Friday, February 15, 2013

Ruach HaKodesh and Reason

I know that any more mention of the hyrax makes many people want to bring up the cud. But, aside from my own personal fascination and history with this topic, there's little else that better illustrates the radical gulf separating rationalism and reason from anti-rationalism and dogmatism.

Some people wonder why I waste my time with Isaac Betech. After all, this is a person who not only insists that the world is 5773 years old and distorts the words of Chazal and the Rishonim beyond belief, but also acts exceedingly inappropriately in his style of debate, and was involved in the campaign against me. However, aside from my personal interest in this matter, I think that there is something else to consider. In light of the frightening fact that Rav Belsky, who is the posek for the OU and respected by many people as some sort of scientific expert, praises Isaac Betech to the heavens, it's important to respond to his claims.

In the ongoing debate in the comment thread to the post, Where are the Pandas, Penguins and Polar Bears of Psalms?, various interesting points have emerged. Isaac Betech insists that the shafan is the rabbit. He claimed that rabbits "live and have lived in Eretz Yisrael," but he was not able to present any evidence for this; his alleged sources either referred to hares instead, or to regions outside of Israel and/or to later periods in history. But all of this was only in an attempt to refute the standard position of Biblical zoologists according to their own view, that one reason why the shafan cannot be the rabbit is that the rabbit is not a local animal. Isaac Betech himself is not at all concerned with whether rabbits did or did not live in Biblical Israel. After all, King David had ruach ha-kodesh.

You might think that the debate has to end there, but that's not the case. After all, even accepting that King David had ruach ha-kodesh, this by no means results in it being reasonable to propose that the shafan is the rabbit. There are (at least) seven reasons why it is still unreasonable:

First of all, since when does ruach ha-kodesh equate to describing the characteristics of unfamiliar animals in remote places? Rabbi Sedley and myself have been continuously requesting Dr. Betech to provide sources to that effect, but he has so far been unable to do so; he merely gave lists of references which, upon investigation, proved to say nothing of the sort.

Second, Rashi is also said by many to have been written with ruach hakodesh. Yet no Rishon, and few Acharonim, believed this to mean that he possessed knowledge about the natural world beyond that which was known in his time and place. Rashi himself certainly didn't think so!

Third, if you do interpret ruach hakodesh as meaning knowledge about creatures that cannot be obtained via regular means, then how do you ever know what animal the Torah is ever talking about? Maybe the shafan is an alien life form on a different planet? Maybe it is a creature that is yet to come into existence, and will be developed in the laboratory? The fact that Chazal and the Rishonim talk about this creature is not evidence otherwise, because they also had ruach hakodesh and could see across time and space!

Fourth, we see that the Geonim, Rishonim and Acharonim attempted to identify the animals in the Torah - and as animals that they were familiar with. Why? Why did they assume that they would know these animals, if they were described in Tanach with ruach hakodesh and could live in distant regions of space or time?

Fifth, if we look at the rest of Nach in general and Barchi Nafshi in particular, nowhere do we see that the Kings and Prophets mentioned fauna or flora that was unknown in Biblical Israel. There is no mention of polar bears, pandas, penguins, pangolins, puffins, or platypuses. Barchi Nafshi is about the wonders of all creation; yet instead of it presenting a list of examples like that which you might see in a contemporary book on the wonders of nature, it limits itself to examples that would have been familiar to a person in Biblical Israel. When David is singing about the trees, he doesn't  mention the giant redwoods and sequoias of California; instead, he mentions the much less impressive cedars of Lebanon. Dr. Betech attempted to present example of unfamiliar animals that are mentioned in Tenach, but all the examples that he brought turned out to be animals that are either (a) familiar in Biblical Israel, and/or (b) not actually in Tenach. In fact, all of the descriptions of the natural world in Tenach perfectly match the perspective of people in Biblical Israel - including various inaccuracies, such as describing dew descending from heavens, the earth standing still, and the kidneys housing the mind (and hares bringing up the cud!).

Sixth, every single one of the verses in Barchi Nafshi describing the natural world has a single theme; if there are two parts to the verse, they are tightly connected. Since the verse about the shafan begins by describing how the ibex live in the high hills, the animals in the second part must have some sort of connection to the ibex in the high hills. Since hyrax live in the exact same places as ibex, this would make sense (see the video at the end of this post). There is no connection between rabbits and ibex.

Seventh, if you want to talk about an animal that hides under rocks, why talk about something thousands of miles away, that nobody else (without ruach hakodesh) knows about, when there's something that hides under the rocks right here, amongst the ibex that you just mentioned? Similarly, in Mishlei 30:24-28, King Shlomo speaks about animals that are "small, yet ingenious." If I was speaking on that topic, I'd mention the bombardier beetle, the basilisk, the pistol shrimp, or some similar extraordinary marvel. Shlomo, on the other hand, speaks about the ant, the locust, and the lizard - presumably, because he and his readers knew about such animals, whereas they did not know about bombardier beetles, basilisks and pistol shrimps. He also mentions an animal that is weak, but manages to evade predators by hiding amongst rocks. Now, if you wanted to mention an example of a small animal that evades predators by hiding amongst rocks, is it not extremely reasonable to mention the animal that lives right in your area and does exactly that? Doesn't that make much more sense than positing that Shlomo mentions an animal that lives far away, and in fact prefers to hide in burrows rather than rocks?

According to Isaac Betech, none of these objections are significant. He doesn't even concede their presenting the slightest weakness in his approach! And he's been quite explicit about why. There are no unequivocal sources explicitly refuting the notion that David spoke with ruach hakodesh about an animal living far away instead of about an animal living right amongst the ibex that he just mentioned. All my objections are merely based upon reason. They are not categorical disproofs - and therefore they are without merit at all.

And there you have it: the unbridgeable chasm between rationalism and reason versus anti-rationalism and dogmatism.


245 comments:

  1. > There are no unequivocal sources explicitly refuting the notion that David spoke with ruach hakodesh about an animal living far away instead of about an animal living right amongst the ibex that he just mentioned.

    There are also no sources explicitly refuting the notion that R’ Slifkin is speaking with ruach hakodesh about what David Hamelech was talking about.

    There, I think I just won the debate for you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One more time: never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I left that comment because I was curious what creative dodge Dr. Betech would come up with. I didn't think he had the chutzpah to distort the Rambam like he did. I'm glad you noticed it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The argument regarding knowing about certain animals makes sense with say a llama, which is a unique animal.

    But if you are going to argue that one animal is the hare and the other is the rabbit, I don't understand how you can say it's an "unknown animal" If you aren't a zoologist you can't tell the difference between them.

    This is such a bizzare argument to be using as your "example"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hares live in Israel, and they are the arneves of the Torah. Rabbits do not. Personally, I would say that the Torah's category of arneves could easily include the rabbit also. But Betech insists that the rabbit is listed separately from the hare.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know that I'm coming in late on this, but why are people so dogmatic about the shafan being a rabbit?

    ReplyDelete
  7. For the same reason that others are dogmatic about it being the llama, or about it being an unknown animal. The goal is to have it NOT being the hyrax. Because if so, then ma'aleh gerah refers to a way of chewing, or to a scaled-down form of rumination called merycism; and if so, then there are several other animals that are maaleh gerah and lack split hooves; and if so, then the Gemara's statement that there are only four such animals in the world is not true, simply speaking.

    (I maintain that the "world" of the Gemara is not planet Earth. So while I have no problem saying that Chazal erred in science, I don't think that this counts as an example.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. regardless the לשון of "וְאֶת-הַשָּׁפָן כִּֽי-מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס" using the future tesne is certainly eyebrow raising. Any thoughts on why?

    ReplyDelete

  9. Malbim has an explanation of how it matches the hyrax. But ultimately, I don't know why and it may well be impossible to know. However, I think that explaining it to refer to an animal that was yet to be discovered is extremely unreasonable. And in any case, it and does not even address the textual difficulty of the future tense being used in describing its foot - unless it was referring to a future evolution!

    ReplyDelete
  10. (posted to the other thread, but also relevant here)

    "The fact that the Torah uses the future tense"

    This is midrash, assuming that the the form often used for what we might call future tense must mean this here. And it is strange to use a neo-midrash while at the same time being willing to reject the arneves of the Chazal.

    First, יַפְרִ֑יס is imperfect, rather than future. That is how linguists talk about it in Biblical Hebrew. See here for example. In the example in my link, אקצר is imperfect, and therefore "can be translated as "I am cutting a tree" (an action that has begun but not yet completed) or "I will cut a tree" (an action that has not yet begun)."

    Understanding just why certain verb forms are acceptable in different contexts is an interesting thing to study. For example, we see sometimes that what we would commonly refer to as present tense doesn't exist in Hebrew; it is the neutral tense, derived from the noun form, and can mean present, past, or future, depending on context. (See Ibn Ezra on Amos' declaration of "lo navi anochi".)

    To insist that it is actually future tense, and that it is something that is therefore weird, such that the intent of the Divine Author probably means an undiscovered creature... while meanwhile, David HaMelech and Shlomo HaMelech referred to such a creature by the same name, and its habits, indicating that they knew about it... strikes me as a midrash. Pashtanim wouldn't be bothered by the question.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't you mean Ibices? Hehehe.

    On a serious note, it is Betech's position which is without merit at all. Because he made it up. AND it is not based on reason. Lol, so what does he propose? He's a new navi (sheker) coming to replace Moshe's Torah? He's coming to replace chazal? What? There is no explicit source to support his position, it is irrational, and he made it up. What a deadly combination. Welcome to Betecher Chassidus.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is not future tense.

    In the comments of one of the previous posts on the topic, one of Betech's supporters asked, "How can you believe in Torah miSinai if there are more than 4 animals on the planet that appear to chew their cud."

    I imagine that this refers to the Discovery Seminar argument that the Torah must be divine or else it would not make such a broad statement.

    But the Torah itself does not use it in this manner; when Moshe urges the People of Israel to remember the Torah, to keep their covenant with Hashem, somehow, for whatever reason, he does not hinge it all on the identity of a small rodent.

    And he definitely had Ruach HaKodesh.



    ReplyDelete
  13. My only לימוד זכות for Betech's responses is that they were written in the spirit of חודש אדר.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear rab Slifkin,

    Where could i buy your book about the hyrax in Israel?

    Kind Regards

    ReplyDelete
  15. It should be in bookstores that sell sifrei kodesh, such as Pomeranz. You can ask your bookseller to get it from Gefen distributors. Or you can buy it directly from me in Ramat Bet Shemesh.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The comment above that Moshe Rabbeinu “definitely had Ruach HaKodesh” is especially appropriate as today is Zayin Adar, Moshe Rabbeinu’s yohrtzeit, zechuso yogein o’leinu.

    The post states: "Rashi is also said by many to have been written with ruach hakodesh. Yet no Rishon, and few Acharonim, believed this to mean that he possessed knowledge about the natural world beyond that which was known in his time and place. Rashi himself certainly didn't think so!"

    To connect this with Parshas Teruma:

    In R’ Aryeh Kaplan’s “The Living Torah,” the note on Teruma 26:18 explains and shows diagrams:

    “Silver bases. The outer dimensions of each base were one cubit high, one cubit thick, and ¾ wide, one half the width of a beam. It is simple to calculate that the walls of the bass could have been no more than around 1/3 inch (0.9 cm.) thick ([diagram] A).

    “[Each base weighted one talent (38:27), which is 150 pounds or 68.4 kg (see note on 25:39). Since silver has a specific gravity of 10.5, each base had a volume of 6514 cc. The circumference of each base was 3½ cubits or 160 cm. and its height was one cubit or 45.72 cm. By simple division, the width of a wall comes out to be 0.9 cm thick.]

    “According to the opinion that the walls of the bases were ¼ cubit thick (Rashi on 26:17) ([diagram] B), we must say that bases were hollow. (if they were solid, each base would weight 627 kg. or over 9 talents, in contradiction to an explicit verse stating that each one weighed only one talent).”

    ---- It seems highly implausible to explain Rashi as R’ Kaplan does, that the Adonim were not solid, but rather that they were “hollow.” If Rashi understood that the Adonim were hollow he certainly would have said so! It is much more likely that Rashi simply did not understand the science of silver’s specific gravity and its significance for the shape of the Adonim.

    In addition it seems that according to opinion A, i.e., that of Ramban (see R’ Kaplan’s note on 26:17), the silver Adonim would have been too thin to offer any meaningful support for the weight of the boards and the tent coverings, and their function would have been primarily decorative. Similarly, according to opinion B, i.e., that of Rashi, as R’ Kaplan explains, hollow Adonim would probably not have lasted for very long considering all the weight they had to support. Seemly however the Adonim should have been designed and made solid precisely for the purpose of providing such support.

    Unfortunately R’ Kaplan didn’t explain or provide a diagram showing how thick the Adonim/bases would be according to the third opinion, which he had cited two verses before (on Teruma 26:16), i.e., the opinion of Josephus/cf. Abarbanel, that the Keroshim were only one Tefach (3”) thick. Obviously according to this third opinion the thickness of the Adonim walls would be different than according to the opinions of Ramban and Rashi, they would not have to be hollow, and they would have provided substantial support.

    While Chazal describe the Keroshim and Adonim as being one full cubit wide, the opinion of Josephus/Abarbanel that they were much thinner seems much more practical and likely. Hopefully the “works of Moshe’s hands,” the Mishkon and its vessels, will be discovered soon and we will all see and know for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dont blow your trumpet to loud rabbi, after reading those 6 sources in Betechs original response to you, i have remained unconvinced either way on the rabbit/hyrax debate, there seems to be evidence pointing in both directions.
    Perhaps its time to give the many truth seekers like myself a chance to make up their own mind.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Moshe F., that was well done. Would you believe that R' Aryeh Kaplan is virtually unknown in Israel? I once tried to convince a friend to do her PhD in Jewish intellectual history on the impact of R' Kaplan on American Jewry, but to no avail.


    ReplyDelete

  19. Hi Carl, a.k.a. Saul Lustington, Winston, Eli4, Eli Benaim - your comment is basically identical to all the others that you posted on the previous thread under various aliases. It doesn't really say anything; Betech's "six sources" show only that rabbits were at some point imported to Egypt. They say nothing about rabbits in Biblical Israel, nor about the other points raised in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It might be Kiday to have a document or some such thing where you can both list your points, counterpoints etc in a more organized fashion. That way neither of you will be able to say that one didn't answer the others points. A long comment thread hardly seems like an efficient way to have a debate (also will help others see the points being made).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Above I commented that seemingly according to Ramban "the silver Adonim would have been too thin to offer any meaningful support for the weight of the boards and the tent coverings, and their function would have been primarily decorative…”

    I wrote "primarily decorative" because even though not strong enough to offer meaningful support, they could have still been intended to serve a function aside from decorative. The silver socket-bases covering the bottom cubit of the Keroshim would have protected them from contact with the dirt and sand on the ground, which otherwise would have tended to scratch and wear away the wood.

    The Keroshim were gold plaited (26:29), but it is unclear (to me at least) whether the bottom cubit of each of the Keroshim was gold plaited like the top nine cubits or simply bare wood (if anyone has knowledge about this please share it here). At any rate, silver is a tiny bit harder than gold, and the Adonim according to all opinions would have been thicker than the gold plaiting, thus they would have provided more protection to the bottoms of the Keroshim from contact with the ground.

    --- Kira, thanks. R' Kaplan zt"l was a truly remarkable person, and those who don't know of him and his writings are missing a tremendous amount.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Moshe F., your citation of R' Aryeh Kaplan's calculations are appropriate for this discussion. Indeed, Rashi or contemporaries would have been unaware of the issue of the density of materials other than in a qualitative fashion. They had no way of calculating the volume of a silver base assuming that they had a good estimate of its weight. It's not surprising that their dimensions are unrealistic. The same is true of the talmudic sages whom Rashi used as the basis for his conjecture of the height and depth of the bases (silver sockets) and their wall thickness.

    This is probably not an appropriate place to set out a more detailed description of those bases. Let me just mention my conclusion. If the kerashim and base thickness (not specified in the torah) was 1/2 ama (10 inches), then a reasonable figure for the bases which is consistent with a mass of 22 g per shekel or 66 kg per kikar (talent) and a wall thickness of 1/8 ama gives a height of 1/5 ama (4 inches - the o.d. of each base is then 3/4 x 1/2 x 1/5 A, while the i.d.(the hole for the tenon) is 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/5 A). There is no need to posit an unrealistic hollow base - as you pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  23. They had no way of calculating the volume of a silver base assuming that they had a good estimate of its weight.

    Archimedes had such a method.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Since Moshe F. and Y. Aharon have mentioned the dimensions of the boards and sockets of the mishkan, I think it might be appropriate to mention also the Aron--if the Kapporet is a slab of solid gold, 1 tefach thick, it would also be tremendously heavy. If the dimensions are 10 cm x 150 cm x 90 cm (1 tefach x 2.5 amos x 1.5 amos), and the density of gold is 19.3 g/cm^3, the weight is over 2,500 kg. (This is besides the luchos inside the aron, and the aron itself.)
    I think I saw a way of resolving the problem, but I don't remember where.

    ReplyDelete
  25. to Yehuda P.

    and what about the weight of the Cherubim.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Follow-up on my previous comment: If we use a 8 cm tefach, the dimensions of the Kapporet are 8 cm x 120 cm x 72 cm. The weight would then be considerably less than if assuming a 10 cm tefach: 1334 kg. It still would be incredibly heavy for four people to carry.
    (this is in light of Rashi's statement that the Kapporet was a tefach thick.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. To correct my previous spelling, above I meant "gold plating" rather than "gold plaiting" - i.e., covering the wood with a layer of gold, not with gold strands braided together.

    Regarding this gold plating, I don't know if anyone is sure about the method that was used to attach the gold to the wood or how thick the gold layer was on the Boards.

    For the thicknesses of the wooden walls of the Ark and its inside and outside layers of gold, which like the thicknesses of the wooden Boards and their gold coverings are not specified in the Torah, the best place to start is with R’ Kaplan’s notes.

    On Shmos (25:10) he writes: “Some say the walls of the ark were a handbreadth (Yoma 72b, Rabbenu Chananel ad. Loc.; Abarbanel; Maaseh Choshev 8:2). According to others, it was one half handbreadth (1.5 inches) or a fingerbreadth (0.75 inches) thick (Bava Bathra 14a; Bareitha Melekheth HaMishkan 6).”

    And on the next verse (25:11): “Some say that [the gold layer] was like a thin box of gold around the wooden box (Yoma 72b; Ralbag). According to others, the box was gilded with gold leaf (Yerushalmi, Shekalim 6:1).”

    R’ Kaplan then advises “See note on 30:3,” and at the end of that note he states See note on 38:24.” I can’t type it all so anyone interested see there.

    Regarding Yehudah P.'s question about the Ark cover, see R’ Kaplan (25:17):

    “The Talmud states that the ark cover was one handbreadth (3 inches) thick (Sukkah 5a). It can easily be calculated that if it were solid gold, it would weigh (without the cherubs), some 2500 pounds, or 17 talents (see note on 25:39). Some sources thus state that the ark cover was considerably thinner (Tur), since we find that the ark had to light enough to be carried easily (Baaley Tosafoth on 25:11). One source states that the ark-cover weighted one talent (150 pounds) just like the menorah (25:39; Saadia Gaon, quoted in Ibn Ezra on 38:24). The ark cover would therefore have been around 3/16 inch thick, or, if the cherubs are taken into account, more likely around 1/8 inch thick. It may have been made like an inverted open box, so that its sides were one handbreadth thick on the outside.”

    As to how those who hold like the Talmud (Sukka 5a) resolve the weight problem, they usually do so by resorting to the miracle of “the ark carrying its carriers” or the no less miraculous Levi’im being ten cubit tall giants and correspondingly exceedingly strong.

    ReplyDelete
  28. To whom are your arguments directed?

    Rationalists don't need to be convinced.

    And to the anti-rationalist, if it's a matter of faith that it's impossible that chazal or rishonim were wrong, then it makes no difference how implausible the alternatives are. "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

    To someone with such a worldview, your arguments may at most lead to the conclusion that the least improbable answer is that rabbits did exist in ancient Israel (lack of evidence notwithstanding).

    ReplyDelete
  29. Natan said
    For the same reason that others are dogmatic about it being the llama, or about it being an unknown animal. The goal is to have it NOT being the hyrax. Because if so, then ma'aleh gerah refers to a way of chewing, or to a scaled-down form of rumination called merycism; and if so, then there are several other animals that are maaleh gerah and lack split hooves; and if so, then the Gemara's statement that there are only four such animals in the world is not true, simply speaking.

    (I maintain that the "world" of the Gemara is not planet Earth. So while I have no problem saying that Chazal erred in science, I don't think that this counts as an example.)


    ###

    Reb Natan, This is not the only reason why one would argue that the shafan is not the hyrax. It could be for the very simple reason that the hyrax does not chew the cud in the traditionally explained way.

    And as much as others are dogmatic that the shafan is not the hyrax, I would say the same about you in the reverse!

    ReplyDelete

  30. This is not the only reason why one would argue that the shafan is not the hyrax. It could be for the very simple reason that the hyrax does not chew the cud in the traditionally explained way.

    But the hare and rabbit are even worse off in that regard, and yet Betech is quite happy to interpret the arneves and shafan as referring to them!

    And as much as others are dogmatic that the shafan is not the hyrax, I would say the same about you in the reverse!

    They have an end goal to reach, and work backwards such as to make sure that it ends up not being the hyrax. As such, they are forced to ignore any evidence and arguments to the contrary. I have no end goal to reach.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have no end goal to reach.



    Perhaps subconsciously you want to prove that the talmud erred?

    ReplyDelete
  32. 1) That could conceivably be a motive post-ban, but I did my initial research on this back in 1999. At the time, I was devastated to discover that the Discovery proof didn't work. It was one of the most upsetting realizations of my life!

    2) It would not account for why every academic scholar of Biblical zoology, frum and non-frum alike, has reached the same conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It was mentioned by one of your commentaters that the shafan of the Torah might be different from the shafan of the Prophets. Could it be that the academics would re-evaluate based on this possibility? It seems that they are basing their conclusions on the verses in Psalms and Proverbs.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No, academics are quite willing to accept that they could theoretically differ - in general, academics are less inclined to insist that different texts must conform. However, there has to be good reason to do so. Here, there is no good reason, as explained. The description of these animals as maaleh gerah is not considered anywhere near as problematic as positing that they are animals from South America!

    ReplyDelete
  35. If the Torah is a document for all times and places, and the Torah wanted to list all the animals with only one sign, why should it matter if those animals live in South America? I would think that saying that the hare and hyrax are maaleh gerah is worse. The future tense in Leviticus fits in very well for animals that will only become well known in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  36. B"H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    But the hare and rabbit are even worse off in that regard, and yet Betech is quite happy to interpret the arneves and shafan as referring to them!

    IB:
    But you know very well that rabbit and hare nutritional physiology is very different than the hyrax´ nutritional physiology

    ReplyDelete
  37. If the Torah is a document for all times and places

    Binding at all times and places. But clearly not written in a way directed to all times and places. If it was, then nobody would ever have thought that they could identify the non-kosher birds.

    The future tense in Leviticus fits in very well for animals that will only become well known in the future.

    No, it doesn't. See the discussion in the earlier thread. It does not refer to the animals in the future tense.

    ReplyDelete
  38. But you know very well that rabbit and hare nutritional physiology is very different than the hyrax´ nutritional physiology

    And you know very well that the Torah says nothing about nutritional physiology. It only speaks about the way in which the food moves.

    You also know very well that I already made this point in my letter to Dialogue, but you choose to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS:
    … It only speaks about the way in which the food moves.

    IB:
    In your letter to Dialogue you wrote:
    “Some zoologists, however, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication…”

    I asked the source identifying who are those zoologists, but you choose to ignore it.
    So, meanwhile you have not demonstrated that food in hyrax’ gastrointestinal tract has any special “way of moving”.

    NS wrote:
    You also know very well that I already made this point in my letter to Dialogue, but you choose to ignore it.

    IB:
    Probably you are speaking about the following paragraph:

    “With the hare and rabbit, interpreting ma’aleh gerah as caecotrophy requires going against all classical interpretations of ma’aleh gerah. To be sure, caecotrophy is similar to rumination from a nutritional standpoint, but it is different from rumination in precisely the way that the Torah describes rumination i.e. ma’aleh gerah. Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, Radak, and Rashbam all explain the word gerah to be related to the word garon, “throat,” and thereby to refer to that which is brought up by way of the throat, as Rashi also describes the process.”

    My answer:
    a) Caecotrophy is not against all classical interpretations of ma’aleh gerah, since the re-ingested soft pellets also go through the throat.

    b) Rashi:
    מעלת גרה: מעלה ומקיאה האוכל ממעיה ומחזרת אותו לתוך פיה

    “Umekia” does not necessarily mean “bring up”.
    Please see Baba Batra 22a and Taanit 22b where “meki” is through the anus, i.e. “bring down”.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I asked the source identifying who are those zoologists, but you choose to ignore it.

    How is it possible that everyone else knows the answer to this question except you? One person even wrote the answer. Yet you ignored what he wrote. Why?

    You want to know my basis for saying that the hyrax practices merycism? It's a secret. I have never attempted to back up my suggestion that the hyrax practices merycism, neither in my book nor on this blog.

    (That was sarcasm, by the way.)

    Probably you are speaking about the following paragraph

    Ah, so you are aware that I already addressed that point. Why, then, did you earlier ignore what I had written?

    Caecotrophy is not against all classical interpretations of ma’aleh gerah, since the re-ingested soft pellets also go through the throat.

    This has already been addressed by others, who pointed out that with caecotrophy, the role of the throat is entirely irrelevant, and thus would not be mentioned in its description. Yet you ignored what they wrote. Why?

    “Umekia” does not necessarily mean “bring up”.

    But "ma'aleh umekia," in that order, most certainly does mean that!

    ReplyDelete
  41. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    … One person even wrote the answer…

    IB:
    So it is very easy, just post a link to the answer identifying who are those zoologists.

    NS wrote:
    … This has already been addressed by others, who pointed out that with caecotrophy, the role of the throat is entirely irrelevant, and thus would not be mentioned in its description…

    IB:
    Well, you addressed this question on the 2nd ed. of your book, page 136, footnote 1

    NS wrote:
    But "ma'aleh umekia," in that order, most certainly does mean that!

    IB:
    Well, you addressed this question on the Version 12.1 19/02/03 of your book, page 59 footnote 1

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well, you addressed this question on the 2nd ed. of your book, page 136, footnote 1

    No, I didn't. And yet again, you wasted my time in looking up something irrelevant.

    Well, you addressed this question on the Version 12.1 19/02/03 of your book, page 59 footnote 1

    I don't have that accessible.

    In future, instead of setting people homework to look things up, why don't you cut-and-paste the alleged sources into your comment? Is it because you enjoy expending other peoples' time? Or is it because you are trying to conceal your sources? Either way, it doesn't reflect well on you.

    ReplyDelete
  43. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    Again you are ignoring what I wrote:
    So it is very easy, just post a link to the answer identifying who are those zoologists.

    NS wrote:
    Well, you addressed this question on the 2nd ed. of your book, page 136, footnote 1

    No, I didn't. And yet again, you wasted my time in looking up something irrelevant.

    IB:
    Please explain why it is irrelevant.

    NS wrote:
    Well, you addressed this question on the Version 12.1 19/02/03 of your book, page 59 footnote 1

    I don't have that accessible.

    IB:
    If you want, I can send you the whole pdf.

    NS wrote:
    In future, instead of setting people homework to look things up, why don't you cut-and-paste the alleged sources into your comment?

    IB:
    Sorry but I do not have any version of your book which allows copy and paste.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I asked the source identifying who are those zoologists, but you choose to ignore it.

    How is it possible that everyone else knows the answer to this question except you? One person even wrote the answer. Yet you ignored what he wrote. Why?

    Please explain why it is irrelevant.

    Please explain why it is relevant.

    If you want, I can send you the whole pdf.

    Go ahead.

    Sorry but I do not have any version of your book which allows copy and paste.

    But you do have access to versions of the Talmud and Midrash which allow copy and paste. Also, you seem to have lots of time on your hands to write, even when your writing has zero content. So it shouldn't be any trouble to copy out a few words.

    ReplyDelete
  45. B”H
    Dear Natan

    NS wrote:
    [In your letter to Dialogue you wrote:
    “Some zoologists, however, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication…”]

    [IB] I asked the source identifying who are those zoologists, but you choose to ignore it.

    [NS] How is it possible that everyone else knows the answer to this question except you? One person even wrote the answer. Yet you ignored what he wrote. Why?

    IB:
    Because I have not seen in any place of your blogspot the names of those zoologists, please just copy and paste their names.

    ReplyDelete
  46. B”H
    Dear Natan,
    NS wrote:
    “see above.”

    IB:
    I saw above and could not find the names of “Some zoologists” that have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication.

    So please write two names or admit that you cannot support this point you wrote in your letter to Dialogue.

    ReplyDelete

  47. That's strange, everyone else can find it. And you seem to be able to quote even footnotes from different manuscripts of my book. How is it that you are not aware of the evidence that I present for merycism?

    Meanwhile, please respond to the questions raised in my letter to Dialogue, and raised in the post above, and raised by Rabbi Sedley, or admit that you are not interested in discussing your article. Which would be strange, since in your article you claimed that you would be pleased to respond to inquiries from readers seeking clarification, or advising you of relevant sources of which you are unaware.

    ReplyDelete
  48. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    That's strange, everyone else can find it. And you seem to be able to quote even footnotes from different manuscripts of my book. How is it that you are not aware of the evidence that I present for merycism?

    IB:
    It’s not strange.
    What it is strange is that you are trying to change my question.
    So, I will try again B”H:
    My question is not yet regarding the evidence you present for Merycism.
    My question now is what is the support regarding what you wrote in your letter to Dialogue, that is:
    “Some zoologists, however, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication…”
    Pay attention that the emphasis is in two words: “Some zoologists”.
    Again, the answer to my question could be:
    a) The names of those zoologists, of course including the source to their statement.
    b) An admission that you cannot support this point you wrote in your letter to Dialogue.

    P.S. Then we could continue B"H with our discussion as per your suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ah, I get it. So you're not actually interested in evidence for merycism; you just want to know if you can catch me out on my phraseology in my letter to Dialogue. Is that right? Is that why you are ignoring the video?

    Well, you can find the names of two zoologists in my book, and I could add two or three others. However, there's not much point.

    But I'm not sure why your responding to the questions raised by me and Rabbi Sedley depends on that. After all, my letter to Dialogue preceded your questions to me.

    ReplyDelete

  50. Not to mention the fact that I don't even think that the merycism of the hyrax is particularly relevant, just as the cecotrophy of the hare is irrelevant; as Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman says, the Torah follows external appearances. You haven't yet given your response to Rav Hoffman's position.

    ReplyDelete
  51. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    Ah, I get it. So you're not actually interested in evidence for merycism; you just want to know if you can catch me out on my phraseology in my letter to Dialogue. Is that right? Is that why you are ignoring the video?

    IB:
    I am happy we made some progress, Baruch Hashem.
    Of course I am interested in the evidence for Merycism as I wrote in my last comment, but you know, I like to go step by step.
    Obviously, I am also interested in knowing the sources, or the lack of them, for your statements in your letter to Dialogue, because I am always open B”H to evaluate information I did not know before.
    I am ignoring the video by now, because a video does not represent a support for your statement in question, i.e.
    “Some zoologists, however, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication…”

    NS wrote:
    Well, you can find the names of two zoologists in my book, and I could add two or three others. However, there's not much point.

    IB:
    Please provide me the page number of your book where the zoologists, have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication , and please add the two or three others that you are offering me.

    NS wrote:
    But I'm not sure why your responding to the questions raised by me and Rabbi Sedley depends on that. After all, my letter to Dialogue preceded your questions to me.

    IB:
    Although it’s true that your letter to Dialogue preceded my questions to you, nevertheless my very first comment a few weeks ago on this issue was:
    Dear Natan
    Please let me know if you are ready to discuss the contents of your letter.
    January 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM

    And you kindly agreed to it.

    After you support your “some zoologists”-issue, and my questions on other statements you made in your letter to Dialogue, we can continue if you like, with all other related issues to the identity of the Biblical shafan.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Ah, I see where I made a mistake. When you asked if I was ready to discuss my letter, I thought that this meant that you wanted to discuss the questions that my letter raised on your article. Silly me! You don't want to discuss your article, you just want to discuss my letter!

    Well, in that case, I'll have to rephrase my original statement. Yes, I am ready to discuss the contents of my letter, right after we discuss the contents of your article.

    Also, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Rabbi Sedley - why are you answering his repeated question about your position?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm not quite sure why you're continuing to debate Dr. Betech. It has gone as far as it will go.

    You did not and cannot convince Dr. Betech that your position is correct, and you cannot even engage with him in substantive issues at all. No matter what you or he say, no matter what proofs and disproofs you bring, I promise that at the end he will declare himself the victor, by reason of forfeit as well asnd on the substance.

    IF you believed that Dr. Betech is representative of your ideological opponents then, nu, I could understand that you wish to expose to the world that your opponents are nuts.

    But Dr. Betech is a lone nut, and is not representative of your ideological opponents.

    So all you have proven is that Dr. Betech is nuts. Which we all already knew.

    ReplyDelete

  54. Well, he's not entirely alone. He has some glowing haskamos, particularly from Rav Belsky. That's why it's important to expose him. But you're right, I think that everyone has now recognized what he's really about, and it's basically finished. The question is whether it is possible to finish it without him triumphantly declaring that he wanted to discuss matters further (as though he is remotely interested in genuine discussion!). It would be great to find some way to use his own tricks on him. Hopefully I accomplished that with the previous comment, but probably not.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yoel B. is correct, I should not have stated,"They had no way of calculating the volume of a silver base". They could calculate the volume of an 'adon' (base) by simple geometry given that both the shape of the adon and its central hole were, or could be considered, rectangular. The volume of silver is then the outer volume (1x1x3/4 ama in their view) minus the inner hole volume (1x1/2x1/4). There is no indication, however, that they went to the trouble of calculating the density of silver, which would be the mass of the rectangular solid divided by its volume (to simplify their calculation of its volume) - or the water displacement of a more complex shaped object. Had they done so, they would have realized that their conjectured dimensions of an adon were much too large for a reasonable wall thickness.

    The calculation, in brief, using their dimensions is 3/4 - 1/8 cubic ama,or 5/8. If an ama is 50 cm (20 inches) or 1/2 meter, then a cubic ama is 1/8 cubic meter, and 5/8 cubic ama is 5/64 cubic meter. There are 1000 liter (L) per cubic meter. Then the adon volume is 5000/64 = 78.1 L. However, the various weights of historical shekels range from 11 - 22 g (or therebouts - R' Kaplan uses a somewhat higher value). Taking 22g per shekel and multiplying by 3000 gives 66 kg for a kikar, the stated mass of an adon. Dividing 66kg by 10.5 kg/L, the density of silver, gives 6.29 L as the volume of the silver in an adon. Thus the assumed dimensions give an answer which is more than tenfold the realistic value.

    ReplyDelete
  56. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    Well, you can find the names of two zoologists in my book…

    IB:
    I checked your book looking for the zoologist’s names you said were in your book.
    I am sorry but I could not find the names of the zoologists that have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication.
    Probably I am wrong, so please tell me the number of the page you sent me to look in your book.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  57. Please see my comments above. And please stop wasting my time.

    ReplyDelete
  58. " rabbi rabbit said...
    I have no end goal to reach.



    Perhaps subconsciously you want to prove that the talmud erred?

    February 20, 2013 at 3:58 AM"

    Some reason my earlier posts were not posted, but if they were it would have prevented you from suggesting such a thing.

    When the Talmud says the line about Moshe being a hunter/archer they never mention the Arnevet or Shaffan at all. They only mention the Camel, the Pig and an animal with two backbones.

    ReplyDelete
  59. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    “Well, you can find the names of two zoologists in my book…”

    NS wrote:
    …And please stop wasting my time.

    IB:
    As explained above, I looked in your book for those sources you said are in your book (February 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM), and they were not found in your book (February 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM).

    When requested, instead of writing the correct page number of your book, or simply apologizing for the mistake, you wrote what you wrote...

    So, unless you clearly specify the page number where the information you said was in your book is indeed found, we have a sad case of an explicit lie.

    ReplyDelete
  60. and they were not found in your book

    Right, like you couldn't find where Moore corrected rabbits to hares, or where Chazal and Rishonim wrote about spontaneous generation.

    we have a sad case of an explicit lie.

    LOL. So you think that I'm a liar as well as a heretic. Well, most people here think that you're a liar as well as a lunatic. I know whose company I'd rather be in.

    ReplyDelete
  61. B"H
    Dear Natan.

    1. Please write the page number of your book.

    2. Please document when I lied.

    ReplyDelete
  62. At whatever point I stop responding, whether if it is after two comments, two hundred comments or two thousand comments, you'll brag that I failed to respond, right? So I might as well stop now. It's not as though anything I or anyone else here has written anything that has ever or will ever change your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dear Dr Betech,

    I have been posting questions for you for quite a while now and you never answer me. Maybe you have not noticed but I would appreciate if you try to answer my questions. I have been practivally chasing you for years

    I that the opinions of the others in this blog about the way you debate and in my case, answer some questions, are not true. But i will be obligated to conclude like them if you dont answer

    Kind Regards

    ReplyDelete
  64. B”H
    Dear Elias Cohen
    Thank you for your comment.

    EC wrote:
    I have been posting questions for you for quite a while now and you never answer me. Maybe you have not noticed but I would appreciate if you try to answer my questions. I have been practivally chasing you for years.

    IB:
    It is strange that you mention “chasing you for years”, and “you never answer me”, since after a quick partial search in my mailbox-out, I counted in the last two years about 55 emails I have sent you answering or commenting on your questions.

    Hasta pronto.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Well, Isaac, considering that Rabbi Slifkin answered/ commented on your questions at least 55 times, and yet you wrote a post entitled "And the Zoo Rabbi didn't answer!", maybe Elias is just copying your way of describing things.

    (Or maybe you did more commenting on Elias' questions than actually answering them.)

    ReplyDelete
  66. B"H
    Mr. Pot
    You missed the main point ("never", "years"), i.e.
    It is strange that you mention “chasing you for years”, and “you never answer me”.

    But no problem, ask NS to answer something very easy:
    Please write the page number of your book where the above mentioned information is found.
    Just a few digits!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dear Dr Betech,

    We could divide my last post into 3 parts:

    1. The questions that I posted that I was interested in you to answer me.

    2. The fact that you have not answer me on this blog after various intents from my part.

    3. Fact that i have been "chasing you for years.

    If we see my post in a holistic way we can apreciate that the whole purpose of my comment is to get an answer on a matter of faith (the shafan and the arnevet), which is something very trascendental for my life.

    Nevertheless you chose to ignore my question once again, by focusing on a secondary thing not to say irrelevant; the phrase "chasing you for years"
    To that you answererd:
    IB:
    It is strange that you mention “chasing you for years”, and “you never answer me”, since after a quick partial search in my mailbox-out, I counted in the last two years about 55 emails I have sent you answering or commenting on your questions.

    I took a while to understand the nature of our dialogue and although it is right that you answered me many times, that is not enough evidence to conclude that I did not chased you in a certain way. When we got into the point that I could not accept the word Garon to be compatible with cacotrophy then you basically stop answering me with the excuse that you are very occupied in the writting of your book, which. It is interesting to notice that during some of the time that you could not answer my emails you were very active at NS blog. Anyhow this is not definitive evidence to conclude that you were escaping from me, all that I am saying is that in a certain way I had to remind you many times to answer me when at the beginning of our conversation you even answered me minutes after that I wrote you. I have noticed that the expresion: chasing you for years it was not the correct one, especially in a public blogpost, since it may lead to think that you were in fact scaping from me and I do not this by a fact. I apologize for that.
    I would also like for you to remember what you wrote to me once:

    IB:
    Dejame decirte, que estoy dispuesto (beli neder) a invertir el tiempo que sea necesario para lograr que un querido hermano Yehudi como tu Eliyahu, reflexione sobre nuestro Judaismo basado en la Tora y de esa manera los conceptos que tocas en este parrafo logren ser reanalisados como lo hicimos aquel fin de semana donde tuve el gusto de conocerte.

    Cada uno de los puntos que mencionas en este parrafo puede ser desdesglosado y trabajado, pero por ahora quiero que solo logres percibir mi buena voluntad de ir contigo del brazo paso a paso, y si gustas, una vez que la parte cientifica de nuestro debate quede concluida, pasamos a la parte filosofica-practica-sentimental del Judaismo que nos une

    I would like to hear from you more often,
    Please answer my posts
    Kind Regards,


    ReplyDelete
  68. B”H
    Dear Elias:

    I accept your apology.

    EC wrote:
    It is interesting to notice that during some of the time that you could not answer my emails you were very active at NS blog.

    IB:
    About 28 months ago, I invited NS to an intellectual, multimedia (sources on screen), respectful, protocolized, neutral, public forum with NS or the representative he will choose, on any scientanific issue relevant to his 5 controversial books.
    NS refused twelve times, nevertheless, what I want to remind you is that I consider that this type of intellectual debates must be done face-to-face in a protocolized way.
    The reason that I was ready to participate in this non-face-to-face comment thread, although no protocolized and in a non-neutral environment as explained, is because NS wrote a full response to my article in Dialogue Magazine #3. He sent this response to Dialogue Magazine, and then published his response on his public forum.
    For the above reasons, I accepted this inadequate way of debating with NS, but now that he clearly wrote that he is going to stop now, I do not consider proper to debate book-length-issues in this kind of forum.
    But anyway, if NS decides to endorse your questions and he is ready to discuss them with me, ask him to publish his endorsement in this forum; I am still willing B”H to continue this interchange with NS immediately after NS will start answering the unanswered questions.

    ReplyDelete
  69. About 28 months ago, I invited NS to an intellectual, multimedia (sources on screen), respectful, protocolized, neutral, public forum with NS or the representative he will choose, on any scientanific issue relevant to his 5 controversial books.
    NS refused twelve times, nevertheless, what I want to remind you is that I consider that this type of intellectual debates must be done face-to-face in a protocolized way.


    You may feel that way, but surely you'll recognize that isn't the way that issues in either science or Torah are discussed and settled, for many obvious reasons. Surely all of the great Torah debates through the ages are not reduced in grandeur because of the participants couldn't face each other with Powerpoint slides!

    Also, R. Slifkin did agree to debate you on your theories of creation as well as your interpretations of Chazal's statements that relate to science. People can find the relevant posts here. Evolution have already been thoroughly discussed and debated, and is one of the basic foundations of biology, so a debate with you on the topic would serve little purpose.

    A debate on your theories would much more fruitful as they are so less widely known and understood.

    The reason that I was ready to participate in this non-face-to-face comment thread, although no protocolized and in a non-neutral environment as explained, is because NS wrote a full response to my article in Dialogue Magazine #3.

    Are you saying that R. Slikin hasn't enabled you to post what you want?

    He sent this response to Dialogue Magazine, and then published his response on his public forum.
    For the above reasons, I accepted this inadequate way of debating with NS, but now that he clearly wrote that he is going to stop now, I do not consider proper to debate book-length-issues in this kind of forum.

    But anyway, if NS decides to endorse your questions and he is ready to discuss them with me, ask him to publish his endorsement in this forum; I am still willing B”H to continue this interchange with NS immediately after NS will start answering the unanswered questions.


    Dr. Betech, in all of the dozens to hundreds of posts, you made only two statements of any substance: 1) There are rabbits today in Egypt, 2) Hyraxes aren't ruminants. #1 is irrelvant, and #2 doesnt't support the Rabbit as it is also not a ruminant. I again suggest that if you have anything of substance to say, that you just say it and not wait for R. Slifkin to explain silly things like why the Torah doesn't have a word for Rabbits when there were no Rabbits around at that time in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  70. in a non-neutral environment as explained

    For the record, I haven't rejected any comments to either post. (And it is not possible to edit them.)

    ReplyDelete
  71. "surely you'll recognize that isn't the way that issues in either science or Torah are discussed and settled"

    David, you are indeed correct. In science, issues are discussed via publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps Dr. Betech could share with us the references to the journals in which his articles refuting evolution appear...

    ReplyDelete
  72. B”H
    Dear David,

    NS wrote you:

    Perhaps Dr. Betech could share with us the references to the journals in which his articles refuting evolution appear...

    IB:
    I have never published in any Journal any article refuting evolution, and I have never claimed that, but since NS claimed that in his published book on the hyrax he wrote the names of zoologists that have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication, perhaps NS could share just the page number in his book.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dear Dr Betech,

    As i have said before I do not want to debate with you, but I just want see if your answer is reasonable. When you first agreed to help me on some matters of faith, begining with the shafan and the arnevet and to answer any question on this matter as i quoted above. I would appreciate if you could answer my questions, you seem to have enough time to discuss extensively with NS and Rab Miller.

    ReplyDelete
  74. B”H
    Dear Elias Cohen:

    I appreciate your honest and kind words.
    I will try to answer you one question in this forum.

    EC wrote (in the other comment thread):
    You said that your explenation matches the explenation the classical rishonim which say that the word "Guera" comes from the word "Garon", throat because in the process of caecotrophy the feces go through the throat indeed.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but since the throat is not a fundamental part of the process of caecotrophy then it would be absurd to entitle the Shafan by the word throat.

    IB:
    Please let me try to understand better your question, before I try to answer it B”H:
    Are you saying that only in caecotrophy the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process, or that also in classic rumination the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process?
    Best regards.

    ReplyDelete

  75. Dear David,

    NS wrote you:

    Perhaps Dr. Betech could share with us the references to the journals in which his articles refuting evolution appear...

    IB:
    I have never published in any Journal any article refuting evolution, and I have never claimed that, but since NS claimed that in his published book on the hyrax he wrote the names of zoologists that have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication, perhaps NS could share just the page number in his book.


    You do claim that evolution is false. R. Slifkin was making a sarcastic statement: if you really had some proof or even evidence, it would be a huge innovation in the scientific world and it could easily be published.

    Anyhow you already have said that you know where the references are, but that you ignored them because he also quotes other authorities who disagree. You can see that is why R. Slifkin doesn't bother to respond.

    The bottom line again is that if you have something to say, then say it. I don't expect to agree with what you say, but when you do make statements of substance, I do understand the disagreement a little better. When you repeatedly ask for page references, I don't learn anything.

    ReplyDelete
  76. B"H
    Dear David Oshie

    DO wrote:
    Anyhow you already have said that you know where the references are...

    IB:
    I did not say that; and NS have not discovered yet the page number on his hyrax book where the name of the two zoologists who said what NS claimed they say.
    I am still waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  77. For the above reasons, I accepted this inadequate way of debating with NS

    No, you didn't. You never agreed to discuss your article (despite claiming in your article that you would gladly do so), and you never responded to the questions that people posed.

    ReplyDelete
  78. B"H
    Dear Natan

    As you can remember my very first intervention in this “moderated” (non-neutral) comment-thread was the following:

    Dear Natan
    Please let me know if you are ready to discuss the contents of your letter.

    Although you initially agreed, now despite a long list of unanswered questions, you again have decided to stop answering my challenges, questions and comments.

    The latter could be summarized in my posts dated:
    February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB)
    February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM
    February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM
    February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM
    February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM
    February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM (first and second part)

    Of course I am ready B”H to discuss with you my Dialogue article, after you answer the unanswered questions.

    Some questions are so easy to answer like writing a page number on your book and the names of the two zoologists who said what you claimed they said.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This xkcd comic about employing depth first search (DFS) when breadth first search (BFS) would be more appropriate is fitting.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Isaac, since your article preceded my letter, and my letter was about your article, why on earth would my letter be discussed BEFORE your article?

    And why would I discuss anything with you, when you consistently lie, refuse to answer directly, waste people's time with references to nothing, and refuse to ever retract claims even when they are proven false beyond all doubt?

    ReplyDelete
  81. B"H
    Dear Natan
    Please give one case where I lied or retract your accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  82. For starters, when you wrote in your article that you would be pleased to respond to readers seeking clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  83. And for seconds, when you said that "rabbits live and have lived in Eretz Yisrael and nearby."

    ReplyDelete
  84. And for thirds, when you said that you would retract in cases when you are proven wrong. See above, re rabbits in Eretz Yisrael.

    ReplyDelete
  85. B"H
    Dear Natan
    Your last three examples are not lies.
    So please prove your accusation or retract.

    ReplyDelete
  86. 1) You never responded to Rabbi Sedley's questions regarding ruach hakodesh (amongst others).

    2) Rabbits do not and have not lived in Eretz Yisrael.

    3) When your alleged evidence for rabbits in Eretz Yisrael was shown to be based on copying errors (and you never even suggested any evidence for them living in Eretz Yisrael today), you refused to retract.

    QED.

    ReplyDelete
  87. B”H
    Dear Natan,
    Since you insist in your false accusation let’s go B”H one by one.

    NS wrote:
    For starters, when you wrote in your article that you would be pleased to respond to readers seeking clarification.

    NS wrote:
    1) You never responded to Rabbi Sedley's questions regarding ruach hakodesh (amongst others).

    IB:
    I am pleased to respond to readers seeking clarification, but I never said that I will respond to every blogger in a non-neutral blogspot.
    If R. Sedley wants, he may send a letter to Dialogue Magazine with all his questions and B”H I will try to answer.
    So I did not lie.


    NS wrote:
    And for seconds, when you said that "rabbits live and have lived in Eretz Yisrael and nearby."

    NS wrote:
    2) Rabbits do not and have not lived in Eretz Yisrael.

    IB:
    First, in your second version you are omitting “and nearby”. Egypt is nearby Eretz Yisrael.
    Second, even regarding Eretz Yisrael, I cited a source with page number, written by a renowned international professor, stating that they found rabbits in excavations in Negev.
    If he made a mistake or not, it is still been checked, since he wrote me an email, stating that he has to check again next week when he will have access to his personal files.
    So I did not lie.

    NS wrote:
    And for thirds, when you said that you would retract in cases when you are proven wrong. See above, re rabbits in Eretz Yisrael.

    NS wrote:
    3) When your alleged evidence for rabbits in Eretz Yisrael was shown to be based on copying errors (and you never even suggested any evidence for them living in Eretz Yisrael today), you refused to retract.

    IB:
    See above.
    So I did not lie.

    Your last three examples are not lies.
    So please prove your accusation or retract.

    ReplyDelete
  88. 1) Rabbi Sedley posted questions on YOUR blog post which you did not respond to.
    I know that in the world of Isaac Betech, words can mean whatever you want them to mean; thus, when Rambam says that the louse "does not give birth to its own kind," this means that the louse DOES give birth to its own kind. And apparently when you say that you are willing to respond to questions, this apparently means only questions that are published in Dialogue. However, for me, words means what everyone else in the world takes them to mean.

    2) First, in your second version you are omitting “and nearby”. Egypt is nearby Eretz Yisrael. Right. But when you said that "rabbits live and have lived in Eretz Yisrael and nearby," this means four things (just as you correctly pointed out when I said the reverse):
    i. rabbits live in Eretz Yisrael
    ii. rabbis have lived in Eretz Yisrael
    iii. rabbits live nearby
    iv. rabbits have lived nearby.
    The first two are false.

    3) You already have all the information that you need to retract your false claim about rabbits in Syria. However, you have not done so.

    ReplyDelete

  89. And by the way, I consider extremely misleading statements to also be a form of falsehood. And I consider your claims about "attending professional conferences on these topics" and "maintaining correspondence with the greatest specialists in the relevant disciplines" to be extremely misleading, and perhaps even outright false. Which professional conferences on Biblical zoology did you attend? Which of the greatest specialists in Biblical zoology did you correspond with?

    ReplyDelete
  90. B"H
    Dear David Oshie

    DO wrote:
    Anyhow you already have said that you know where the references are...

    IB:
    I did not say that; and NS have not discovered yet the page number on his hyrax book where the name of the two zoologists who said what NS claimed they say.
    I am still waiting.


    You said the following:


    MT wrote:
    I do not know why Natan won't answer this question, but he quotes a Dr. Hendrichs in the Hyrax chapter as saying that the Hyrax regurgitates food.

    44.1 IB:
    I do not think that Natan would accept your suggestion regarding Dr. Hendrichs’ statement, because Natan himself in his hyrax book (second edition pages 97-100) cites the experts who question the validity of Dr. Hendrichs’ observation at least three times.


    This indicates that you do know where to find reference to Dr. Hendrichs in the book, but you used the excuse that since R. Slifkin quotes those who argue with Dr. Hendrichs, that you can ignore that reference.

    Again, if you have an argument, then make it. After all this time, I believe you are tapped out and now just engaging somewhat unsuccessfully in rhetoric. Please prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  91. B”H
    Dear Natan

    1.1 As I explained before, blogsposts in general are not an adequate forum for serious, responsible, intellectual discussions. Of course non-neutral “moderated” blogsposts like yours are worse.

    1.2 As an example, you can see that you permitted R. Sedley in your blogspot to attack me, but when I sent an answer to R. Sedley to your moderated blogspot, you did not publish it.
    So, when recently you published in your blogspot that you have not rejected any comment in these comment threads, you lied again.

    1.3 Even in a non-moderated blogspot like mine, people are free to make unsupported statements or false accusations in the comfort of protecting their reputation behind names that may be pseudonymous. An example of this could be R. Sedley and/or Yissacher. When did they give personal information about themselves to check if they are real identities responsible for their irresponsible statements?

    1.4 R. Sedley, when presented with an uncomfortable piece of information, used similar evasive strategies as you.

    1.5 Please read again the comment thread in my blogspot and document a question R. Sedley presented before his unsupported calumny, regarding what I published in my article on Dialogue Magazine that I did not answer.
    In any case, if any of his comments or questions he wrote after his calumny is considered by you as a valuable question, please endorse it and write that you are ready to defend it, and to discus it with me.

    NS wrote:
    i. rabbits live in Eretz Yisrael
    ii. rabbis have lived in Eretz Yisrael
    iii. rabbits live nearby
    iv. rabbits have lived nearby.
    The first two are false.

    IB:
    2.1 In modern Yisrael there are rabbits, if you want, check in pet-stores or in the private houses of rabbit-lovers.

    2.2 Even regarding ancient Eretz Yisrael, I cited a true source with page number, written by a renowned international professor (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~anthro/baryosef/index.html), stating that they found rabbits in excavations in the Negev.
    If he made a mistake or not, it is still been checked, since he wrote me an email, stating that he has to check again next week when he will have access to his personal files.
    So I did not lie.

    NS wrote:
    3) You already have all the information that you need to retract your false claim about rabbits in Syria. However, you have not done so.

    IB:
    3.1 No, you have not provided yet the page number where Moore retracted.
    As long as you do not present the page number, you can not say that you have presented all the information required.
    Please remember that you publicly acknowledged that you deliberately did not give me a requested precise reference.

    And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.

    3.2 Please demonstrate your case regarding rabbits in Syria, and I will admit that the true source I presented originally was retracted by a later source of the same author.

    3.3 Please demonstrate that you did not lie regarding the “two-zoologists-issue”, and I will retract my suspicion that you are lying in this case.

    Please see also the next comment

    ReplyDelete
  92. Please see also the previous comment.

    NS wrote:
    And by the way, I consider extremely misleading statements to also be a form of falsehood. And I consider your claims about "attending professional conferences on these topics" and "maintaining correspondence with the greatest specialists in the relevant disciplines" to be extremely misleading, and perhaps even outright false. Which professional conferences on Biblical zoology did you attend? Which of the greatest specialists in Biblical zoology did you correspond with?

    IB:
    4.1 I never mentioned “Biblical zoology” in the Dialogue Magazine.

    4.2 Have you any proof that I did not attend professional conferences on these topics?
    Otherwise please retract your false accusation.

    4.3 Have you any proof that I did not maintain correspondence with the greatest specialists in the relevant disciplines?
    Otherwise please retract your false accusation.

    IB:
    5.1 We have a sad case where the “rationalist-zoo-rabbi” in his own “rationalist blogspost” instead of intellectually defending his two books on the hyrax, and defending what he wrote in his recent letter to Dialogue Magazine, is just evading and making false accusations against an academic opponent.

    ReplyDelete
  93. As I explained before, blogsposts in general are not an adequate forum for serious, responsible, intellectual discussions.

    So don't write posts on blogs on this topic and comment on other posts. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to write blog posts and start responding to questions, that means that your statement in Dialogue applies to the blogosphere too. Since you did not respond to the very basic questions of R. Sedley and Rafi Miller, this means that your claim in Dialogue was false.

    when I sent an answer to R. Sedley to your moderated blogspot, you did not publish it.

    I did not reject any comments to these posts. It could be that you did not fill in the "captcha" code correctly, or it could be that it went to the spam folder. Please re-send your answer to his question - if you really wrote one, which I doubt.

    In modern Yisrael there are rabbits, if you want, check in pet-stores or in the private houses of rabbit-lovers.

    Incredible. Do you really think that you look good when you attempt to defend your statement in this way? You look like a fraud and a fool.

    No, you have not provided yet the page number where Moore retracted.
    As long as you do not present the page number, you can not say that you have presented all the information required.


    You have all the information required. You know which book it is, and it has an index, as well as the possibility of electronically searching the entire book on Amazon, as I already noted. Yet you chose not to look it up. Hence, you were lying when you said that you are willing to retract when proven wrong.

    4.2 Have you any proof that I did not attend professional conferences on these topics?
    Otherwise please retract your false accusation.


    Name the conferences that you attended.

    4.3 Have you any proof that I did not maintain correspondence with the greatest specialists in the relevant disciplines?
    Otherwise please retract your false accusation.


    Name the specialists that you corresponded with. In any case, since your conclusion goes strongly against the opinions of the greatest specialists in the last century, it is extremely dishonest of you to talk about (allegedly) corresponding with them, giving the impression that they endorse your view, whereas in fact your view is viewed as ridiculous by them!

    making false accusations against an academic opponent.

    It's interesting that you present yourself as operating in the framework of an academic, rather than a religious polemicist. This removes your escape route of claiming that the "experts" you consulted with are people such as R. Amitai ben-David and R. Belsky.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Dr. Betech, you seem to have using different standards for yourself and R. Slifkin. On the one hand you demand from R. Slifkin information that is easily verifiable by you. Otherwise, he is "lying".

    IB:
    3.1 No, you have not provided yet the page number where Moore retracted.
    As long as you do not present the page number, you can not say that you have presented all the information required.
    Please remember that you publicly acknowledged that you deliberately did not give me a requested precise reference.

    And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive
    strategy to cover YOUR lie.

    3.3 Please demonstrate that you did not lie regarding the “two-zoologists-issue”, and I will retract my suspicion that you are lying in this case.


    Then if R. Slifkin questions one of your claims, he is supposed to produce some absolute proof without having any way of doing that. Since you did not specify the conferences or specialists that you spoke to, it is hard to know whether or not the statements are misleading or valuable.


    4.2 Have you any proof that I did not attend professional conferences on these topics?
    Otherwise please retract your false accusation.

    4.3 Have you any proof that I did not maintain correspondence with the greatest specialists in the relevant disciplines?
    Otherwise please retract your false accusation.


    I want to emphasize that I'm not accusing anyone of "lying" and I'm not particularly interested in that topic. I'd prefer to see the discussion go to something substantial.

    ReplyDelete
  95. IB:
    2.1 In modern Yisrael there are rabbits, if you want, check in pet-stores or in the private houses of rabbit-lovers.


    Dr. Betech, rabbits can live in pet stores and homes through the world. Do you think that is in any way relevant to the question of whether or not they lived in Biblical Israel. R. Slifkin's point is quite clear: there is no natural Rabbit habitat in modern Israel which provides some indication as to whether Rabbits lived there in the past. Rabbits in pet stores don't provide evidence of anything.

    Is this really the best you've got? You appear to be grasping at straws.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Dr. Betech, it appears that neither of the two references in Last Hunters, First Farmers provides any evidence that rabbits lived in Biblical Israel.

    Do you now consider that source irrelevant to this discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  97. B”H
    Dear Natan:
    Thank you for your partial answer.

    IB:
    6.1 I would like to remind you that you did not answer the following on my latest post:
    1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 4.1
    Please answer or address them.

    NS wrote:
    … Since you did not respond to the very basic questions of R. Sedley and Rafi Miller, this means that your claim in Dialogue was false.

    IB:
    7.1 Questions on my position regarding the reproductive characteristics of lice, are not related to my Dialogue statement.

    NS wrote:
    I did not reject any comments to these posts. It could be that you did not fill in the "captcha" code correctly, or it could be that it went to the spam folder. Please re-send your answer to his question - if you really wrote one, which I doubt.

    IB:
    8.1 I filled the "captcha" code correctly, and even every-time I send a comment to your moderated blogspot, I check for the following message:
    Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.

    8.2 Your hypothesis of the spam folder, is very weak, since tens of my comments were not in the spam folder.

    8.3 Since I saw that you did not publish it, I sent it again on Jan 31 at 11:17 hrs (Mexico time).

    NS wrote:
    Incredible. Do you really think that you look good when you attempt to defend your statement in this way? You look like a fraud and a fool.

    IB:
    9.1 I just supported what was needed to demonstrate that I did not lie, i.e. that there are rabbits in Israel in present day.
    So please retract your accusation.

    NS wrote:
    You have all the information required. You know which book it is, and it has an index, as well as the possibility of electronically searching the entire book on Amazon, as I already noted. Yet you chose not to look it up. Hence, you were lying when you said that you are willing to retract when proven wrong.

    IB:
    10.1 No, you have not provided yet the page number where Moore retracted.
    As long as you do not present the page number, you can not say that you have presented all the information required.
    Please remember that you publicly acknowledged that you deliberately did not give me a requested precise reference.

    And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.

    10.2 Please demonstrate your case regarding rabbits in Syria, and I will admit that the true source I presented originally was retracted by a later source of the same author.

    Please see also next comment.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Please see also previous comment.

    NS wrote:
    Name the conferences that you attended.

    IB:
    11.1
    Dear Natan, you have to understand the following. If from the very beginning you read what I wrote in Dialogue, you had the right to ask this question. But now, that you stated a false accusation, the onus of the proof is on you.
    Nevertheless, I will give you a hint: You were not there.
    So, have you any proof that I did not attend professional conferences on these topics?
    Otherwise please retract your false accusation.

    NS wrote:
    Name the specialists that you corresponded with…

    IB:
    12.1 Same as above.
    Hint: It is a two digits figure.

    NS wrote:
    It's interesting that you present yourself as operating in the framework of an academic, rather than a religious polemicist. This removes your escape route of claiming that the "experts" you consulted with are people such as R. Amitai ben-David and R. Belsky.

    IB:
    13.1 There is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, about thirty leading Great Talmidei Chachamim already signed letters disqualifying the religious contents of your books.
    On the other hand, meanwhile you have not published letters of support of leading Great Talmidei Chachamim.

    Additionally, there is no need now that I would try to operate as a “religious polemicist”, since as everyone knows, you have publicly acknowledged that you do not believe in a basic Chapter of the written Torah, as you wrote:

    “Sorry to shock you, but I don't believe in a global flood, either!...”
    February 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM

    Now, I am operating in the framework of an academic approach because people probably do not know that even your publications in zoology-related-issues, are not easy to support in light of modern zoology (as written in the front cover of your hyrax book).

    Incidentally, an additional facet is becoming public, that instead of intellectually defending your two books on the hyrax, and defending what you wrote in your recent letter to Dialogue Magazine, you are evading and making false accusations against an academic opponent.

    ReplyDelete
  99. IB:
    8.1 I filled the "captcha" code correctly, and even every-time I send a comment to your moderated blogspot, I check for the following message:
    Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.


    Dr. Betech, it would certainly disturb me if R. Slifkin rejected one of your posts when he claimed not to. While I believe that this resulted from a technical error, if you remain suspicious, may I suggest that you email a copy to R. Slifkin and CC me (davidohsie at gmail dot com). Then you will have a third party to ensure that the post gets posted.

    ReplyDelete
  100. NS wrote:
    Incredible. Do you really think that you look good when you attempt to defend your statement in this way? You look like a fraud and a fool.

    IB:
    9.1 I just supported what was needed to demonstrate that I did not lie, i.e. that there are rabbits in Israel in present day.
    So please retract your accusation.


    Dr Betech, as I stated before, I don't want to get the question of who lied to whom, and I would be happy if both you and R. Slifkin stopped that aspect of the discussion.

    That said, when you say that there are rabbits in Israel today and then explain it as referring to people who have pet rabbits, your argument gets very confusing. What were you trying to prove by your statement. I'll repeat that I'm not saying that you lied or were untruthful, but what did you mean when it seems not have any bearing on the discussion?


    ReplyDelete

  101. IB:
    10.1 No, you have not provided yet the page number where Moore retracted.
    As long as you do not present the page number, you can not say that you have presented all the information required.
    Please remember that you publicly acknowledged that you deliberately did not give me a requested precise reference.


    Dr. Betech, are you saying that you read the paper and did not find the reference?

    Same question on finding the zoologists in R. Slifkin's book: did you look and not find them? If not, then just come out and say that R. Slifkin is wrong because he does not cite the Zoologists in the book as he says he does. Why are you playing the page number game?

    In contrast, you did post page number, but then when I went to look at the page, there was not relevant information and you refuse to clarify.

    ReplyDelete

  102. Isaac, if you maintain that you cannot locate the references to rabbits or hares in a book that has an index and is digitally searchable, then you are dishonest. And if you defend your claim that rabbits live in Israel on the grounds that they are found in pet stores, then you are a joke. Either way, you are not worthy of having a discussion with.

    ReplyDelete
  103. B”H
    Dear David Ohsie,

    DO wrote:
    In contrast, you did post page number, but then when I went to look at the page, there was not relevant information and you refuse to clarify.

    DO wrote:
    OK, following R. Slifkin's pointer I was able to read page 93 on Amazon. It has a one paragraph conclusion that men and womens roles diverged as farming communities were established. It also has some notes including a thank you to the seminar organizer for supplying chocolate chip cookies.

    Dr. Betech, now that I've read that, can you establish what this has to do with your argument?
    February 27, 2013 at 7:11 AM

    IB
    David, did you read the whole “chocolate chip cookies” page, before asking for clarification, or Amazon just showed you a piece of that "chocolate chip cookies” page?

    ReplyDelete
  104. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    Isaac, if you maintain that you cannot locate the references to rabbits or hares in a book that has an index and is digitally searchable, then you are dishonest.

    IB:
    14.1 I did not write that.
    Please read again the following:

    “3.1 No, you have not provided yet the page number where Moore retracted.
    As long as you do not present the page number, you can not say that you have presented all the information required.
    Please remember that you publicly acknowledged that you deliberately did not give me a requested precise reference.

    And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.

    3.2 Please demonstrate your case regarding rabbits in Syria, and I will admit that the true source I presented originally was retracted by a later source of the same author.”


    NS wrote:
    And if you defend your claim that rabbits live in Israel on the grounds that they are found in pet stores, then you are a joke.

    IB:
    15.1 Please read again what I wrote on:
    9.1 I just supported what was needed to demonstrate that I did not lie, i.e. that there are rabbits in Israel in present day.
    So please retract your accusation.

    It was also a refutation to your first mistaken zoological statement we have addressed in these comment threads, that is what you wrote on your letter to Dialogue Magazine:
    “But rabbits do not, and did not, live in Eretz Yisrael or anywhere nearby.”

    NS wrote:
    Either way, you are not worthy of having a discussion with.

    IB:
    16.1 I understand your desire to quit, but please do not quit before you answer the unanswered questions.
    The latter could be summarized in my posts dated:
    February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB)
    February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM
    February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM
    February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM
    February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM
    February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM (first and second part)
    March 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM

    ReplyDelete

  105. So you could indeed find it easily, but you refuse to look for it?

    ReplyDelete
  106. B”H
    Dear Natan,
    NS wrote:
    So you could indeed find it easily, but you refuse to look for it?

    IB:
    17.1 My insistence that you have to provide the source is based on common sense (whoever presents a piece of information, has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it) and in what I wrote above on 7.1 IB

    And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.

    ReplyDelete
  107. The reason why I didn't give the page numbers of the Moore book was to prove that your claims about being interested in finding the truth, and being willing to admit error, were false. You have all the information required to easily find the truth, and yet you are not interested in doing so. All your talk about "who is responsible to give the page number" shows that you are interested only in scoring points, not in actually finding out information.

    ReplyDelete
  108. B”H
    Dear Natan:
    Thank you for your explanation.

    Please write the page number.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Isaac, if you maintain that you cannot locate the references to rabbits or hares in a book that has an index and is digitally searchable, then you are dishonest. If you can find it, but you do not attempt to do so, then your claims about being interested in finding the truth, and being willing to admit error, were false.

    ReplyDelete
  110. B”H
    Dear Natan,
    Do you agree or disagree with the following:

    Whoever presents a piece of information has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it.

    If you disagree, please explain why.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Dear Natan,
    Do you agree or disagree with the following:

    Whoever presents a piece of information has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it.

    If you disagree, please explain why.


    1) If the text is searchable, then I would claim that he gave you a precise reference. Rather than speculate, however, I tried it. See below.

    2) I tried the following:

    a) I googled precisely the reference that R. Slifkin gave. "Lagomorph Remains at Prehistoric Sites in Israel and Southern Sinai".

    b) I chose the first search result.

    c) The second sentence in the abstract which is presented says "Since the Middle Pleistocene the cape hare (Lepus capensis) has been the only species of lagomorph known from this region."

    d) I think that we can say unequivocally that the reference is precise.

    3) Here is an animation that shows how it works: http://bit.ly/Z3KiUq

    4) Dr. Betech, if you are interested in the truth, you have more than enough information to find the reference now.

    ReplyDelete
  112. IB
    David, did you read the whole “chocolate chip cookies” page, before asking for clarification, or Amazon just showed you a piece of that "chocolate chip cookies” page?


    Dr. Betech, I did read the whole page and I just reread the entire page for good measure. I apologize for "chocolate chip cookie" snark. It is quite frustrating to follow up references and find a page that seems not to have to do with the subject and is half filled with acknowledgements.

    Can you now explain the relevance, please?

    ReplyDelete
  113. David - re. your penultimate comment, we are actually discussing a different reference, that of Moore in his book about Syria. The methodology, however, is essentially the same.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "At the time, I was devastated to discover that the Discovery proof didn't work. It was one of the most upsetting realizations of my life!"

    Rabbi Slifkin, if so, it seems that at times you could have been more sensitive and tolerant towards those that don't want to hear what you are arguing for.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Dear Dr Betech,

    Sorry for the delay in answering.
    I pasted your last post for a easier understanding:

    EC wrote (in the other comment thread):
    You said that your explenation matches the explenation the classical rishonim which say that the word "Guera" comes from the word "Garon", throat because in the process of caecotrophy the feces go through the throat indeed.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but since the throat is not a fundamental part of the process of caecotrophy then it would be absurd to entitle the Shafan by the word throat.

    IB:
    Please let me try to understand better your question, before I try to answer it B”H:
    Are you saying that only in caecotrophy the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process, or that also in classic rumination the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process?

    EC 05/03

    Only in caecotrophy

    Kind Regards

    ReplyDelete
  116. Dear Rab Slifkin,

    Even if Dr Betech knows were to find the reference, could you please just say it just to continue the debate? There are people who want to know how this ends..

    Regarding the fact that you supposedly refuted Dr Betech evidence... Dr Betech is right in saying that you saying that you recieved an email from the zoologist retracting it is not enough evidence (even though i do not doubt that it is true), could you present the evidence?

    Kind Regards

    ReplyDelete
  117. Even if Dr Betech knows were to find the reference, could you please just say it just to continue the debate? There are people who want to know how this ends...

    It doesn't end, ever. Betech never, ever concedes to anything, and he
    is not interested in truth, if it goes against his particular religious agenda. I'd rather simply leave it at proving this, by not giving a reference that is extremely easy for him to find.

    Regarding the fact that you supossely refuted Dr Betech evidence... Dr Betech is right in saying that you saying that you recieved an email from the zoologist retracting it is not enough evidence (even though i do not doubt that it is true), could you present the evidence?

    Not sure what you are referring to. Some people think that the
    hyrax regurgitates food, some do not, some are unsure. In any case, it is entirely irrelevant. In my book I took no firm position on whether the hyrax does or does not regurgitate anything. Even if it does not regurgitate anything, and only *appears* to be chewing the cud, that is sufficient reason for it to be described as maaleh gerah, as Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman points out. It certainly doesn't mean that the shafan is not the hyrax!

    ReplyDelete
  118. MichaelJ said...
    "At the time, I was devastated to discover that the Discovery proof didn't work. It was one of the most upsetting realizations of my life!"

    Rabbi Slifkin, if so, it seems that at times you could have been more sensitive and tolerant towards those that don't want to hear what you are arguing for.


    He is quite tolerant. See this post entitled "In Defense of My Opponents": http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/03/in-defense-of-my-opponents-plus.html

    ReplyDelete
  119. Even if Dr Betech knows were to find the reference, could you please just say it just to continue the debate? There are people who want to know how this ends..

    He already gave the reference: It's "Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra". Find it on amazon.com "Click to look inside" the search for "hare" and "rabbit". Try it for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  120. B”H
    Dear Elias,

    EC wrote:
    Only in caecotrophy

    IB:
    Since the oropharynx (throat) and esophagus seem to have only one important function in the body, i.e. to carry food, liquids and saliva from the mouth to the stomach, or vice versa, then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.

    ReplyDelete

  121. B”H
    Dear Elias,

    EC wrote:
    Only in caecotrophy

    IB:
    Since the oropharynx (throat) and esophagus seem to have only one important function in the body, i.e. to carry food, liquids and saliva from the mouth to the stomach, or vice versa, then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.



    For those that associate Gerah with Garon, then Maaleh Gerah means something like "bring up by way of the throat". This doesn't fit caecotrophy any better than eating food does.

    ReplyDelete

  122. David, you are correct, but I'm not sure that you expressed yourself clearly enough for those for whom English is not their mother tongue. I would explain it in different words:

    In caecotrophy, the role of the throat is not any different than the role of the throat in ordinary eating. Hence, there would be no reason for the throat to be mentioned. Since the throat is mentioned, this makes the cacetrophy explanation difficult.

    Furthermore, the Torah refers specifically to it traveling UP the throat. As Rashi explains, it raises the food up and is maikei.

    So there are two distinct textual reasons why the cecotrophy explanation is problematic. That's why I think the Torah is simply doing what it does with dew and the firmament and the kidneys - speaking according to popular perception, which in the case of the hare was based on how it chews. Cecotrophy is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  123. B”H

    For those that associate Gerah with Garon, then Maaleh Gerah means something like "bring up by way of the throat". This doesn't fit caecotrophy any better than eating food does.

    IB:
    a) Caecotrophy is not against all classical interpretations of ma’aleh gerah, since the re-ingested soft pellets also go through the throat.

    b) Rashi:
    מעלת גרה: מעלה ומקיאה האוכל ממעיה ומחזרת אותו לתוך פיה

    “Umekia” does not necessarily mean “bring up”.
    Please see Baba Batra 22a and Taanit 22b where “meki” is through the anus, i.e. “bring down”.

    ReplyDelete
  124. “Umekia” does not necessarily mean “bring up”. But you are ignoring the first word in Rashi, and its placement. Maalehu'meykiah most certainly does mean bring up!

    ReplyDelete
  125. B”H
    Dear Natan,
    Good to know that you are ready again to interchange ideas with me, this make me hopeful that someday you will answer all the unanswered questions.

    NS wrote:
    “Umekia” does not necessarily mean “bring up”. But you are ignoring the first word in Rashi, and its placement. Maaleh u'meykiah most certainly does mean bring up!

    IB:
    Even the syntax in Rashi’s description (“maala umekia”) is compatible also with caecotrophy, since in rabbits, the partially fermented food of the cecum “ascends” through the ascending colon, then it is excreted from their inners.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Ah yes, that must have been what Rashi meant, the ascending colon.

    Thanks for giving me my daily laugh!

    ReplyDelete
  127. B”H
    Dear Natan

    You wrote in your letter to Dialogue:
    “With the hare and rabbit, interpreting ma’aleh gerah as caecotrophy requires going against all classical interpretations of ma’aleh gerah.”

    IB:
    It does not go against all classical interpretations; it is compatible even with Rashi.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Only in the Weird World of Isaac Betech. Everyone else would think that you're a complete fruitcake for suggesting that Rashi is talking about it ascending in the colon. I look forward to your printing it in Dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  129. B”H
    Dear Natan

    IB:
    18.1
    You do not have to wait.
    Just write here why caecotrophy is incompatible with Rashi.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Isaac, do you think that Rashi was aware of caecotrophy?

    ReplyDelete
  131. B”H
    Dear Natan

    IB:
    18.1
    You do not have to wait.
    Just write here why caecotrophy is incompatible with Rashi.


    Dr. Betech, your methodology is wrong. The questions is not what explanations could conceivably fit into the words through reinterpretation of those words, but rather what explanations fit best.

    But it is worse than that. If Rashi is really referring to caecotrophy, then where does he refer to rumination? If bringing up is referring to the colon, then it is not referring to rumination. To say that he confusingly refers to two different phenomena with the same language with no explanation is by itself difficult. When you add that to the fact that second match is extremely poor and requires a lot of explanation, then you really are implicating Rashi's skill in explaining himself.

    Still waiting on the explanation for the reference from "Last Hunters, First Farmers".

    ReplyDelete
  132. Dear Dr Betech,

    Thank you for your answer.

    IB:
    Since the oropharynx (throat) and esophagus seem to have only one important function in the body, i.e. to carry food, liquids and saliva from the mouth to the stomach, or vice versa, then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.

    EC
    Correct me if I am wrong, but since the throat is not a fundamental part of the process of caecotrophy then it would be absurd to entitle the Shafan and Arnevet with the word throat.

    This fallacy, would be similar to entitle the movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as: "The Palace" only because at the beginning of the movie there is 3 second camara shot of a palace.

    Not even to mention that your answer was very complex by itself before the "Garon" came up... the rabbit "CIRCUMSTANCIALY hides under rock"... also elephantS could hide under rocks if necesary but a 5 year old would never use that nonsense analogy to describe an elephant ad cama becama that David Hamelech would not say such a thing not even to mention that he was experiencing a divine influx while writting the Tehilim.

    Not to mention that from the fact that David Hamelech always mentioned animals living in Israel (whales live in the mediterranean sea)it seems more plausible that when he mentioned the Shafan and the Arnevet he was refering to animals that actually live in Israel (not in pet stores)

    I think it is worth to notice that it is not enough to just give a possible answer, we need a plausible one.

    IB:
    18.1
    You do not have to wait.
    Just write here why caecotrophy is incompatible with Rashi.

    EC

    To begin with we, are not looking for an absolute conclusion of what Rashi meant, because such a thing does not exist, but we are looking for what most probably Rashi meant. The same logic that applied before in reference to garon ( that it is not relevant to caecotrophy) applies here to the word umaaleh in Rashi´s comentary, since the process of ascending through the colon is not stellar to the process of caecotrophy then it is foolish to think that Rashi was refering to that. The same example of SnowWhite can be applied here if it is not sufficiently clear.

    Not even to mention that you said in your Discovery Seminary where you "Prove the Divinity of the Torah Scientifically" that one of the requirements for scientific scrutinity is that the statements of the torah could be denied, otherwise the author took no risk and there is no reason to believe in its divinity. From the way that you are twisting the words of Rashi, the words of the Torah( Guera, Garon), The words of David Hamelech (he mentioned just animals found in Israel), the words of David qualifing the Shafan as hiding under the rocks, the words of chachamim (peria u rebia), the definition of life ( regarding the way you interpreted JAI, that being, that since this cretures depend on human hair they are not considered JAI), when you said that you did not lie because rabbits are found in pet stores. There appears to be a direct contradiction between the scientific scrutinity and the way you interpret the words of the Torah. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Finally not only that your answers do not appear satisfactory at a atomistic level but they appear to be ridiculous at an holistic level. Please think this through and honestly answer what you can.

    Kind Regards

    ReplyDelete
  133. B”H
    Dear Elias Cohen

    You are free on making any digression you want, but I do not have to follow you on your digressions.

    Let’s see what our subject was.

    EC wrote:
    You said that your explenation matches the explenation the classical rishonim which say that the word "Guera" comes from the word "Garon", throat because in the process of caecotrophy the feces go through the throat indeed.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but since the throat is not a fundamental part of the process of caecotrophy then it would be absurd to entitle the Shafan by the word throat.

    IB wrote:
    …I will try to answer you one question in this forum.

    IB wrote:
    Please let me try to understand better your question, before I try to answer it B”H:
    Are you saying that only in caecotrophy the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process, or that also in classic rumination the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process?

    EC 05/03
    Only in caecotrophy

    IB wrote:
    Since the oropharynx (throat) and esophagus seem to have only one important function in the body, i.e. to carry food, liquids and saliva from the mouth to the stomach, or vice versa, then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.

    IB:
    I do not see in your long comment where do you address the main point of my answer, i.e.
    …then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.

    If you think that the throat has any additional function in classic rumination than in caecotrophy please explain.

    ReplyDelete
  134. B”H
    Dear David Ohsie,

    I accept your apology.

    DO wrote:
    Can you now explain the relevance, please?

    IB:
    Lines 16, 17 and 18 on that page.

    ReplyDelete
  135. If the rabbit is jumping at the time it is practising caecotrophy then we can say that the food is going up in its throat.
    This fits in great with rashi.
    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  136. As someone who is on the fence about many issues of belief I have to say that Dr Betech's replies only harms my belief that much more more.

    Pet Stores? Wow.

    Nothing drives me further from religion than those that hide the truth.
    If religion means ignoring the truth then I want no part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  137. B”H
    Dear David Oshie

    DO wrote:
    Dr. Betech, your methodology is wrong…

    IB:
    Let NS publish that he endorses your latest post, and that he is ready to defend it.

    ReplyDelete

  138. DO wrote:
    Can you now explain the relevance, please?

    IB:
    Lines 16, 17 and 18 on that page.


    I read all lines on the page. Please explain the relevance.

    It would be good to quote the sentence if needed for context as amazon is no longer showing me that page.

    ReplyDelete
  139. IB:
    I do not see in your long comment where do you address the main point of my answer, i.e.
    …then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.

    If you think that the throat has any additional function in classic rumination than in caecotrophy please explain.


    The words are Maaleh Gerah, not Gerah. Rumination involves, in part, bringing up food (Maaleh) via the throat (Gerah if you interpret Gerah as related to Garon). Caecotrophy doesn't. According to your interpretation, any animal that eats food from the ground from the ground could be Maaleh Gerah, since the food first has been raised off the ground (Maaleh) and then passes through the throat (Gerah).

    ReplyDelete
  140. B”H
    Dear David Ohsie,

    DO wrote:
    Dr. Betech, I did read the whole page and I just reread the entire page for good measure.

    DO wrote:
    It would be good to quote the sentence if needed for context as amazon is no longer showing me that page.

    IB:
    Sorry that you do not have it anymore.
    By the way, I wrote you the page number and the line number, now you are suggesting me “to quote the sentence if needed for context…”, nevertheless NS has not provided even the required page number in his book regarding the names of the “two zoologist issue” and you have not suggested him “to quote the sentence if needed for context”?

    ReplyDelete
  141. B”H
    Dear David Ohsie,

    DO wrote:
    The words are Maaleh Gerah, not Gerah. Rumination involves…

    IB
    Of course I am still waiting the answer of EC, this question was directed to him.

    Dear David, have you read the Dialogue article in question, pages 111-116?

    You, and others, seemingly forgot that my case is explained in the Dialogue article, and here I am just answering Slifkin’s specific questions he published in his response to Dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Dear David, have you read the Dialogue article in question, pages 111-116?

    I have not. I have asked a friend who was sent the first two issues to let me know if he receives the third.

    Is it available online?

    ReplyDelete
  143. IB:
    "By the way, I wrote you the page number and the line number, now you are suggesting me “to quote the sentence if needed for context…”, nevertheless NS has not provided even the required page number in his book"

    The difference is that Rabbi Slikfin has provided a description of the content that is to be found in the book. (And isn't providing the specific page numbers because you are playing games, repeatedly making others jump through hoops while you feign lack of knowledge.) Whereas you give page numbers of sometimes inaccessible books while deliberately withholding the description of the content to be found on that page, and why it is relevant.

    Because it is another one of your debating tactics, making your debating opponents do the legwork and, until they respond, using the ambiguity to implicitly and explicitly suggest that the utter refutation lies in this scholarly work. Whereas if you simply presented your argument, everyone could instantly evaluate it and weigh your interpretation of the source vs. that of your opponent.

    David Ohsie:
    I know why IB thinks it is relevant. Also, why I think it is not relevant. I am not going to make his case for him, because that is his job, and people should just ignore him when he engages in this oppressive game. But if you are curious, email me, rather than go through several fruitless rounds with him.

    kol tuv,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  144. DO wrote:
    Can you now explain the relevance, please?

    IB:
    Lines 16, 17 and 18 on that page.


    OK, I got those lines. Here they are:

    "We are grateful to Anna Belfer-Cohen and Eitan Tchernov (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) for numerous discussions on the topics presented in the paper."

    Now, can you explain the relevance?

    ReplyDelete
  145. Dear Dr Betech

    B”H
    Dear Elias Cohen

    You are free on making any digression you want, but I do not have to follow you on your digressions.

    EC 07/03
    I would not consider my long comentary a digression but the opposite, putting your answer on the right context so that we do not analize your answer in just an atomistic way but also in an holistic way

    IB
    Let’s see what our subject was.

    EC wrote:
    You said that your explenation matches the explenation the classical rishonim which say that the word "Guera" comes from the word "Garon", throat because in the process of caecotrophy the feces go through the throat indeed.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but since the throat is not a fundamental part of the process of caecotrophy then it would be absurd to entitle the Shafan by the word throat.

    IB wrote:
    …I will try to answer you one question in this forum.

    IB wrote:
    Please let me try to understand better your question, before I try to answer it B”H:
    Are you saying that only in caecotrophy the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process, or that also in classic rumination the word “throat” is not related to a fundamental part of the process?



    EC 05/03
    Only in caecotrophy

    IB wrote:
    Since the oropharynx (throat) and esophagus seem to have only one important function in the body, i.e. to carry food, liquids and saliva from the mouth to the stomach, or vice versa, then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.

    EC 07/03
    Correct me if I am wrong, but since the throat does not have a stellar roll at the caecotrophy process then it would be foolish for the author to entittle caecotrophy with the word "Guera", lefi the rishonim that you cited, guera means: Throat. Since we are assuming that god wrote the Torah then this explenation is a fallacy.

    From the fact that the book that God wrote is called "Torah", teaching, then we know that god follows this logic. Not that this example was necessary...



    IB:
    I do not see in your long comment where do you address the main point of my answer, i.e.
    …then the role of the throat in classic rumination and in caecotrophy is equally relevant in both.

    If you think that the throat has any additional function in classic rumination than in caecotrophy please explain.

    EC 07/03
    In classic rumination the cud goes from the stomach through the throat to the mouth, this is an unusual way of digesting food, therefore it is logical to enphasize the throat.
    On the other hand in caecotrophy the throat is as relevant as any other part of the digestive system, therefore it is ilogical to emphasize it. That is the aditional function of the throat in the clasical rumination process

    Kind Regards

    ReplyDelete
  146. in light of the above discussion...

    please see my recent post, in which i offer another, more plausible way in which the rabbit can be described as a מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה.

    ;)

    kt,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  147. B”H
    Dear Elias Cohen

    EC wrote: 07/03
    In classic rumination the cud goes from the stomach through the throat to the mouth, this is an unusual way of digesting food, therefore it is logical to enphasize the throat.
    On the other hand in caecotrophy the throat is as relevant as any other part of the digestive system, therefore it is ilogical to emphasize it. That is the aditional function of the throat in the clasical rumination process

    IB:
    In caecotrophy the caecotrophs go regularly from the anus through the mouth through the throat, this is an unusual way of digesting food, therefore it is logical to emphasize the throat.
    Both classic rumination and caecotrophy are imperative nutritional strategies and in both, the oropharynx (throat) does not secrete digestive enzymes or absorbs nutrients, they are just transit organs.
    So there is no relative preponderance on the physiology of the throat in one over the other.
    Shabbat Sha-lom

    ReplyDelete
  148. Makes no sense, as usual. In classical rumination, the food travels through the throat in an unusual direction. So of course this is how the process is described, due to the novelty of that aspect. But in cecotrophy, there is nothing unusual about the stage of their passing through the throat. What is unusual is their being ingested from the anus, which is therefore how the process would be described.

    Anyway, I don't even know why I am bothering to respond to someone who claims that Rashi is talking about the food ascending through the colon. You might as well go with R. Waxman's facetious suggestion.

    ReplyDelete
  149. B”H
    Dear David Oshie

    DO wrote:
    OK, I got those lines. Here they are:

    "We are grateful to Anna Belfer-Cohen and Eitan Tchernov (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) for numerous discussions on the topics presented in the paper."

    Now, can you explain the relevance?

    IB:
    So we see that when Bar-Yosef wrote “rabbits” in that paper, besides Tchernov 1993, he had an additional source of information, that is “personal communication” with Tchernov himself.


    IB:
    In the same comment you are answering, there is an additional comment you ignored, I would like to read your answer to it.
    I copy it again:

    “By the way, I wrote you the page number and the line number, now you are suggesting me “to quote the sentence if needed for context…”, nevertheless NS has not provided even the required page number in his book regarding the names of the “two zoologist issue” and you have not suggested him “to quote the sentence if needed for context”?”

    Shabbat Sha-lom

    ReplyDelete
  150. Hey, according to Betech's definition, hyraxes are maaleh gerah also! After all, he writes that gerah can refer to food that has been softened in the stomach, and maaleh can mean excrete, or bring up through the ascending colon. And that's what hyraxes do - they excrete food that they've eaten! Of course, they don't reingest it, but according to Betech, the Torah doesn't say anything about that!

    ReplyDelete
  151. So we see that when Bar-Yosef wrote “rabbits” in that paper, besides Tchernov 1993, he had an additional source of information, that is “personal communication” with Tchernov himself.

    LOL. First of all, why couldn't you just say that in the first place? (Of course, you will refuse to answer that question.) Second, what on earth are you proposing - that Tchernov is a source for rabbits in Israel, even though he writes explicitly later that the hare is the only indigenous lagomorph? You are proposing that he carefully inspected Bar Yosef's paper, approved the passing reference to rabbits, and that overrides his own paper specifically stating that there never were rabbits in Israel? And you think that's more authoritative and likely than saying that he simply didn't know or notice that Bar-Yosef had written rabbits instead of hares? And you think that Tchernov's own paper explicitly discussing this very topic should not be taken as representing his position?!

    Has it ever occurred to you that you are making a complete fool out of yourself? There's not a single person here who is impressed with anything you have written. Quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  152. B”H
    Dear Natan

    IB
    19.1
    You are ignoring the main point, i.e. that we are showing that equally classic rumination and caecotrophy are compatible with both the biblical term “maale gera” and the way classical interpretations described it.
    If you think they are incompatible please explain why.

    ReplyDelete
  153. We appear to have different definitions of the term "compatible." You appear to think that the statement "2+2=5" is a truthful statement, if "five" is SwahiliTimbuktuese for "green" and 2+2 is Bolivian for "lettuce."

    ReplyDelete
  154. B”H
    Dear Natan

    NS wrote:
    Hey, according to Betech's definition, hyraxes are maaleh gerah also! After all, he writes that gerah can refer to food that has been softened in the stomach, and maaleh can mean excrete, or bring up through the ascending colon. And that's what hyraxes do - they excrete food that they've eaten! Of course, they don't reingest it, but according to Betech, the Torah doesn't say anything about that!

    IB
    20.1
    Here is my definition of maale gera:
    An animal is called “maaleh gerah” when it redigests its own partially digested meals. This process must be practiced regu¬larly and must be nutritionally imperative (as is the case with all the 13 animals which the Torah explicitly calls “maaleh gerah” i.e. animals practicing classic rumination or animals practicing cecotrophy ).
    Additionally, such an animal must have the external feature of chewing with lateral movements (ectental) (as is the case with all the 13 animals which the Torah explicitly calls “maaleh gerah”).
    It is interesting to note that both the latter characteristics together increase the efficient utilization of available food.

    Dear Natan
    Please tell me where you wrote in your book your definition of maale gera?

    ReplyDelete
  155. B”H
    Dear Natan

    NS wrote:
    We appear to have different definitions of the term "compatible." You appear to think that the statement "2+2=5" is a truthful statement, if "five" is SwahiliTimbuktuese for "green" and 2+2 is Bolivian for "lettuce."

    IB
    21.1
    Could you please give me your definition of “compatible”?

    ReplyDelete
  156. DO wrote:
    OK, I got those lines. Here they are:

    "We are grateful to Anna Belfer-Cohen and Eitan Tchernov (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) for numerous discussions on the topics presented in the paper."

    Now, can you explain the relevance?

    IB:
    So we see that when Bar-Yosef wrote “rabbits” in that paper, besides Tchernov 1993, he had an additional source of information, that is “personal communication” with Tchernov himself.


    First off, an acknowledgement is not a reference. If you are referencing "Personal Communication" a source of information in a paper, then you mark it as an explicit reference inline. See for example, here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/11/.

    Secondly, if they are basing their information about rabbits Tchernov, then this book adds no information beyond watch Tchernov has discovered. And we can just go directly to Tchernov, who says there were no rabbits. The fact that Tchernov is a helpful person who may speak to many colleagues about their papers doesn't prove anything about rabbits in Israel.

    Do you agree that we can strike this book off of your list of sources now?

    ReplyDelete
  157. IB:
    In the same comment you are answering, there is an additional comment you ignored, I would like to read your answer to it.
    I copy it again:

    “By the way, I wrote you the page number and the line number, now you are suggesting me “to quote the sentence if needed for context…”, nevertheless NS has not provided even the required page number in his book regarding the names of the “two zoologist issue” and you have not suggested him “to quote the sentence if needed for context”?”


    I read the precise reference and could not understand what you meant. Your point was quite obscure. Therefore I asked for clarification. In point of fact, R. Slifkin helped me find your reference.

    R. Slifkin has said that he quotes zoologists in the hyrax chapter of his book. You admitted finding at least one of the references. Are you saying that you looked at chapter and could not find what you were looking for?

    He also mentioned references in "Village on the Euphrates: From Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra" that were easy for me to find. Have you not been able to find them?

    Finally, R. Waxman's point is true: R. Slifkin provides an argument and supplies a reference; you point vaguely to a reference with no explanation and no argument and then it often turns out that there is no point.

    Here is what you should have said:

    "The authors thank Tchernov for helpful conversations in the Notes section. Therefore Tchernov must have told them that their reference to Rabbits was correct."

    Shabbat Sha-lom

    Umevorach

    ReplyDelete
  158. Here is what you should have said:

    "The authors thank Tchernov for helpful conversations in the Notes section. Therefore Tchernov must have told them that their reference to Rabbits was correct."


    And there lies the explanation as to why Betech didn't explain what he wanted us to look at, and wouldn't give anything more than a page number. Because spelling it out shows how ridiculous it is! He hides behind references that don't actually show anything.

    ReplyDelete
  159. IB
    20.1
    Here is my definition of maale gera:


    You can make up whatever you want, but what is your source for saying that this is the definition?

    An animal is called “maaleh gerah” when it redigests its own partially digested meals.

    Where do you get the part about "redigesting" from, if maaleh gerah can mean nothing more than excreting digested food?

    ReplyDelete
  160. IB
    21.1
    Could you please give me your definition of “compatible”?


    "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." ;-)

    But seriously, do you think that the discussion can possibly proceed profitably along these lines?

    Just make your best argument, Dr. Betech and the truth will come out one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  161. "IB
    19.1
    You are ignoring the main point, i.e. that we are showing that equally classic rumination and caecotrophy are compatible with both the biblical term “maale gera” and the way classical interpretations described it.
    If you think they are incompatible please explain why."

    In a nutshell, none of your expanded definition of Maaleh Gerah is compelled by your sources. All the sources are completely compatible Maaleh Gerah meaning ruminants alone. No one looking at Rashi, for example, ever said "I wonder what Rashi meant. He must have meant ruminats + something else". They instead would have immediately surmised that he referred to ruminants. You are pushing your interpretation into the sources to fit your rabbit theory rather than the other way around. Frankly, psuedo-rumination of the hyrax fits the Maaleh Gerah description must better than caecotrophy, quite apart from the evidence from Nach that R. Slifkin brings. In other words, the only "problem" with the hyrax is that is not a ruminant, but neither is the rabbit, so you gain nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  162. B”H
    Dear Elias Cohen

    EC wrote: 07/03
    In classic rumination the cud goes from the stomach through the throat to the mouth, this is an unusual way of digesting food, therefore it is logical to enphasize the throat.
    On the other hand in caecotrophy the throat is as relevant as any other part of the digestive system, therefore it is ilogical to emphasize it. That is the aditional function of the throat in the clasical rumination process

    IB:
    In caecotrophy the caecotrophs go regularly from the anus through the mouth through the throat, this is an unusual way of digesting food,

    EC:
    The throat does not participate in any unusual way in the caecotrophy process as for example the anus does. The same way it goes through the throat it goes through the stomach, intestines, etc. Therefore the throat is irrelevant to the caecotrophy process


    IB
    therefore it is logical to emphasize the throat.

    EC
    See above

    IB

    Both classic rumination and caecotrophy are imperative nutritional strategies and in both, the oropharynx (throat) does not secrete digestive enzymes or absorbs nutrients, they are just transit organs.
    So there is no relative preponderance on the physiology of the throat in one over the other

    EC
    Even though in caecotrophy as well as in classic rumanation the throat acts as a transit organ, in classic rumination the cud goes UP THROUGH THE THROAT this is an irregular type of digestion since the food ussualy goes down through the throat, therefore the throat DOES participate in a irregularity which could be enphasized by god. On the other hand it seems that in classic rumination the throat does not participate in any irregular form. Unless you can bring to the table any irregularity the throat participates in caecotrophy then your answer is unacceptable.

    Shabua Tov

    ReplyDelete
  163. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    My latest questions that you have not answered are:

    IB: 17.1 My insistence that you have to provide the source is based on common sense (whoever presents a piece of information, has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it) and in what I wrote above on 7.1 IB

    And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie.


    IB: Do you agree or disagree with the following:
    Whoever presents a piece of information has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it.
    If you disagree, please explain why.

    IB 19.1 … If you think they are incompatible please explain why.

    IB 20.1 ... Please tell me where you wrote in your book your definition of maale gera?

    IB 21.1 Could you please give me your definition of “compatible”?


    Are you planning to answer the unanswered questions?

    The latter could be summarized in my posts dated:

    February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB)
    February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM
    February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM
    February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM
    February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM
    February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM (first and second part)
    March 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM (first and second part)
    March 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM
    March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM
    March 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM
    March 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM
    March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM

    Dear Natan:
    Are you planning to answer all the unanswered questions?

    ReplyDelete
  164. B"H:

    Dear Natan,

    You still haven't answered my questions in my blogspot dated <a href="http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2013/01/where-are-pandas-penguins-and-polar.html?showComment=1361929941836#c3959602371925051562</a>February 27, 2013 at 3:52 AM</i>.

    1.1 JW: please provide the name of the person who sent you the copy of this paper, as well as a scan of the postmark.

    1.2 JW: See IB's comment at January 29, 2013 at 8:11 PM, where he brings it as evidence for rabbits in the "Negev", not Nevev! Do you retract your false accusation?

    Are you planning to answer all the unanswered questions?

    ReplyDelete
  165. IB: 17.1 My insistence that you have to provide the source is based on common sense (whoever presents a piece of information, has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it) and in what I wrote above on 7.1 IB

    And specially now, when you are still refusing to give the page number on your book where the names of the two zoologists that said what you claim they said are written, seems to be another evasive strategy to cover YOUR lie


    R. Slifkin has already given references more precise than yours including showing me how to find your references. And you admitted finding the information in his book based on his references.

    Please describe which reference you followed and then were unable find the information.

    IB: Do you agree or disagree with the following:
    Whoever presents a piece of information has the responsibility to give the complete and precise reference to it.
    If you disagree, please explain why.


    He has done so. Why have you not done so?

    ReplyDelete
  166. Are you planning to answer the unanswered questions?

    The latter could be summarized in my posts dated:

    February 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM (20.1 IB)
    February 2, 2013 at 1:44 AM
    February 5, 2013 at 1:07 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:24 AM (first and second part)
    February 11, 2013 at 8:27 PM
    February 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM
    February 14, 2013 at 7:20 PM
    February 18, 2013 at 7:52 PM (first and second part)
    March 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM (first and second part)
    March 4, 2013 at 7:46 PM
    March 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM
    March 8, 2013 at 5:22 PM
    March 8, 2013 at 5:28 PM
    March 8, 2013 at 5:33 PM


    Dr. Betech, this is not a summary, it is a list of references.

    Could you summarize your response to R. Slifkin's letter, if you have one? I think that continued discussion on questions like "what does compatible mean?" are unlikely to be enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Comment submitted by Dr. Betech to the wrong post:

    B”H

    Dear Natan,
    Since you did not answer my latest comment in this comment thread, I wrote the following:
    http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.mx/2013/03/bh-lacking-in-derech-eretz-and-in.html

    Nevertheless, I am still willing B”H to continue this interchange with Natan Slifkin (the author of the letter to Dialogue Magazine) immediately after he publishes the names of “the two zoologist appearing in his book” and answers the unanswered questions.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Dear Dr Betech,

    I posted this comment on saturday I guess you have been busy, I hope you can answer

    EC wrote: 07/03
    In classic rumination the cud goes from the stomach through the throat to the mouth, this is an unusual way of digesting food, therefore it is logical to enphasize the throat.
    On the other hand in caecotrophy the throat is as relevant as any other part of the digestive system, therefore it is ilogical to emphasize it. That is the aditional function of the throat in the clasical rumination process

    IB:
    In caecotrophy the caecotrophs go regularly from the anus through the mouth through the throat, this is an unusual way of digesting food,

    EC 13/03:
    The throat does not participate in any unusual way in the caecotrophy process as for example the anus does. The same way it goes through the throat it goes through the stomach, intestines, etc. Therefore the throat is irrelevant to the caecotrophy process


    IB
    therefore it is logical to emphasize the throat.

    EC
    See above

    IB

    Both classic rumination and caecotrophy are imperative nutritional strategies and in both, the oropharynx (throat) does not secrete digestive enzymes or absorbs nutrients, they are just transit organs.
    So there is no relative preponderance on the physiology of the throat in one over the other

    EC 13/03
    Even though in caecotrophy as well as in classic rumanation the throat acts as a transit organ, in classic rumination the cud goes UP THROUGH THE THROAT this is an irregular type of digestion since the food ussualy goes down through the throat, therefore the throat DOES participate in a irregularity which could be enphasized by god. On the other hand it seems that in classic rumination the throat does not participate in any irregular form. Unless you can bring to the table any irregularity the throat participates in caecotrophy then your answer is unacceptable.

    Shabua Tov

    ReplyDelete
  169. Natan,

    How about this:

    You will tell Dr. Betech where in your book is the reference to the zoologists in return that he answer one of your questions. Deal?

    Don't just say that he is stonewalling; you be the Vatran here and spell it out already!

    ReplyDelete
  170. pope francis:

    perhaps you have not been following these threads closely enough, to make such a suggestion.

    You will tell Dr. Betech where in your book is the reference to the zoologists in return that he answer one of your questions. Deal?

    Dr. Betech knows full where where the zoologists are mentioned. Betech is lying when he says he is notable to find them. And this is part of his overall "tactics".

    As proof of this, Dr. Betech first claimed that he could not find the two zoologists:

    You claimed in this comment thread that in your published book on the hyrax you wrote the names of zoologists that have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication.

    I could not find them.

    Could you please share just the page number in your book or admit your mistake and/or your lie?


    and then, when one of the two zoologists from the book were mentioned, Dr. Betech's response was:

    44.1 IB:
    I do not think that Natan would accept your suggestion regarding Dr. Hendrichs’ statement, because Natan himself in his hyrax book (second edition pages 97-100) cites the experts who question the validity of Dr. Hendrichs’ observation at least three times.


    This exchange is extremely telling. In other words, Dr. Betech knows full well where the zoologists are mentioned, but has a series of objections, and so he Dr. Betech is lying, and to pretend that they are not mentioned, and that Rabbi Slifkin is lying.

    Rabbi Slifkin explained why he wasn't listing the zoologists in this comment.

    at some point, one has to say "enough" to the nudniks.

    after the above exchange, do you really suspect that it is Rabbi Slifkin who is lying, rather than Dr. Betecch, and that two zoologists are not mentioned?

    pope francis, you may think that you are making shalom or being reasonable in your suggestion. but really you are bolstering the position of a liar (Dr. Betech). would he "answer" one of Rabbi Slikfin's questions? sure, with another question and homework assignment.

    and so long as Dr. Betech can produce 'questions', he can assert that Rabbi Slifkin has not answered them and so has not proved his case.

    as another example, Dr. Betech proposed an insane reinterpretation of Rashi's words worthy of a rabid chipmunk. when challenged that this was not compatible with Rashi's words, his response was that Rabbi Slifkin had to define "compatible". i'm sure that until he does, Dr. Betech will be able to assert that Rabbi Slifkin "lied" by asserting that the suggestion was not compatible. and so, now he believes that he has answered any objection, and that the ball is in Rabbi Slifkin's court. that is a ridiculous belief.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Here is just one of the many reasons why R Natan should not carry on the debate with Dr Betech.

    Let me just summarise one point in the debate:

    ...
    1) RNS: You (IB) are lying when you said that Rabbits exist in Israel (and thus proving that the Torah could have been talking about rabbits in Israel).
    2) IB: I am not lying because Rabbits do exist in pet stores in Israel.

    That kind of above point is ridiculous and does not contribute to an honest debate.

    An analogous point being: Dogs once existed in space becasue the russian dog Laika once orbited the earth in a space.

    This and many other points like it is why debating Dr Betech is a waste of time.
    What gets me is that Dr Betech doesn't even seem to recognise that the above argument is just plain stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  172. B”H
    Dear Josh Waxman

    JW wrote:
    …Betech is lying when he says he is notable to find them…

    IB:
    As per your suggestion let´s suppose for a moment that Heindrich is one of the two zoologists named in the hyrax book who have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication, according to you which is the name of the second zoologist named in the hyrax book who have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication?

    ReplyDelete
  173. JW wrote:
    …Betech is lying when he says he is notable to find them…

    IB:
    As per your suggestion let´s suppose for a moment that Heindrich is one of the two zoologists named in the hyrax book who have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication,


    We don't need to "suppose" anything. You either found the references or you didn't.

    Which are you claiming?

    a) Dr. Betech could find no references.
    b) Dr. Betech could only find one of two references.
    c) Dr. Betech found two references.

    If you'll state what you found, I'm sure that someone will come along and correct any mistakes that you might have made.

    You accused someone of lying: what is your basis?

    ReplyDelete
  174. B”H
    Dear David Ohsie

    DO wrote:
    …You accused someone of lying: what is your basis?

    IB:
    I will copy again what I previously wrote to NS:

    IB:
    As explained above, I looked in your book for those sources you said are in your book (February 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM), and they were not found in your book (February 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM).

    When requested, instead of writing the correct page number of your book, or simply apologizing for the mistake, you wrote what you wrote...

    So, unless you clearly specify the page number where the information you said was in your book is indeed found, we have a sad case of an explicit lie.

    IB:
    Dear David or Josh or Natan or any reader,
    Please write the names (and page number) of the two zoologists named in the hyrax book who have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Dr. Betech wrote:

    As explained above, I looked in your book for those sources you said are in your book (February 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM), and they were not found in your book (February 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM).

    So you looked and could find no references.

    But you also wrote:

    I do not think that Natan would accept your suggestion regarding Dr. Hendrichs’ statement, because Natan himself in his hyrax book (second edition pages 97-100) cites the experts who question the validity of Dr. Hendrichs’ observation at least three times.

    Here you assert that you did find a reference.

    Which is it? Does R. Slifkin quote Dr. Hendrichs or not?

    ReplyDelete
  176. B"H
    Dear David
    According to you which one is the second zoologist mentioned?

    ReplyDelete

  177. Why doesn't Dr. Betech respond to the fundamental point of the letter to Dialogue, and of this blogpost, and of questions asked by several people - that there were no rabbits in eretz Yisrael in Biblical times? And if his response is ruach hakodesh, this blogpost has seven questions showing that this answer is inadequate, to which Dr. Betech has not attempted to respond. Why is he trying instead to distract the discussion to a different and mostly irrelevant topic?

    ReplyDelete
  178. B"H
    Dear David
    According to you which one is the second zoologist mentioned?


    Dr. Betech, I'm not accepting homework assignments.

    You claimed R. Slifkin lied and that there were no references in his book to zoologists observing merycism in hyraxes. You subsequently posted that you did find a reference.

    What is your actual claim? I'm sure that if you state a clear claim that someone will check that.

    a) Dr. Betech could find no references.
    b) Dr. Betech could only find one of two references.
    c) Dr. Betech found two references.


    ReplyDelete
  179. IB:
    Dear David or Josh or Natan or any reader,
    Please write the names (and page number) of the two zoologists...


    No, I won't. It should have been clear that I am not going to play your silly games. If Rabbi Slifkin does not want to respond, for the good reasons referenced, I am not going to either.

    Rather, if you (falsely) are asserting that he lied, then don't play coy games. Say what zoologists you have found mentioned and explain why they are not relevant, or say that there are no zoologists mentioned.

    So long as you are playing your games and being deliberately dishonest in your presentation, I have no reason to do homework for you.

    How were you dishonest? As described above. You put it as "you could not find" two zoologists, dishonestly implying that there were none mentioned in the book, and thus dishonestly implying (and then outright stating) that Rabbi Slifkin was lying. You then dishonestly stated about the fiest zoologist that I do not think that Natan would accept your suggestion regarding Dr. Hendrichs’ statement for the reasons given, when you have to be an absolute idiot or a liar to really believe that he would not finger this as one of the zoologists. It is the latter, because you are engaging in dumb debating tactics.

    And you are continuing to be dishonest by refusing to admit that Hendrich is one of the two mentioned, insisting that it is a mere "suggestion" to be "supposed for a moment", when you write As per your suggestion let´s suppose for a moment that Heindrich is one of the two zoologists named.

    And you are dishonest by putting forth the question of who the second zoologist is (which perhaps you knew I would not plan on answering) as a way of hiding from having to answer my point.

    Stop acting like a jerk and a "master" debater who is only looking to score points, rather than come to an honest understanding, and you might find that people will respond to you.

    kol tuv,
    josh

    ReplyDelete
  180. Dear Dr Betech,

    Should I conclude the obvious? Or there is still a chance that you are going tho face my question after the persecution that I have done for you?

    What it seems to be the obvious?

    There are 3 words that were posted before by other participants of this blog describing you which it seems to armonize perfectly with your answer and behavior,these are: lunatic, insane and liar.

    Not to mention the implausability of your "rational" approach to the divinity of the Torah.

    Please do not take this as an insult but as a sincere expression of what I am going to be obligated to conclude if you do not help me.

    There is a nice saying that just came to my mind:
    "It is better to simpathize an honest man than to be praised by all the masses"

    Kind Regards

    ReplyDelete
  181. Why must rabbits live in eretz Yisrael in Biblical times to be prohibited by the Bible?

    Who is the second zoologist who says that hyraces chew the cud?

    ReplyDelete
  182. Why must rabbits live in eretz Yisrael in Biblical times to be prohibited by the Bible?

    Rabbits are prohibited because they don't have "split hooves" and are not ruminants. This is true wherever they live or have lived throughout history.

    Who is the second zoologist who says that hyraces chew the cud?

    There are no zoologists who say that the hyrax is a ruminant (chews the cud).

    This thread is quite confusing so I can understand why you may be confused about these basic principles after trying to wade through it.

    ReplyDelete
  183. anyoneomous, the point is that the shafan is mentioned by David and Shlomo when they want to point to an animal that lives in the rocks. The hyrax, being a local animal that lives in the rocks, is the obvious candidate, rather than the rabbit, which only lives in the rocks in southern Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  184. B”H
    Dear Natan Slifkin

    After reading the latest comments of David Ohsie and Josh Waxman it is evident they are not planning to publish the names of the zoologists you mentioned and offered to me, so I think that I have to post again the question directed to you and not to David Oshie or Josh Waxman.


    NS wrote:
    Well, you can find the names of two zoologists in my book, and I could add two or three others. However, there's not much point.

    IB:
    Please provide me the page number of your book where the zoologists have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication, and please add the two or three others that you are offering me.

    IB:
    As explained above, I looked in your book for those sources you said are in your book (February 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM), and they were not found in your book (February 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM).

    When requested, instead of writing the correct page number of your book, or simply apologizing for the mistake, you wrote what you wrote...

    So, unless you clearly specify the page number where the information you said was in your book is indeed found, we have a sad case of an explicit lie.

    ReplyDelete
  185. Isaac, since you have
    (a) shown yourself to be interested in scoring points rather than discovering facts,
    (b) and since you have still not addressed the main point of my letter to Dialogue,
    (c) and since you lied about being willing to retract when shown wrong
    (d) and since you already know the answer to this question
    (e) and since it is anyway irrelevant, for reasons already explained,
    ...you do not deserve an answer.

    The only thing that you accomplish by repeatedly posting the same question is continually demonstrating that you are trying to avoid dealing with the fundamental problem with your approach: that hyraxes lived in Biblical Israel and rabbits did not not.

    ReplyDelete
  186. B”H
    Dear Natan

    NS wrote:
    (d) and since you already know the answer to this question

    IB:
    I do not know the answer to this question.
    Please publish the names of the two zoologists and you will have scored a good point, i.e. that Isaac Betech does not know how to look in your hyrax book for the names of the two zoologists that have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication.

    ReplyDelete

  187. IB:
    As explained above, I looked in your book for those sources you said are in your book (February 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM), and they were not found in your book (February 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM).


    Dr. Betech, No matter how many time you repeat those words, they are just as nonsensical. You made the mistake of explicitly acknowledging that you found the reference to Dr. Hendrichs, but then you keep repeating that you found no references.

    So, unless you clearly specify the page number where the information you said was in your book is indeed found, we have a sad case of an explicit lie.

    Again you repeat those words, but you don't actually say what the supposed "lie" is. Which of the following are you saying:

    a) Dr. Betech could find no references.
    b) Dr. Betech could only find one of two references.
    c) Dr. Betech found two references.

    ReplyDelete
  188. B”H
    Dear Elias,
    Thank you for being patient with my busy schedule.

    EC 13/03 wrote:
    … it seems that in classic rumination the throat does not participate in any irregular form.

    IB:
    I am ready to accept this.

    EC 13/03 wrote:
    Unless you can bring to the table any irregularity the throat participates in caecotrophy then your answer is unacceptable

    IB:
    In caecotrophy, the irregularity is that semidigested food regularly passes twice through the throat.

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  189. B"H
    Dear David Oshie

    DO wrote:
    Which of the following are you saying:

    a) Dr. Betech could find no references.
    b) Dr. Betech could only find one of two references.
    c) Dr. Betech found two references.

    IB:
    After I was directed by one of the commenters I found that Heindrich was considered by that blogger as one of the two zoologists mentioned by Natan Slifkin. Nevertheless I could not find the second zoologist stating what Natan wrote.

    If Heindrich is relevant or irrelevant could be analyzed later, meanwhile please write the name of the second zoologist written in the hyrax book.

    Besides that I am still waiting to read the names of the two additional zoologists mentioned by Natan, who observed the same.

    Shabbat Sha-lom

    ReplyDelete
  190. IB:
    As explained above, I looked in your book for those sources you said are in your book (February 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM), and they were not found in your book (February 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM).


    Just to make it clear to any of the remaining readers, the sources can most definitely be found very easily. I just retrieved a copy of the book and verified that for myself. Of course, Dr. Betech has already admitted that although he continues to contradict himself and claim otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  191. DO wrote:
    Which of the following are you saying:

    a) Dr. Betech could find no references.
    b) Dr. Betech could only find one of two references.
    c) Dr. Betech found two references.

    IB:
    After I was directed by one of the commenters I found that Heindrich was considered by that blogger as one of the two zoologists mentioned by Natan Slifkin. Nevertheless I could not find the second zoologist stating what Natan wrote.


    So at first you read through the chapter, but you could not find any references; then a blogger pointed one out so you now claim that there is only one reference.

    Yet you still write:

    As explained above, I looked in your book for those sources you said are in your book (February 20, 2013 at 7:33 PM), and they were not found in your book (February 21, 2013 at 8:54 AM)

    So, unless you clearly specify the page number where the information you said was in your book is indeed found, we have a sad case of an explicit lie.


    I find it hard to see how you can accuse R. Slifkin of lying because you could not find the reference, given the fact that you admit that you did not read the book very carefully. If you originally found no references and now you admit there is one, then it seems odd to accuse someone of lying. It seems likely that you simply did not read carefully enough.

    As I mentioned, I recently read the Hyrax chapter again and it is easy to find what R. Slifkin was referring to. I did not even have to read the whole chapter to find the section where rumination and merycism were discussed. Given your previous mistake in missing the clear reference to Dr. Hendrichs, I suggest that you read it with more patience and perhaps politely ask questions on parts that you do not understand. When you start off with an accusation of "lying", you aren't likely to get any cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Please publish the names of the two zoologists and you will have scored a good point, i.e. that Isaac Betech does not know how to look in your hyrax book for the names of the two zoologists that have observed that hyraxes do in fact regurgitate small quantities of food for remastication.

    1) You've already proved that quite nicely yourself with your admission that you missed the reference to Hendrichs. In fact, you've scored so many own goals that the "score" is quite lopsided by now.

    2) I think that you may be committing a fallacy that we all are guilty of: we overestimate our own importance. Scoring a point against an individual is a meaningless activity. Getting to the truth is something that is enduring. I suggest that if you switch your focus you will find it more satisfying.

    ReplyDelete
  193. B”H
    Dear David Oshie

    DO wrote:
    Dr. Betech has already admitted that although he continues to contradict himself and claim otherwise

    IB:
    I am so used to be distorted and falsely accused in this blogspot, that by now I will ignore this point. Please continue reading.

    DO wrote:
    Just to make it clear to any of the remaining readers, the sources can most definitely be found very easily. I just retrieved a copy of the book and verified that for myself.

    IB
    I am happy you are interested in making things "clear", so if you have found the sources, just write the names of the two zoologists written in the hyrax book.

    IB
    Besides that I am still waiting to read the names of the two additional zoologists mentioned by Natan, who observed the same.

    ReplyDelete
  194. plus, he will always have another "demand". see how he writes "Besides that I am still waiting to read the names of the two additional zoologists mentioned by Natan, who observed the same."

    and earlier he wrote and please add the two or three others that you are offering me.

    meanwhile, this is yet another lie by Betech, as Rabbi Slifkin never offered those additional names. what Rabbi Slifkin wrote was:

    Well, you can find the names of two zoologists in my book, and I could add two or three others. However, there's not much point.

    in other words, that he was able to if he wished, but was not inclined to do so. this was not a contract or an offer of any sort. but isaac betech leaped at the opportunity to create a false expectation, in order to frame this as another requirement for others to fulfill.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Isaac, the only thing that you accomplish by repeatedly asking about merycism (and, in my new post, I have again pointed out that this is largely irrelevant) is continually demonstrating that you are trying to avoid dealing with the fundamental problem with your approach: that hyraxes lived in Biblical Israel and rabbits did not not. This was the primary point of my letter to Dialogue, and also of this post, and you have not dealt with it.

    ReplyDelete
  196. B”H
    Dear David Oshie

    DO wrote
    ...I suggest that you read it with more patience and perhaps politely ask questions...

    IB
    I read it, could you you be so kind to help me please? Please tell me the name of the two zoologists appearing in the second edition of the Book about the hyrax written by NS.
    Thank you in advance for your help.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Isaac, the only thing that you accomplish by repeatedly asking about merycism (and, in my new post, I have again pointed out that this is largely irrelevant) is continually demonstrating that you are trying to avoid dealing with the fundamental problem with your approach: that hyraxes lived in Biblical Israel and rabbits did not not. This was the primary point of my letter to Dialogue, and also of this post, and you have not dealt with it.

    ReplyDelete
  198. B”H
    Dear Natan,

    NS wrote:
    … you are trying to avoid dealing with the fundamental problem…

    IB:
    I am still willing B”H to deal with any fundamental problem and to continue this interchange with Natan Slifkin (the author of the letter to Dialogue Magazine) immediately after he publishes the names of “the two zoologist appearing in his book” and answers the unanswered questions.

    ReplyDelete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.