Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 076

Thursday, December 29 2005

• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Leil nittel
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Chazal and science
• Xmax and Assimilation
• Re: Three steps forward
• talmud torah keneged kulam?
• Re: Intersex states
• a person who is in the "wrong body"

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 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.

PS about peer review: It means that it passed an initial once over,
and worth the audience's time.Even if they feel it's worth the time
because the idea requires thorough refutation. The subject of what a
"peer reviewed journal" means about the merit of the ideas published could
be found Googling "bible codes journal peer review". The publishers of
Statistical Science never vfor a moment considered "bible codes" to be
likely, never mind true.

-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)

[R Leonid Portnoy:]
> 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

I agree, but the problem with invoking Noether's theorem is that while it
applies to classical theories there are known limitations on extending
it to general relativity as described in Penrose, The Road to Reality,
2004, pages 489-492. In fact, Penrose believes that we need radically
new theories to answer all the problems and anomalies, and especially
those posed by the "arrow of time".

> [JSO]:
>: 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"...

[RMB]
> No, but they do have crackpot theories as some percentage o 
> 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.

In addition to the statement, quoted in an earlier post, by the reputable
cosmologists Edward Harrison (with expanded commentary in the second
edition of his Cambridge University Press textbook) that energy is not
conserved as the universe expands (there are in fact gigantic losses
of energy as the universe putatively expands), other cosmologists have
likewise signalled their unease.

===

"The second confusing point is the nature of the energy balance in
the CBR. However, since the volume of the universe varies as a(t)^3,
the net radiation energy in a closed universe decreases as 1 / a(t) as the
universe expands. Where does the lost energy go? . . . The resolution of
this apparent paradox is that while energy conservation is a good local
concept, . . . . there is not a general global energy conservation law
in general relativity theory." [P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical
Cosmology Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993, p. 139.]
And I realize that while RMB thinks that Cambridge Press is populated
by crackpots I am sure that he would not be so disloyal as to accuse
Princeton University Press of the same misdemeanor :-) :-) :-).

===

You might also want to look at the unease expressed in footnote 7 in
chapter 14 of Columbia University cosmologist Brian Greene's popular
book "The Fabric of the Cosmos", 2004. The premier journal "Science"
considers the book the best explanation of early 21st century cosmological
research. Other references available on request. But I think we can take
it as a given that reputable cosmologists know something that RMB does
not -- that there is a real concern that big bang expansion appears to
violate energy conservation under reasonable interpretations of "energy".

Now I actually agree with RMB that IF the so called expansion over
billions of years of big bang cosmology violates the well tested law of
conservation of matter+energy, then ipso facto something is likely to
be be badly wrong with the theory.

It is interesting to note that Rav Saadyah Gaon understood that there must
be a conservation of matter+energy law, expressed using the concepts of
his time in "hatechiya ve-hapedus" page 5. He asks how techiyas hameisim
could be done if a lion eats the person who drowns in a lake and is eaten
by a fish which is eaten by another person etc. .... which is burnt
until only "afar dak" remains etc.. And his answer is that it is true
that matter can be transformed into is fundamemtal constituents by fire
and other processes, but ultimately "matter+energy" has to be conserved
because only the Creator can create ex nihilo (yesh me'ayin) and only
the Creator can totally destroy (ayin me-yesh). Ultimate destruction
and ultimate creation lies solely in the hands of the Creator and He
can reassemble the original person from the fundamental constituents
according to His will.

So I think we are on firm scientific and theological grounds when we
ask for theories that conserve matter+energy.

Kol Tuv ... JSO

On December 27, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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. 

What are you talking about?! If they appear in a peer reviewed journal,
they have already been reviewed and accepted by the journal as reflective
of current scientific enterprise. Most of these journals reject 90%
of the submissions made by academics. If it made it into the journal,
by definition it has already been reviewed.

Simcha Coffer

> Sorry Rabbi feldman commences his Shiur by saying that the word Nittel
> comes from death or "hanging"- and therefore commemorates the death of
> Yoshki. Firstly, 25th December celebrates his birth. secondly, Nittel
> comes from the latin Natal meaning birth....

There is a book written bya Monsey resdient that is called Leil Nittel
and that I picked up in a local seforim store. If anylone is interested
I will dig it out and check if there is an address to obtain it. It
is writtten from a chassidishe perspective but has valuable sources;
it also strongly attacks Rav Kook's view of Christianity. I also recall
that Nitei Gavriel has a long section on Nittel.

M. Levin

On 12/27/05, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 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.

So you're basically saying that leshitosi science is like Avodah Zorah, and
asking how I can have hanaah from the products of Avodah Zorah?

Kol Tuv,
Shmuel

> 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.

Not sure what book you are talking about but I have issues of Scientifc
American from the 1950's where they still preferred steady state to
big bang.

I would say that the tide shifted dramatically circa 1965 with the work
of Penzias et. al.

KT ... JSO

Shmuel Weidberg <ezrawax@gmail.com> wrote:
> Science is on a twisty path. Ultimately they ought to get to the truth,
> and they should be getting closer. But, if the path is pointing in a
> certain direction, Science tends to say that the truth is that which
> appears to be straight ahead when in fact, Science knows that the path
> is likely to make = a sharp turn some time in the future.

> Just because Cosmology has come to a closer agreement with the Torah,
> is no proof that it will there. It's just a coincidence. Tomorrow there
> will be some data that will take it farther away and the next day there
> will be mor= e data that will bring it closer again.

Science and Torah do not conflict by definition. Science is nothing
more than the study of nature. Scientists interpret those studies as
best they can. They look for truth through the physical world, Sometimes
they get it right; sometimes they get it wrong. But intellectual honesty
and the seeking of truth is the hallmark of science, if not always of
scientists. Sometimes beliefs get in the way of proper analysis of Data.,
but in theory pure science knows no forgone conclusion and has no agenda.

Torah on the other hand does have a forgone conclusion and an agenda.
But Torah and science are not mutually exclusive. They exist in perfect
harmony as two truths, one physical and one spiritual.

When science seems to contradict the Torah, either one does not understand
the science or one does not understand the Torah.

HM

On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:46:39PM -0500, Shmuel Weidberg wrote:
:> 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.

: So you're basically saying that leshitosi science is like Avodah Zorah, and
: asking how I can have hanaah from the products of Avodah Zorah?

Not at all. I'm saying that using the internet itself is proof that
science gets ever closer to the emes. That's why there are steadily
more inventions that successfully use it. To have our current high-tech
lifestyle based on the same assumptions about relativistic gravity and
quantum mechanical computer chips and doubt the assumptions on which
their based strikes me as an unintentional setirah. Irony.

-mi

Simcha Coffer wrote
>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

I find this statement to be very hard to understand. There are many
gemaras that seem to flat out contradict science. I will mention 2 off
the top of my head.

1. The gemara in Kesubos 10b has the following story. A newly married
couple came to Raban Gamliel. The husband claimed that his wife had not
been a virgin, she claimed that not only was she a virgin but she is
still a virgin. Raban Gamliel performed the following test to determine
if she was a virgin.

He took 2 women, 1 a virgin 1 not and had them sit on a barrel
of wine. While sitting on the barrel he smelled their breath. The
non-virgin's breath smelled like wine (because the odor of the wine went
in through the opening and out through her mouth) while the virgin's
breath did not smell of wine (because the odor of the wine could not
get in because she was a virgin). He then performed the same test on the
newly married woman and as her breath did not smell of wine proclaimed
her a virgin.

This story is brought down l'halacha in Shulchan Aruch (Even Haezer
Siman 68) and is discussed by the Acharonim.

The difficulty with the story should be obvious to everyone, given
current knowledge of anatomy and physiology the test cannot work. The
fact that this story is quoted l'halacha further complicates the issue
as the gemara clearly needs to be taken literally.

2. The gemara in Bava Basra 25b(as well as Pesachim) relates the
following. The gemara there has a dispute between R' Eliezer and R'
Yeshoshua.

R' Eliezer says that the world is like a three-walled building; the north
side is not covered; The sun travels along the inside of the building
during the day. When the sun reaches the northwest corner, it goes above
the building (therefore we can't see it, and goes eastward overnight,
and rises in the northeast in the morning).

R. Yehoshua says, the world is like a box, the north side is covered;
1. When the sun reaches the northwest corner, it goes (through a window)
in back of the box.
2. "Holech El Darom v'Sovev El Tzafon" - the sun (always) travels along
the south by day, and circles around the north side by night.

It is absolutely clear today that the above is not the way things work. We
know that the world is not covered by anything and the sun doesn't go
behind it. We know that the Earth spins and this is what causes the Sun
to rise and set and we know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. These
are not theories, they are facts and they are undisputable, we have all
seen the pictures from space with our own eyes contradicting this gemara.

Note, this description of the sun going out the window is part of the
basis of R' Tam's shita for when nightfall is and therefore seems to be
taken literally.

I would really like to understand how these Gemaras can be reconciled
with modern science in a plausible manner.

myb@yeshivanet.com wrote to Areivim:
> But there is a strong makom to differentiate between giving money, which is a
> minhag yisroel, whereas giving gifts could possibly be of Xistian origins.

I'm not as sure. Perhaps one of our Sepharadi members (or RAMansura,
our sole Teimani poster -- so far) can chime in.

But as I said, would you condemn roite bindeleach for the same reason? Or,
once something catches on in Kelal Yisrael, you assume a kosher source
rather than going with evidence to the contrary?

> What to me makes more sense that it's a crossover from Kratzmech (to be
> m'kayem the mitzveh of V'avadetem Es Sh'mam see AZ 46a), is the wish "Ah
> Freilichen Chanukeh". Why a freilichen? There is no chiyuv simcha on Chanuke
> (see SA OC 670:2)! Might I dear suggest that it has some connection to the
> "merry kratzmech" blessing?

"Freilichen" is used for both rabbinic holidays, "a gutten" for de'Oraisa
(including Shabbos). I don't think it's about simchah, as "a freilechen
Sukes" sounds weird to me, despite "vehayisa akh samei'ach".

Of the way I understand Hebrew terms of joy, "freilach" would be closer to
gilah -- the momentary joy of a happy event. As opposed to the longer-term
happiness of the samei'ach bechelqo.

-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)

In Avodah V16 #75, Micha asked:
> 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?

Hineni.

> What about stepping back before "Ki sheim H'..." for minchah and
> mussaf?

Yes, I step back before the SHaTZ finishes Qaddish. After the Amidah, I
remain "back" and step forward for Qdushah (and when there's no chazoras
haSHaTZ, I try to remain "back" until the midpoint of Qaddish 'Tisqabal'
[assuming I've completed my Amidah before then :-)], more to help me
keep my kavanah in the post-Amidah period than for any other reason).

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

the gemara from shabbos is one of the sections many of us say after we
recite birchat ha'torah in the morning.

the gemara lists many things that we get benefit from in this world
(ochel peiroteichem ba'olam ha'zeh), but that the principle is for the
world to come (v'keren kayemt l'olam haba).

the gemara ends off with, v'talmud torah k'neged kulam.  That learning
torah is equivalent to all of them.

A traditional approach to this is that when one learns about a mitzva,
it's equivalent to doing a mitzva.  This interplays into many haskafic
discussions.  However, I don't think that's the pshat of the gemara.

The gemara lists off multiple mitzvot.

1) kibud av va'em - honoring one's parents.
2) gimilut hasadim - acts of kindness
3) Haskamat beit ha'midrash sacharit v'arvit - (attending the beit
ha'midrash in the mornings and evenings, this can either relate to
tefilla or learning)
4) Hachnasat Orchim - providing for guests
5) Bikur Cholim - visiting the sick
6) Hachnasat Kalah - "providing" for the kallah
7) Livayat Ha'met - escorting someone has died
8) Iyun Tefliah - "Deep" Prayer
9) Ha'vaat shalom bein adam li'chaveiro - bringing peace between men.

and finally a 10th

10) talmud torah k'neged kulam.

chazal is seemingly trying to state that the first 9 mitzvot have
something special about them (that they are ochel peiroteichem ba'olam
hazeh......) and while one might not think that talmud torah is in the
same category as them, chazal is saying it is.

The question I have is, what makes the first 9 mitzvot special? With that
answer, one can possibly get to why talmud torah is in the same category.
(I don't have a gemara shabbos handy to look and see if it goes more
in depth beyond what the siddur has, and since it's 2am and I should
be asleep instead of pondering these questions, I'm not going to look
for one).

I have some thoughts on the matter, but as its late, and I've only given
it very quick thought, the thoughts are a jumble for now.

so that leads to my Q. does anyone know of anything that goes down this
train of thought? Does it have any merit?

> 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. 

I'm sure there are. But are any of those reasons strong enough to
overcome a medical necessity which would be sufficient to permit,
say, eating treif? AIUI, you can't get the surgery done *without*
such a necessity, so it seems to me that anyone who does get it would
be eligible for a heter. IOW the issur is in theory, not in practise.
Now if the practise of surgeons changes, and they start allowing people
to get this surgery just because they feel like it, then the issur would
become a practical concern.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

RZS:
> ... it is impossible to get this surgery, at least in any Western country,
> without a determination by a psychiatrist ... that the person suffers
> from extreme gender dysphoria, to the point where the surgery is necessary
> for the patient's mental health. IOW if the person does not have the
> surgery, serious consequences may result. It seems to me that in such
> a case the surgery should be mutar, because of medical necessity.

Are there dissenting psychiatric opinions - e.g., that gender dysphoria
should be treated with therapy to enable the patient to become reconciled
to his/her biological gender?

What about serious consequences to other people (e.g., the spouse of
the transsexual person)?

This raises the interesting question of how much we rely on psychiatry
in determining halachic questions. In general, poskim rely on medical
experts in questions of sakanah (e.g., eating on Yom Kippur, permitting
contraception, etc.). On the other hand, as we have seen recently, many
poskim emphatically do NOT rely on scientific experts in the fields of
cosmology and evolutionary biology.

So where does psychiatry/psychology fit in? Do we say that this is an
objective medical science, that its hypotheses are falsifiable, and that
an otherwise forbidden sterilization procedure should be permitted based
purely on a psychiatric diagnosis? Or do we say that, while psychiatry
certainly has a great deal to teach us and can benefit us in many ways, it
is a flawed science and includes theories that are neither scientifically
proven nor compatible with a Torah understanding of human nature?

To what extent is the "scientific" psychiatric understanding of these
issues entwined with the politics of sexual identity? For example, the
process by which the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to
remove homosexuality from a list of psychiatric disorders seems to have
been as political as it was scientific. I'm not interested in discussing
the merits of that decision. I'm concerned that "scientific truths" in
this area may be based not only on observation, data, experimentation,
verification, etc - but on political or philosophical views of human
nature that are emphatically NOT Torah-based. Can a psak halacha rely
on this type of science?

 - Ilana

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


[ 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         ]