halacha - Bes El or Bes Kel?

There is at least one city mentioned in Tanach named Bes El, written as two words; that name currently belongs to a city in Israel and a number of synagogues and Reform temples. Does that "El" have the status of a shem (name of God), so that one should replace it (e.g. with "Kel") under certain circumstances (e.g., I think, when writing it on a paper that will be put in the garbage, though consult your rabbi for practical guidance)?

Answer

There is a dispute about it (in connection with writing a Sefer Torah, whether the sofer should declare it holy or not).

R. Elazar Fleckeles (Meleches Hakodesh, Lech Lecha 1) suggests that this depends on an earlier machlokes, recorded in the Yerushalmi (Megillah 1:9) and Maseches Sofrim (5:10), as to whether the name should be written closed-up (ביתאל) or as two words. Since the halachah is that we write it as two words, he says, then the second element should be considered holy. (Although he also cites Birkei Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 276:29) that some soferim have a tradition to consider it non-holy, and so he accepts that such soferim should continue this practice.)

Kesses Hasofer states flatly that it is kodesh, and in Lishkas Hasofer there (note 9) he says that this may be true even according to the opinion that the name is written as ביתאל. (Which, I guess, raises the question, according to him, of names like שמואל.)

On the other hand, Beis Aharon states that it is definitely chol, based on Targum Onkelos, which doesn't translate the name (whereas he usually translates the name א-ל as א-להא).

All of this is as far as writing it in a Sefer Torah. I don't know whether this would also affect how it should be spoken (when not saying a complete pasuk).

halacha - What b'racha do you say on seeing the Aurora Borealis (if any)?

If one is so lucky as to see the Aurora Borealis (northern lights) or its southern equivalent, does one say a b'racha? If so which one? I've heard that oseh ma'aseh v'reishit applies to comets and shooting stars; would the same b'racha apply to an aurora too?

Answer

Aish pathways says

the blessing Oseh Ma’aseh Veraishit is said upon seeing spectacular mountains, deserts, lightning, earthquakes, hurricanes, astronomical phenomena, and impressive bodies of water.

The Wikipedia entry for Aurora is titled “Aurora (astronomy)”.

Thus the bracha Oseh Ma’aseh Veraishit seems right. But CYLOR.

Edit: In the light of the comment from @Double AA, I would suggest a slight modification to the Aish pathways text as follows:

astronomical phenomena which are impressive to the viewer (compare making the blessing only on “mountains and hills in which the greatness of the Creator is evident” of O Ch 228 (3) and Piskei Teshuvos 228 (4) who writes that the condition “in which the greatness of the Creator is evident” will depend on the degree to which the viewer is impressed.)

CYLOR about a really impressive sunrise or sunset!

grammar - What does 辞書形＋といけない mean?

Usually といけない follows ない形 of 辞書形. For example,

• 寝る前に、歯を磨かないといけない。I have to brush my teeth before sleeping.


• 明日までに宿題を出さないといけない。I have to hand in my homework by tomorrow.

Today, I read a new grammar 辞書形＋といけない. I really don't know what this grammar mean. For example,

• 風邪を引くといけないから、暖かい服を着たほうがいい。


• 子供が寂しがるといけないと思って、おもちゃで遊ばせておきました。


• 子供に言い過ぎるといけないと思うが、すぐ口を出してしまう。

The book also provides other but similar meanings for each sentence above as follows.

• ～引いてはから～ is equal to ～引くといけないから～


• ～寂しがってはと思って～ is equal to ～寂しがるといけないと思って～


• ～言い過ぎてはと思うが～ is equal to ～言い過ぎるといけないと思うが～

Any comments and suggestion are appreciated.

Answer

I think that what is important to see here is that the と here is the conditional-と.

• 歯を磨かないと…if you don't brush your teeth


• 風邪を引くと…if you catch a cold

Next step is to understand the いけない part. You can see it as won't go (well) in the meaning of not good.

• 歯を磨かないといけない…if you don't brush your teeth, that'll be not good. (Hence the meaning of: you must brush your teeth.)



• 風邪を引くといけないから、暖かい服を着たほうがいい。…because if you catch a cold it will be no good, you'd better wear a warm piece of clothing. (Hence, you should wear a warm piece of clothing because you don't want to end up catching a cold.)

---

Here ては is a shortened version of てはだめだ・てはいけない・てはならない. Again, ては indicates conditional.

So 引いては~から　≒　引いてはいけない　≒　引くといけない

hashkafah philosophy - Is it heresy to read the Bible literally?

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in this debate with Richard Dawkins says:

Rabbis in the 10th century laid down the following principle: If a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally.... And in Judaism we take a strong view on this, and we have now for 2000 years, and we say reading the Bible literally is heresy.

Is this true? Which rabbis said this, and where exactly? Because while I can understand minor details being understood in the context of scientific knowledge, I'm unfamiliar with a principle that would allow one to throw out whole stories that have long been understood as historical, saying they're just symbolic as Rabbi Sacks does with Adam and Eve. Because with that method, as soon as science contradicts the Bible, then the event didn't happen, and that seems (to me) like taking the easy way and making a slightly different new religion every time just because the old one was proven wrong in a detail.

Answer

The term "literal" and its Hebrew or English counter-parts are not terms with hard and fast meanings so any discussion must necessarily be careful to clarify how the terms are being used in the immediate context.

Generally "literal" meaning refers to the apparent meaning that the reader would reasonably be expected to take away from it. This can also be referred to as the "plain" meaning.

Sometimes "literal" is used in contrast to the "plain" meaning to indicate a meaning that would conform strictly to the words being used without regard to the internal or external context which would provide nuance to how they are used. I would tend to use the term "hyper-literal" for this.

In this later category we may find an excellent example of a "literal" or "hyper-literal" reading which would constitute heresy. Terms such as "the hand of God" or the like do not need to be taken as theological statements about God's anatomy, and those who make such an inference run afoul of one of the Rambam's 13 principles of faith (see also Mishneh Torah Yesodei HaTorah 1:8 and Hilchos Teshuvah 3:7).

Generally, however, we have the concept from Chazal that “אֵין מִקְרָא יוֹצֵא מִידֵי פְּשׁוּטוֹ” Scripture doesn't depart from its plain meaning. (Yevamos 24a and elsewhere). While this is a full discussion on its own, with its own limitations, this is a general principle that guided the Gedolei HaRishonim. Along these lines Rav Saadia Gaon wrote, “it is a well known fact that every statement found in the Bible is to be understood in its literal sense.” (Book of Belief and Opinions/Emunos v'Deos 7:2, Rosenblatt, page 265). And the Rambam explained that, “a mere argument in favour of a certain theory is not sufficient reason for rejecting the literal meaning of a Biblical text.” (Guide for the Perplexed II:25, Friedlander). There is precedent for taking interpretive liberties but one must beware of the limitations of both the Rishonim who speak on the matter as well as basic intellectual honesty.

periodic trends - Available orbitals for promotion

I am under the impression that elements from the third period onwards can promote electrons into d orbitals to form hybridised orbitals. Why would an element in the third period promote an electron to the 3d orbital when we learn that 4s orbitals are filled first because they are lower in energy (is it to do with orbital penetration?) Why also can a 2nd period p block element not promote to 3s?

analytical chemistry - If polar non-polar intermolecular forces are stronger, why do polar compounds elute first in GC?

I remembering reading that the interaction between a polar molecule and non-polar molecule is stronger than the interaction between two non-polar molecules.

However, in analytical chemistry classes, we are told that polar molecules elute first in a Gas Chromatograph that has a non-polar column. According to http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~bacher/General/30BL/gc/theory.html

If the polarity of the stationary phase and compound are similar, the retention time increases because the compound interacts stronger with the stationary phase. As a result, polar compounds have long retention times on polar stationary phases and shorter retention times on non-polar columns using the same temperature.

These two concepts seem to conflict. Is there something else that is going on? Shouldn't polar compounds elute last even if the stationary phase is non-polar.

(Also sidenote: most mobile phases in Gas Chromatography are non-polar: helium, argon, or nitrogen)

Answer

I think you're incorrectly remembering something you've been told. People speak of the adage "like-dissolves-like" which really means that polar things interact best with polar things and nonpolar interact best with nonpolar. There are always exceptions and fringe cases, but that adage works pretty well here. Nonpolar molecules interact with other nonpolar molecules pretty much exclusively through dispersion forces. These are the so-called "instantaneous dipoles" you have probably heard of. Polar molecules usually have some way of interacting through dipole-dipole interactions, hydrogen bonding, or simple electrostatics.

Note that the mobile phase, i.e. the carrier gas, does not have a large effect on the retention time in GC, so it really is mostly due to the simplified explanation of intermolecular forces given above.

One might ask why the polar molecules don't also have large dispersion interactions with the stationary phase (they certainly have some), and this is due to two effects. First, polar molecules tend to interact fairly strongly with each other in the gas-phase, and so there is less of an energetic gain for interacting with the stationary phase. This is a problem because interacting with the stationary phase is entropically unfavorable. Second, many polar molecules are smaller than a lot of the nonpolar systems that are studied using GC, and dispersion is correlated with surface area, so the polar molecules tend to have weaker dispersive interactions even ignoring the first point.

minhag - Do we say "Ma Tovu" each time we enter the synagogue?

There is a custom to say the paragraph “מה טובו” on entering the synagogue (see “Avodah Shebelev” Rabbi A Z Sternbuch, 5753, page 18).

The idea (but without the possuk of “Ma Tovu”) is mentioned in Mishnah Berurah just before 46 [1]. Simon 46 is entitled 'הלכות ברכות השחר וכ‏‏‏. From the fact that it is mentioned in this Simon can I assume that it is only to be said in the morning when entering the synagogue, or should it be said every time one enters a synagogue?

Answer

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 151:1, discusses what one should do who needs to enter a synagogue not for prayer or similar purposes. It (and Mishna B'rura and Aruch Hashulchan there) do not say to say "Ma tovu".

Aruch Hashulchan 46:16 seems, a little more explicitly than the Mishna B'rura you cite, to restrict "Ma tovu" to shacharis:

The language of prayer before "Baruch sheamar" is printed in prayer books: When one enters the synagogue, he should say "Ma tovu", "Adon olam", …

Neither Mishna B'rura nor Aruch Hashulchan mentions "Ma tovu" when discussing what one says before mincha (MB 234:6–7; AHS 234:1–2,7) or maariv (MB 236:1, 237:2; AHS 237:1–2).