I recently received a letter from a reader about my post on miracles. The reader went on to state (capitilization his):
"NO ONE serious in even the LW Chareidi world takes the mabul literally. NO ONE. Honestly, I assure you. I know well known Rabbis who have told me personally that its not literal. They don't preach itto the masses because they don't want to get into trouble."
(-- N.B. The author mentions later on that what he means here is not that LW Chareidi world doesn't hold of the factuality of a flood, rather that they doubt the factuality of a world-wide flood )
The above statement, to me, shows how backwards we have become. Assuming that the first statement of the quote is true (or reasonably close to true) then why have we become so afraid to speak our minds? What is the fear of harsh words from the "right wing?" In short, the issue of absolute literalism, according to the above quote, has become our 800 lb. gorilla sitting in the corner - no one wants to talk about him, but we all know that he's there.
I suppose that there are several questions that need to be asked here:
1. Is the initial statement of my corrospondent correct (or reasonably close - in other words, does, say, 75% of the LW Chareidi world accept that the mabul story as written in Noah did not occur literally as written) ?
2. If the above statement is reasonably true, then why is everyone so afraid? Are we afraid of becoming the next Nosson Slifkin? Are we afraid of being branded heretics? Does the "right wing" of the Chareidi world really hold that much power over everyone else?
3. Even if my last question in #2 above is answered in the affirmative, we then have another question: is keeping silent about one's beliefs justifiable in the name of societal convenience? We're not talking about Conversos here, where keeping your mouth shut about your beliefs meant staying alive - we're talking about simple societal convenience. If there are truly enough of "us," then wouldn't it be proper to establish our own institutions - yeshivos, shuls, etc. if the "right wing" won't have us because we refuse to ignore evidence placed in front of our eyes?
(And, yes, I do include myself in the above. As I stated in other posts, I have always been a big believer in being "out there" and not hiding under the cover of anonymity. I regularly post on one of the larger message boards on the internet - and I do so with my real name, unlike the majority of the posters on the board. The people on those boards know a great deal about my personal life. I really don't like "hiding" behind this wolfish mask. Yet, when I broached the subject a while ago, the unanimous concensus of people who both replied to my post and contacted me privately indicated that I should remain anonymous, since they feared that if I were to go public, I would "lose my voice.")
4. Of course, the last question that I suppose one must ask is this: Even if we accept that the mabul story cannot be understood literally and can be viewed as either allegory or partially accurate (i.e. in describing a local flood, rather than a worldwide flood), then one must ask where the line is to be drawn? Can one say that the Avos were allegorical? Moshe? Mattan Torah? The wanderings in the wilderness? At what point must one stop and say: this is true because the Torah says it is - and it cannot be understood any other way? At what point do we turn to the person with the alternate interpretation and say "you, sir, are out of bounds - come back to the fold?" And when we draw the line for them, how do we justify where that line lays?
The Wolf
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Rabbi Wieder's Shiur
Last night, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder gave a lecture in Manhattan on the topic of:
How Old Do We Believe the World is ?
Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture, the Story of Creation and the Controversy over the Works of Nosson Slifkin
Having never before met or heard Rabbi Wieder, I must say that I was impressed and enjoyed the lecture immensely.
The focus of the lecture was really more on the Non-Literal interpretation of scripture, rather than the age of the universe. He brought several sources from the Rishonim (most notably the Rambam, Ramban, Sa'adiah Goan and the Rashba) showing how it is permissible (in most cases - there are exceptions) to interpret Tanach in a non-literal sense and even in ways that negate the actual literal meaning of the scripture.
He summed it up very well at the end last night when he noted that according to the Rishonim above, if something one observes (through scientific observation, for example) is found to conflict with the Torah, then the Torah must "give way" to being reinterpreted (provided it does not conflict with one of our ikarai emunah). And, he noted, with regard to the controversy of Rabbi Slifkin, that the banners seem to hold the opposite position - that if one's senses and observations contradict something in the Torah, one must "throw out the evidence" (so to speak) and make the science fit the Torah.
As I said earlier, I enjoyed it immensely and was glad to have the chance to meet and talk with Rabbi Wieder afterwards.
The Wolf
Confidential to the gentleman who showed me that I was on the wrong subway platform -- thank you. :)
The Wolf
How Old Do We Believe the World is ?
Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture, the Story of Creation and the Controversy over the Works of Nosson Slifkin
Having never before met or heard Rabbi Wieder, I must say that I was impressed and enjoyed the lecture immensely.
The focus of the lecture was really more on the Non-Literal interpretation of scripture, rather than the age of the universe. He brought several sources from the Rishonim (most notably the Rambam, Ramban, Sa'adiah Goan and the Rashba) showing how it is permissible (in most cases - there are exceptions) to interpret Tanach in a non-literal sense and even in ways that negate the actual literal meaning of the scripture.
He summed it up very well at the end last night when he noted that according to the Rishonim above, if something one observes (through scientific observation, for example) is found to conflict with the Torah, then the Torah must "give way" to being reinterpreted (provided it does not conflict with one of our ikarai emunah). And, he noted, with regard to the controversy of Rabbi Slifkin, that the banners seem to hold the opposite position - that if one's senses and observations contradict something in the Torah, one must "throw out the evidence" (so to speak) and make the science fit the Torah.
As I said earlier, I enjoyed it immensely and was glad to have the chance to meet and talk with Rabbi Wieder afterwards.
The Wolf
Confidential to the gentleman who showed me that I was on the wrong subway platform -- thank you. :)
The Wolf
Monday, May 23, 2005
Of All God's Miracles Large and Small
... the most miraculous one of all/
is the one I thought could never be/
God has given a brain to me...
I was thinking about miracles as reported in the Tanach and the Midrash. It's certainly easy to brush off a miracle as an impossibility - after all, doing things that are outside the normal operating procedures of nature seems to be the very definition of a miracle. So, while one may say "the sea splitting? How could you believe such nonsense?!," others simply view it as a miracle that happened - God caused the sea to split to let the Jews escape from the Egyptians.
There are numerous miracles mentioned in Tanach - the sea splitting, the flood, the manna falling from the heaven, the sun stopping for Joshua, Elisha's raising of the dead. That is by no means a complete list. There are plenty of miracles that are mentioned outright in Tanach. Let's call those "primary miracles."
In order to support those primary miracles, however, one must also accept the premise of "secondary miracles" - miracles not mentioned directly in Tanach, but which have become associated with the prime miracle, and, in some cases, must be accepted if the prime miracle is to make sense at all.
The Mabul (flood) is a primary miracle that seems to be rife with secondary miracles. Problems with spatial dimensions, logistical problems concerning feeding, waste disposal and disease, gathering up all the animals (and then returning them to their proper habitats afterwards!), are all matters that one must ascribe to "secondary miracles" if one is to believe the primary miracle.
In some cases, believing in the secondary miracle makes some sense - for example the miracle of the manna falling. The Midrash teaches several miraculous qualities that the manna possessed (it's taste could be altered, it did not possess waste material, etc.). Personally, I'm inclined to accept these since as long as we're positing God miraculously bringing food to millions of people daily (talk about a delivery service!) then it's not too much more of a stretch to say that the food itself was miraculous.
Other secondary miracles, however, strain the credulaty of the story. I suppose the Mabul (Noah's flood) is one of the main stories that feature these types of "secondary miracles." The water itself, I suppose would be the primary miracle - there simply isn't that much water in the world - so God created it to destroy the world. Fine, there's the primary miracle.
The secondary miracles, however, abound like rabbits. Spatial problems, logistical miracles concerning feeding, ventilation, waste disposal and disease, the problem of gathering animals from far away locations (and returning them there once the flood was over!), and many others are "secondary miracles" that are attributed to the flood.
Some of these secondary miracles make sense to the average reader - after all without them the story could not happen. So, how did Noah get all those animals in the ark to fit? It was a miracle. How did the carnivores survive for a year on vegetable matter? It was a miracle. How did disease not spread with the bottom level of the ark containing waste for an entire year? It was a miracle. How did animals from specialized environments survive out of their environment for an entire year? It was a miracle. You get the picture. In order to accept the flood story at face value, you have to accept many, many other miracles along with the main story.
Some of these "secondary miracles" however, don't make any sense. How did the animals from the Americas and Australia get to the ark in the first place? I suppose they came on their own (miracle?), as the Torah seems to indicate. But the Torah gives no indication of how they got back to where they came from. How did the llamas get back to South America? How did the kangaroos get back to Austrailia? Did the penguins fly back to Antarctica? What about the dodo - how did it get back to Mauritius? The Torah makes no mention of this, and, oddly, neither does the Midrash (to the best of my knowledge - if someone knows differently, please feel free to let me know). The way the story seems to read is that Noah simply opened the doors of the ark and let everything out to migrate back to it's proper location. (We'll leave off how they would survive in their proper location if it was devestated by the flood - that's another question for another time). And I'm still not aware of any reason why God would erase geological evidence of a world wide flood.
Another example of incredible "secondary miracles" surrounds Og, king of Bashan. Here is a creature which the Torah describes as a giant. OK, well, giant means different things to different people. The Midrash takes this to an extraordinary degree. The Midrash pegs Og's height at thirty amos (cubits) tall - at the ankle!
Well, surely the existence of such a creature is surely a miracle. No creature on earth is that tall or massive. Not even the blue whale, the largest animal creature to ever exist on earth can compare to that. But what about all the secondary miracles needed to explain Og?
Such a creature, under normal circumstances, should not have been able to move. It should have collapsed under it's own weight - even taking into account the added muscle that it surely must have had (remember, while area doubles by the square, volume doubles by the cube - Og would have much more weight bearing down on each square inch of his feet than you or I would).
In addition, one has to account for the fact that a creature of that size would need to consume a great deal of food to survive - possibly more than the region could produce and sustain the nation living upon it. Could the area have supported such a creature? And if so, was it a miracle?
Of course, one of the most vexing issues that I have with Og's reported height is the complete lack of him in any extra-Biblical or extra-Midrashic text. A creature that size would have been a legend for hundreds of miles around. In addition, assuming that Og was able to move (the Midrash reports him as being able to lift a mountain over his head!) I'm surprised that Bashan wasn't the superpower of the region. After all, what ancient nation, possessing a weapon as formidable as Og would not conquer it's surrounding nations? So, then, how do you explain the absence of Og from any extra-Biblical or extra-Midrashic literature? I suppose one could attribute it to a miracle, but then one must also ask "why?" What purpose would there be in God deleting Og from all places except Torah literature? It just doesn't make sense.
Assuming, of course, that one accepts "primary miracles" as having happened (more or less) as reported, how does one treat the secondary miracles? Certainly some of them are believeable and perfectly within the "scope" of the story. But some of them are just way out there and I find them very difficult, if not impossible, to believe.
The Wolf
is the one I thought could never be/
God has given a brain to me...
I was thinking about miracles as reported in the Tanach and the Midrash. It's certainly easy to brush off a miracle as an impossibility - after all, doing things that are outside the normal operating procedures of nature seems to be the very definition of a miracle. So, while one may say "the sea splitting? How could you believe such nonsense?!," others simply view it as a miracle that happened - God caused the sea to split to let the Jews escape from the Egyptians.
There are numerous miracles mentioned in Tanach - the sea splitting, the flood, the manna falling from the heaven, the sun stopping for Joshua, Elisha's raising of the dead. That is by no means a complete list. There are plenty of miracles that are mentioned outright in Tanach. Let's call those "primary miracles."
In order to support those primary miracles, however, one must also accept the premise of "secondary miracles" - miracles not mentioned directly in Tanach, but which have become associated with the prime miracle, and, in some cases, must be accepted if the prime miracle is to make sense at all.
The Mabul (flood) is a primary miracle that seems to be rife with secondary miracles. Problems with spatial dimensions, logistical problems concerning feeding, waste disposal and disease, gathering up all the animals (and then returning them to their proper habitats afterwards!), are all matters that one must ascribe to "secondary miracles" if one is to believe the primary miracle.
In some cases, believing in the secondary miracle makes some sense - for example the miracle of the manna falling. The Midrash teaches several miraculous qualities that the manna possessed (it's taste could be altered, it did not possess waste material, etc.). Personally, I'm inclined to accept these since as long as we're positing God miraculously bringing food to millions of people daily (talk about a delivery service!) then it's not too much more of a stretch to say that the food itself was miraculous.
Other secondary miracles, however, strain the credulaty of the story. I suppose the Mabul (Noah's flood) is one of the main stories that feature these types of "secondary miracles." The water itself, I suppose would be the primary miracle - there simply isn't that much water in the world - so God created it to destroy the world. Fine, there's the primary miracle.
The secondary miracles, however, abound like rabbits. Spatial problems, logistical miracles concerning feeding, ventilation, waste disposal and disease, the problem of gathering animals from far away locations (and returning them there once the flood was over!), and many others are "secondary miracles" that are attributed to the flood.
Some of these secondary miracles make sense to the average reader - after all without them the story could not happen. So, how did Noah get all those animals in the ark to fit? It was a miracle. How did the carnivores survive for a year on vegetable matter? It was a miracle. How did disease not spread with the bottom level of the ark containing waste for an entire year? It was a miracle. How did animals from specialized environments survive out of their environment for an entire year? It was a miracle. You get the picture. In order to accept the flood story at face value, you have to accept many, many other miracles along with the main story.
Some of these "secondary miracles" however, don't make any sense. How did the animals from the Americas and Australia get to the ark in the first place? I suppose they came on their own (miracle?), as the Torah seems to indicate. But the Torah gives no indication of how they got back to where they came from. How did the llamas get back to South America? How did the kangaroos get back to Austrailia? Did the penguins fly back to Antarctica? What about the dodo - how did it get back to Mauritius? The Torah makes no mention of this, and, oddly, neither does the Midrash (to the best of my knowledge - if someone knows differently, please feel free to let me know). The way the story seems to read is that Noah simply opened the doors of the ark and let everything out to migrate back to it's proper location. (We'll leave off how they would survive in their proper location if it was devestated by the flood - that's another question for another time). And I'm still not aware of any reason why God would erase geological evidence of a world wide flood.
Another example of incredible "secondary miracles" surrounds Og, king of Bashan. Here is a creature which the Torah describes as a giant. OK, well, giant means different things to different people. The Midrash takes this to an extraordinary degree. The Midrash pegs Og's height at thirty amos (cubits) tall - at the ankle!
Well, surely the existence of such a creature is surely a miracle. No creature on earth is that tall or massive. Not even the blue whale, the largest animal creature to ever exist on earth can compare to that. But what about all the secondary miracles needed to explain Og?
Such a creature, under normal circumstances, should not have been able to move. It should have collapsed under it's own weight - even taking into account the added muscle that it surely must have had (remember, while area doubles by the square, volume doubles by the cube - Og would have much more weight bearing down on each square inch of his feet than you or I would).
In addition, one has to account for the fact that a creature of that size would need to consume a great deal of food to survive - possibly more than the region could produce and sustain the nation living upon it. Could the area have supported such a creature? And if so, was it a miracle?
Of course, one of the most vexing issues that I have with Og's reported height is the complete lack of him in any extra-Biblical or extra-Midrashic text. A creature that size would have been a legend for hundreds of miles around. In addition, assuming that Og was able to move (the Midrash reports him as being able to lift a mountain over his head!) I'm surprised that Bashan wasn't the superpower of the region. After all, what ancient nation, possessing a weapon as formidable as Og would not conquer it's surrounding nations? So, then, how do you explain the absence of Og from any extra-Biblical or extra-Midrashic literature? I suppose one could attribute it to a miracle, but then one must also ask "why?" What purpose would there be in God deleting Og from all places except Torah literature? It just doesn't make sense.
Assuming, of course, that one accepts "primary miracles" as having happened (more or less) as reported, how does one treat the secondary miracles? Certainly some of them are believeable and perfectly within the "scope" of the story. But some of them are just way out there and I find them very difficult, if not impossible, to believe.
The Wolf
Sunday, May 22, 2005
And AddeRabbi Follows Him Out The Door...
AddeRabbi has also decided to end his blog. I enjoyed reading his blog too, and that too, shall be missed.
The Wolf
The Wolf
And the Godol Has Left The Building...
I'm sorry to see that GodolHador has decided to quit blogging. It seems a shame - his posts have always been thoughtful and with a twist of humor. He's going to be missed and I hope he turns up to comment on different blogs from time to time.
First Misnagid, now GH... why can't we seem to keep good bloggers around?
The Wolf
First Misnagid, now GH... why can't we seem to keep good bloggers around?
The Wolf
Friday, May 20, 2005
Rabbi Slifkin Responds To A Critique
Rav Ya'akov Segal apparently wrote a critique on The Camel, The Hare & The Hyrax and sent it to Rabbi Slifkin. Rabbi Slifkin has responded to the critique.
I'm still in the middle of it, and, since I'm not a native Hebrew speaker, I'd be lying if I said I fully understood everything Rav Segal is saying, but so far it's interesting reading.
The Wolf
I'm still in the middle of it, and, since I'm not a native Hebrew speaker, I'd be lying if I said I fully understood everything Rav Segal is saying, but so far it's interesting reading.
The Wolf
On Yovel (Jubilee Years)
This week's Torah reading contains a description of Yovel. In short, there are three main halachic consequences of Yovel approaching. They are:
1. Not working agriculturally (as in a Shvi'is year)
2. Freeing "slaves"
3. Returning property to it's ancestral claimants.
I was thinking about how (or if) they were observed in ancient Israel. I'm not really going to focus on the first one - it's primarily Bein Adam LaMakom: If they grew crops during Yovel, then they did - and if they didn't, then obviously God provided for them because they survived.
The second of these, freeing "slaves" requires a bit more discussion. I put "slaves" in quotation marks because the slavery that we're dealing with here is not the type of slavery that we, in the 20th and 21st centuries, have come to recognize as slavery - i.e. chattel slavery. While there was chattel slavery in ancient Israel (Cana'anite slaves were almost true slaves in the sense we understand it) they weren't affected or freed by Yovel and so are not part of this discussion. The "slaves" in question here are Avadim Ivrim (Jewish "slaves") who became slaves because they either sold themselves for a term of six years, were sold by the courts as payment for thievery for six years, or voluntarily chose to remain with their masters until Yovel. These people were not slaves in the American sense of the term - they had property rights, were not considered as chattel, etc.
I'm curious to know, of the 14 or 15 Yovlos that Israel lived in ancient Israel (from the time of the division of the land under Joshua until the exile of the Trans-Jordanian tribes) how often this release of "slaves" occured and under what conditions. I suppose that in the presence of a functioning court system, it would be fairly easy to enforce - there would be no doubt of the date of Yovel and when it passed.
The third of these consequences, the return of land to it's ancestral claimants is the most tricky to my mind.
In short, upon entering into Israel, Joshua divided the land among the tribes. Lots were given to each of the people who left Egypt. Of course, most of these people were no longer alive, having been killed during the forty years in the desert. However, their claims and lots were passed on to their children. And so the land was divided.
Of course, as time goes on, land changes hands - people buy property, sell property, put it up as collateral on a loan and then default - whatever. Under most circumstances (there are a few exceptions) when Yovel comes around, the land is to be returned to the person who originally owned it. If that person is no longer alive, then it's to be returned to his heirs.
I'm curious as to how (or if) this was implemented in ancient Israel. For starters, proving original ownership must be very difficult. Unlike today, where you can march down to City Hall and check up the land sale records for your house for the last 150 years, I doubt that there was a "city hall" that kept these records. I even doubt that the local court kept such records. More likely, a contract would be drawn up between the buyer and seller and they would each keep a copy for protection lest the other make a claim; but I doubt that they actually filed a copy in some central municipal repository.
So, figure that Re'uven buys land from Shimon shortly after Yovel. Re'uven lives on the land, raises his family there, perhaps even grows old and dies. To Re'uven's heirs, they've lived forever on the land and it's theirs. Shimon, of course, retains the right to come along after Yovel comes along and claim the land again - nothing fraudulent about it - it's clearly in the law and Re'uven was well aware of it at the time of purchase.
OK, now fast forward fifty years. Shimon has long since left this earth and possibly even left his family impovershed - the money they received from the sale long ago is long gone. Now, however, they realize that they have an opportunity to gain some new assets - after all, their father had always told them about their ancestral lands and how, after Yovel, they can reclaim them.
However, when it comes time to actually reclaim it, there are all sorts of problems - how do they prove that they are Shimon's heirs? They certainly aren't going to be doing any DNA testing? Does Shimon still have the bill of sale from 50 years ago (do YOU keep receipts that long?). Would neighbors/witnesses be able to corroborate the fact that the place was sold 50 years ago (do neighborhood memories go back that long)? It seems to me that short of a perfectly amiable handover of long-held property (and I don't know how often THAT happened), there are any number of obstacles that a family would face in trying to reclaim it's long-lost property. As such, I wonder how, or if, this policy was successfully implemented in ancient Israel.
The Wolf
1. Not working agriculturally (as in a Shvi'is year)
2. Freeing "slaves"
3. Returning property to it's ancestral claimants.
I was thinking about how (or if) they were observed in ancient Israel. I'm not really going to focus on the first one - it's primarily Bein Adam LaMakom: If they grew crops during Yovel, then they did - and if they didn't, then obviously God provided for them because they survived.
The second of these, freeing "slaves" requires a bit more discussion. I put "slaves" in quotation marks because the slavery that we're dealing with here is not the type of slavery that we, in the 20th and 21st centuries, have come to recognize as slavery - i.e. chattel slavery. While there was chattel slavery in ancient Israel (Cana'anite slaves were almost true slaves in the sense we understand it) they weren't affected or freed by Yovel and so are not part of this discussion. The "slaves" in question here are Avadim Ivrim (Jewish "slaves") who became slaves because they either sold themselves for a term of six years, were sold by the courts as payment for thievery for six years, or voluntarily chose to remain with their masters until Yovel. These people were not slaves in the American sense of the term - they had property rights, were not considered as chattel, etc.
I'm curious to know, of the 14 or 15 Yovlos that Israel lived in ancient Israel (from the time of the division of the land under Joshua until the exile of the Trans-Jordanian tribes) how often this release of "slaves" occured and under what conditions. I suppose that in the presence of a functioning court system, it would be fairly easy to enforce - there would be no doubt of the date of Yovel and when it passed.
The third of these consequences, the return of land to it's ancestral claimants is the most tricky to my mind.
In short, upon entering into Israel, Joshua divided the land among the tribes. Lots were given to each of the people who left Egypt. Of course, most of these people were no longer alive, having been killed during the forty years in the desert. However, their claims and lots were passed on to their children. And so the land was divided.
Of course, as time goes on, land changes hands - people buy property, sell property, put it up as collateral on a loan and then default - whatever. Under most circumstances (there are a few exceptions) when Yovel comes around, the land is to be returned to the person who originally owned it. If that person is no longer alive, then it's to be returned to his heirs.
I'm curious as to how (or if) this was implemented in ancient Israel. For starters, proving original ownership must be very difficult. Unlike today, where you can march down to City Hall and check up the land sale records for your house for the last 150 years, I doubt that there was a "city hall" that kept these records. I even doubt that the local court kept such records. More likely, a contract would be drawn up between the buyer and seller and they would each keep a copy for protection lest the other make a claim; but I doubt that they actually filed a copy in some central municipal repository.
So, figure that Re'uven buys land from Shimon shortly after Yovel. Re'uven lives on the land, raises his family there, perhaps even grows old and dies. To Re'uven's heirs, they've lived forever on the land and it's theirs. Shimon, of course, retains the right to come along after Yovel comes along and claim the land again - nothing fraudulent about it - it's clearly in the law and Re'uven was well aware of it at the time of purchase.
OK, now fast forward fifty years. Shimon has long since left this earth and possibly even left his family impovershed - the money they received from the sale long ago is long gone. Now, however, they realize that they have an opportunity to gain some new assets - after all, their father had always told them about their ancestral lands and how, after Yovel, they can reclaim them.
However, when it comes time to actually reclaim it, there are all sorts of problems - how do they prove that they are Shimon's heirs? They certainly aren't going to be doing any DNA testing? Does Shimon still have the bill of sale from 50 years ago (do YOU keep receipts that long?). Would neighbors/witnesses be able to corroborate the fact that the place was sold 50 years ago (do neighborhood memories go back that long)? It seems to me that short of a perfectly amiable handover of long-held property (and I don't know how often THAT happened), there are any number of obstacles that a family would face in trying to reclaim it's long-lost property. As such, I wonder how, or if, this policy was successfully implemented in ancient Israel.
The Wolf
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Just A Reminder...
Gadol Hador posted this first a while ago, but I'm here to give people who are interested a reminder.
Rabbi Jeremy Weider, a Rosh Yeshiva at REITS and instructor at YU will be giving a lecture on:
How Old Do We Believe the World is ?
Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture, the Story of Creation and the Controversy over the Works of Nosson Slifkin
Time: One week from today - Wednesday May 25, 2005 at 8:00pm
Place: Edmond J. Safra Synagogue - 11 East 63 Street, New York City.
I fully intend, Im Yirtzah Hashem (God willing) to be there. Hope to see everyone else...
The Wolf
P.S. If you're looking for me, I'll be the one with the long snout covered with fur.
The Wolf
Rabbi Jeremy Weider, a Rosh Yeshiva at REITS and instructor at YU will be giving a lecture on:
How Old Do We Believe the World is ?
Non-Literal Interpretation of Scripture, the Story of Creation and the Controversy over the Works of Nosson Slifkin
Time: One week from today - Wednesday May 25, 2005 at 8:00pm
Place: Edmond J. Safra Synagogue - 11 East 63 Street, New York City.
I fully intend, Im Yirtzah Hashem (God willing) to be there. Hope to see everyone else...
The Wolf
P.S. If you're looking for me, I'll be the one with the long snout covered with fur.
The Wolf
Sunday, May 15, 2005
On The Media
I just finished watching Grey's Anatomy on ABC. It's an entertaining show that I happen to enjoy watching.
Tonight's episode featured a 17-year-old Orthodox Jewish female patient (named Devo, but not short for Devorah) who needed a heart valve replacement. The first option for such procedures is a porcine valve. Of course, the young patient refuses (hey, it's pig!) and is willing to die rather than allow the operation to proceed. In the end, they find a bovine replacement (which entails a riskier surgery as the surgeon is not familiar with using a bovine valve) and she goes on her merry way.
However, had the producers even bothered to simply pick up the phone and call an Orthodox Rabbi (heck, even a Conservative or Reform Rabbi too) they would have found out that using a porcine valve (especially before the bovine valve option was known) was not only permitted but required. Sure, it would have made for boring television, but at least it would have been more accurate.
As a side note, I also noticed that when the girl asked that a rabbi be brought in to bless her (?) before the surgery, they brought in a female Rabbi (who in her abbreviated MiSheberach invoked the Avos and Imahos!). *sigh*
The Wolf
Tonight's episode featured a 17-year-old Orthodox Jewish female patient (named Devo, but not short for Devorah) who needed a heart valve replacement. The first option for such procedures is a porcine valve. Of course, the young patient refuses (hey, it's pig!) and is willing to die rather than allow the operation to proceed. In the end, they find a bovine replacement (which entails a riskier surgery as the surgeon is not familiar with using a bovine valve) and she goes on her merry way.
However, had the producers even bothered to simply pick up the phone and call an Orthodox Rabbi (heck, even a Conservative or Reform Rabbi too) they would have found out that using a porcine valve (especially before the bovine valve option was known) was not only permitted but required. Sure, it would have made for boring television, but at least it would have been more accurate.
As a side note, I also noticed that when the girl asked that a rabbi be brought in to bless her (?) before the surgery, they brought in a female Rabbi (who in her abbreviated MiSheberach invoked the Avos and Imahos!). *sigh*
The Wolf
On Snootiness... the conclusion
For those of you who are new to this blog, see the earlier parts of this subject at On Snootiness, On Snootiness - Part II and I Guess We're On The Right Track (Snootiness continued) .
I just wanted to report that the new neighbors came over for a Shabbos meal, just as they were invited to. We all had a pleasant time and it seems that both we and our kids made new friends in the neighborhood. It will be interesting to see how this relationship progresses as time goes on.
The Wolf
I just wanted to report that the new neighbors came over for a Shabbos meal, just as they were invited to. We all had a pleasant time and it seems that both we and our kids made new friends in the neighborhood. It will be interesting to see how this relationship progresses as time goes on.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)