. But since he
himself believes the ikkarim, is he still O?

Or, he may simply feel that if he didn't take the job, a reel kofeir
would pull these people even further. An aveirah lishmah at worst.

-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

if the reason copepods are not kosher is because they are visible [ and
have no simanei kashrus], why is a block of yeast kosher? every packet i
have used has been quite visible, and to my knowledge dont have simanei
kashrus...what source am i missing?

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 09:28:25AM -0800, Newman,Saul Z wrote:
: if the reason copepods are not kosher is because they are visible [ and
: have no simanei kashrus], why is a block of yeast kosher? every packet i
: have used has been quite visible, and to my knowledge dont have simanei
: kashrus...what source am i missing?

Yeast have simanei kashrus, as does every other tzomei'ach. Only chayos
and beheimos can be non-kosher.

Or, to put it another way, yeast are as kosher as mushrooms.

-mi

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Just for the record, truth = facts. 

I do not agree that facts equal truth. They are not one and the same.
Truth can be based on belief without the benefit of facts. Facts are by
definition in the realm of the physical universe. Truth is not exclusively
in that domain. To say, for example, that an angel's existence is a fact
is incorrect. However, to say that the existence of angels is a truth
is correct. Truth is a higher category than fact. Facts can be part of
the truth. Facts can be used to prove the truth. But facts in and of
themselves are not the totality of the truth. Facts are true. But truth
need not consist entirely of facts.

Truth can exist entirely on beliefs alone. The best example of that is the
belief that the entire universe was created exactly 5765 years ago. That
is a belief that is not predicated on facts at all. The facts dispute
that truth. The facts tell us that the universe is about 15 billion
years old. But one has the choice to ignore those facts and believe
in a more literalist interpretaion of age of the universe. That is a
perfectly legitmate belief in Torah Judaism. Does the lack of facts to
support that belief make that view, any less "true" than the view that
the universe is 15 billion years old? No. Both views are a version of
truth. One is supported by facts and one isn't.

> The scientific method is a method of determining both facts and truth 

Yes, that is true.

> they're the same thing. 

No, they are not.

> I do not
> recognize such a category as a truth which is not a fact or a fact
> that is not true.

Don't mean it ain't so.

HM

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


[ 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         ]