Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 20 + 8 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)


Title Author Date
the Torah Race , Thomas May 02, 2006
did you ever get a response from your rabbi


Title Author Date
Naftali Zeligman and Yaron Yadan Asper, Yisrael Jan 01, 2006
Naftali Zeligman appears to be identical with Yaron Yadan the maker and author for the Daat Emet site. Yaron Yadan writes on Daat Emet "Never is life spontaneously created from inanimate materials." Scientists though say that the conditions for the origin of a species requires life from nonlife. Questions of ultimate origins he claims are meaningless. They are not meaningless to scientists.

Daat Emet also rejects creation from nothing not from anything in physics but out of his own outdated view of science. Creation from nothing is nowadays believed in thanks to Einstein and is challenged only by those who wish to reconcile it with Quantum Mechanics in a way that would eliminate Creation from nothing. Their efforts have not amounted to Orthodox science as it has come to nowhere except to help towards a grander picture of some future theory to come. More properly speaking since time and space came into being through the universe and would die with the death of the universe the universe has a first moment but no moment before. By definition there was nothing happening before the Big Bang because there was no time and so no before to be had.

Daat Emet writes Parthenogenesis is sexual reproduction, but that "the female provides the impregnating material to the egg she produces." Parthenogenesis is not sexual reproduction. On the contrary Parthenogenesis is defined as reproduction from an unfertilized egg. Fertilized eggs by definition are eggs that have been fertilized through sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction by definition involves male and female reproductive contributions whether from two beings or plants etc. or even one.

Naftali Zeligman (pen name for Yaron Yadan??) wrote in Talk Reason before his supposed incarnation as a Chareidi struggling to maintain his faith in the face of arguments to the contrary and waiting in vain for his helpless Rabbi to say anything. The guy's a faker. He wrote against Orthodoxy at the time and yet his article is reproduced on Yaron Yadan's Daat Emet's site described on it http://www.daatemet.co.il/en_index.html as

"New on the Site:

Letter to My Rabbi
A letter from a Charedi intellectual
who lives between two worlds: reason and faith."

Yisrael Asper


Title Author Date
Exegesis vs. Eisegesis Holloway, Simon Nov 13, 2005

Your letter is superb but, while I thoroughly agree with most of your
arguments, I must say that I differ with you regarding your conclusions.
You have attempted to present the Sages of the Talmud(s) as rogues, bent on
manipulating the Torah text as a means of buying themselves power, a power
which they systematically used to subvert those who disagreed with them.
While there is no denying the schismatic nature of the Rabbinic movement
(or, indeed, any other), I think that this demonisation is a little

You make the extremely valid point on p.66 (according to my printed-out
copy) that "of course, it is possible that the law really pre-dated the
exegesis". Such a phenomenon, common in Judaism, is not called exegesis at
all, but 'eisegesis'. It is the practise of finding a textual support for a
longstanding tradition. You followed this observation up with two
questions: an enquiry into the source of the law, and a question regarding
the purpose of the homily. As you answered neither of those questions in
your text, I am assuming that they were both rhetorical.

The supposition that the homily may have served an eisegetical purpose is
too important to the issue for it to be brushed aside so lightly. I am
certain that individual traditions did not extend back to "Moses at Sinai",
but I am equally certain that a group of belligerent grey-beards did not
sit down and make them all up. These were longstanding traditions which
already held validity to an entire community of people. All that the Rabbis
did was utilise the texts that they loved to give them some kind of

Is that so bad?


Title Author Date
Response to Naftali Zeligman Darfler, Benjamin Oct 17, 2005
I was wondering if Naftali Zeligman wrote his "Letter to my Rabbi" to an actual rabbi or if it was more of a rethorical device. If he sent it to an actual rabbi was there ever a response? Or, has there been an unsolicited response?




Title Author Date
Arguments against creationism, intelligent, etc Coffer, Irv Mar 21, 2005
I read Naftoli's letter to his rabbi. I saw very challenging comments.
However, there are two kinds of Jews: the believer, to whom no proofs
are necessary, and the non-believer, for whom no proofs or
explanations will help.

I would like to know if you are an orthodox organization or not. I am
a strong believer and I believe that there is no Torah foundation or
basic principle that is deniable. In truth, one who denies, for
instance, that the Torah was divinely inspired and will never change
is simply an apicoris (? spelling). Either you accept it all or

I see no wrong in Naftoli's asking questions. To seek the truth and
answers to our questions is healthy and perfectly acceptable. (How
else can one learn and strengthen his/her belief in G-d and His holy
Torah?) On the other hand I can not fathom how you can encourage
arguments that undermine religious belief and would therefore
appreciate your reply and clarification of a blatant call for
dissention as opposed to reconciliation, harmony, and fortified belief
in G-d, blessed be His Name.

Thank you.


Title Author Date
Seems we're in the same boat Aaron , Mike Nov 16, 2004
In 1971, Charles-Dominique and Hladik posited that lemurs practice coprophagy. This was challenged by Russel(1975) on the basis of data collected from the same fieldsite. The claim of coprophagy in lemurs was not subsequently repeated.


Title Author Date
Seems we're in the same boat Daniel Apr 21, 2004
Dear Mr. Zeligman,

Based on what you've written, it would seem that you and I share similar problems with Judaism. I had done my own research over the past number of years and have come to across many of the problems you mention. As well as a number you do not. I was raised Orthodox, and presumably, like you, I still continue to outwardly perform the rites and rituals that go along with an Orthodox life.

I was just wondering if you had indeed sent this letter to a rabbi of yours. And if so, how did he respond?

Also, I hope this is not too invasive, but I share a similar problem, so what are you planning on doing in case your faith does turn out to be irrational? Continue the charade? Seems like a problem without any good solution.