Volume 35 Number 34
Produced: Thu Aug 2 5:40:51 US/Eastern 2001
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Food Labelling
[Russell Hendel]
Gerald Schroeder (2)
[Stan Tenen, Bernard Raab]
Nusach Selection
[Yisrael & Batya Medad]
Torah & Sefer Yehoshua
[Warren Burstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell Hendel <rhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: RE: Food Labelling
In v35n16 Zev dissents from Chaim on the issue of if minor ingredients
have to be listed by US Law.
I agree with Zevs dissent. In fact a few decades ago I heard a story how
religious people were developing allergies to lard; they investigated
and found it was put in in minor quantities in a food they were eating
which did not have to list this ingredient because it was too
small.(Anyone know what happened to that case)
The amendment Zev mentioned requiring food chains to list allergens even
if in small doses sounds good
Russell Jay Hendel;Ph.D.;A.S.A;http://www.RashiYomi.Com/mj.htm VISIT MY MAIL JEWISH ARCHIVES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stan Tenen <meru1@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 08:21:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Gerald Schroeder
A few comments.
>From: Ed Werner <edwerner@...>
>In Vol 35 #15, Bernard Raab referred to the work of physicist Dr. Gerald
>Schroeder. Bernard, I wouldn't call Schroeder's writings "a serious
>effort to reconcile the 'scientific' age of the universe with our
>biblical 5700 years" - see the reviews of his books at
>http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/ for the reason why. Besides,
>Schroeder's thesis contradicts a major element of our tradition -- the
>Jewish calendar -- since the latter obviously requires the 6th day of
>the Creation to be 24-hours-long in earthly terms (see the Tosafot on
>Rosh ha-Shanah 8a-b, s.v. le-tekufot).
Schroeder's work is about as best as can be expected from a
try-to-make-the-physics-fit-the-story perspective. I question whether
this is a meaningful thing to do, since our Torah isn't going to change,
and physical theories are.
Why is it obvious that the 6th day has to be a 24-hour day, and how long
were the hours? (Based on the geometry that generates the idea of using
a 24-hour day, the 24-hour part will be true of any "day", regardless of
the length of the hour. In other words, the geometry sets the divisions
of the day, but not the absolute length of time.)
>As for the Gemara in Zevakhim - first, it says that _only_ Eretz-Yisrael
>was spared the Flood, and second, it plainly says that, according to
>both opinions, the Flood brought about a violent abruption of the human
>population on Earth, except Noah and his family plus Og the king of
>Bashan. As I have written earlier, all contemporary civilizations whose
>traces have been recovered by archaeologists continued to exist all
>through the Flood years without anything resembling total annihilation
>(in the cases of Egypt and Mesopotamia there is even textual evidence of
>cultural continuity).
As a person who wants to understand our teachings without being required
to leave my brain at the door, I'd like to know what _sort_ of flood can
spare only Eretz Israel. After all, the word "mabul" only occurs in the
story of the "great flood". Wouldn't it be more productive for us to
try to figure out, based on the teachings of our sages and the use of
our logical faculties, and scientific evidence too, what this kind of
"flood" really refers to? After all, water in all directions is only
one sort of flood, and while it may be something that's easy for
uneducated people to understand a few thousand years ago, as a stand-in
for what's really being discussed, it isn't rational and it isn't
reasonable for adults to be confined to such simple levels of
understanding. Doesn't it do our sages an injustice, and certainly,
doesn't it do our Torah an injustice, when we accept the simplest, most
literal possible language, as conveying the necessarily deep meaning of
Torah?
To a child's mind, a flood is only water. But to an adult, a "mabul"
can be much more, and the distinction from simple water can be very
important. I think it's our responsibility to find a full understanding
of mabul, that does not require us to believe things that are
gratuitous. Hashem is not known to be gratuitous. Right?
>Regarding "kol ha'aretz," Genesis 7:19-22 reads: "The waters were very
>powerful over the earth, and they covered all the high mountains which
>were under all the heavens... All that has a breath of the spirit of
>life - everything on dry land - died." "All the high mountains which
>were under all the heavens" and "dry land" (kharavah) are unmistakably
>terms of what we nowadays call "planetary science" (as opposed to an
>abode of this or that particular culture).
The simple meaning of "aretz" is "earth." But its deeper meaning is
what we would now call the particle-aspect of the wave-particle nature
of physicality. Aretz is also everything outside of us (that is, not in
our mind). Its complement at the beginning of B'reshit is "shemayim".
The simple meaning of shemayim is "heavens", which we now, for a reason
which may derive from idolatry, identify with the sky. This is not
correct. Shemayim is the vastness of the "space" in our mind. We touch
our head-tefillin when we say "hoshek". Hoshek is the vastness in
shemayim.
So, if we're going to understand what sort of "waters" covered what sort
of "earth", we should be examining what "waters" and "flood" really
refer to, and what "earth" really refers to. We shouldn't be limiting
ourselves only to the pshat, where we're certain to run into conflicts
with objective knowledge.
And "dry land" (kharavah) may not be referring to the surface of the
physical earth at all, but rather to the boundary of the meditational
space that's being referred to at a deeper level.
With regard to "planetary science," we should take this much more
seriously. After all, planetary science is one science we are certain
was available in the ancient world. We know that our sages, and the
Greeks and Babylonians and Egyptians and Persians et al., kept detailed
records of the motions of the planets. We make fun of them because we
think that they thought that the Earth was the center, because the
drawings they left us appear to be earth-centric, "spirograph,"
epicyclic patterns. I don't believe that the ancient sages thought the
earth was flat, nor that they thought it was the center of the universe.
That story -- ancient ignorance of the earth and the sky -- comes from
the same academic sources that ridicule our Torah.
Instead, I believe that B'reshit really does include an accurate
"template of Creation". That's why the statisticians are finding
equal-interval letter-skip patterns. These are due to the Torah
including letter-patterns that map the epicyclic cycles of the planets.
(I.e., it could be said that Hashem looked into Torah, and projected the
epicyclic cycles of the planets -- et al.. And this would not be
apologia, nor religious puffery, but if I'm right, it would be
objectively demonstrable fact.)
These patterns become the patterns that our Torah weaves. This is the
"reshet" of B'reshit. And all of this knowledge also went in to our
calendar, and some of it is still available from study of our sages'
knowledge of our calendar.
>Finally, there is a great deal of sense in stating that "the flood
>story must be understood in the cultural context of its time." The
>problem - for me at least - is its veracity, on a par with many other
>stories in the Torah. On the other hand, I'm not much bothered by the
>question of veracity of the Gilgamesh story :-)
I think it is a mistake to look for historical justification outside of
cultural context, so I agree with Ed. We just have to remember that
finding history in the stories in Torah is really not the same thing as
understanding the deep meaning of Torah that the history story is
intended to preserve.
Best,
Stan
Meru Foundation http://www.meru.org <meru1@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:16:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Gerald Schroeder
>From: Ed Werner <edwerner@...>
>In Vol 35 #15, Bernard Raab referred to the work of physicist Dr. Gerald
>Schroeder. Bernard, I wouldn't call Schroeder's writings "a serious
>effort to reconcile the 'scientific' age of the universe with our
>biblical 5700 years" - see the reviews of his books at
>http://www.nctimes.net/~mark/bibl_science/ for the reason why.
I am not much impressed by this reviewer, who attacks Schroeder's books as
though they were intended as physics textbooks, rather than an attempt to
explain some difficult concepts in terms that an intelligent layman could
understand.
>Besides, Schroeder's thesis contradicts a major element of our
>tradition -- the Jewish calendar -- since the latter obviously requires
>the 6th day of the Creation to be 24-hours-long in earthly terms (see
>the Tosafot on Rosh ha-Shanah 8a-b, s.v. le-tekufot).
But doesn't our tradition require that the seven days of creation were all
equally earthly "days"?
>As for the Gemara in Zevakhim - first, it says that _only_
>Eretz-Yisrael was spared the Flood,
ONLY?? Isn't this a startling suggestion that the flood may not have been
"global" (in our current concept of the term)?
>and second, it plainly says that, according to both opinions, the Flood
>brought about a violent abruption of the human population on Earth,
>except Noah and his family plus Og the king of Bashan. As I have
>written earlier, all contemporary civilizations whose traces have been
>recovered by archaeologists continued to exist all through the Flood
>years without anything resembling total annihilation (in the cases of
>Egypt and Mesopotamia there is even textual evidence of cultural
>continuity).
Precisely why the suggestion that the flood may not have been "global", even
by then-contemporary standards, is so significant!
>Regarding "kol ha'aretz," Genesis 7:19-22 reads: "The waters were very
>powerful over the earth, and they covered all the high mountains which
>were under all the heavens... All that has a breath of the spirit of
>life - everything on dry land - died." "All the high mountains which
>were under all the heavens" and "dry land" (kharavah) are unmistakably
>terms of what we nowadays call "planetary science" (as opposed to an
>abode of this or that particular culture).
I am sorry but planetary science does not deal with "heavens". Also, the
words "aretz" and "adamah" are used interchangeably in the text, which
suggests to me that the Torah is not dealing with the planet Earth as we now
understand it but rather earth as ground, as the visible land underfoot.
>Finally, there is a great deal of sense in stating that "the flood story
>must be understood in the cultural context of its time." The problem -
>for me at least - is its veracity, on a par with many other stories in
>the Torah. On the other hand, I'm not much bothered by the question of
>veracity of the Gilgamesh story :-)
Precisely: In the cultural context of the time any suggestion of "worlds
beyond" would have been rejected as errant nonsense. Of course we believe
that the the underlying message of Torah is relevant to all generations, but
it first had to be understood and accepted by the generation of
"matan-Torah", or it would never have made it to the next generation, or to
us. Since it seems clear that that generation was well aware of flood
legends that had been popularly transmitted, in which pagan gods destroyed
the world for their own amusement or caprice, the Torah had to deal with it.
Since "everyone" knew the story already, the Torah retells it in the moral
monotheistic context that it seeks to teach, and thus wean the people away
from the pagan versions. Today, pagan beliefs are so foreign to us we can
hardly understand why it would be necessary. But that is just testimony to
the complete success of the Torah approach.
--Bernie R.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:40:20 +0300
Subject: Nusach Selection
Tangentially from this:
> I just saw a teshuva from R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach who claims that in
> this circumstance the nusach should be according to the majority of the
> people in shul at that time.
> To my mind this does not seem overly practical.
> Has anyone ever seen such a vote?
> Eli Turkel
Well, depends how one votes. Try davening ashk'naz in an Adot Mizrach
minyan and you'll feel as if the ballot box hit you, in a figurative sense.
And as for mixing up nusachim, try davening at the Zoharei Chama
Synagogue (The SunDial Schule - gee, that sounds periously close to
the SunDance Kid) on Jaffa Road opposite the shuk in Jerusalem.
Forget about nusach, you've get maybe up to ten minyanim going at
once sometimes and it is kavanna one needs to be worried about.
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:10:48
Subject: Re: Torah & Sefer Yehoshua
>From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
>A "frame of reference" is not really a physical attribute but rather a
>mathematical abstraction which distinguishes one "world" from
>another. The world which G-d inhabits, however abstractly one envisions
>it, is certainly not the world which we inhabit here on earth. The
>concept of "frame of reference" may be a very useful one to draw this
>distinction.
To say that A has a different frame of reference than B means that A and
B are in motion relative to each another. If God has a different
reference than we do, God is moving relative to us. I hope we can all
agree that motion is a physical attribute. (Note that it would be
equally impossible to say that God shares our frame of reference, that
would imply that God is moving relative to other places).
But to say that God inhabits a world different from ours seems to me to
be less acceptable than attributing a frame of reference to God. The
place that God inhabits includes our earth, as well as everywhere else.
>From: Shaya Potter <spotter@...>
>Schroeder isn't claiming a refernce frame for Hashem. He asks a
>question "Is it possible to understand the "6 days of creation" as
>dealing with set units of time" and he says "it depends on the clock we
>use, we have to find a correct clock" The "clock" he uses is the cosmic
>background radiation that is left over from the "Big Bang" That has been
>getting "colder" over time.
One can't argue with a moving target. Bernard Raab used the term "G-d's
frame of reference" in v35n14 (and defends it in n27). Please agree on
a single version of what Scroeder said. Should the second version turn
out to be correct, please explain what it means to measure time from the
perspective of electromagnetic radiation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 35 Issue 34
