Volume 62 Number 25
Produced: Wed, 16 Jul 14 02:02:42 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Boys Meeting Girls | Girls Meeting Boys (2)
[Michael Feldstein Isaac Balbin]
Darwinian Evolution and Dinosaurs (3)
[Martin Stern Martin Stern Ari Trachtenberg]
Different types of inhabitants? (4)
[Roger Kingsley Dov Bloom Elazar M. Teitz Sammy Finkelman]
Is there an obligation to serve in the Army?
[Bill Bernstein]
Kaddish phrasing
[Joel Rich]
Od Avinu Hai
[Isaac Balbin]
Spontaneous generation
[Sammy Finkelman]
Tachanun Erev Rosh Hashana
[Roger Kingsley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Feldstein <michaelgfeldstein@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 11,2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Boys Meeting Girls | Girls Meeting Boys
Carl Singer wrote (MJ 62#24):
> The conversation expanded at the table -- there were approximately 40 young
> (single) men on this side of the mehitzah and likely the same number of young
> (single) women on the other side. Is there any appropriate way for these
> 40 + 40 to at least say hello to each other and, perhaps, start towards a
> relationship:
>
> (1) exchanging contact information so their parents or a shadchun or a Rabbi
> might check out credentials.
>
> (2) exchanging contact information so that they might have a telephone
> conversation ....
I've got a novel idea...how about mixed seating at weddings and allow these
young men and women to (gasp!) talk to each other?
Did you know that Rav Moshe Feinstein's daughter had mixed seating at her
wedding. And Rav Ahron Soloveitchik actually met his future wife at a mixed
seating wedding?
Yet we continue to create separate the sexes at every possible occasion and
venue, and fool ourselves into thinking that we are actually protecting
ourselves against sinful activity.
As Reb Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy ... and he is us."
--
Michael Feldstein
56 Crane Rd.
Stamford, CT 06902
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 12,2014 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Boys Meeting Girls | Girls Meeting Boys
In reply to Carl Singer (MJ 62#24):
There was a wedding which was mixed and the Yeshivah boys asked R Aharon
Soloveitchik if they should attend. He replied, of course you should. Maybe you
will be interested in one at your table. You will behave with manners and you
are the right age. I don't understand the question!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 23,2014 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution and Dinosaurs
Keith Bierman wrote (MJ 62#23):
> Martin Stern wrote (MJ 62#22):
>
>> Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics suggests such multiple (and mutually
>> incompatible) scientific theories may be possible.
>
> Newtonian physics is essentially a special case of Einsteinian mechanics
> where various variables are held constant (to oversimplify of course, low
> velocity and relatively low mass ... no pun intended!). Surely this isn't a
> very firm basis for arguing that multiple theories are equally plausible,
> as it really is quite the opposite.
This is not strictly correct. While the RESULTS of Newtonian mechanics can
be thought of as being a LIMITING case of Einsteinian mechanics at low
velocity etc., the two have completely different THEORETICAL
presuppositions. Both acknowledge the FACT that, for example, massive bodies
move towards one another (gravitation) but explain this in different ways.
The former postulates the existence of some intrinsic force proportional to
their mass whose effect decreases according to the inverse square of the
distance between them. The latter describes this phenomenon as being caused
by a distortion of space-time by the presence of matter. That they predict
the same results in many circumstances does not imply that they are mutually
compatible theoretically.
It was this point that I was trying to make when I argued that we could not
assume the fundamental nature of evolution just even if it provided a useful
way for explaining many biological phenomena. It is conceivable that other
theoretical frameworks, completely different from Darwin's theories, might
be designed which will also do this.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 23,2014 at 05:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution and Dinosaurs
Reuben Freeman wrote (MJ 62#23):
> Newtonian mechanics can be extracted as a limit from quantum mechanics.
> Galilean relativity is but a limit of Einsteinian special relativity.
> Maxwellian electrodynamics is but a limit of quantum electrodynamics And so
> on.
I have commented on this above in my reply to Keith Bierman.
> Martin's position would seem to push in the direction of not teaching any
> science at all since what is taught may eventually be shown to be wrong. But
> *any* scientific theory is tentative and not final.
I agree totally with Reuven's point that "*any* scientific theory is
tentative and not final", which is crucial. The problem with teaching very
young children is that it is extremely difficult to get it over and they
will usually come away with the idea that the THEORY is a FACT. This was
brought out very clearly in Wendy's contribution (MJ 62#22) on which I
commented (MJ 62#23).
I therefore do not take the position Reuven attributes to me "of not
teaching any science at all since what is taught may eventually be shown to
be wrong" only that such teaching must be appropriate to the maturity of the
student and that the tentative nature of all theories be emphasised.
In any case, it is not their usefulness that is in question - only whether
they ARE reality as Reuven correctly observes:
> Actually the real proof of whether one "believes" or "doesn't believe" a
> scientific theory is not a matter of stating or averring a position but rather
> whether one is willing to risk/bet one's life on technology derived from the
> scientific theory.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 23,2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Darwinian Evolution and Dinosaurs
Reuben Freeman wrote (MJ 62#23):
> Actually the real proof of whether one "believes" or "doesn't
> believe" a scientific theory is not a matter of stating or averring
> a position but rather whether one is willing to risk/bet one's life
> on technology derived from the scientific theory.
I like this attempt to define a test of "belief", and I think that it is a good
first approximation ... but it is also confusing "belief" with "trust". When I
fly in a plane or drive a car, I am not actively stating my belief in physics,
I am stating my trust in the people who designed/built the plane/car. There is
no reason to think that this trust is properly placed (and, indeed, it often
is not).
"Belief", on the other hand, is very different. When I do something I perceive
to be in G-d's name, I have no reason to think that I will succeed or that I
will be protected in doing so (after all, I do not determine G-d's actions).
My belief is that, ultimately, what will happen, good or bad, will be for the
good. This belief is irrational and unprovable (although, like science, we
accumulate evidence), and yet it is a fundamental cornerstone of our religion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger Kingsley <rogerk@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 11,2014 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Different types of inhabitants?
Martin Stern [MJ 62#24] wrote:
> I have previously raised some problems regarding the ta'amei hakra
> [cantillation / punctuation notation in the Torah] but there seems to be a
> glaring discrepancy in the Shirah (Shem. 15) we say each morning.
>
> In verse 14 we have the phrase "yoshevei pelashet [inhabitants of Philistia]"
> and in verse 15 "yoshevei kenaan [inhabitants of Canaan]". In the former the
> word "yoshevei" is marked with a tippecha which separates it from the word
> "pelashet" to which it would appear to be connected by the sense of the words
> whereas, in the latter, it is marked with a merecha which connects it with the
> word "kenaan" as might have been expected.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why the two places, Philistia and Canaan, or their
> inhabitants, should be treated differently in what is clearly a single
> passage?
I am no expert on this, but I think that the difference is not so glaring. The
latter phrase is actually "kol yoshvei kenaan" [all the inhabitants of Canaan] -
and the word "kol" takes the tip'cha. So the two phrases have much the same
structure.
Roger Kingsley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dov Bloom <dovbbb@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 11,2014 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Different types of inhabitants?
In answer to Martin Stern (MJ 62#24):
The standard paradigm is:
namogu || kol | yoshvei c'naan.
namogu - major stop marked by zakef - followed by 3 word phrase kol yoshvei
c'naan. The 3 word phrase splits : kol marked by minor stop tipecha / - the 2
word phrase yoshvei c'naan joined by mercha silug. Mercha is the conjuctive
ta'am before siluq.
That paradigm would require:
Chil (subject) || ahaz (verb) | yoshvei plashet (2 word conjuncted phrase
telling who). That is the expected syntactical division.
Since ahaz is pointed with a zakef, a disjunctive accent (mafsik), the
accentuation rules say a two word syntactic unit preceded by zakef ending with
silug always gets tipcha siluq and not mercha siluq. Even a 2 word pasuk will
get tipcha siluq and not mercha siluq. So the short answer is because of the
zakef, yoshvei gets a tipcha. Probably the reasons are musical.
The harder question is why is the zakef not on chil as we would expect?
The abberant accentuation of chil ahaz is discussed by scholars.
I think (without hitting the reference books) there is an effort to balance the
4 word phrase. Chil is a mila zeira, a very short 1 syllable word. The
syntactic expected division would give 1 syllable on one side || 5 full
syllables + 3 half syllables (half syllable is a shva na or hataf) on the other.
Especially in poetic psukim as opposed to prose there is a desire for more
balanced division. This caused the move of the zakef to the right. The tipecha
on yoshvei is a consequence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 12,2014 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Different types of inhabitants?
Martin Stern (MJ 62#24) raised the question of the difference in the ta'mei
hamikra (cantillation) for "yosh'vei K'naan" and "yosh'vei P'lashes" in
consecutive verses in Sh'mos 15.
In all Torah verses whose final clause is of more than one-word length, that
clause is subdivided by a tipcha, which appears where that clause is most
logically divided. In verse 14, the clause consists of two words: yosh'vei
(inhabitants of) and P'leshes. There is only one word before the end, so it
gets the tipcha. Verse 15 contains three words in its ultimate clause: kol
(all) yosh'vei (inhabitants of) K'naan. If the intent were to emphasize that
it was all the _inhabitants_ (as opposed to, say, visitors) who feared, then the
tipcha would indeed be on the word yosh'vei. Since, however, the verse intends
to emphasize that it was _all_ (and not merely, say, a majority) who feared, it
is that word of emphasis that gets the tipcha. In other words, the Torah is
stating that _all_ inhabitants feared, not that all _inhabitants_ feared.
This is an excellent example of how choice of cantilation affects uderstanding
of a pasuk [verse]. Another such example is in the first verse of the second
paragraph of the Sh'ma, which reads "l'ahava es Hashem Elokeichem ulovdo b'chol
l'vavchem," to love Hashem your G-d and to serve Him with all your heart. This
can be punctuated in two ways:
(a) to love Hashem, and to serve Him with all your heart, and
(b) to love Hashem and to serve Him, with all your heart.
In (a), with "all your heart" refers only to service, while in (b), it refers
both to love of Hashem and to His service. The cantillation shows that the
correct interpretation is (b), because the word "ulovdo," and to serve Him, has
a pausal cantillation, whereas initerpretation (a) would call for the pause to
be before "and to serve Him."
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 15,2014 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Different types of inhabitants?
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 62#24):
> there seems to be a glaring discrepancyin the Shirah (Shem. 15) we say each
> morning.
>
> In verse 14 we have the phrase "yoshevei pelashet [inhabitants of Philistia]"
> and in verse 15 "yoshevei kenaan [inhabitants of Canaan]". In the former the
> word "yoshevei" is marked with a tippecha which separates it from the word
> "pelashet" to which it would appear to be connected by the sense of the words
> whereas, in the latter, it is marked with a merecha which connects it with the
> word "kenaan" as might have been expected.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why the two places, Philistia and Canaan, or their
> inhabitants, should be treated differently in what is clearly a single
> passage?
I think their composers selected the Ta'amei hakra to give meaning. They could
have probably written a commentary larger than that of Rashi if it had all been
made explicit - it's a loss that it didn't happen.
I think I can answer what's the difference in meaning here. The answer here I
think is simple. "Pelashet" is an adjective and not a noun, Canaan is a noun.
While the last word being an adjective does not preclude it being linked by the
trop to the preceeding word, still an adjective should have a bigger separation
than a noun, so they did it to indicate it is not a noun.
"Pelashet" does not mean a place called Philistia. It means people who are
scattered all over, like fruit rolling out of a basket of fruit is scattered,
one here, one there. The Pelishtim came out by sea from Crete or Cyprus and
landed in various places in scattered settlements.
In other words:
Yoshevei pelashet = people living in these scattered settlements (linked only by
coming from the sea, but not any stretch of continguous territory on land)
Yoshevei kenaan = inhabitants of the land of Canaan in general
Only later maybe did it start to get called the name of a specific people (and
based on their being scattered, not based on their being in some place called
Pelish) and then maybe a location.
I am not clear if the Greek lecturer and writer Herodotus used the term
Palestine. It has been said that might be a later "correction" of whatever he
actually did use and that maybe - what - the Roman Emperor Hadrian was really
the first to use that term, after the Bar Kochba revolt.
In any case Philistia is understood as referring only to approximately what is
now the Gaza Strip. In his whole writings Herodotus attempted to write the Jews
out of history, presumably at the behest of Egyptian idol worshipping priests,
so he might have needed another name for the area between Egypt and Syria.
The same root, Peh - Lamed - Shin, is present, in a somewhat distant but still
similar language, in the word "Falasha" which was the derogatory term the rulers
of Ethiopia chose for the Jews there after they had been dispossessed of their
land. It was not so much a name for them as a description of a situation they
were supposed to be permanently in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Bernstein <billheddy@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 11,2014 at 11:01 AM
Subject: Is there an obligation to serve in the Army?
Carl Singer asks (MJ 62#24) about an obligation to serve in the military, either
in Israel or outside, and offers up an article exploring the topic of Israeli
military service. I did not read the article in depth but it seemed as though
the author started with the conclusion and worked his way back by cherry picking
friendly opinions and engaging in some questionable comparisons. For example, I
would assume the "draft" of the classic milchemes mitzva lasted only as long as
the crisis. This was much like the state militia during the American Revolution.
In the case of Israeli service, as I understand it, it is a commitment that
spans decades.
I recall a responsum from the Melamed L'Hoil although I cannot find it now where
he is asked about avoiding an army draft because he will be forced to eat non
kosher food, work on Shabbes, etc. The response was that he was obligated to
answer the call because (as I remember) if he did not then someone else would
have to go and he had no right to do that. As for being forced to violate
mitzvas, it was a case of "oneis [compulsion]" so there was really no violation.
The Melamed L'Hoil was discussing, I assume, the Kaiser's army of the 19th/early
20th centuries and many Jews did serve there. My wife had several uncles fall at
both Ypres and Somme fighting for the Fatherland.
Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 11,2014 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Kaddish phrasing
In the last two paragraphs of kaddish we say "aleinu v'al kol yisrael". I
remember once learning that it's said as a complete phrase, and another time
that it's said with a comma after aleinu. Does anyone know the source? I
thought it was the Mishneh B'rurah but I was unable to locate it.
KT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Sat, Jul 12,2014 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Od Avinu Hai
In reply to Ari Tractenberg (MJ 62#24):
As Rav Soloveitchik points out, as quoted by Rav Schachter many times, one's Rav
Hamuvhak (primary Rabbi) can and should exist in the thinking of a Talmid
(student) even after they depart this world. In Chabad's case, it's obvious.
Just read Telushkin's book. It's about continuing his legacy and directions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 15,2014 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Spontaneous generation
Orrin Tilevitz wrote (MJ 62#23):
> That the Torah (based on the Gemara) teaches that fleas arise by spontaneous
> generation and therefore may be killed on Shabbat is relevant to my right to
> kill the fleas but certainly does not require me to believe the underlying
> reason.
That Chazal believed in spontaneous generation is something frequently repeated
but I think is a mistake. They could not have. It contradicts the idea that all
creatures were created during Maaseh Bereishis.
Spontaneous generation is an idea that perhaps the Rambam may have had, because
it was around in his day, but it is not an idea Chazal had, and if he said that
they thought so, it is mistake he made because he was a little bit too loyal to
the educated knowledge of his day.
I looked in the Gemorah that deals with this some time ago. Chazal believed that
living creatures could reproduce in three ways:
1) By giving birth, like dolphins.
2) By producing eggs.
3) By budding.
One opinion in the Gemorah is that lice reproduced by budding, not spontaneous
generation. To the objection that they are called "eggs of lice" the answer was:
Well, that's it's name!
This is actually only one opinion and the Gemorah I believe does not settle the
question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger Kingsley <rogerk@...>
Date: Fri, Jul 11,2014 at 09:01 AM
Subject: Tachanun Erev Rosh Hashana
Martin Stern wrote [MJ 62#24]:
> Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 62#23):
>
>> In reply to my response (MJ 62#21), Martin Stern (MJ 62#22) fears that
>> I misunderstood what he wrote. He confirms that
>>
>>> Obviously Rosh Hashana is a chag (as I wrote) but no part of Erev Rosh
>>> Hashanah is, not even in ITS afternoon, which was the point of my comment.
>>
>> I can only quote the Mishneh Brurah, para. 581:3, note 22:
>>
>>> because it is as other erev chag [days].
>
> That we do not say tachanun in the morning on an erev chag is incidental to
> other considerations:
>
> 1. We do not say it the whole of Nisan which includes Erev Pesach
>
> 2. We do not say it from Rosh Chodesh Sivan which includes Erev Shavuot
>
> 3. We do not say it after Yom Kippur which includes Erev Succot
>
> There is no similar reason for Erev Rosh Hashanah.
This is all quite correct. However, when both the Mishne B'rura and the
Aruch Hashulhan (581:12) give precisely the same reason for not saying
tachanun on the morning of Rosh Hashana, I think that we must just take it
at that. There may be no better reason for the minhag than that Rosh
Hashana should not be singled out.
Roger Kingsley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 62 Issue 25