Volume 63 Number 90
Produced: Fri, 29 Jun 18 11:17:16 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
An epistemological fallacy
[Martin Stern]
Changing paradigms?
[Sammy Finkelman]
Say Good Shabbos (2)
[Sammy Finkelman Sammy Finkelman]
Why such a lengthy detour? (2)
[Haim Snyder Sammy Finkelman]
Yahrtzeit Kaddish? (3)
[Martin Stern Yisrael Medad Sammy Finkelman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Wed, Jun 27,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: An epistemological fallacy
A common argument for teaching Darwinian evolution is the phenomenon of mutating
bacteria, leading to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains.
I fear that this is based on an epistemological fallacy. We have to distinguish
between observed facts and inferences drawn from them. While the former are
certain, the latter are far less so and this distinction undermines the 'gospel
truth' of evolution.
However teaching such philosophical concepts, even to high school pupils, is
very difficult so evolution is usually presented as established fact with which
only 'benighted fundamentalists' take issue.
On the other hand, it might be argued that the traditional study of Gemara with
its multi-level analyses of inferences from texts does provide such insights and
might be more valuable for intellectual development than some subjects routinely
included in the syllabus of most schools.
Any comments?
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 24,2018 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Changing paradigms?
Joel Rich writes (MJ 63#88):
> S"A O"C 153:12 (MB:76) discusses an individual who had a stipulation with a
> community to build a Beit Knesset (synagogue). It stays with him and his family
> but is not transferable.
I don't follow this. What is the 'It' that is not transferable? The obligation
itself, or does this means that if he does sell it, the obligation expires?
> Were the first people who acted this way sinners, but enough sinners makes it OK?
I think this could depend on what was the basis for declaring that a private
object (e.g., Menorah) used by the synagogue belonged to the synagague. Was this
a takanah, or a Chazakah? In any case, there can aways be a t'nai.
Things might have changed because in many places Jews were forced to leave a
city but went to different places. So it may have become unclear - until later,
when it was clear the Chazakah had changed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 24,2018 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Say Good Shabbos
I think I have noticed (although this may be a result of walking in different
places) that people are more likely to say Good Yom Tov than Good Shabbos.
And people some distance away from observance are more likely to say Good
Shabbos than others.
Good Vuch, or something like that, may be said when leaving shul after the end
of Shabbos but Sholom Aleichem isn't said except when saying Kiddush Levaneh.
I think greetings are mostly said now in a situation where someone would like
to, or thinks they should, spend some time with the other person or talk longer,
but haven't the time or opportunity. Yom Tov is more of a time for guests -
therefore Good Yom Tov is said when passing someone by on the street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 24,2018 at 05:01 PM
Subject: Say Good Shabbos
Martin Stern wrote (MJ 63#89):
Who knows how far the good will generated might go as in the case of the Jewish
judge in 1933 Germany whose life was saved because he always said "Good morning"
to the non-Jewish doorman when he arrived at the court building and the latter
warned him of a plot to kill him.
I must have now heard (read) recently at least three different stories similar
to that. Which one is right, or are they all true?
It is always someone who was in Germany.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Haim Snyder <haimsny@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 24,2018 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Why such a lengthy detour?
Martin Stern asked (MJ 63#79):
> We read in parshat Chukat (Bam. 21:1-3) that the Bnei Yisrael decisively
> defeated the Kenaani king of Arad shortly after the thirty days of mourning
> after the death of Aharon. This would have been some time in Ellul in the last
> year in the midbar. They then skirted the territories of Edom and Moav and
> fought the two Emori kings of Transjordan, Sichon and Og, before preparing to
> cross the Yarden to enter Eretz Yisrael from the east.
>
> Why did they not overrun it from the south immediately rather than make such a
> lengthy detour?
I think that the simple answer is that there were still men alive from the time
of the Sin of the Spies. Until they died entry into Eretz Yisrael couldn't take
place.
Sincerely,
Haim Shalom Snyder
Petah Tikva
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 25,2018 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Why such a lengthy detour?
Martin Stern writes (MJ 63#89):
> We read in parshat Chukat (Bam. 21:1-3) that the Bnei Yisrael decisively
> defeated the Kenaani king of Arad shortly after the thirty days of mourning
> after the death of Aharon. This would have been some time in Ellul in the last
> year in the midbar. They then skirted the territories of Edom and Moav and
> fought the two Emori kings of Transjordan, Sichon and Og, before preparing to
> cross the Yarden to enter Eretz Yisrael from the east.
>
> Why did they not overrun it from the south immediately rather than make such a
> lengthy detour?
The Soncino Chumash, with commentary written or revised in the mid-1930s by
Rabbi J.H. Hertz C.H., who was the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire, says in
the commentary of (Bam. 21:3) that:
"This incident cannot be assigned to the period when the Israelites had begun to
encompass the land of Edom, for they were nowhere in the neighborhood of Arad.
It therefore must *precede* that event."
He cites a Jewish scholar in England named H. M. Wiener (1874-1929) as saying
this took place before the incident with the Meraglim (spies) and the proof is
that "Hormah" mentioned in Bam. 21:3 is also mentioned at Bam. 14:45. Wiener
says it is the same place. We can add that it's "Ha-Hormah" there.
But this raises the question as to why this is out of its place, and why it is
seemingly connected to the death of Aaron, not once, but twice (!), because it
is also linked to it in Parshas Masei (Bam. 33:41), where there is otherwise
mostly just a list of the way-stations. Yet this is interrupted to mention it,
and also give Aaron's date of death and age.
Rabbi Hertz also mentions this in his introduction to Parshas Shelach:
"According to some scholars, the victory of the Israelites over the king of Arad
in the extreme south of Canaan, recorded in XXI: 1-3, took place at this stage....."
He also mentions the defeat at 14:45 and quotes something from Wiener including
that no nation invents or accepts accounts of defeats it has never experienced.
Another thing we can try to factor into this puzzle is that Onkelos translates
Derech ha-asoorim at Bam: 21:3 as the way of the spies (although according to
Rabbi Hertz the spies hadn't been there till after the king of Arad was defeated).
But all this raises another question: Why, if so, is everything so out of order?
And why is it linked to the death of Aaron, or toward heading toward the Yam Suf
(here meaning the Gulf of Eilat aka as the Gulf of Aqaba - Yam Suf means a place
with tides or maybe the entire Indian Ocean, not where they crossed over when
leaving from Egypt, but the location mentioned in Mishpatim (Shemos 23:31).
Maybe we can answer that that is *why* they headed east, and not back to Kadesh.
But the question then is, didn't they follow the Omud Ha-Anon, and not make
decisions for themselves? Except that there's a tradition that the Omud Ha'Anon
ceased at the time of the death of Aaron.
Maybe somebody had this figured long ago or preserved this understanding, and
that's the reason for Onkelos's translation and for the tradition that the Omud
ha-onan stopped at the death of Aaron, but it didn't make it into the Talmud.
But still why is everything so cryptic, and almost misleading, with just a few
scattered little clues that would enable you to get things right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 24,2018 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Yahrtzeit Kaddish?
Yisrael Medad wrote (MJ 63#89):
> In his reply to Chaim Casper (MJ 63#87), Martin Stern writes (MJ 63#88) that
> the change in practice from the Ashkenazi custom of one-person-at-a-time
> kaddish recitation was "unfortunate" and it stemmed from the adoption by Rav
> Ya'akov Emden based on his father's observation of the custom among the
> Sephardim in Sarajevo. Martin adds that he fears the "rav" (unclear whether
> the Chacham Tzvi or his son) did not notice that:
>> among Sephardim, all the tefillot were said in unison, unlike among
>> Ashkenazim who often davenned each at his own pace. This resulted in the
>> kaddish being said by the various aveilim at differing speeds making it
>> inaudible and, thereby, preventing the congregation from responding "Amein -
>> yehei shemeih rabba ..." which was the main purpose for which it was
>> instituted.
I must apologise for any possible lack of clarity on my part but I thought that
it was clear that I referred to Rav Ya'akov Emden rather than his father, the
Chacham Tzvi, from what I had written:
>> Rav Ya'akov Emden's observation, about 250 years ago, in HIS siddur
>> commentary that he had observed it to be the custom among the Sephardim
>> (emphasis added)
> I find it unfortunate that I cannot quite grasp Martin's point.
>
> A. Ashkenazim may not chant in unison like Sefaradim but as the Shaliach
> Tzibbur always recites aloud the first and last verse of each
> paragraph/section, I am at a lost as to what Martin is writing.
Even though the Sheliach Tzibbur may do so, this does not prevent some
individuals either davenning faster and ignoring him or slower and being unable
to keep up with him. This is fairly common during, for example, pesukei dezimra
in my experience. In many places the Sheliach Tzibbur does not always recite
these verses, at least not loudly enough for everyone to hear.
> B. Even amongst Ashkenazim, the "different speed" recitation occurs
I presume that Yisrael means Sephardim, otherwise he is contradicting his first
point.
> C. I truly doubt the "rav", whoever he was, didn't "notice" the chanting of
> the Sefaradim in unison. Unless, of course, he was deaf.
He may well have "noticed" it but he may not have appreciated the consequence if
Ashkenazim, who are not used to it, said kaddish in a group. Perhaps I could
have made this clearer by a more felicitous choice of words - my apologies to
Yisrael if he became confused.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael Medad <yisrael.medad@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 24,2018 at 07:01 AM
Subject: Yahrtzeit Kaddish?
In responding to my comment (MJ 63#88), Martin Stern indicates (MJ 63#89) that he
relies on the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh.
That in of itself is problematic.
Even in my high school yeshiva years, Rav Ganzfried wasn't known as the most
authoritative source of Halacha Psukah because of his general social outlook.
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sammy Finkelman <sammy.finkelman@...>
Date: Mon, Jun 25,2018 at 06:01 PM
Subject: Yahrtzeit Kaddish?
Yisrael Medad writes (MJ 63#89) that he cannot quite grasp Martin Stern's point
(MJ 63#88) that he fears the "rav" did not notice that among Sephardim, all the
tefillot were said in unison, unlike among Ashkenazim, who often davenned each
at his own pace.
I think what he means is that R. Ya'akov Emden *heard* this from his father, the
Chacham Tzvi, but wasn't personally present (is that correct?) and didn't
understand, or at least note, that the Sefaradim say all prayers together.
Perhaps when they do or did it, they said it more in unison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 90
