Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 075

Wednesday, December 28 2005

• RE: Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and Length of Maaseh Breshis
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Nimlach
• Re: a person who is in the "wrong body"
• Intersex states
• Historical Reality and Chazal
• Re: Joseph and His Father
• RE: Re: Joseph and His Father
• Re: Historical Reality and Chazal
• Re: Joseph and His Father
• Re: a person who is in the "wrong body"
• Three steps forward
• RE: age of the universe
• Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)

On December 25, 2005, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> For those who want a written statment from a godol that the world can
> be greater than 6000 years old - I recently discussed the issue with Rav
> Belsky. He acknowledged the validity of such a belief and noted that he
> had recently published the first of a projected 10 volume commentary on
> Chumash where the justification for holding this view is stated clearly.
> Furthermore the volume has an extensive discussion of the relationship
> of Torah & Science.

Well, you obviously know what I did. I called the local bookstore owner
at home at 8:00 p.m. (and like the meshuganeh I am) told him he had to
meet me at his shop at 8:30 p.m., open his shop (which was closed since
licht bentching) and sell me the book, which he did (knowing that he
was dealing with a lunatic...who knows what I would do if refused). I am
currently holding a copy of Einei Yisrael in my hands. I just read through
Rav Belsky's scientific stuff and it would seem that RDE is correct
although I would like to reserve judgement for now. One thing is clear
though. Rav Belsky holds that Torah and Chazal are immutable. Science
only has the ability of explaining Chazal but if they contradict, Chazal
are right and science is to be doubted, particularly scientific theories
about MB. As far as older than six thousand years, it would seem that
Rav Belsky is adopting the approach of the Tiferes Yisrael as expressed
in RAK's book. However, at the end of the chapter he writes as follows:
"The veracity of these theories may only be proven or disproven with
the final Redemption but if it is true, we have several examples of
how earlier destructive processes are responsible for the ability of
our world to sustain life...etc" The thrust of his essay is to show how
Chazal can be corroborated by scientific theories if they are true but
he doesn't claim that they are. Thus, his own opinion may very well be
aligned with 5766. He is merely suggesting that *if* these theories are
correct, they can be read into boneh olamos umachrivan.

Now hold on R' Daniel, I am not backing down from my original concession,
just qualifying it. You seem to be correct in your assertion that Rav
Belsky holds that an older than 6000 year universe is a valid shita,
perhaps even much older. I will bl'n be calling to discuss it with him
shortly and will bl'n report back to the chevra.

Simcha Coffer

R' Micha Berger wrote,
>Not at all. Noether's Theorem shows that for conservation of energy
>to hold now, the laws of the universe must be unchanging. IOW,
>current conservation testifies to a lack of historical change.

I don't think the theorem probably makes such a statement. IIRC, the
version relevant to this discussion is more along the lines of: "For a
time range T1 to T2, if there's a symmetry of the Lagrangian under time
translation (i.e. laws are the same), then energy is conserved for that
time range." Also, I'm not sure whether the if=iff, but let's assume
that it is.

Now, it is perfectly feasable for there to be no symmetry at a time <T1
for instance, and hence conservation of energy at time T1<t<T2 does not
apply unchanging laws for time -inf<t<+inf

Leonid Portnoy

On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 03:59:47PM -0500, Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
: Science is on a twisty path...

But since the history of experiments that a theory must explain is ever
growing, the path twists closer and closer to the truth.

I find it funny/ironic that someone can use the latest technology to
transmit his questioning the increase of scientific knowledge that
underpins that technology.

On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 07:22:29PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: I find it strange that you appear to think that peer reviewed venues such
: as Cambridge University Press and Physical Review Letters and science
: magazines such as Scientific American are populated with "crackpots"...

No, but they do have crackpot theories as some percentage of their
material. That's how they get reviewed and rejected. You could
collect just those and present a very warped view of the state of
science.

As you yourself write, such ideas are difficult to get published. But the
community's love of lower-case-o orthodoxy is not so extreme as to never
get publication. Enough journals and enough articles, and someone looking
to make a collection of the kind I described can.

...
: Agreed, but as we see from the article it is called "string theory" and
: it is in trouble and it (or something) is needed to resolve fundamental
: contradictions between QM and relativity...

The word is irrelevent if all the important parties agree it was produced
by media run amok. No one even claimed it's a theory. As RET just posted,
this is just part of the incomplete frontier.


On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 04:45:33PM -0600, Leonid wrote:
: Now, it is perfectly feasable for there to be no symmetry at a time <T1
: for instance, and hence conservation of energy at time T1<t<T2 does not
: apply unchanging laws for time -inf<t<+inf

T1 would have to be some point in time earlier than 5766 years ago, which
was my point. Otherwise, the fast moving light would show us whatever
would exist instead of stars in a universe where energy isn't conserved.

Not a problem for pre-aged universe "light created en route" people. But
if you believe that the light actually traveled but by different rules,
then one of the rules that changed was conservation of energy -- ruling
out anything remotely like current physics. No stars for the light to
come from.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
micha@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

If somebody was intending to eat something and then forgot that he was
intending to eat that thing and started making a bracha achrona and then
remebered that he wanted to eat before saying the shem, and he now wants
to eat, what should he do?

Kol Tuv,
Shmuel

At 11:15 AM 12/26/2005 -0800, RHM wrote:
>I would think that the gender of an individual is dertermined by
>birth. For example an Androgenus is an Androgenus, even if he/she has
>his/her male genitalia removed, isn't he/she?

I'm pretty sure Rabbi Alfred Cohen wrote an article about androgenous in
his Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society in either the late 90s,
or 2000. Maybe someone has a back issue to consult. It may also address
sex change operations.

mendel

[For some strange reason, my post below was erroneously attributed
to someone else. I am reposting in my name]

There are 4 opinions in the gemara on the status of the androgynous: 

a) doubtful male and doubtful female [Tana Kama in Mishna Bikkurim 4; 
R. Yosi in the mishna in Yevamot 81a and Resh lakish in the gemara there] 

b) a *birya*  unto itself and its status has not been determined 
[Braita in Yevamot 83a; Ramban in last section of Yevamot and in his 
Hilchot Bechorot Chapter 6; ROSH Bechorot Chapter 6 Siman 8] 

c) partially male and partially female [Tosfot Yevamot 83a; RAAVAD on Rambam 
Hilchot Shofar 2:12 and in Hilchot Terumot 7:16] 

d) definite male [R. Elizer in the Mishna Yevamot 81a] 

Most halachic decisors have ruled as per #1 (doubtful male and doubtful 
female) [RIF in Yevamot; Rambam Hilchot Mila 3:6; Rambam Hilchot Ishut 
2:24; TUR Orach Chaim 331 # 5; TUR Yoreh Deah 194; BACH in TUR Yoreh 
Deah 265; GRA Even haEzer 172 s"k 18]. 

The androgynous is required to observe all mitzvot (even "she'hazmna
gerama"). 
Many of the laws are detailed in the Encylopedia talmudit under
*androgynous*. 

PLASTIC SURGERY: by halacha it is forbidden to perform plastic surgery
to change the sex to female even if chromosomal tests indicate female
gender [Tzitz Eliezer Chelek XI Siman 78]. Many reasons are given for
this prohibition. See also the article in ASSIA (Volume 1 pg. 142) by
Rav Moshe Steinberg. The Nishmat Avraham [Even ha'Ezer 44 #3] however,
indicates that *if* all internal reproductory organs are female then one
may perform plastic surgery [as per Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach]. This
was the case too in the Tzitz Eliezer XI 78 when he in fact permitted
surgery when all organs were female

Josh 

Regarding the issue of history recorded in the Talmud: There have been
several posts citing Rav Zvi Hirsch (Maharatz) Chayos' Mevo HaTalmud,
showing how he (just as the Rambam, whom he generally follows, together
with virtually all others) emphasizes that the stories in the Talmud that
employ anthropomorphic references to Hashem or are otherwise obviously
outlandish were meant to be taken unliterally (chapter xxvii).Others
pointed out chapter xvi where he cites the principle of Chazal that
biblical accounts of acts of righteous people should be understood in the
best possible light regarding those acts' details and motives, whereas
those if wicked people should be understood in the worst way. (Some seem
to have inferred that this does not mean that Chazal felt that this was
a sound method of determining the facts, but that they did not really
believe in their conclusions. This I think is debatable.) In chapter
xxviii he notes two ways past authorities have taken reports of miracles
in the times of the Amoraim.

Some of these posts seem to imply that one should conclude that Marharatz
Chayos holds that the (un-outlandish) historical accounts provided by
Chazal are not meant to be historically factual, and are used perhaps --
as he, following Ramchal, states about Chazal's medical and scientific
references -- only as a vehicle by which to impart the moral lessons they
wish to teach, the factuality of the medicinal efficacy or scientific
validity being irrelevant.

However, there is no need to make inferences, because Maharatz Chayos
in chapter xviii of Mevo HaTalmud speaks directly to the point of the
literal historicity of Chazal's accounts, and he explicitly comes on
the side of saying that they were all meant literally:

"[A]ggadoth which relate occurrences of the distant past were all in
the possession of the Rabbis as traditions from our ancestors. To this
category belong all aggadoth which tell us of happenings in former
generations, even if they are not introduced with the phrases 'It is a
Masoreth, etc., or 'We have written it by tradition'. For they certainly
did not fabricate these stories, rather they were transmitted to them
as true stories...

"[W]hatever concerns the acts of the Patriarchs, Prophets, Monarchs,
Princes, and Priests, the Rabbis conveyed the facts to us as they had
received them from their ancestors....

"[T]he narratives which have come down from ancient times to Israel,
with their miraculous events, were not pure inventions, God forbid,
but were handed down to the Sages from early days, and that the latter
recorded for us what their ancestors had told them of the actual things
God had wrought for His people in ancient days."

One may challenge the strength of his proofs, but there is no room for
error regarding what Maharatz Chayos held.

Zvi Lampel

In Avodah V16 #74, RZL replied in turn to RSP:
>>> Joseph thought his father was "in it"
>> Does this pshat really fit with "Ha'od Avi Chai?"

> Yes. Very well. I thought it was clear in the presentation. Yosef
> could not imagine his father would have refrained from rescuing him or
> getting in touch with him, unless either he felt as the brothers did,
> or he was not alive. Upon hearing from Yehudah that Yaakov thought Yosef
> was killed by a beast, he burst out "I am Yosef!

According to his brothers, Yosaif enquired after his father's welfare
before that time (see Braishis 43:7), and the Torah reports (in 42:13) that
they noted to Yosaif whom the one son not with them was with, so clearly
p'shat dictates that Yosaif knew his father was alive before Binyamin
traveled to Mitzrayim.  As for reconciling 43:7 with 45:3's exclamation, at
least one commentator (Kli Y'qar on 45:3) addresses the issue.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

	Dear R. Levin,

Thank you so much for your post. I am subjected to mixed feelings when
I create a chiddush (I'm a genius!), wonder why no one else has said it
( Maybe I'm missing something? ), and then find out that another...and
then another...and then still another has (So it's old hat, after all
.) ! By the way, when did Rav Yoel Bin Nun's article appear, and does
he mention either Shadal or R. Feigenson?

Another by the way: I am still frustrated in trying to understand Yosef
HaTzadik's treatment of his brothers (may I use the phrase "terrorizing
them"?). The approaches that have Yosef "playing G-d," teaching them a
lesson, showing them what it was like for him, may fit the text well,
but go against my moral grain. (For one thing, what can we possibly
learn from such a thing regarding our own behavior?)

Any thoughts?

[Email #2. -mi]

In Avodah V16 #74, RZL replied in turn to RSP:
>>> Joseph thought his father was ""in it"" <<<

>> Does this pshat really fit with ""Ha'od Avi Chai?"" <<

> Yes. Very well. I thought it was clear in the presentation. Yosef
> could not imagine his father would have refrained from rescuing him or
> getting in touch with him, unless either he felt as the brothers did,
> or he was not alive. Upon hearing from Yehudah that Yaakov thought Yosef
> was killed by a beast, he burst out ""I am Yosef!

RMP:
> According to his brothers, Yosaif enquired after his father's welfare
> before that time (see Braishis 43:7), and the Torah reports (in 42:13)
> that they noted to Yosaif whom the one son not with them was with, so
> clearly p'shat dictates that Yosaif knew his father was alive before
> Binyamin traveled to Mitzrayim. As for reconciling 43:7 with 45:3's
> exclamation, at least one commentator (Kli Y'qar on 45:3) addresses
> the issue.

I don't understand. You deleted the sentences in my reply (without even
providing an elipsis) that addressed your original question and your
present objection. For convenience, I'll cut and paste them:

"He constantly was asking his brothers if Yaakov was still alive, and
his brothers had been telling him that he was, indeed. But was this only
a ploy, perhaps to keep them from having to show up with Binyamin? Or
perhaps to cover up a dastardly deed of theirs, cv"s? Upon hearing from
Yehudah that Yaakov thought Yosef was killed by a beast, he burst out
'I am Yosef! Is then my father still alive?!'"

Zvi Lampel

> xvi where he cites the principle of Chazal that biblical accounts of acts of
> righteous people should be understood in the best possible light regarding
> those acts' details and motives, whereas those if wicked people should be
> understood in the worst way.

With regard to the recent parsha about Reuven. We all know the famous
gemara that reinterperts simple pshat so that Reuven did not sin.
However, other medrashim do assume that the simple pshat holds especially
based on the "berachah" of Yaakov on his deathbed.
Even achronim like Bet Halevi assume that the literal pshat is true,

Eli Turkel

1. R. Yoel ben Nun's answer to why Yosef did not let his father know.
2. How could Yosef put his brothers thorugh such upheavals until he
rvealed himself to them.

I understand that R. Miedan wrote a strong refutation of R. Ben Nun's
interpetation, see <http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha/10miketz.htm>.

I think that as the viceroy of Egypt and as the divinely appointed head of
Yakov's family, Yosef has the right, perhaps an obligation to educate the
brothers by whatever means work. The reason that they understood how badly
they went wrong was precisely due to the method he used. This reminds
me of the falmous story of R. Shmuel Hangid who, when a peasant reviled
the King and the King commanded for his tongue to be removed, taught the
peasant to bless the king instead of cursing him and explained that he ,
on fact, removed the bad tongue and replaced it with the good. Educating
people is the perrogative of the viceroy and just like in life, education
sometimes comes at the price of suffering and pain.

M. Levin

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

>>> According to Tzitz Eliezer, the operation is halachically effective, and
>>> a post-op M2F transsexual is now a woman

> I find this shocking. Are there any other Poskim who speak about this
> issue?

I'm not aware of any.

> It woiuld seem to me that a Crus Shafcha is still considered to
> be a male.

Yes, he is, because he still has the male genitalia.

> A woman who has male genitalia surgically attached should
> still be considered a man.

I think you mean "woman".  Tzitz Eliezer disagrees, and I don't know
of anyone else who even addresses the question.

> And a man who has his genitalia removed should still be a man.

Ditto.

> I would think that the gender of an individual is dertermined by
> birth. For example an Androgenus is an Androgenus, even if he/she has
> his/her male genitalia removed, isn't he/she?

No. At least, I'm not aware of anyone who says that, and I'm aware of
one source (TzE) who says the opposite.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

It seems from the lashon, that taking three steps forward at the beginning
of Shemoneh Esrei is actually part of what they called the Tefillah. Five
steps: One approaches G-d, praises Him, makes requests / discusses the
day, thanks Hashem, and then withdraws. So, I was wondering...

Is anyone maqpid to take three steps back before the final sentence of
ge'ulah, so that there is full semikhas ge'ulah letefilah -- no pause
between "ga'al Yisrael" and the three steps forward? What about stepping
back before "Ki sheim H'..." for minchah and mussaf?

BTW, a possible significance to those 5 steps: The Maharal, on the
medrash about Batei Hillel veShammai arguing for 2-1/2 years whether
"ashrei mi shelo nivra", ties it in with the number 5 in eirachin. The
self has 3 layers, plus the nosei for the nefesh and the nosei for the
neshamah -- 5 in all. They argued for 2-1/2, the more gashmi half of the
human condition, and therefore stated their conclusion about that portion.

The words of tefillah are in three parts, with the approach and withdrawal
around them -- like the nos'im in the Maharal.

-mi

On December 26, 2005, Eli Turkel wrote:
> JSp states
>> I have spent most of
>> my adult life working with engineers and scientists and have a healthy
>> respect for much of their work.

> However, in fields like geology, earthquake theory and even meteorology
> is there a strong use of changes over eons of time. Not all uses of an
> ancient universe/earth are pure speculation.

But these sciences are full of speculation! Geology, for instance, dates
various sedimentary layers using two techniques; fossil evidence and
radiometric dating. The first is just plain wrong as most palaeontologists
will admit to you today (I have posted several quotes in this regard
from leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson and Stephen J
Gould) and relies heavily on circular reasoning. The second, RM dating
methods, rely on three basic speculations, 1) decay rates never changed,
2) we're dealing with a closed system and 3) the initial conditions
(e.g. parent daughter ratios) were known. Earthquake theory is also
useless when attempting to prove the age of the earth. They only surmise
what occurred with the plates 200 million years ago. They have no proof
and in fact they have no clear way of describing the motion of such huge
bodies in the first place. You are hanging your hat on reeds.

> The "anti-science" rabbis harp on the fact that science is not perfect. It
> has made mistakes and many things are in state of flux.

Although the above is true to an extent, that's not what they are
"harping" about. They are trying to open your eyes to the distinction
between science based on empirical evidence and pie in the sky theories
that may or may not be true. Chumash should not have to be "rewritten"
to satisfy the latter and Chumash never contradicts the former.

Simcha Coffer

"Jonathan Ostroff" <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
>Here is what I actually wrote in the post that RMB references: "This whole
>topic demands much more than has been stated here. But recognize that
>great scientists such as Einstein, Newton and even Aristotle thought that
>the universe was static and eternal (t = -\infinity).  

This is not a machlokes between poskim. In that context we would presume
that both poskim have the same body of knowledge, and ask why one posek
disagrees with another one. In constrast, we know that neither Newton nor
Aristotle were able to measure the speed of light, and neither of them
were able to observe the red shift of light from distant galaxies. Without
those facts there was no reason for them to think that the universe could
be expanding. Einstein's change of mind actually refutes your position: he
did think that the universe was static but when Hubble later demonstrated
that the universe was expanding Einstein realised that he had been wrong,
and described his introduction of a constant into his equations (to make
his theory consistent with a static universe) as "the biggest blunder
I ever made".

>Only about half a
>century ago, did scientists became convinced that the universe was neither
>static nor even necessarily eternal with the creation time of our universe
>now supposed to be at t = -13.7 billion years. This is a discrepancy
>of infinite proportions from what was originally held. How did (and do)
>such mistakes come to be made? 

Hubble demonstrated the expanding universe in 1927, so it's nearly eighty
years. Please tell me that your error is not due to reliance on a certain
book published thirty years ago.

I don't actually know if the consensus before Hubble had been that the
universe was static, but the point is that new evidence demonstrated
that the universe is not static. I can show you many instances in the
gemora of people changing their minds on the basis of new evidence.
Surely you don't think that this is a bad thing.

>"The conservation of energy principle serves us well in all
>sciences except cosmology. .... Where does all the energy go in an
>expanding universe? And where does it come from in a contracting
>universe? The answer is NOWHERE, BECAUSE IN THE COSMOS ENERGY IS NOT
>CONSERVED". [emphasis added, E.R. Harrison. Cosmology : The Science
>of the Universe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York,
>2000.Page 349] 

I went to the effort of looking this quote up, even though I don't think
the subject is at all relevant to your claim (which is that the universe
is literally no older than 5766 years). I think you've misunderstood it.
He says that energy is lost due to the expansion of the universe, as
when when the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted. The energy this
light had is not conserved: it has not gone anywhere. On the other hand,
energy within regions that are dense enough to not be expanding (e.g.,
Earth, the Solar System, our galaxy) is conserved.

>I think RMB needs
>to explain his statement in the light of the statement by cosmologist
>Edward Harrison.  

RMB isn't an amora, and Edward Harrison isn't a tanna. Even if they
were to disagree (and they don't, you just misunderstood the bit you
quoted) it would be a question about the underlying facts, not about
RMB's authority to disagree.

>Now my point is that if under extreme conditions in place even today
>- -- we already obtain nine-order of magnitude changes in decay rates,
>and since according to cosmologists the universe started off as a hot
>plasma in extreme conditions very different than what applies today
>(and perhaps simulated somewhat in a storage ring), there can thus be no
>scientific guarantee that decay rates were the same in the past. 

How would this support your claim that the universe is literally no
older than 5766 years?

Let's look at a simpler non-uniformitarian example. There are three
principal isotopes of uranium. The half-life quoted for one of these
is about 700 million years. This figure implies that if you start with
a tonne of this isotope, after 700 million years you would have half
a tonne left. Of course, that's really not the case. A tonne of that
isotope would explode in an instant and become nothing but a rather large
crater. So why is the half life quoted as 700 million years? Because in
small amounts - the only amounts typically found in nature - this isotope
will not support a chain reaction and the figure will be accurate. If
you had a larger amount then you would have a vastly different half life,
but you would also have evidence of a chain reaction. In the absence of
this evidence it's safe to assume that the half life of a uranium atom
is 700 million years.

It's the same with the examples you cite. Suppose it were true that a
particle has different characteristics under some weird conditions in the
heart of a sun. That is entirely irrelevent to the question of whether
the world is literally 5766 years old, because we both acknowledge that
the world had nothing like those conditions at that time. It's not enough
to say that conditions might have been different 5766 years ago. The sort
of differences you invoke are so great that nothing physical (not even a
rock!) would have survived them. I could understand if you just said that
it was miraculous. Then we'd have a problem of hashkafa, not metzius. But
you're trying to say that all these interrelated measurements are only
locally and temporarily correct, and that they could have been wildly
different 5766 years ago, while still allowing for all other chemical
and nuclear processes to go on as normal. That's an astounding claim
and one that I don't believe any person ought to accept.

jds

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


[ 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         ]