Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 080

Friday, February 11 2005

• [none]
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: It recently became kefira
• Re: Abortion
• Tsunami and Teshuva Solutions
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• "iyyei hayam" (was "Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy")
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Day and year
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Singing in Shower
• Plastic keilim in the mikdash
• Re: Adar I
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: A of the U
• Semicha and Kiddush Ha Chodesh
• Re: Mezuzah
• Re: Torah and Science

> From domo@aishdas.org Wed Feb  9 04:32:26 2005
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 05:32:26 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronology
Message-ID: <20050209103226.GA23494@aishdas.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>, avodah@aishdas.org
References: <20050208.194122.25662.108515@webmail18.lax.untd.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050208.194122.25662.108515@webmail18.lax.untd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1779
Lines: 34
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:41:20AM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Sholom Simon responded <<< That's only because when we calculate
: the molad, we use that as a starting point, whether or not there was an
: actual molad at that time! You've only proven that subtraction is the
: opposite of addition. >>>

: Yeah, but you're looking only at the endpoints. We've been using the
: 29d12h44m1c period for at least 1500 years (=18000 months) and no one
: (that I'm aware) of has complained of it being out of sync with what's
: visible in the sky...

: My point is that it is fair to presume that if they are this close
: today, then they have been just as close all along. So it is not just
: addition and subtraction from today to Bereshis. Rather, it was addition
: from when the Molad Tohu was established in the Gemara, up to today;
: then subtraction from today will overshoot the Gemara and accurately
: land us in Bereshis.

But in terms of trying to use the molad to prove the absence of 168
missing years (which is still the subject line on this discussion, FWIW),
there is a big difference between whether we are using a starting point
(be it molad tohu, the molad on the day of Adam's creation, or the molad
of Nissan the year of yetzi'as Mitzrayim) that was given to us before
the possible 168 years, or a number we computed afterward taking their
absence as a given. If the latter, then, as RSS wrote, "You've only
proven that subtraction is the opposite of addition."

-mi

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

On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:10:03PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: These factors introduce an interesting complication to all this. Namely,
: why do we presume the molad to be in terms of JST? The obvious answer
: is that Yerushalayim is where the witnesses were interrogated and Rosh
: Chodesh was declared. But doesn't this ignore the plain meaning of
: "Hachodesh Hazeh Lachem Rosh Chadashim"?

The plain meaning is that one goes al pi re'iyah, without using the
average lunation. Nothing about which time zone we use when calculating
or announcing the formal molad.

HQBH gave Moshe Rabbeinu a time in the form of a word "zeh", effectively
"now". Not so and so after whatever. It could be stated on any clock.

: If we suppose that Hashem showed that moon to Moshe and Ahron at the
: precise moment of the molad, then our calculations should be based on
: Mitzrayim Time, not JST....

Or, someone did the few minutes adjustment once, converted it to JST,
and that's the number we all use when computing.

Also, the astronomical month is lengthening. R' Nachum Dershowitz
(Calendrical Calculations) estimates a 0.285 sec/millenium slowdown for
the astronomical month in the 1,600 years since the Hebrew calendar was
fixed. That accounts for the 0.456sec difference between NASA's average
month and the molad. (With thanks to R' Dr Morris Engelson for including
that factoid in an email.)

At the time we switched to the standardized calendar, the molad was
very accurate, moreso than when we were in Sinai. But that's the duration,
not setting the starting point.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

[Micha:]
> But that's not someone who accepts the ruling of beis Hillel, but chooses
> -- qua personal lifnim mishuras hadin -- to also do what beis Shammai
> said. In that case, he's not defying halachic practice, but using a
> rejected position as a suggested "qadeish es atzmekha" while recognizing
> it's still "mah shemutar lakh".

But that does not really answer my issue -- it just gives a sevara on
why someone would think to do so, i.e. fufill both shitot.

But if, as posited originally, minority opinions, or, better, rejected
opinions, are not to be considered normative any longer, is it not
actual kefirah to follow such a position, evn if it's in addition to
the accepted one.

To put this in terms of the discussion of the cherem against R. Slifkin,
it was argued that even though he had sources in the mesora that seemed to
support his thesis, these sources were not (or no longer) normative and,
therefore, to espouse them was now an act of kefira, evn though espousing
them at an earlier time in the history of our mesora was not kefira.

And to continue the analogy to those who wear both Rashi and R.Tam
tefillin, could R. Slifkin have written that there are two shitot, one
holding that the six days of creation are actual six 24 hour periods,
and another position within the mesora that it is not six actual days? I
seriuosly doubt that such an approach would be deemed acceptable by the
Gedolim imposing the cherem.

So, I still fail to see how covering all the tefilin bases, even the
rejected non-normative ones, is any different.

David I. Cohen

"Moshe Schor" <moshe12@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I now see that it is not so clear. According to the Rambam it seems that
> it is Retzicha. However, the Minchas Chinuch, without citing the Rambam,
> does post the Chakira if for a Ben Noach it is Retzicha or a separate
> issur. 

But he takes exactly the same position about killing an e"y. And he
concludes that a e"y may not take a life in self-defense, and must submit
to his fate, because his rodef is not a would-be rotzeach. That's not
a conclusion that I think many here would agree with. I'm still waiting
for the name of an authority who explicitly held that a b"n and an ubar
have different dinim.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

My father wrote the following letter to Hamodia. I have no idea if they're
carry it, but I wanted to share it with the chevrah. The only modification
I made was to protect my phone number from appearing on Google.

In short, my father writes about the finger pointing at "*their* problem"
that RnCL also noted is all too natural.

-mi


To the Editor,

I really enjoyed the column in Hamodia by Rabbi M Solomon, who gave us
a powerful interpretaion of the message to be learned from the Tsunami.
However, I fear his call for us to do Teshuva will unfortunately for
many, be limited to us working on strengthening our strength (Learning
a little more, extra chesed projects etc) rather than addressing our
areas of weakness which we tend to ignore due to our fear of failure.

I imagine that if Gallup were to conduct a poll at the time of the
Bais Hamikdash not one person would have thought s/he was guilty of
"Sinas Chinam". Being only human, we are great at deluding ourselves
and rationalizing our own shortcomings.

Let us take a lesson from the Vilna Gaon who used the Dubna Maggid
as a sounding board to keep himself on target. Everybody, from the
greatest Gadol to the simplest shoemaker, is "Nogea Bedavar" when seeing
him/herself and working on his/her Tikkun Hamidos. Nobody wants to see
his/her own human frailties - but its easy to see it in others. I once
heard a great Gadol comment that one should be Machmir when dealing with
oneself and Meikel when dealing with others.

B"H, there is a remedy. Each and every person must have a Rav, a spouse
or a trusted Chaver who can serve as a sounding board and keep him/her
on track. Ideally we should all belong to a Vaad. Rav Wolbe in his sefer
Alei Shur has outlines of a program on developing one. Or if not that,
at the very least, find a Chavrusa to learn Mesilas Yesharim or some
other Mussar Sefer and as you learn do a Cheshbon Hanefesh and analyze
with your "sounding board" whether the topic learned that day applies
to either of you and if so discuss how you can work on being Misakein
that part of yourself. HaKadosh Boruch Hu would not have needed to give
the Aseres Hadibros to each and everyone of us if we didn't have all of
those Yetzers in us (even if we think we don't have a desire to covet,
murder or steal).

If we want to avoid another tragedy, like the tsunami that just was,
we don't have any option but to look deep within ourselves and work on
improving that part of us that we are the most afraid of. There is no
other option. We must follow Rav Breuer's suggestion and learn "Ahavas
Chinam". Articles such as the Mashgiach's and Rebbetzin Heller's will
only help us in this most difficult task.

For assistance in organizing a Vaad in your community contact Rabbi
Micha Berger at [phone number deleted].

With every brocho that we all take a good look at ourselves, stop looking
at others and bring Mashiach Bimheiroh B'Yameinu,

Avi Berger -
Talmid of Bais Medrash L'Torah, Passaic &
Member Congregation Degel Israel, Kew Gardens, Hills

> "Well, Chazal do talk about Baruch as Ezra's rav. So that'd be false"

Not necessarily.
Not every member of Bais Hillel were actual direct talmidim of Hillel. And
isn't Reb Yehuda Hanasi considered a student of R. Akiva. though they
never met? Could it not mean links in the mesora, but not direct?

David I. Cohen

Shaya wrote:
> 1) How did the Persians make it to Greece without knocking off the
> Babylonians first? Did they go around the Caspian and Black seas?

> 2) Wouldn't a defeat by the Greeks severely have limited the Persians
> ability to conquer Babylon? Or better put, why would the Persians go
> very very far out of their way to try and conquer Greece before Babylon?

We shouldn't forget that in the Heifetz revision which would put the Greek
wars before the time of Nevuchadnezzer, we still had a relatively powerful
Assyrian empire which stood between Babylon and Elam/Medea/Persia.

Thus the armies of Darius and Xerxes would have had to elude both the
Assyrian and Babylonian Empires as they snuck into Asia Minor in order to
attack Greece. That also doesn't solve the problem of how the Persian Navy
got to the Mediteranean, although one could posit that they transported
all their boats overland as they snuck into Asiai Minor. (-:).

Personally, if one wants to accept the Rabbinical Chronology - it is far
easier to simply assume that all the non-Jewish historians were unreliable
in all their writings then to assume they were reliable about Marathon
and Thermopylae. Maybe those events simply didn't happen. That would
lead to much better agreement with Rabbinical Chronology. (of course
all the Astronomical Diaries would have to be unreliable as well! )

[Email #2 -mi]

Shaya wrote:
>1) How did the Persians make it to Greece without knocking off the
>Babylonians first? Did they go around the Caspian and Black seas?

>2) Wouldn't a defeat by the Greeks severely have limited the
>Persians ability to conquer Babylon? Or better put, why would the 
>Persians go very very far out of their way to try and conquer Greece 
>before Babylon?

In the Heifetz revision, the wars you're talking about took place by
Medes and Persians who were vassals of Babylonia. Medes in particular,
in this case. The Greeks didn't always make the distinction. "Medism"
was how they referred to attempts to introduce aspects of Median *or*
Persian culture.

Nebuchadnezzar is said to have conquered "iyyei ha-yam". So either we
reinterpret the word "iy" to be something other than "island" (as many
scholars have chosen to do), or we conclude that maybe our religion
isn't as dumb as all that.

[Email #3. -mi]

From: xynetics@nyc.rr.com
>Wew shouldn't forget that in the Heifetz revision which would put
>the Greek wars before the time of Nevuchadnezzer,

No, it wouldn't. Please don't take this the wrong way, but how can your
criticisms of the revision be taken seriously when you seem not to have
all that much knowledge of it?:

>we still had a relatively powerful Assyrian empire which stood 
>between Babylon and Elam/Medea/Persia.

Nope.  Try again.

>Thus the armies of Darius and Xerxes would have had to elude both
>the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires as they snuck into Asia Minor 
>in order to attack Greece.

Strike three. Because the Medes were acting at the behest of Babylonia,
and Assyria was already a memory.

[Email #4. -mi]

From: bdcohen@optonline.net
>>"Well, Chazal do talk about Baruch as Ezra's rav. So that'd be 
>>false":

>Not necessarily. Not every member of Bais Hillel were actual direct 
>talmidim of Hillel. And isn't Reb Yehuda Hanasi considered a student 
>of R. Akiva. though they never met?  Could it not mean links in the 
>mesora, but not direct?

My apologies, R' David.  I was vague.

<http://www.aishdas.org/webshas/torah/bichtav/tanach/bavel.htm>

Ezra didn't leave Exile until Baruch ben Neryah, his teacher, died:
Megillah 16b

Lisa

LL wrote:
> Nebuchadnezzar is said to have conquered "iyyei ha-yam".  So either
> we reinterpret the word "iy" to be something other than "island" (as
> many scholars have chosen to do), or we conclude that maybe our
> religion isn't as dumb as all that.

Al-regel-achas thought: B'reishis 10:5 (and Yirmiyahu 2:10, and Y'chezqeil 
27, and Tzefaniah 2:11, and...) tell me "iyyei" means something more like 
"groups" (perhaps with a connotation of distance).  The "island" 
translation for "iyyei hayam" comes, I think, from phrases like that in 
Esther 10:1, where this phrase is joined to/contrasted with "aretz," and 
like that in Y'shayahu 11:11, where it is apparently representing a 
faraway overseas place.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

At 05:49 PM 2/9/2005, Lisa Liel wrote:
> ... Please don't take this the wrong way, but how can your criticisms
> of the revision be taken seriously when you seem not to have all that
> much knowledge of it?:

OK. If Lisa is the expert on what elements of Greek History it is
reasonable to believe and what not then who are the Greek kings who
reigned during the Greek's 180 years of dominance over Judea and how
do they correspond to Alexander, PYRTN, SLYMN, SLYKS, SNTRYK, ANTYOCH,
Antiochus and GSKLGS, the SOR's list of the 8 such kings?

In discussing the Chinese year on Areivim Volume 14 : Issue 190 RMB wrote:
>There's a pattern, if one maps the day to the year, such
>that fall (after the main work of the farmer's year) corresponds to
>the end of the day, etc...

The correspondence of the day to the year has always interested me.

A shiur which discusses this correspondence, based on the Maharal, is at
<http://www.aish.com/spirituality/kabbala101/The_Mystical_White_Snow.asp>

Thanks to RGS / Hirhurim for linking to this shiur.

This theme appears in RSRH as well.

Interestingly, this is a fundamental theme of Walden by Henry David
Thoreu.

I'd be interested in more citations of this theme, both in Jewish and
non-Jewish sources.

Saul Mashbaum

At 10:00 PM 2/9/05, RMA wrote:
>                                    ... who are
>the  Greek kings who reigned during the Greek's 180 years of dominance 
>over Judea  and how do they correspond to Alexander, PYRTN, SLYMN, SLYKS, 
>SNTRYK, ANTYOCH, Antiochus and GSKLGS, the SOR's list of the 8 such kings?

<shrug> I don't know offhand.  I imagine they'd probably be these:

Alexandros Makadon = Alexander the Great of Macedon
Pirton = Perdiccas (the regent for Alexander's brother and successor
    Arrhideus)
Shalymon = Ptolemy (probably Ptolemy II Philadelphus)
Selekus = Seleucus II Callinicus
Santruk = Seleucus III Soter
Antioch = Antiochus III Megas
Antiochus = Antiochus IV Epiphanes
Gaskalgas = Seleucus IV Philopater

I'm not troubled by the last two being listed in reverse order. YMMV.
In any case, it's not as if I've done a big study or anything, but that's
probably how I'd read Seder Olam.

We're not talking about Seder Olam. we're talking about the chronology
that chazal use throughout their writings. Seder Olam is one book, and it
was not copied as carefully as many other books. You insist on talking
about the chronology of seder olam. I'm talking about the chronology of
chazal in general.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 09:00 PM 2/8/05, Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
>RnLL:
>>It isn't so much that breaking the chain proves Judaism wrong.  Maybe the 
>>Torah came down to us in a different way than Chazal teach.  But in that 
>>case, what's the authority of the Torah?  I mean, if it didn't come down 
>>to us as we've been taught, maybe it wasn't from Hashem to begin 
>>with?  Anything's possible at that point.

>Torah min HaShamayim is one of the Ikarei Emunah.

Emunah is emunah. Blind faith is something altogether different.
Hashem doesn't expect us to take the provenance of the Torah on blind
faith. There's a reason that the Torah was given in the presence of so
many people.

I accept that I can't eat barbecue baby back ribs for one reason, and one
reason only. And that is that we have an unbroken chain of transmission
of the Torah, all the way back to Sinai and Hashem. I accept that we
have this chain, because the records we have about it are consistent,
and it is far more difficult for me to believe that an entire nation of
Jews could have been fooled that way.

If Chazal can be so wrong about so basic a thing as the broad outlines
of our history, and for no good reason, what else might they have
gotten wrong?

>The concept of an unbroken mesorah from teacher to student from Moshe 
>Rabbeinu to now is also fundamental. But I don't think that the precise 
>identity of every member of the chain of tradition is a basic tenet
>of Judaism.

When Chazal say that they know what that chain was, it certainly is.
It goes to their reliability in general.

>One reason that it's important to distinguish between basic principles of 
>faith and other ideas in Torah is to avoid mislabeling people as heretics 
>when they are merely incorrect (kal v'chomer when they are actually 
>expressing a legitimate opinion). Another reason is to avoid precisely the 
>kind of logic you are using here. A person needs to be able to say, "I 
>just can't accept what Chazal say here as literally true" WITHOUT 
>questioning kol haTorah kulah.

Why does a person need to be able to say that?

Lisa

Micha Berger wrote:
>I don't see how a flushed toilet, once flushed, is more of a problem
>than a beis hakisei haParsi. I doubt they had traps, and they certainly
>didn't have water blocking the odor.

There is a major difference.

At least theoretically, in a beis kisei haParsi the wastes are never
present - they immediately roll away. In a modern flush toilet they sit
there until flushed. And the status of a beis kisei is not determined
(solely) by its present state. It is asur to read shma in front of a
spotlessly clean graf she re'i. Thus, playing devil's advocate I can
argue that because the tzo'a sits there until flushed it takes on the
status of a regular beis kisei and not a beis kisei haParsi.

I was wondering if plastic keilim would be muttar to use in the Beis
HaMikdash. Does anyone know if this is talked about at all?

>In the shul I davened in this past Shabbat, the chazzan for musaf,
>when saying birchat hachodesh, referred to the (then) upcoming month as
>"Adar Aleph". ...

>My question is, does saying Adar Aleph have any merit at all? Is
>this an acceptable substitute for Adar Rishon, at least bdiavad? 

Strange... in my minyan some Yerushalmi did the same thing, and nobody
complained. (That's unusual; they usually jump all over people who are
trying to innovate things.)

However, as far as "birchat hachodesh" is concerned, I assume that it's
only an announcement, so as long as all present understand, it shouldn't
really matter.

BTW: The last 2 psukim in last week's Haftara are about 1/2 column
BEFORE the haftara starts. When I was showing the Ba'al Koreh where
the reverse-jump was, he said "I'm not going to reverse", and mumbled
something about Rav Elyashiv. But he did read the last 2 psukim. I didn't
have a chance to get the full story. Any ideas?

- Danny

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< What's the ra'ayah that this is not the case
with the SOR? Yes it looks like a history book, but it would be out of
character to think it's history for history's sake rather than their
thoughts about history repeated as meshalim for other things? >>>

I hear your point, but surely there must be a limit to such things
somewhere, no? I mean, how far can you take this?

What's the ra'ayah that this is not the case with the Chumash? Yes it
looks like a history book, but it would be out of character to think it's
history for history's sake rather than meshalim for other things. Did
those historical characters exist, or did they not? And if they did,
were their lifespans of the durations specified?

Or will we suggest (chalilah) that Adam was not an individual who lived
930 years, but that Adam was the name of a dynasty which reigned for
that long?

My point is that there are some things which are clearly meant as
meshalim, and there's plenty of debateable stuff, but there has *got* to
be some things which are clearly literal as well, and it is difficult for
me to imagine that the dates and ages in the SOR are not meant literally.

Akiva Miller

In Avodah 14:74, R' David Cohen asked <<< How does this apply to those
today who try to do things l'chol hadeos -- e.g. those that put on
Rabbenu Tam tefilin in addition to rashi's. Hasn't the normative halacha
determined that the correct mesora (by majority opinion) is Rashi tefilin,
and that, the subsequent wearing of Rabbenu Tam tefilin is to follow
an incorrect rejected or discarded opinion which should not be relied
upon. >>>

In a personal discussion with Rav Ahron Feldman (current RY at NIRC) in
my Ohr Somayach days, he explained to me that this concept only exists
in a yashvu v'nimnu situation, where the courts have the authority to
decisively vote on one view or the other. We do not have that situation
today. We do not have any mechanism for determining which view is correct.

There are several practical results of this situation, as he explained
it to me: (1) Because of the pasuk "acharei rabim lehatos", we have
permission to rely on the majority view, even though we are not sure it
to be the correct one. (2) Because we not sure which view is correct,
it is meritorious to fulfill both, when feasible. (3) Because we not sure
which view is correct, we can rely on the minority view, b'shaas had'chak.

(My use of the word "correct" above might not have been the best choice.
"Authoritative" might be better. There are probably even better words,
but I hope you get what I mean.)

Akiva Miller

I recall seeing years back a N'tsiv which outlines a conseptual framework
connecting the Rambam's shita in how kiddush hachodesh al pi cheshbon
works (Hil. Kiddush Hachodesh 5:13) and his shita on reinstating semicha
(Hil. Sanhedrin 4:11).

(1) Can anyone remind me where the N'tsiv says this? I haven't had
success in locating it.

(2) Can anyone recommend marai m'komos (or offer original cogent thoughts)
which elaborate on this N'tsiv, disagree with it, or otherwise discuss
the relationship between these two statements of the Rambam?

Thanks,
David Hoffman

R Zev Sero wrote:
>> even if he's an anoos and not yotzei -- anoos Rachmanah patrei, the
>> sechar should be the same even so.

> No. "Keman de'avad lo amrinan" - a person who, through no fault of his
> own, fails to fulfil a mitzvah, is an anoos and is exempt from whatever
> onesh comes with the neglect of that mitzvah (e.g. Pesach and Milah),
> but does *not* get the sechar that would come with its fulfilment.
> See the examples of tzedakah and kinim.

There are two issues here, you only addressed the second:

1- Is a person who did everything kedas ukedin but kelapei shemaya
galya the mezuzah/miqvah/whatever isn't kosher actually an oneis?
2- How can "keman de'avad lo amrinan" apply, since he actually was avad?

> (WRT the gemara in Kiddushin 66a, I don't really think it's relevant,
> but if one insists that it is, then a pasul mezuzah is clearly like
> a short mikveh...

Would you then say that someone whose mother relied on the miqva's
chazaqah but the miqvah in actuality lacked 40 se'ah be a ben nidah? If
so, why wouldn't we make her go back, for yichus sake, not even in a
case of ika rei'usa?

> or a baal mum, rather than like a ben grusha, since
> the psul is there, waiting to be revealed by a careful examination,
> rather than depending on eidim. OTOH a mezuzah which was written out
> of order would be like a ben grusha, since the psul is not determinable
> from examining the object itself...

And a mezuzah that lost a letter while being rolled up after checking?

My argument is that the mitzvah does not require a physically kosher
mezuzah, but rather a mezuzah with a chezqas kashrus. That the kashrus
of a mezuzah is in the chazaqah, not the reality. The ben gerushah is
no parallel.

Then there's the third (which was historically the first) issue: Is it the
mitzvah alone, or does the cheftzah itself produce shemirah? Which even
if you could show has no nafqa mina lema'aseh, has huge hashkafic impact.

(See my next post, which connects back to this thread.)

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Ohrchama@aol.com wrote:
>> RDL's answer is that the difference in science is irrelevent. Whther
>> kinim physically have eggs, or they have microscopic eggs, the eggs
>> have no halachic mamashus.... My rebbe thereby entirely
>> preserves the point that chazal is making, not just the pesaq.

> It seems like RDL is saying the same as Rav Dessler that the Halacha does
> not deal with the microscopic. However, my point is that Chazal clearly
> went further than that by denying that lice have eggs entirely.

No, RDL is saying that chazal weren't discussing the biology, but the din.
Therefore, when they say they have no eggs, they are denying halachically
significant eggs.

> My proof
> is that had Chazal known that lice do not spontaneously generate they
> would not have had any need to reinterpret the Beraisa which is in Aggadic
> context rather than a Halachic context, saying that Hashem sustains the
> largest to the smallest animals, the horns of oryx to betzei kinnim ,
> by saying that it means a new species rather than the eggs of lice.

The reinterpretation is when the beraisa is brought into the halachic context
of killing kinim on Shabbos. And in fact, here too the gemara's conclusion is
that kinim are too unlike the animals killed for the mishkan to be included in
the lav. It doesn't require a biological statement.

IOW, the din isn't based on biology but how biology works. The reason I would
assert this is related to my previous post. The din isn't based on the
physical state of the mezuzah, but how we're capable of perceiving that state.
Which, IMHO, ties back to halachah's role in implementing "his-haleik lefanai
vehei samim", which is about how the po'el nif'al lefi pe'ulaso, and not facts
that can't impact the po'eil.

Check up on the "Ta'am and Taste" thread. I'm sure people who read it once
would prefer I not subject them to it again.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]