Pikuach Nefesh

See this first - snopes.com: Aspirin and Heart Attacks, then read with a grain of Aspirin :-). Some of this may help you. Some may not.

Mayo Clinic

How many folks do you know who say they don't want to drink anything before ...going to bed because they'll have to get up during the night!!

Heart Attack and Water - One never knows all of this ! Interesting...

Something else most don't know ... The Doctor explained why people need to urinate so much at night time. Answer from the Cardiac Doctor -
Gravity holds water in the lower part of your body when you are upright (legs swell). When you lie down and the lower body (legs and forth) seeks level with the kidneys, it is then that the kidneys remove the water because it is easier. This then ties in with the last statement!

We know you need your minimum water to help flush the toxins out of your body, but this is news.
Correct time to drink water... Very Important. From A Cardiac Specialist!
Drinking water at a certain time maximizes its effectiveness on the body:
2 glasses of water after waking up - helps activate internal organs
1 glass of water 30 minutes before a meal - helps digestion
1 glass of water before taking a bath - helps lower blood pressure
1 glass of water before going to bed - avoids stroke or heart attack
Also add to this... A Physician said that water at bed time will also help prevent night time leg cramps. Your leg muscles are seeking hydration when they cramp and wake you up with a Charlie Horse.

Mayo Clinic Aspirin
Dr. Virend Somers, is a Cardiologist from the Mayo Clinic, who is lead author of the report in the July 29, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Most heart attacks occur in the day, generally between 6 A.M. and noon. Having one during the night, when the heart should be most at rest, means that something unusual happened. Somers and his colleagues have been working for a decade to show that sleep apnea is to blame.

1. If you take an aspirin or a baby aspirin once a day, take it at night. The reason: Aspirin has a 24-hour "half-life"; therefore, if most heart attacks happen in the wee hours of the morning, the Aspirin would be strongest in your system.

2. FYI, Aspirin lasts a really long time in your medicine chest for years, (when it gets old, it smells like vinegar).
Please read on.
Something that we can do to help ourselves - nice to know.
Bayer is making crystal aspirin to dissolve instantly on the tongue. They work much faster than the tablets.
Why keep Aspirin by your bedside? It's about Heart Attacks -
There are other symptoms of a heart attack, besides the pain on the left arm. One must also be aware of an intense pain on the chin, as well as nausea and lots of sweating; however, these symptoms may also occur less frequently.

Note: There may be NO pain in the chest during a heart attack.
The majority of people (about 60%) who had a heart attack during their sleep did not wake up. However, if it occurs, the chest pain may wake you up from your deep sleep.

If that happens, immediately dissolve two aspirins in your mouth and swallow them with a bit of water.
Afterwards: - Call 911. - Phone a neighbor or a family member who lives very close by.
- Say "Heart Attack!" - Say that you have taken 2 Aspirins. - Take a seat on a chair or sofa near the front door, and wait for their arrival and ....DO NOT LIE DOWN!

A Cardiologist has stated that if each person after receiving this e-mail, sends it to 10 people, probably one life could be saved!
I have already shared this information. What about you?
Do share this message. It may save lives!

"Life is a one time gift"


Best Regards,
RRW

How the Universe has Always Been there - Since the Beginning ofTime - 2 Retraction

Originally published 6/10/11, 3:46 pm.
Upon reflection, and further clarification, I realize that my original post was oversimplified and overstated.
Therefore I'm withdrawing the original piece, pending something better. So, please consider this retraction a Tzimtzum! :-)

In the meantime, I will leave a "baale batish" simplification
Since we perceive matter as of function of time as well as of space - [just think of Einstein's 4th dimension] therefore - whether the universe was at one time not there - is beyond the perception of almost all humans. Thus, it's  a point only relevant to highly sophisticated Philosophers and Mystics.
I won't pretend that I myself have a definitive perception of this.. Rather, let me simply say that it is apparent to me that as most people deal with it - it really IS a semantic issue [Though that may not be true of the highly sophisticated "Mavens"]

Shalom,
RRW

Divine Origin of the Torah

Originally published 4/4/11, 11:06 am.
In Artscroll's "The Laws of Kashrus" fn8 on pp. 34-35 the author, R' Forst, makes a cogent argument for the Divinity of the Torah based upon the identity of Kosher animals and UnKosher animals with but one siman. This strongly refutes those who deny the Divinity of the Torah.

HOWEVER....

This does not prove that EVERY iota or scintilla of Torah is Divine. It merely PROVES that SOME Torah Passages or Texts are Divine.

This becomes the crux of a much more subtle debate. Surely, we can reject Reform's denial of Torah Min hahshamayim w/o necessarily buying the absolute converse that every p'rat IS min hashamayim. And where to draw that line - becomes a tricky issue.

Illustration - a given Halachah or Principle might be genuinely derived from Torah miSinai, and thereby rooted in Sinai, but not literally from Sinai and therefore not immutable for all time and contexts.

Thus we can discredit the far Left position and not necessarily embrace a far Right position - While the Far Right might reject any such subtle or nuanced positions as untenable.

Shalom,
RRW

"NaRaN" and Freudian Ego

Originally published 3/25/11, 12:18 pm.
I recently saw in Orchot Tzaddikim that the n'shmanah is described like a kind of super-ego . See Feldheim Hebrew edition p. 294 paragraph "V'atah Odiacha hochmat hannefesh v'ruach unshamah.."

It seems the N'shamah functions as the wise soul that overrides the desires of the nefesh and ruach "Hanshamah hi va'alat hachochmah ... umo'esset b'ta'anugei v'nei Adam.."

Does this model resemble Freud's "id, ego, and superego" ? Do they map out at all with NaRaN - at least as the model described in Orchot Tzadikkim?


-------------------

My current hypothesis:

Neshammah seems to match super-ego

Nefesh the id

And Ruach the ego EG
«al kein ga'avat haleiv nikrreis "gassut ru'ach"»


Here is wikipedia on Freud's
id, ego, and super-ego

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego,_and_super-ego

Id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the ego is the organised, realistic part; and the super-ego plays the critical and moralising role.[1]

Even though the model is "structural" and makes reference to an "apparatus", the id, ego and super-ego are functions of the mind rather than parts of the brain and do not correspond one-to-one with actual somatic structures of the kind dealt with by neuroscience.

The concepts themselves arose at a late stage in the development of Freud's thought: the 'structural model' (which succeeded his 'economic model' and 'topographical model') was first discussed in his 1920 essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" and was formalised and elaborated upon three years later in his "The Ego and the Id". Freud's proposal was influenced by the ambiguity of the term "unconscious" and its many conflicting uses.


Shalom,
RRW

Science, Hanukkah, and Miracles

Originally published 12/6/10, 9:10 am.
Dreidles and Daily Miracles: What a Modest, Spinning Top Can Teach Us About the Miracles in Our Lives » Matzav.com - The Online Voice of Torah Jewry
-  R' Eliyahu Safran

«As Tamar Sofer wrote in a recent blog, "My husband, a laser physicist, tells me that scientists who study particle physics are more likely to become religious. Scientists are notoriously hard to convince of anything. Yet, when these skeptical scientists see the perfect, natural order of the world, they decide nano and up, that this world was planned. The marvelous design before them becomes the miracle they need to become convinced." Indeed, it is quite often those scientists who study natural law in its greatest complexity and detail who appreciate miracles the most. »
My Physics teacher Dr. Genovese from the summer of 1972 at UConn's W. Hartford branch - said that you cannot see what the particles can do without believing in G-d. I had always assumed he was a religious Catholic, but I'm not so sure of that now, rather, I'd say for certain that he witnessed the "Hand of G-d" in G-d's Handiwork.

Shalom,
RRW

Torah and Science - No Conflict Possible

Originally published 10/29/10, 11:02 am.
A colleague permitted me to quote this:

Professor Gerald Schroeder is a shomer Torah who is a physicist. ... [And] He [uses] the meforshim and scientists, including the Ramban and Einstein, to help explain relativity and how not only is there no conflict between Torah and Science, but how they must work in harmony, since they both have the same author.

I explained that the way I say it is that:
"true Torah and true science cannot conflict"

My Colleague added:
Schroeder also said that:
«If one thinks they found a conflict between Torah and science it's either because they don't understand what the Torah is saying or they don't understand the science.»

Shalom,
RRW

Zachor: Zeicher vs.Zecher 4

Originally published 3/7/10, 8:30 PM
Reb Ira Gruscott mentions that, "Of course , what he doesn't say is that prior to and even during the lifetime of R' Y.M. Kagan z't'l, it was never a minhag to repeat....even in Yeshivas Radun."

Check Marc Shapiro's post on this.
This can be spun two ways.Either
A: it's a frum shtick with  no basis either in minhag or grammar or halakha; or
B: Orthodoxy does have a halakha that is -to quote Shapiro- "dynamic" This, of course goes to the post on your blog re: how one "feels" regarding halakha

ISG»

Look, we live in an ambiguous world!

Let's face the facts. Those who can tolerate ambiguity well,  will be fine, while those who cannot, will be frustrated, angry, railing, and dueling the windmills. Most of us fall somewhere in between! ;-)

Indeed I think "minhag Yisrael" is perhaps a poor choice of words.

What I think he was really saying is that Professor Penkower's academic analysis is irrelevant to the Halachah - one way or the other. Only a Poseiq can make that call, not a professor. As to how the Mishnah Brurah's ruling caught on fire - I do not know. I understand Lubavitch does this, and they are not known to be particularly deferential to the MB

Perhaps, as Hacham Sassoon might say: we believe in continuous revelation. Others might see the Hand of Divine Providence.

What bothers me about the Mishnah Brurah's method is that he presents the safeiq as even. It's not. And as Rabbi Noah G. has noted, a Halachic Safeiq is usually approxximately 50-50.
Here it's clearly not a 50-50. For example, I might say that Rabbenu Tam Tefillin might be 50-50, but Catholic Israel did away with that opinion.

R' Mordechai Breuer's article is brilliant on this matter. I have Professor Penkower's article but I have not yet had the pleasure to complete it.

As I understand Rav Halivni and Rabbis Feldblum and Price, we don't follow "science" when it comes to halachic practice, particularly in nusach. For example, This came up regarding "unetaneh toqef" and "kivnei maron" where Albeck and others suggest "kivnumerion" instead. R' Price dismissed this as academic and not halachic, and so subject to the shifting paradigms in science. For instance, is Pluto still a planet?

The story goes that in Breslau Seminary -

Proffessor Graetz read the Haftara with his emendation based upon science

And R' Z. Frankel apparently re-read the entire passage [iirc with brachot] to make the point that we don't emend Tanach on the basis of our scientific point of view - at least not during the liturgy

Anyway, we can safely say this:

• The Masoretes deviated from the Talmud in a number of instances.
• The Kimchi's Grammar deviated from the Tiberian grammatical system on several points.

- I believe segol is one of those areas. Anyway, as far as I know, the Kimchi's PRONOUNCED tzeire and segol the same - obviating any need for repetition. Perhaps our very hakpadah to distinguish the two vowels has led us to this safeiq, though many would claim that this is irrelevant.

'Nuff Said.

Zissen Pesach,
RRW

Stem cell research and Jewish law

Originally published 7/6/08, 1:40 am.
Enjoy this recent Article from the NJ Jewish Standard - reprinted with permission.
KT,
RRW

Stem cell research and Jewish law

By Shammai Engelmayer (c) 2008 all rights reserved

Science" is a campaign issue in 2008. That is because the presumptive Democratic nominee, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, has made reversing what he calls the "anti-science" stance of the Bush administration a cornerstone of his campaign.

Inevitably, discussion of "science" and "anti-science" leads to whether federal funds should be used to encourage embryonic stem cell (ESC) research. The Bush administration opposes this, but Obama supports it. Ironically, so does his presumptive opponent, Sen. John McCain, who only eight years ago was firmly on the Bush side of the debate, but was helped to see the light by Nancy Reagan and some "very smart people," as he once told a television interviewer.

To be sure, the issues involved are complex. The two main questions are:

1. Is it moral and ethical to extract stem cells from unused human embryos in order to use them in research that could lead to the saving of lives in the future, particularly in cases of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease and diabetes?

2. Is it permissible to clone embryos in order to increase the availability of the stem cells needed to conduct such research?

Various Christian groups, from the Catholics to the evangelicals, say no to both questions.

Most Jewish legal authorities support embryonic stem cell research, including on the Orthodox right. The main dissenting voice, ironically, comes from the Reform movement. The only real debate is whether cloning embryos for ESC research is permissible.

First, a couple of halachic principles need to be explained. One is the concept of choleh l'faneinu (literally, the ill person is before us). Jewish law prohibits deriving any benefit from a corpse short of the immediate saving of another life. Obviously, this does not apply to ESC research. No one can seriously suggest that someone currently ill will derive any immediate life-saving benefit from research that remains in its infancy.

On the other hand, choleh l'faneinu has undergone considerable expansion since it was first conceived by Rabbi Yechezkel Landau nearly 230 years ago. Rather than an actual beneficiary, authorities today seek to create a statistical choleh l'faneinu in deciding on such matters as, say, organ transplantation. Thus, in an ESC context, the issue is whether any of the current victims of Parkinson's Disease or diabetes, say, will be alive when the research hopefully bears fruit. Since that is a virtual certainty, choleh l'faneinu, the ill person is before us.

The other issue is how we define piku'ach nefesh, regard for human life, the principle of Jewish law that overrides nearly all the other laws. Does the threat have to be both real and immediate? The sages of blessed memory offered a simple and direct answer: No. The potential for danger is sufficient for pikuach nefesh to kick in (see the Babylonian Talmud tractate Yoma 84b-85b).

The lives of victims of Parkinson's Disease or diabetes are at actual risk. If they are truly "the ill person before us," as many current interpretations of halachah would have it, then anything it takes to save their lives is halachically sound.

"In stem cell research and therapy, the moral obligation [is] to save human life, the paramount ethical principle in biblical law," according to Rabbi Moses Tendler in testimony he gave to a federal commission in 1999. Rabbi Tendler, very much to the right of the Orthodox center and also one of the nation's most respected biologists and bioethicists, added, "Mastery of nature for the benefit of those suffering from vital organ failure is an obligation [derived from Genesis 1:28]. Human embryonic stem cell research holds that promise."

Tendler would extend this to cloning, as well. It is here, however, where there exists serious debate among halachists.

Sephardic authorities in Israel agree that cloning embryos for research purposes is permissible. They see this as an extension of the permission they give to performing autopsies for research purposes. Most often cited regarding autopsies is the opinion of the late Sephardi Chief Rabbi Ben Zion Meir Chai Ouziel, who permitted them because "there is a possibility of thereby saving life." (See his responsa, Mishpetei Uziel, 1:28 and 29.)

Many, but not all, Ashkenazic Israeli authorities oppose cloning embryos (although many do support ESC research). This is in sharp contrast to the United States, where there appears to be majority support even for cloning among the Ashkenazic Orthodox rabbinate.

Ironically, as mentioned earlier, a Reform responsum on the subject agrees with the Israeli rabbis regarding cloning embryos for research. According to the responsum, issued by the Central Conference of American Rabbis in 2001 (5761.7), "It is not permissible to create embryonic human life for the purpose of destroying it in medical experimentation."

The CCAR responsum, however, goes much further. It disapproves of ESC research in general. "Let us not mince words," it states. "Although the fertilized egg may be called an 'embryo,' a 'zygote,' or a 'blastocyst,' these labels can mask the fact that we have here a human being, an organism that contains all the genetic material that would, under the proper conditions, develop into a full legal person….The embryo may not have attained the status of a nefesh, a legal person, a member of the human community, and its unwarranted killing may not be defined as 'murder.' It is, however, a human being, and by that token it partakes of the sanctity of all human life."

The responsum is also not impressed by the pikuach nefesh argument.

"This argument does have persuasive force, but that force lies in the sheer power of calculation," it says. "It depends upon the assignment of relative values to the human organism at different stages of its development: the nefesh receives a higher score than the not-yet-nefesh….This mathematical approach is elegant in its simplicity, but...it ignores some vital moral issues raised by the destruction of embryonic human life.…[E]ven there, in the microscopic fertilized egg, lies the supreme potential for humanity."

The Reform position aside, the majority still favor ESC research, including, when necessary, the cloning of embryos to harvest their stem cells. That may change, however, because of new research suggesting that adult stem cells scraped off of human skin can be "reprogrammed" to work just like the embryonic ones. To date, the new research remains highly speculative, but the halachic wheels are turning nonetheless.

Lo Bashamayim Hee

Originally published 5/27/08, 12:37 AM.
Some give and take on Avodah:
First Cantor Wolberg:

The Sages relate that the angels complained to Hashem when He chose to share His precious

Torah with His people. They argued, "Your glory (Your Torah) should remain among the Heavenly beings. They are holy and Your Torah is holy, they are pure and Your Torah is pure and they are everlasting and Your Torah is also." One of the answers to that is three words from the Torah: "Lo bashamayim hee".

However, Midrash Shochar Tov 8 says that Hashem responded that the Torah could not remain amongst them because they are perfect spiritual beings with no mortality, impurity or illness. Hashem's true glory would ultimately come from man plagued by impurity and mortality.

ri

Then Yours Truly:

Hazal wanted us to know that once the Torah left the heavens it would no longer remain the pristine Perfect Handiwork of HKBH, but would henceforth be managed and interpreted by error-prone humans. Nevertheless - despite the loss of innocence for the Torah - this step was necessary. The time had come for the innocent Torah to mix it up with the mortals and to help us even if if would not remain in its original state.

>
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
>

Now for Michael Markovi:

A much-expanded version of a previous post of mine to this thread, regarding my...err...radical view of TSBP:

Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner makes a large point of this, saying that the truth of Torah She'be'al'pe is not what Hashem says but what we say (Rabbi Eliezer and the oven), in line with Drashot haRan #5 on theoven and Sefer haChinuch on the mitzvah of following the judges, that
we follow our rabbis even when they're wrong.

See also Rabbi Gil Student's "Halachic Responses To Scientific Developments"
(http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html)
citation of Yad Yehuda 30:3, quoting Rambam Hilkhot Shekhita 10:12-13, that we cannot question Chazal's decisions regarding which animals are treifa, because all we have is Chazal's decisions, and they are sealed.

According to Rambam, drashot can be overturned by a later Sanhedrin.

In fact, Rabbi Glasner, quoting the Midrash Shmuel on Avot, "aseh sayag laTorah", says that the Oral Law was oral davka to make it flexible and subject to change. This explains the Gemara's apocalyptic permission to write the Oral Law, viz "eit la'asot lashem"; by writing the Oral Law, to save it, a vital piece of it was destroyed, part of its raison d'etre in fact! Because once a piece of the Oral Law was written, it became authoritative, and no longer subject to change and
evolution as was previously the case.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits (who received semicha from Rabbi Glasner's son, Rabbi Akiva Glasner) expands extensively on this point, that the writing of the Mishna, Gemara, and the Codes successively ossified the halacha in a way that the Oral Law was never meant to be, making us Karaites of the Oral Law.

See Rabbi Glasner's hakdamah to his Dor Revi'i, perush on Chullin. It is partially translated by Rabbi Yaakov Elman at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/elman.html.
See also the biography by David Glasner at
http://www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/Dorrev7.html.
As for Rabbi Berkovits, he makes his points in a variety of locations, including Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha (aimed at secularly-educated scholars), Halakha: Kocha v'Tafkida (aimed at rabbinical scholars), Towards Historic Judaism, and Crisis and Faith.

Rabbi Glasner simply takes this entire philosophy a bit further than most. Likewise Rabbi Berkovits on Moshe seeing Rabbi Akiva's class and not understanding and learning from this that Torah does evolve overtime; both are more extreme than most, but the gist of what they say is quite normative, as far as it seems to me. In fact, once we say that

1) halachot could be forgotten and had to be recovered by humans, 2) many drashot were in fact used by humans to actually derive the law(often **but not always** they were asmachtot for laws already knownas kabbalot)

(See, for example, Dynamics of Dispute by Rabbi Zvi Lampel, "Interpretation" by Menachem Elon in Encyclopedia Judaica, Rabbi Isidore Epstein's introduction to the Soncino Midrash Rabbah, Rabbi Gil Student "Midrash Halakha" at
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/11/midrash-halakhah.html)

we are admitting the human element of many halachot, and we can no longer say it is purely m'Sinai as most say Torah She'be'al Pe is, and we are forced, as it seems to me, to adopt some sort of opinion similar if not as extreme as those of Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits, as least as far as theory goes (Rabbi Berkovits's actualization of this philosophy is a matter for a separate debate.)

Therefore, for example, we ought to realize that an Amora's explanation of a Tanna may be his own personal thoughts, similar to any rav's understanding today of the intent of a prior authority. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz in his Essential Talmud remarks on the peculiar Talmudic method of okimta, remarking that it aspires not for historicity, but rather, it attempts to make as many pieces of evidence agree as much as it possible.

There is thus no guarantee that a creative drasha is the correct intent of Torah, nor is there any guarantee that an Amora correctly understood a Tanna - see Tosafot Yom Tov Nazir 5:5 for permission to permit mishna differently than the Gemara.

Evidently, the Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzatto) held similarly to this whole line of thought, that Chazal's drashot on mikra are not necessarily "correct". See Shmuel Vargon's "Samuel David Luzzatto's Critique of Rabbinic Exegesis Which Contradicts the Plain Meaning of Scripture",
http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/sum2.html
(note: my Hebrew is insufficient to have read this article yet, so I am relying on the abstract).

Rabbi David Bigman, rosh hayeshiva of Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa (on Har haGilboa in the Jezre'el), for example, advocates critical Talmud study, asking, for example, what the Tanna meant independent what the Amora thought he meant; what different codifications of Oral Law say (Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, etc.), each in their own light. See his "Finding a Home for Critical Talmud Study",

http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/bigman2_1.pdf,
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/talmud/Gemara/ModernStudy/BigmanCritical.

The Kuzari in 3:41 opines that the omer could be brought on any date chosen by Chazal, and it was Chazal who chose the second day of Pesach. If so, then it means the contrary opinions of the Tzadukim (that it was to fall on Sunday, as the literal mikra indicates) is wrong only insofar as it goes against the binding ruling of Chazal, and not because it was an invalid drasha. It seems to me that perhaps alternatively, we simply don't listen to Tzadukim even if they are correct; there is a story in the Gemara of one rabbi being put to death, and he realized it was because he once found a drasha of a min to be pleasing; even though the drasha was valid, he still should have ignored it. In any case, we can extrapolate that in general, freedom of midrash is restricted more by Chazal's binding decisions than any claim of theirs to being the only correct opinion.

I thank Rabbi Yaakov Elman of Yeshiva University for providing me with sources (most notably, he introduced me to Rabbi Glasner when I mentioned Rabbi Berkovits), as well as having extensive discussion with me on their implications. It should be noted, however, that this philosophy is still a work in progress by me, especially as I continue to learn more Chumash, Gemara, and Halacha. It should also be noted that any errors are mine, not Rabbi Elman's, as he has already pointed out certain errors in my thinking, and no doubt there are still more to be found.

Mikh'el Makovi

Re: [Avodah] Prohibition of Eating Blood

Originally published 1/10/08, 11:52 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
From our Friend, Richard Wolberg:

On Jan 10, 2008 6:47 PM, Richard Wolberg,  cantorwolberg@cox.net, wrote:

It is interesting to note that with modern forensic medicine we have found that once the slightest amount of blood is left on any object, there is no way of removing every trace of it. There is a substance called luminol. Luminol is a versatile chemical that exhibits chemiluminescence, with a striking blue glow, when mixed with an appropriate oxidizing agent. It is a white to slightly yellow crystalline solid that is soluble in water and most polar organic solvents.

Luminol is used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood left at crime scenes. It is also used by biologists in cellular assays (tests) for the detection of copper, iron, and cyanides . There is no way in which one may eliminate every trace of blood once it has appeared.

It would seem to me that perhaps the prohibition of blood centers around the fact that the tum'ah it conveys can never be fully eliminated.

I see a parallel between the paradox of the ashes of the para aduma and blood. As the ashes can render someone tahor who is tamei, and someone tamei who is tahor, likewise, without blood already inside of you, you would die. And conversely taking blood from the outside in, will cause a spiritual death.

ri

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Do Scientific Paradigm Shifts Impact Halachic realities?

Originally posted 12/30/07, 7:20 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Do scientific paradigm shifts impact Halachic realities?

On Dec 25, 2007 7:04 AM, Richard Wolberg cantorwolberg@cox.net
wrote on the Avodah List:

What I find most interesting is that the Gemara believed in spontaneous generation which has been scientifically disproven as the world was proven not to be flat. What I find to be ironic and paradoxical is that only God can create something from nothing. You would think this would have occurred to the great minds of the Talmud. True, their argument could conceivably have been that God put that law into motion, but it still could have raised a red flag. The following came from a link given in a previous discussion by Reb Micha [Avodah's Moderator]:

See http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Is Darwin Kosher?

Originally published 7/8/07, 10:45 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
See this Wall Street Journal article for an interesting take on evolution and Modern Orthodox thought.

In a recent discussion with some of my chevra , we concluded that TRUE science and TRUE religion - since all of the above emanate from the same God - cannot be in any conflict.

However, in the human realm, we don't really understand the ultimate truths of science yet, as we probably only understand Torah or God superficially. One day, there will live a Rambam and an Einstein all wrapped up in the same person who will get to the bottom of both realms. He will discover that when you really comprehend both Torah and science, their only conflict is semantic.

I believe it was R. Sa'adya Gaon who first posited that we will grasp the rational meaning of more and more mitzvoth over time.

Here is an example: most meforshim interpret "Taninim Gedolim" as sea monsters or whales... This is loosely based on Hirsch on Parshat Vo'eira. He asserts, basing himself on the Haftorah, that we can interpret "Tanim" as crocodile and "Taninim g'dolim" as great lizards - dinosaurs. A little bit of archaeology,  some flexible etymology, and you can point to dinosaurs within the Torah.

What is definitively true of the Torah well before Darwin is that it describes a creation process progressing  from the simple to the complex. Thus, we see the confluence of Torah and Mada as an evolving process - pun most intended.

KT
RRW