Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
writersoul,
Trashcan.
The same study that claims to have found evidence of “four women” as the forebearers of 40% of the Ashkenzi population, also concluded that the women lived in first and second centuries CE (i.e. the times of the Mishna).
rationalfrummie,
The issue with Get is when the social and economic pressure begins before the Bais Din issues a seruv.
mdd,
According to many (most?) poskim, in evaluating geirus, what the convert does after the conversion is not relevant. What is important is whether there was kabolas mitzvos at the time of the geirus. Because devarim sh’b’lev aynam devarim, if there was a verbal kabala of the ol mitzvos then the conversion will be valid (assuming proper mila and tevila) unless it was clear (umdina d’muchach) AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME that the kabala was insincere.
Post conversion actions cannot retroactively annul a geirus.
Rabbi Altusky was trying to persuade a young man to stay in Yeshiva. Don’t take what he said literally.
Not to mention there is a vast difference between younger single person going to college and married, older person going to college.
Twisted,
What is your source that they were not Canaanites. Rashi says that according to R’ Nechemia they were Canaanits. (Beraishis 37:35)
Oomis,
You were taught only one side of a machlokes. The posuk in Beraishis, cited above) refers to Yakov’s “daughters” (plural). R’Yehuda says that each shevet was born with a twin and they married their half-sisters. R’Nechemia says that they married Canaanites and the verse is calling Yakov’s daughter-in-laws “daughters.”
DaMoshe,
How do you know rebdoniel learned there?
ROB,
Kofin Oso Ad Sheyomar Rotza Ani only applies after a Bais Din has ruled that the husband is m’chuyav to give a Get. If someone forces the husband before such a ruling it will be a Get Meusa and the get will be posul.
It is not at all clear, however, that communal and verbal pressure is considered forcing such that it would make a Get Meusa.
writersoul,
There is a difference between other members and the founder/leader.
There are other reasons to think he has changed. He has frum people on his ticket. He has publicly admired certain Orthodox Rabbis and he has given speaches stating his position towards the Chareidim, which (if taken as true) clearly demonstrate that he does not hate frum Jews.
Rebdoniel,
She is a member of his party. Maybe he has changed.
“100 years ago there was not a single thought by anyone that a woman had an active role in the Shul.”
That is a poor argument. Not contemplating something in the past doesn’t mean that thing is bad. 100 years ago nobody contemplated frum EMT services, the Modern Kollel system, seminaries in Israel, cell phones, cds, etc. ect.
Your argument would be better if poskim did think about it 100 years and rejected it.
It is a machlokes in the Gemara (brought down in Rashi in VaYechi), whether they married their half sisters (whose births are not mentioned in the Torah) or Cannanites (i.e. non-Jews).
Charliehall,
What the RCA did, in general, was fine. The only problem was with the way the letter was worded and structured. If the letter separated out Chacham Ovadia from the thugs at the weddings, we would not be upset.
Is Shas Hashmad an objective state? Does it depend on a declaration of the Chachomim? Does it need both, akin to tzaras in a house?
What if some poskim say a situation is not Shas Hashmad, are you required to listen to those poskim because we are meikel by sakanas nefashos?
I pose the following hypothetical: The Chief Rabbinate outlaws kitniyos on Pesach. Anyone caught eating or cooking kitniyos on Pesach goes to jail for a year. Is this Shas Hashmad for Sefardim? Are they required to eat the kitiyos and go jail?
Playtime,
I have wondered about this for years. The best guess I have is that it means something similar to “tzelem elokim.” It means that we have independent consciousness (a.k.a the mind, a.k.a. the soul) and ability to make moral choices. That independent consciousness, in contrast to our brains and bodies, are not the product of nature and physical processes but comes directly from on high.
In other words it doesn’t mean a piece of G-d, but a piece that is like G-d. It is not uncommon for Tannaic writing to use somewhat exaggerated writing (to leave out a “like”) or to use metaphor to describe something.
On the issue of who is a Gadol:
I think that “Gadol” is short hand for “Gadol BaTorah u’Mitzvos.”
If a person is fluent in Shas and Poskim and has demonstrated the ability to be maiven davar m’toch davar and apply his (or her) learning to real life situations, then that person is a Gadol baTorah.
If a person is meticulous in mitzvah performance, both bein adam l’makom and bein adam l’chaveiro (and l’atzmo), if he (or she) is constantly searching out mitzvos, then that person is a Gadol baMitzvos.
However, practically speaking a person will not be, and should not be, considered a “Gadol” until he (or she) is accepted as a Gadol baTorah u’Mitzvos by other people.
writersoul,
The issue is not the criticism itself but the language used in the criticism.
As DaMoshe said the letter was meant to be private. Still at least one of the signatories has said publicly that he stands by the letter.
PBA is absolutely right.
One can only hope that this was a mistake and they meant the “??? ??” to refer only to the youth who committed assault. In which case they should apologize as soon as possible.
SecularFrummy,
I don’t really know the answer to that question. There have been various hypotheses bandied about but a lot of work needs to be done to refine and test them. Here are some of the ideas I have read/heard about.
The Self Organization Hypothesis of Stuart Kauffman
The Front-Loaded Hypothesis advocated in the book The Design Matrix
The Natural Genetic Engineering Theory of James A. Shapiro
Secular Frummy,
I have not been disputing that a animals have evolved. The issue is by what mechanism have they evolved. I don’t think that Neo-Darwinian mechanisms are capable of achieving the changes we see in the fossil record or in the diversity of life around us.
Agav, I think the conventional theory is that Marsupials migrated to Australia, not that they arose in Australia. The issue is only why they thrived in Australia and died out everywhere else.
writersoul,
You misunderstood the paragraph. He isn’t saying “I believe that Neo-Darwinian mechanisms account for macroevolution, I just can’t fathom it in practical terms.” He is saying that scientifically speaking the multiple mutations that would have to happen in concert for macroevolution to occur (as opposed to micro which can happen with one or two point [at most] mutations), is so unlikely as to require a separate explanation or at least some demonstration of its occurrence.
and
“I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.”
I should point out again, that evolution is not a matter of years but a matter of generations. Furthermore, because we have fossils we can discuss evolution as between point A and point B. We don’t have to be swept away by the grand scheme of life on Earth.
Frankly, I think the evidence is pretty strong that Natural Selection acting on random mutation (aka the Neo-Darwinian synthesis) is not sufficient to account for the complexity of life on Earth or the fossil record. I suspect the reason it still stands as the dominant theory is not because of its strength but because it has no serious competitors.
writersoul,
May I recommend the following book:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn
I do not mean to be offensive so please take this the right way. Your description of a “scientific theory” is simplistic. It doesn’t take into account the vast differences between scientific fields (in terms of veritability) or scientific intertia (or dogmatism). Read Kuhn, I suspect it will change the way you think about science.
On the subject of micro-evolution v. macro-evolution and why the former doesn’t compel the latter, the following is a quote from Professor James Tour, a prominent organic chemist:
Montreal bagels and doughnuts (the ones from Homemade Bakery) are the best.
And here I am stuck in the United States. Sigh.
Secular Frummy,
I apologize. I mixed you up with Lakewood Fellow. To understand my point you would probably have to go back and read my back and forth with him.
Jackie Mason also supported his nephew (now a Rosh Kollel) through yeshiva.
Caspar Weinberger was not Jewish (his mother was Christian).
I have never heard or seen any evidence that Rush Limbaugh is Jewish. Does anyone have a source for that?
Other famous Jews:
Al Franken
Daniel Radcliffe (his mother’s a Jew)
Mel Brooks
Sacha Baron-Cohen
mgntgt,
Go back and re-read my post about defining terms in discussing evolution (it should be on the first page). My point was in response to oft made claim that “all of biology is based on evolution.” One need not describe to Neo-Darwinian evolution (or even common descent) to be a good doctor or a biologist.
There are biologists (i.e. Phd in biology or closely related fields) that do not subscribe to the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. A small sample:
Dean Kenyon
Michael Behe
John A. Davison
Thomas Guilliams
James Shapiro
Raymond Bohlin
Some of the above are creationists, some support intelligent design, and some support alternative theories of evolution.
As explained above, students are taught biology within a Neo-Darwinian paradigm but that doesn’t mean that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is necessary to learn, research and apply biology.
You wrote: “As far as “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”, you are mistaken. Macro-evolution IS micro-evolution, just with more time. The evidence for macro-evolution is overwhelming, and not unproven a you say.”
I suspect you are misunderstanding my terms. I am discussing macro and micro evolution by Neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Obviously those who subscribe to the Neo-Darwinian explanation for bio-diversity believe that micro and macro are the same just with more time. But that is just a conclusion.
The vast bulk of the evidence they have is for micro-evolution and common descent, not macro-evolution. They are making an inductive leap that is not necessarily warranted and for which there is counter-evidence that renders it it implausible.
SecularFrummy,
You wrote: “First of all we consider 3000 years ago a long time ago. 1 million years is kind of incomprehensible.”
Large numbers are not incomprehensible. We might not be able to imagine living that long in practical terms but numbers are easy and in numbers 1 million is that difficult to deal with. Finally when discussing Neo-Darwinian evolution what counts is generations not years (1 year for fruit flies equals at least 1,300 years for humans).
“Second of all 2 million years ago according to evolutionists would not be were the common ancestor of humans and modern great apes would be. That would be more like 7 million years ago. 2 million years ago would be basically human just more similar to the common ancestor then we are.”
Anatomically (as opposed to cognitively) modern humans are estimated to have evolved 200,000 years ago. The earliest species within the genus Homo are estimated at 2.3 million years. That gives you a little more than 2.1 million years to get from ape (pre-homo) to human.
Chimps and humans are estimated to have had a common ancestor 4-6 million years ago, but that doesn’t mean that after chimps broke off the human ancestor was anything more than an ape.
Zdad,
Bieber lives in California. He is a Canadian citizen but an American resident.
PBA,
Sure they plateau. But almost all improve substantially from their earliest practice tests until their actual tests. You can’t just take one practice test and judge yourself.
I also think that is especially true with a yeshiva guy whose reading comprehension might be weak from lack of practice. Reading comprehension can be improved a great deal just by reading a lot more and taking practice tests (even without a book teaching you methodology).
yytz,
There do seem to be a lot of people that do worse on the real test than their practice tests. I suspect that many of them are not taking their practice tests under the same conditions that you have in the real test.
Take your practice tests in one sitting with only the same breaks they have on the real deal. Also if you do poorly on the real test, take it again. Many law schools will evaluate you based only on your highest score.
frumnotyeshivish,
The LSAT is an intelligence test. However you can learn how to take the test and improve your score a great deal (I know someone who improved themselves from approximately the 65th percentile to the 95th) and most people over time substantially improve their score.
I suspect that the same phenomenon would occur if people took any intelligence test numerous times and/or read books that explain how to take the test.
This doesn’t mean that the person became more intelligent, it just means that they learnt how to defeat the test such that it is no longer measuring intelligence (and therefore the test is no longer testing “intelligence”).
The LSAT is an intelligence test that can be beat. Meaning practice and learning a methodology to answering the various types of questions can vastly improve on one’s “natural” score.
Regarding yeshiva training and law school, I think both akuperma and PBA are right. Many of the skills needed in Gemara are not needed in law school. However the ability to read very carefully and be medayek is quite useful (even more so in the actual practice of law)as is the ability halt kup with a cheshbon and the ability to reason by analogy. Furthermore, one’s ability in discerning and explaining lomdus can go the extra mile in impressing a Professor on an exam.
But probably the most important thing you can do before goin to law school is take a writing class and typing class (or use books/programs and teach yourself). Most law school grades are based entirely on your exams in which you will be trying to tackle as many points as possible within a strict time restraints. The Professor needs to understand what you mean and understand it easily (they are grading lots of legnthy exams and are not going take the time to read what you wrote twice).
I am all in favor of strong secular studies in high schools. However I am not in favor of Jewish Organizations using billboards (that are viewed by Jews and non-Jews alike) to get out their message.
Additionally, it is not clear at all that we pasken there is a chiyuv to teach your child an umnus. As far as I know it is not brought down in Sh”A.
It has been a while, but if recall correctly the issue of relying on t’ima is when dealing with a mixture.
Here there is no mixture, one doesn’t need to be especially talented or sensitive to tell the difference. Why should we not use the pareve people to test?
No you are not crazy. I know others who have done it. Doable but difficult.
There appears to be an assumption that Aristotle was wrong in his philosophy. Although there was a point in history when Aristotle’s theories were roundly rebelled against, there are still serious philosophers today who are Aristotelians.
It would be a mistake, especially in a field as metaphysical as philosophy, to assume that whatever is in vogue today is what is correct.
LanderTalmid,
That is only true for the “list” because they are halacha l’Moshe misinai regardless of the science (i.e. even if today’s better fed and better treated animals can survive).
Treifos which are not the list (or a safek treifa) will depend on the mitzius.
“Before that, the miracles were thought to be just that, miracles.”
That is not true. Modern science didn’t invent the idea of Nature and natural laws that governed everything. The idea of every (public) miracle having an “out” is a Ramban in Chumash by the splitting of the Yam Suf.
But I don’t think the “out” argument is being used by DaMoshe properly. It’s not that natural means are an illusion. Rather Ramban says that when Hashem does nissim, they are done by as natural means as possible. So the splitting of the sea was done with a very strong wind. Under normal circumstances a even a very strong wind would not accomplish the full fledged splitting of the sea, but the use of the wind allows a person to say “maybe it was just a freak wind, very strong but very local.”
To carry that argument over to evolution one would have to say that the reason Hashem used evolution as the means of bringing about the incredible Human Being, is so that a person could say “maybe the intelligent Human with his capacity for moral choice and his incredible brain power and creativity was just a fluke of evolution, a happy accident.”
??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????
The Gemara says that “Ger” in Shemos 23:2 is referring to Ger Toshav. Meaning that the posuk is saying that Ger Toshav has to keep shabbos.
Rashi is explaining Why/How a Ger Toshav comes to have keep shabbos. An ordinary non-Jew doesn’t have to keep Shabbos but a non-Jew that makes a Kabbala in Bais Din to keep the Sheva Mitzvos gets the additional mitzva of Shabbos because being m’challel shabbos within the Jewish Community is like serving Avoda Zara.
“There is really no reason to assume that genetic changes would stop at the point that it would affect the fertility of the offspring of a hybrid between a shi tzu and the original wolf population.”
It’s not an assumption. Despite decades of trying, with species of fly that’s life cycle is a week where mutation was induced by radiation and other means, and enhanced by artificial selection, true speciation has not been observed.
“The amounts of time talked about when discussing these things are so vast that it is very very hard to even begin to imagine them and the amount of time things could have had to change….”
But they aren’t so vast. The vastness is only from beginning to end but when different organism are viewed in isolation it’s not that vast. There is only about 2 million years to get from what we would today consider an ape to humans. That is about 100,000 generations (assuming shorter generations closer to the ape stage) of much smaller populations than we have today and much smaller than insects. Without induced mutation and artificial selection, 100,000 generations is not very much time.
interjection,
“G-d specifically told us what happened in the Torah, either you believe it or you don’t.”
That’s the thing. G-d did not specifically tell us what happened in the Torah. Maaseh B’reishis is sisreih Torah. It has very little literal meaning, if any (machlokes Rambam and Ramban whether there is anything literal in Maaseh B’reishis).
Lakewood Fellow,
Ironically, in my post about understanding terms in discussions of evolution you misunderstood me. Your example of the genetic similarities between a wolf and shi-tzu is evidence of common descent. It is not evidence of the neo-Darwinian mechanism for evolution.
However, I don’t think it is actually evidence of either. I don’t think wolves are objectively a different species from dogs. If you define species objectively, meaning animals are of different species if they cannot produce viable fertile offspring, then they are of the same species. Variations within species can be emphasized and maintained (like skin colour) with extreme isolation to prevent regression but no one yet has managed to change an animal from one species to another (in the objective sense described above).
Obviously a neo-Darwinian mechanism would have much more time to work with. But it would have the disadvantage of using the much less efficient natural selection and ordinary course mutations. Remember, it is not the number of years that is important but the number of generations.
As I said above, however, there is plenty of evidence for common descent, the issue is the mechanism by which it was achieved.
Lakewood Fellow,
There are two issues here. One is what the experiments show, i.e. what has been observed, and the second is whether macro evolution follows as a matter of inductive logic from micro evolution.
The experiments have not been able to demonstrate macro-evolution. While changes to fruit flies, who reproduce in much quicker cycles than mammals, can be achieved and groups can be isolated in to what is arguably different species of fruit fly, they have not be able to turn a fruit fly into something that wouldn’t be characterized as fruit fly under our current system of classification (and often mutations reverse themselves in later generations).
This phenomenon, that change can be achieved relatively easily, but it remains with in bounds is not uncommon with biological organisms. For example there is great variation among humans in intelligence but in subsequent generations the offspring of super-smart and super-dumb humans trends back to the mean. They do not keep on getting smarter and keep on getting dumber.
Similarly, with artificial selection, while great variation can be achieved by breeding dogs, breeders are still limited in how far they can change dogs. They cannot get them to no longer be dogs.
I can think of two biological explanation for why this might be. First, most mutations are the switching on or off of genes that are already present, or the deletion of genes altogether. To make a leap from fish to lizard, however would require mutations that create new genes, which are relatively rare. (Furthermore if there is a base norm of an organism, the mutations might just be random variations of norm and will eventually revert back to the norm over time especially if they are not isolated).
Second, to create a large scale change you will often need numerous mutations working in concert, one-point mutations may not be sufficient. So small change of the one or two-point variety (such as is common with bacteria) might be easy, but large scale change might be very difficult.
I was not making statement of belief or fact as to myself when I described the different things people mean when they say “evolution.” I am just trying to clear up confusion and to help in the defining of terms.
I am personally uncertain about the validity of the Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of life’s diversity. There are a lot of questions on it that are better than the answers. On the other hand there is pretty decent evidence for common descent. If one dispenses with the Modern Synthesis, what is there to replace it?
I have some ideas but that is well beyond the scope of this post.
Yekke2,
According to my pshat Rashi is not holding that Shabbos is one of the seven mitzvos. Rather Rashi is saying that Ger Toshav, in contrast to an ordinary non-Jew who must also keep the sheva mitzvos, makes a formal kabbala not to serve avoda zara that goes beyond the basic mitzvah for a b’nei noach and includes keeping shabbos. I think that this is pashut pshat in Rashi. Rashi makes the obligation to keep shabbos dependent on the GT’s kabbala. If Rashi held that it was really simple avoda zara it would be incumbent on all non-Jews, kabbala or not.
As to why things should be different for a Ger Toshav, Rashi doesn’t explain. But we can speculate that since he is living among Jews, it would be wrong to have chillul shabbos going on in the community. And that being m’challel shabbos b’farhesya is akin to avoda zara.
I have been reading and following the evolution debate for many, many years. A great deal of conflict comes from different people using the same terms to mean different things.
The word “evolution” or even the “theory of evolution” is often used by different people differently. Natural selection, meaning that organisms that reproduce better will have their offspring eventually take over a given population is just simple logic. That mutations occur on a regular basis has been demonstrated. If all people mean by evolution is the above then it has been pretty much proven.
What has not been demonstrated (what PBO means) is that a series of small mutations together with natural selection can succeed in changing a hippo-like creature into a whale or a monkey-like creature into a man or a fish-like creature into a lizard.
Evidence for this latter claim (often called macro-evolution) is circumstantial (i.e. things like vestigial organs) but it has never been demonstrated experimentally.
Poppa is also right that biology is not “based on” evolution in any practical sense. One can be a fantastic biologist or medical doctor without subscribing to macro-evolutionary theory. When biologists say that their field is based on evolution, they mean that they use evolution based terminology to discuss things and that it is taken as a given.
Another concept many people mean when they use the word “evolution” is the common descent of all life from a single organism or a small number of simple organisms. The Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how common descent happened.
Sam2,
The point of the minhag is to avoid a problem of Dam Chimud. I am confused how you feel it is doing the opposite.
It has been a while since I learned that gemara, but I remember learning pshat that Rashi is referring to a non-Jew that makes a formal kabbalah in Bais Din to become a ger toshav. Part of that formal kabbalah is that he will keep Shabbos, but it is not one of the 7 mitzvos for an ordinary non-Jew who has not made such a kabbalah.
(note this doesn’t really answer Tosafos’ question from ??? ???? ???? ????)
Health,
Are you quoting a different Shulchan Aruch (maybe Shulchan Aruch HaRav)?
In the standard Shulchan Aruch by the Bais Yosef, Even HaEzer 1:13 says that woman are not mechayavot in pru u’r’vu. The Rama says that some say that she should still not remain without a man because people will be choshed her. The Be’er Heitiv says for a woman getting married is a reshus, and this Rama is based on eitza tova.
Zaken and Yalda are not specific terms with specific meaning they are general terms. The point of marrying someone compatable with you is to avoid fights and discord in the home. Zaken and Yalda in the gemara are just an example of something that would cause discord.
You are correct that the Shulchan Aruch appears to give a different reason than Rashi on the Mishna, but that mishna is the listed as the source. I can think of a teretz but I would like to look into it further.
writersoul,
I don’t think we are really disagreeing. My point was only that for something very well known for which there are widespread (not just personal) anecdotal reports from all over (not just in one’s immediate vicinity) statistical claims to the contrary will be disregarded as faulty or fraudulent.
If someone would try to publish a study saying that most chickens can live without heads for a week, that study would be rejected without anyone checking the work in the study. It would be rejected because the conclusion is ridiculous in light of the overwhelming anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
If someone were to try and publish a study saying that the average frum but not chassidish girl had as many dates as the average frum but not chassidish boy, I would reject that study as faulty or fraudulent.