Volume 62 Number 21
Produced: Sun, 15 Jun 14 02:07:50 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Age of the universe (was Dinosaurs)
[Martin Stern]
Akdamut
[Yakir Hameiri]
Dairy on Shavuot (4)
[Yakir Hameiri Perets Mett Yisrael Medad Michael Rogovin]
Darwinian Evolution (4)
[Perets Mett Martin Stern Carl Singer Keith Bierman]
Darwinian Evolution (was Dinosaurs)
[Martin Stern]
Dinosaurs (2)
[Martin Stern Leah S. R. Gordon]
Kosher without a hechsher - label story is now more than thirty years
[Michael Rogovin]
Tachanun
[Yisrael Medad]
Tachanun on 29 Iyar--shouldn't it be omitted?
[Doniel Kramer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Age of the universe (was Dinosaurs)
Eliezer Berkovits wrote (MJ 62#20):
> In any case, I am merely curious if there is any practical Torah discussion
> (Halachic/Hashkafic) of this subject; specifically, the following 2
> (independent) points:
>
> (1) confirming that dinosaurs did at one point roam the earth
>
> (2) if 1 is correct, that this did happen millions of years ago
As regards point 1, the fossil evidence does tend to suggest this and point
2 would then follow PROVIDED the laws of nature AS WE NOW OBSERVE THEM were
in operation in the distant past. The latter seems likely but cannot be
assumed to be true since there is NO way of confirming or disproving it.
In any case our way of counting the years has only been in operation since after
the time of the Geonim, some 1000 years ago, so it is certainly not a
fundamental article of faith. As I wrote in my first submission on the topic (MJ
62#16):
> The underlying Orthodox Jewish objection to Evolution is not the subsidiary
> assumption that the world is more than 5774 years old. This is a red herring
> - such a belief is not a fundamental Torah principle. Even if the number of
> years since Creation were different, this should not faze us any more than
> that our date for commencing tal umatar (prayer for rain --MOD) is based on
> Tekufat Shmuel, that a solar year consists of 365 days and 6 hours, even
> though we know this is not absolutely accurate - our Calendar is itself based
> on a more accurate figure.
>
> What is crucial is the belief that the Almighty created the universe and not
> precisely when or how He did so....
Therefore Eliezer's points should not prove to be an insurmountable problem from
a Torah perspective.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yakir Hameiri <yakir.h@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Akdamut
> From personal experience after Tikun Leil Shavuot:
Reading Akdamut provides an opportunity to re-experience what happened at
Har Sinai, i.e. being woken up in time to hear Aseret HaDibrot (10
commandments)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yakir Hameiri <yakir.h@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Dairy on Shavuot
On a more serious note, three days after Shavuot, on reading Parshat
B'ha'alotcha the following occurred to me:
Rashi on B(a)Midbar 10'35 quotes Masechet Shabat re the juxtaposition of two events:
The first - leaving Har Sinai (according to Midrashic interpretation) as fast as
possible, like kids leaving school in order not to get more homework (Mitzvot).
The second - the desire to eat meat (without all restrictions imposed).
The second would therefore seem to be a symptom of the first.
Could it be that we reject this feeling and display our willingness to stay at
Har Sinai and hear more and more by saying "No, we don't want meat!"
I do not recall seeing this anywhere. Has anyone seen or heard this
elsewhere?
Yakir
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Dairy on Shavuot
Robert Schoenfeld (MJ 62#20) wrote:
> There is a relatively simple explanation for eating dairy on Shavuos that I was
> taught when I was very young.
>
> Before Moshah Rabeinu went up Har Sinai to get the Luchos he tolld Klal Yisrael
> not to slaughter any animals until he returned. As you know he was there a long
> time and Klal had to eat and the only food they had was milk and soft cheese.
Nice story, but ...
1 How come the minhag is mentioned nowhere in Chazal?
2 The Torah was given on Shabbos, so there was no question of slaughtering
animals anyway. Did the Jews in the midbor eat dairy every Shabbos?
3 What was wrong with their staple diet, mon?
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Dairy on Shavuot
Robert Schoenfeld (MJ 62#20) wrote:
> There is a relatively simple explanation for eating dairy on Shavuos ...
> and the only food they had was milk and soft cheese.
But it the previous chapter, 18, verse 12, we read "And Jethro, Moses'
father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and sacrifices for God ...".
In Hebrew, zevachim [sacrifices] would seem to indicate meat (see the next
chapter, Exodus 20:20). Meat should have been available, no?
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <michael@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Dairy on Shavuot
There is a practical reason for Dairy on Shavuot that I heard suggested by the
director of Hazon, but it requires a knowledge of animal husbandry which most of
us, being distant from agriculture, lack.
Male livestock (bulls, rams, etc.) have three functions: impregnating females,
pulling things like plows, and as a source of meat. Females (cows, ewes) can be
a source of meat, but more importantly are a source of milk. Domesticated farm
animals mate in the fall and birth in the spring. Once the males have performed
their primary function, continuing to feed them (or at least all of them) is a
waste of resources, and they can be slaughtered. So in the fall, you are likely
to have a lot of males when you only need a few (or one). What do you do with
all the males? No one wants to keep feeding them. And in the spring, you have
pregnant and nursing females who produce an abundance of milk (they are bred to
produce more milk than is needed for offspring). The milk will spoil if it is
not preserved (remember, in the absence of refrigeration, the way to preserve
milk is to turn it into cheese). The Torah provides a solution for the male
problem: they are slaughtered in large numbers on Sukkot, more than on other
holidays. The Rabbis solved the extra dairy problem: eat dairy on Shavuot. Or at
least, eating dairy reminds us that dairy is in abundance around the time of
Shavuot and should be celebrated along with other abundance of the spring,
connecting us with agricultural cycles.
That we have other (presumably valid) reasons for these mitzvot and minhagim is
besides the point. Halacha is a practical system that imbues the everyday
mundane with religious significance and connecting us to the land, even in the
Internet age.
--
Michael Rogovin
<michael@...>
201.820.5504
www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrogovin
<http://www.twitter.com/MichaelRogovin>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett00@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution
Robert Schoenfeld (MJ 62#20) wrote:
> There are two modern examples of evolution that are very obvious today:
>
> 1. There is a current project in Russia which has turned wolves into dogs. They
> took the tamest of a litter of wolves for several generations and now have
> animals that look and behave like dogs.
>
> 2. The growth of several new breeds of dogs that did not exist 100 years ago.
And Who made the first dog?
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution
Robert Schoenfeld wrote (MJ 62#20):
>
> There are two modern examples of evolution that are very obvious today:
>
> 1. There is a current project in Russia which has turned wolves into dogs.
> They took the tamest of a litter of wolves for several generations and now
> have animals that look and behave like dogs.
It is well known that dogs were originally bred in this way, so this is
nothing new. Furthermore, if dogs were allowed to return to the wild, they
would revert to wolf behaviour after a few generations. No new species has
been created, since dogs and wolves have always been able to interbreed (the
crucial difference from distinct species).
This is similar to the divergent varieties of beak types found among finches
in the Galapagos islands which first suggested his theory to Charles Darwin.
On moving from one island to another with a different prevailing food
source, they also tended to the local beak type after a few generations.
Another example often quoted is the moths of Manchester which seemed to
respond to industrial pollution by evolving a darker (melanistic) variety
but over the last fifty years, as a result of clean air acts, have reverted
to their original predominantly light colour.
> 2. The growth of several new breeds of dogs that did not exist 100 years ago.
These are both examples of micro-evolution, as are the others above, and do
not provide any evidence for the emergence of new species by the mechanism
suggested by Darwin.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <carl.singer@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 03:01 PM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution
In reply to Robert Schoenfeld (MJ 62#20):
Robert's two modern examples of evolution are of selective breeding - which
involves purposeful breeding of specimens within the same species - NOT evolution.
Carl Singer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 04:01 PM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution
In reply to Robert Schoenfeld (MJ 62#20):
Without joining the anti-evolution side, I have to observe that these
aren't compelling examples, as both new dog breeds and domesticated foxes
remain the same species as the rest of their lot. They can "intermarry"
(dog breed with other breed, domesticated fox with wild fox, not dog and
fox!) and produce fertile offspring.
Keith Bierman
<khbkhb@...>
kbiermank AIM
303 997 2749
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution (was Dinosaurs)
Eliezer Berkovits wrote (MJ 62#20):
> Leah R Gordon wrote (MJ 62#17):
>
>> 5. I find it extremely problematic that Jewish schools in the UK are
>> following what in the US is concentrated mainly in Christian Fundamentalist
>> communities, i.e. to refrain from teaching about dinosaurs/evolution.
>> Don't we want our young people, whatever country they live in, to know the
>> science? To be able to interact and converse intelligently with the
>> society at large? They will grow up to be ignorant bumpkins if we withhold
>> knowledge like this.
>
> To state that without knowing about dinosaurs/evolution, our young people will
> be unable to interact and converse intelligently with society at large, is
> frankly a quite astonishing claim.
I must admit that I was also somewhat perplexed by Leah's response, which
seemed to be in line with the letter from Jack Cohen in the Jerusalem
Post which I quoted (MJ 62#20). While I would not rule out a critical
assessment of Darwinian Evolution for an appropriate age group, both of them
seem to take it as unchallengeable fact that Darwin's scenario actually
occurred, something for which there is little evidence. It is their dogmatic
insistence to the contrary which I find to be problematic, being
unscientific. Its introduction at an early stage, before children are mature
enough to understand the problems with it, smacks more of proselytism and
indoctrination than education.
>> Let me close by saying that if any school my children attend were to teach
>> anti-evolution or anti-dinosaurs, I would be removing my children as soon
>> as possible.
>
> I struggle to understood why this reaction would be necessary. Why is the
> teaching of evolution/dinosaurs so very important to a child's education?
Nobody on this forum ever suggested teaching anti-evolution or
anti-dinosaurs. I certainly merely called for not demanding a blind
acceptance of the current scientific orthodoxy. It is quite conceivable that
Evolution will go the same way as the long abandoned phlogiston theory of
combustion or the laudable pus theory of wound healing. At best it might be
relegated to the status of an approximation to reality like Newtonian
mechanics, which might be useful but is known not to be an accurate
description of the universe. Suggesting otherwise is the logical fallacy of
"poisoning the well".
There are many other aspects of modern society which are not necessarily
suitable for inclusion in a child's education from a Torah perspective but
which 'modernists' are attempting to foist on religious Jewish schools, for
example its attitude to forms of sexual behaviour which go against explicit
Torah prohibitions. Perhaps this might generate a useful new topic for
discussion.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Dinosaurs
Eliezer Berkovits wrote (MJ 62320):
> Leah R Gordon wrote (MJ 62#17):
>
>> 6. The most important issue here is that there is no contradiction with
>> Torah in any way, when we accept and refine scientific knowledge. Rambam
>> was a big supporter of this. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly
>> supports evolution. By neat coincidence, or according to Orthodox Jews, by
>> divine knowledge, the Torah's order of Bereshit neatly follows what
>> scientists think happened in the Big Bang and following evolution.
>
> I was not referring to evolution, so I don't know why you brought it up. I
> asked about dinosaurs. Are the two inextricably linked?
This probably came up because the two threads appeared at the same time in
MJ 62#16. While they may not be inextricably linked, evolution is often used
to explain the occurrence of fossils of extinct creatures such as dinosaurs.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. R. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 08:01 PM
Subject: Dinosaurs
Eliezer Berkovits wrote (MJ 62#20):
> Leah R Gordon wrote (MJ 62#17):
>>
>> 5. I find it extremely problematic that Jewish schools in the UK are
>> following what in the US is concentrated mainly in Christian Fundamentalist
>> communities, i.e. to refrain from teaching about dinosaurs/evolution.
>> Don't we want our young people, whatever country they live in, to know the
>> science? To be able to interact and converse intelligently with the
>> society at large? They will grow up to be ignorant bumpkins if we withhold
>> knowledge like this.
>
> To state that without knowing about dinosaurs/evolution, our young people
> will be unable to interact and converse intelligently with society at large,
> is frankly a quite astonishing claim.
I guess it depends on what society at large you mean, but it is not at all
an astonishing claim in my circles! :) Evolution and dinosaurs are
accepted reality. Dinosaurs in particular are a fascinating and favorite
topic of kids (and their parents).
> In any case, I am merely curious if there is any practical Torah discussion
> (Halachic/Hashkafic) of this subject; specifically, the following 2
> (independent) points:
>
> (1) confirming that dinosaurs did at one point roam the earth
>
> (2) if 1 is correct, that this did happen millions of years ago
>
>> 6. The most important issue here is that there is no contradiction with
>> Torah in any way, when we accept and refine scientific knowledge. Rambam
>> was a big supporter of this. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly
>> supports evolution. By neat coincidence, or according to Orthodox Jews, by
>> divine knowledge, the Torah's order of Bereshit neatly follows what
>> scientists think happened in the Big Bang and following evolution.
>
> I was not referring to evolution, so I don't know why you brought it up. I
> asked about dinosaurs. Are the two inextricably linked?
>
Ok, this is a legitimate question, as I wasn't totally clear here - yes, I
would say there is a link, to the extent that you want to examine the eons
and various species that lived and died over time. Also, unless you
disbelieve the fossil record, it would be hard to explain why there weren't
humans along with dinosaurs, unless you accept the science of evolution.
>> Let me close by saying that if any school my children attend were to teach
>> anti-evolution or anti-dinosaurs, I would be removing my children as soon
>> as possible.
>
> I struggle to understood why this reaction would be necessary. Why is the
> teaching of evolution/dinosaurs so very important to a child's education?
Well, ok - maybe that was too hasty. If the school were otherwise
wonderful, appropriate, close enough to commute, etc. - then I guess for
one or two curricular mistakes, I could give my kids extra education to
make up for the flaws. However, if the evolution/dinosaur lack were due to
a central hashkafic difference with my family's outlook, then it would
signal that this was the wrong school.
As an example of the former kind of curricular issue - my husband and I,
and our kids from what we can tell, have the skill and penchant for
science/math. These topics require serious and accurate study from as
young an age as possible, for maximal benefit. That said, the Jewish day
school we like best has had some weakness in its math curriculum. We've
chosen to augment with home study and online study and then do a transition
to another school after 6th grade (instead of 8th) as opposed to e.g.
removing the kids early on, in spite of this lack.
OTOH, my kids learned about dinosaurs from books and preschool long ago, so
they were never in danger of missing that topic in particular. :)
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <michael@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Kosher without a hechsher - label story is now more than thirty years
I found the story about which fat was used in cookies, as most recently
recounted by Samuel Finkelman in MJ 62#20 to be a little suspect, at least in
part. He corrects the original posters of the story and dates it to be likely
pre-1960 but no later than 1972. The problem is that the company is reported to
have defended its practice by stating that the government did not require
relabeling unless there is a food allergy issue. In 1972 (and certainly in or
prior to 1960), to the best of my knowledge, there was no allergy food labelling
regulation in the United States or elsewhere. The food allergy labeling
requirement in the US dates to 2006. I cannot say for sure what the government
would or would not require in terms of ingredients in the 1950s, 60s or 70s, but
allergen warnings were certainly not considered an issue. Whether or not that
makes the rest of the story
suspect I leave to others to consider and debate, but anachronistic errors like
this lead me to disregard the entire story as apocryphal -- I doubt it ever
happened, and if it did, we really don't know which parts are true and which are
made up.
Michael Rogovin
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrogovin>
<http://www.twitter.com/MichaelRogovin>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Tachanun
Martin Stern writes (Vol.62 #20)
> ... Erev Rosh Hashanah, where there is no "chag" in the afternoon...
I was given to understand that the verse in Pslams 81:4, "Blow the horn at
the new moon, at the full moon for our feast-day", defined Rosh Hashana as
a chag.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doniel Kramer <dzkramer@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 13,2014 at 07:01 PM
Subject: Tachanun on 29 Iyar--shouldn't it be omitted?
In reply to Rabbi Casper (MJ 62#19):
Why not ask Rabbi Litwak why the Ezras Torah luach makes no mention of Yom
Hashoah; Yom Hazikaron; Yom Haatzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim!!!
Doniel Z. Kramer
<dzkramer@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 62 Issue 21
