Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 128

Thursday, July 15 1999

• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• RE: Divrei kheshek = love stories?
• Re: On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Literallness
• On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Re: Science and the Mabul
• Re: Divrei kheshek = love stories?
• Re: On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Re: Avodah V3 #127
• miracles not mentioned in mesorah?
• Death of infant before 30 days
• Re: Normative Mesorah and Allegory
• On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory, the Source
• Re: Normative Mesorah and Allegory
• Re: Avodah V3 #126-Copernicus
• Love Stories
• love stories
• Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
• Re: On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory, the Source
• Re: Science and the Mabul
• Shabbos: melachos d'oraisa & drabbanan
• Re: On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory, the Source
• Re: Avodah V3 #126 comments of C1A1brown@aol on being literal
• Re: science & mesorah

I was going to again argue whether or not chess can be seen as value positive
or even value free, but I realize that's tangential. It seems we all agree that
intellectual stimulation is value positive, as long as the means of stimulation
isn't so bad as to outweight that value.

What about non-lyrical music? Isn't it as low in possible kefirah as chess?

Then we get to texts that happen not to touch on such issues. For example,
Kafka's "Metamorphosis".

What I'm getting at is that the halachah isn't absolutely in favor of non-Judaic
studies, not isn't it absolutely negative about them. (And since non-Torah
mental stimulation is value positive, there is no neutral -- if it's mutar, it's
good. No?) One has to draw a line somewhere between sefarim chitzoniyim and
Homer. The question becomes -- where's the line.

I would think the line is different for each person. Ideas are tools. Tools
can be used positively, or not so. IOW, exposure to new ideas is both an
opportunity and a threat. Which is greater depends on the particular realm of
ideas and the strengths and weeknesses of that individual.

BTW, it's interesting that Homer, who places Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite et al into
his stories, is our example of someone whose works are mutar to read. It
places the line quite a distance to the left, no?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jul-99: Revi'i, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:6-12
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 8

>  
Hil. Shabbos 307:16, in the Rambam AZ end of 2:3 "Acharei Aineichem Zu
Znus", 
and see how he interperts this in Sefer Hamitzvohs Lo Saseh # 47.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind
>


Also, while in this seif in SA, what does the mechaber mean by sipurei
milchamot, i.e., are history books implied?

In a message dated 7/14/99 4:02:47 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

>  No, not yet!
>  
>  Even if one were to believe that Avrohom, Yitzchok and Yaakov were
>  allegories - as I mentioned, not a notch any lower, qualitatively, down
>  the slope than allegorizing the Mabul - which, in essence, already
>  allegorizes Noach et al - and that one is davening to "Elokei Allegory 1,
>  Elokei Allegory 2 v'Elokei Allegory 3" we could not, I think, technically
>  brand this person a heretic - as long as he held this was all given from
>  Sinai. This kind of thing, however, makes the Torah farcical and Judaism
>  ludicrous, and worse.

And likewise in Tfilas Rosh Hashonoh Zichronos the Mabul is mentioned.
  
Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

CB:>>See derashos HaRan derush 1 who says ma'aseh beraishis involves
esoteric secrets - not simple reading of the text.  Also see Rambam
in intro to Cheilek regarding the first group who insist on literal
readings of every dictum of Chazal to the point of absurdity.<<

Indeed!  I understand taht Maharal pointed out the folly of taking aggadeto too 
literally, and I heard the same besheim Rav Schwab.

My pithy dictum is:
Everything Chazal say is true, but not everything they say is literal.

(and there must be a corroloary for Maaseh Breishis.)

Anyway, Torah sheb'al Peh teaches us not to take Torah Shebicsav too literally 
(notwithstanding ein mikro yotzei mideai peshuto).  We might as well concede 
that Torah she'bal Peh itself was not always intended to be taken too literally 
either.

How do we know where to draw the line?  Mesorah, minhog, seichel, chush...

Rich Wolpoe

RYGB writes:

>Even if one were to believe that Avrohom, Yitzchok and Yaakov were
>allegories - as I mentioned, not a notch any lower, qualitatively, down
>the slope than allegorizing the Mabul - which, in essence, already
>allegorizes Noach et al - and that one is davening to "Elokei Allegory 1,
>Elokei Allegory 2 v'Elokei Allegory 3" we could not, I think, technically
>brand this person a heretic - as long as he held this was all given from
>Sinai. This kind of thing, however, makes the Torah farcical and Judaism
>ludicrous, and worse.

No question about it.  But the absence of a qualitative difference
between allegorizing the Avot and allegorizing the mabbul/Noah does not
mean that there is not substantive difference.

>> I suppose what is unclear to me is where, in your view, their
>> transmission ends and their understanding begins.

>It is hard for me to determine the line precisely. Perhaps a Brisker could
>do it neatly, but for me it is fuzzy. Who was the Supreme Court Justice
>that defined pornography as: "I know it when I see it"? If you venture a
>definition, perhaps I can respond to your formulation.

Potter Stewart.

Forgive me for not venturing a defintion that draws a distinction that
reflects someone else's intuition.

Indeed, I think I will, with your permission, return to my original
suggestion that allegorization is an example of parshanut and cannot be
subsumed under the concept of Mesorah.  I will, I think, maintain this
position until I am confronted by an authoritative source that indicates
otherwise.  Finally, I will note that R. Avraham ibn Ezra's hakdamah to
his Perush al ha-Torah lists a number of approaches to parshanut and
includes allegorization among them.

In a message dated 7/14/99 4:08:13 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

Remark: while this seems to be a discussion between the 2 of us, I am very 
much interested in hearing from others as well, this is a solicitation for 
remarks with or without Marei Mkomos.

> As I said in my earlier post (via a comparison to tephillin) real and mashal
>  aren't mutually exclusive. These visions include mal'achim which are real, 
> so they must be visualizations of real things.

I don't see the Hechrech, Malochim are real the rest can be a Dimyon, further 
if Pi Ho'oson needed to be created, when was the Sir Nofuach created, (also I 
still didn't get an answer to the Pshat in the Mishne which lumps Pi Ho'oson 
together with the other 9 or more things).

Let us take for example Bris Bein Habsorim what was the relationship between 
Avrohom Avinu being the Novee and Avrohom Avinu's "real" actions in this 
Nvuoh.

> However, these real things could be meshalim for other real things.

I understand that much too, (and I can even explain the difference between Pe 
Ho'oson and Sir Nofuach), my question is for proof.

> To reiterate the comparison. The chiyuv to put on tephillin could very well 
be a >mashal to keeping yir'as shamayim in one's head and heart. 

To be exact this argument which comes from the Karoi'm (aphroh Lpumom) is, 
that the Torah never said (R"L) to put on Tphilin, and the words are 
allegorial like "Kosveim Al Luach Lebecho", I don't think that anyone 
considers them a "Mashal", rather a reminder like Tzitzis.

>The mashal is stronger because it's implemented in real boxes as opposed to 
>being just a story.

The Shibud Haleiv Vhamoach is more pronounced when it is also done Vmaaseh 
Bpoeil.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind
  

In a message dated 7/14/99 4:35:59 PM EST, AIsaacson@CM-P.COM writes:

> Also, while in this seif in SA, what does the mechaber mean by sipurei
>  milchamot, i.e., are history books implied?
>  
History books that one can derive from them Mussar and Yiras Shomayim are 
permitted, BTW it is one of the things I never understood how in many secular 
studies curriculums even among the real Frume, there are text books that 
discusses how heathens served their Tumoh.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

In a message dated 7/14/99 4:57:42 PM EST, clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

> Indeed, I think I will, with your permission, return to my original
>  suggestion that allegorization is an example of parshanut and cannot be
>  subsumed under the concept of Mesorah.

In all of this discussion I missed reference to the Radak on Shemesh Bgivon 
Dom.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In v3n126, Chaim Brown <C1A1Brown@aol.com> writes:
: In the Ancient  world it was assumed that women have one less rib
:  than man because they followed the plain meaning that a rib was
:  taken from Adam to build Chava.   

>>>AND they assumed that "tzela" means "rib". That's not how Chazal 
translated the
term.<<<

Exactly my point Micha - Chazal were not literalists!

-CB

>>>If the Flood  itself was a miracle, its aftermath (including amnesia of 
some that it
 happened, or lack of satisfying geological evidence) could easily be  part 
of the same miracle. <<<

The reasoning minah u'bah is a stirah: in the name of preserving mesorah 
start conjuring miracles that were never entertained by Chazal or Rishonim?

-CB

Can anyone help me locate a reference for the idea that if an infant that
dies before it is 30 days old, the parents don't sit shiva and it was never
considered a "person" (a viable life)?  I remember vaguely hearing such a
thing but don't have the CD ROM to do a search on it.

Thank you,
Arielle

Rabbi Bechhoffer wrote:

<<<
> But, in fact, this argument depends on two assumptions: 1) there is a
> part of the mesorah of Hazal with which we are not permitted to disagree
> (following R. Meir Shinnar, let us call it the "normative mesorah"), and

I am not sure that "not permitted" is the accurate term here. For example,
if a person believes that the Torah was given at Har Sinai and through the
forty years to Moshe word for word, but is kol kulo allegory and metaphor,
you probably could still drink his wine. But his (or her)  version of
Judaism would only remotely resemble ours, and would be a preposterous
religion. Thus, to allegorize the Flood etc. is but a short hop skip or
jump (in practice - in theory it is the same principle completely and
totally) from allegorizing Avrohom, Yitzchok, Yaakov et al (r"l), and
things simply start falling apart. 
>>>

The point (which you concede) is that to suggest that a part of the Torah be understood in an allegorical way violates no fundamental tenet of faith and no halakhah p'sukah (or are you holding back on us?).  You don't like allegorical explanations because you find them in some way threatening to a complete faith in the divinity of the Torah and because you are unable to draw a line between safe allegories and unsafe ones.  Slippery-slope arguments are not nonsensical, and I occasionally agree with them, but they are not necessarily compelling.  I think the approach that the allegorists are taking is to start from a presumption that a given text is meant to be taken literally.  However, when interpreting the text in a literal fashion presents difficulties, say, because the literal text contradicts other precepts (G-d is incorperal, G-d is One, G-d does not require Moses to provide moral or pragmatic advice on how to run the world) or factual propositions (the sun does not revol!
!
!
ve around the earth) that we prefer to maintain rather than the literal meaning of the text, we then resort to an allegorical explanation to harmonize the text with our understanding of more fundamental precepts or of reality.  G-d does not have body parts, G-d did not really have to be persuaded by Moses not to destroy the Jewish people (or is that controversial?).  There is no allegorical school (allegory l'shmah) at work here (just as there is, sorry to say, no avos bashing school, we have been around this track before haven't we); there is an attempt to work out solutions to perceived problems with the text.  The solutions may be right or they may be wrong, and one could discuss them and argue about them on the merits.  The problems may not even exist.  However, you and others seem mainly interested in arguing about these issues as if they were matters of dogma although you concede that no really fundamental dogma is at stake here.

<<<  
> If the issue is the one I have formulated, then the issue of aggadah and
> Rambam's parshanut are relevant, notwithstanding RYGB's fine
> distinctions between visions and allegory.  Of course, many gedolim view
> aggadah as a part of the normative mesorah.  And, by this measure,
> Rambam's reinterpretation of various passages in Tanakh is similarly
> suspect, as it too has no basis in Hazal and runs contrary to the
> rabbinic exegesis of these texts.
> 

No, because these are matters of *understanding*. - that which is now
called "parshanut". Chazal, as keepers of the Mesorah - which includes the
text of Kisvei Ha'Kodesh - transmitted them to us faithfully, and if with
it the explicit understanding that unless otherwise indicated by a mesorah
such as "ayin tachas ayin - mammon", the text is literal. If we deviate
from that Mesorah in one area, then the whole concept is undermined, as
above.
>>>

Excuse me, but the Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 does not at all accept your notion of Hazal as keepers of the Mesorah.  Else, how could he have codified l'halakha that the Sanhedrin could change a halakha previously pronounced by an earlier Sanhedrin based on an alternative interpretation of the relevant Biblical text?  The Mesorah is not absolutely fixed, it has some inherent flexibility.  (I know what you're thinking now, see above about slippery slopes.)  Now I am not, by any means, comparing myself or other alleged members of the allegory l'shmah or the avos bashing schools to the Sanhedrin.  The point is that the whole idea of the Oral Law is that no interpretation of the Written Law is absolutely authoritative (though at any moment in time some subset of potential drashot are halakhically controlling), because another Sanhderin can come along and change it and we have to follow the interpretation of the Beit Din of our own days.  L'halakha, we no longer have the right (until our!
!
!
 Judges are restored as of old, which must precede the rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash by the way) to change the halakhah based on drashot different from those we have received from Hazal in the Talmudim, but that does not mean that we are not, theoretically, b'derech ephshar, allowed to suggest alternative drashot or interpretations to those we have received from Hazal that a future Sanhedrin might choose to adopt.  Makom hinihu li avotai l'hitgader bo.  If that is true about drashot l'halakah, it certainly applies to parshanut that has no halakhic implications.  V'dok.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> No question about it.  But the absence of a qualitative difference
> between allegorizing the Avot and allegorizing the mabbul/Noah does not
> mean that there is not substantive difference. 
> 

Huh?

> Indeed, I think I will, with your permission, return to my original
> suggestion that allegorization is an example of parshanut and cannot be
> subsumed under the concept of Mesorah.  I will, I think, maintain this
> position until I am confronted by an authoritative source that indicates
> otherwise.  Finally, I will note that R. Avraham ibn Ezra's hakdamah to
> his Perush al ha-Torah lists a number of approaches to parshanut and
> includes allegorization among them. 
> 
> 

Yes, but that is one of approaches the Ibn Ezra rejects!!

As someone wisely wrote me off list, a person can be wrong short of being
an apikores. Nevertheless, the source is explicit in the Mishna in Avos
3:11 and Sanhedrin 99 and elsewhere. The allegorization of Torah is
called: "Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo k'halacha" The example there in the
Bartenura is highly illustrative: One who teaches: "Me'zaracha lo titen
la'Molech" as an allegory. 

I have refrained from now from quoting this halacha, because of the
explosive penalty attached there to its transgression. I tried, until now,
to make clear that this allegorization is simply ludicrous and dangerous,
and falls, at a minimum, under the geder of "cheit she'chatanu lefanecha
b'tipshus peh" and, furthermore, tat publication of essays to this effect
is corrosive and counter to Chizuk Emuna. And, as a self-styled Lamdan, I
am aware that we can say dakus'dike chilukim between a classic Megaleh
Ponim and Nidon Didan. But they are far too fine: I.e., they may get
individuals off on technicalities, but they do not repudiate the
undeniable rejection, by Chazal, of allegorization.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> The point (which you concede) is that to suggest that a part of the
> Torah be understood in an allegorical way violates no fundamental tenet
> of faith and no halakhah p'sukah (or are you holding back on us?).  You

Yes, I was holding back, see my response to REC.

> don't like allegorical explanations because you find them in some way
> threatening to a complete faith in the divinity of the Torah and because
> you are unable to draw a line between safe allegories and unsafe ones. 
> Slippery-slope arguments are not nonsensical, and I occasionally agree
> with them, but they are not necessarily compelling.  I think the

No, I also do not find them necessarily compelling. Making Noach an
allegory is so far down the slope already that you need a lot more than a
ski lift to get back to ground zero. Was there a Noach? Was he comparable
to Avrohom Avinu or were Chazal wasting there time? was he just playing
with a toy teiva in his bathtub with plastic figures of animals?

> Excuse me, but the Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 does not at all accept your
> notion of Hazal as keepers of the Mesorah.  Else, how could he have
> codified l'halakha that the Sanhedrin could change a halakha previously
> pronounced by an earlier Sanhedrin based on an alternative
> interpretation of the relevant Biblical text?  The Mesorah is not

These are not halachos l'Moshe the Rambam is dealing with, else they
indeed would not be subject to dispute. Theses are halachos derived by
middos she'bahem ha'Torah nidreshes; the middos themselves are the
Mesorah, not the application.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

There is an excellent essay by Rav Kook defending the Rambam against the 
criticisms of Zev Yavetz in his Toldos Yisroel. One of the things R.Kook says 
is that the Rambam's position (in Morh Nevuchim i.e.-he writes differently 
elsewhere,which is a subject in itself) that we cannot say man is  the 
purpose of the creation, as opposed to R.Saadia's view, prepared people for 
the upheaval in thinking caused by the Copernican system. The 
essay-originally called Ma'amar Meyuchad, I think-is in the back of the 
volume of Toldos Yisroel dealing with the Rambam,and is also reprinted im 
Ma'amarei Harayah.

>>

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>

> 
> BTW another form of forbidden Literature is love stories, (Divrei Cheshek).
> 
However, many rishonim including Ibn Ezra, Yehuda haLevi, Ibn Givirol
wrote love poems.

Eli Turkel<

any one heard of Shir haShirim?

Rich Wolpoe

> However, many rishonim including Ibn Ezra, Yehuda haLevi, Ibn Givirol
>  wrote love poems.
>
Shir Hashirim = Kodesh Kodoshim

However, medieval poets made a living by writing poems for the rich,
weddings etc. In addition the above wrote wine songs for popular 
consumption, there is no indication that they were meant as a "modern"
shor hashirim.
There exist collections of these poems for thos interested.
In the golden age of Spain it was commonplace for poets to write about
many topics not just religious topics.

Eli Turkel

From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu


I beg to differ.  He is saying that the truth is not yet fully known, and will
eventually be revealed after all the opposing shitot are explored (part of his
dialectical approach).  He allows  and even advocates the use of allegorical
explanations for reconciling current science with hazal, recognizing that we do
not yet have the complete truth, neither the complete scientific truth nor the
complete Torah truth 
...
Meir Shinnar<<

I like this point.  To me it says do NOT tamper with the unkown UNTIL we have 
all the infromatoin we can muster.  Going back to maggots, we may not yet have 
all the information available to dismiss chazal as simply being tied to 
erroneous 1st century science. It is still an open matter that might be 
reconciled some day far more elegantly than any one on this list could even hope
to fathom.  And in THAT sense, I think emuno tells us to wait and see hisytzvu 
u'ru, and do not jump in prematurely...

To summarize my shito (and I sense Rav Kook's, too) There are many things that 
Torah and science have already have reconciled, and there are many things that 
someday Torah and science WILL reconcile...

Rich Wolpoe

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> The allegorization of Torah is
> called: "Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo k'halacha" The example there
> in the
> Bartenura is highly illustrative: One who teaches: "Me'zaracha lo
> titen
> la'Molech" as an allegory. 
> 

Can't one be mechalek between allegorization of halacha (which leads
to Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo *k'halacha*) and allegorization of
narrative portions of the Torah?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Yesterday, I left the impression that the sir nafu'ach tha Yirmiyahu
saw was an actual, yet non-physical, overturned kettle, and that G-d
created it to make a metaphor to intruct Yirmiyahu with.

This assumes that these non-physical objects have shape and other attributes
normally associated with sight. I don't think we need to go to that extreme
of a position in order to understand the Rambam.

The Rambam would have to say that there was a real sir nafu'ach. However,
its resemblence to a physical kettle may have been a product of the process
of "looking" at it.

About ma'aseh b'reshis ending at "Vaychulu"... This puts the whole business
about removing one tzelah of Adam to split him into Adam and Chava outside
of ma'seh b'reishis. This would mean that Adam himself was an out-of-the-
ordinary being, and not just the first homo sapien to have a soul.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Jul-99: Chamishi, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:13-339:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 13-16

Off-list, someone stated the following.  I seek authority/sources for the
issue raised by the writer's astute comment:

"While you may be correct that using the phone is derabanan, there are ways
to sign [a paper, presumably in ink-NW]  that may also be derabanan (e.g.,
signing with a shinui).   [You may wish to research this issue and the issue
of whether a doraisa with a shinui is more severe than a regular issur
drabanan (i.e. using the phone).]

Noach Witty

On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:
 
> Can't one be mechalek between allegorization of halacha (which leads to
> Megaleh Ponim ba'Torah shelo *k'halacha*) and allegorization of
> narrative portions of the Torah? 
> 

Probably nott, since the principle is the same, but, more importantly,
since the Rambam and other Rishonim were not gores "shelo k'halocho" and
because the example in Sanhedrin of "Achos Lotan Timna" is not an halachic
one.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

The Drashot Haran says there are deeper levels to maasei beraishis! as my
students say "Duh"!.

The Ran never suggested that we abandon the P'shuto shel Mikrah as to the
Genesis accounts- merely that we don't deal with them only at that level.
the Ran would never agree with your position, Let's be honest and look at
the whole picture, when we quote someone. The Jews for Jesus quote The
Vilna Gaon Zatzal clearly out of context as to his beliefs about the
possibility of Geulah at the time of Sof Bayit Shaini. I am not G-d
forbid comparing you (whoever you are) with them, I just want to
illustrate the danger of abandoning cognitive context.

"Ayn mikrah yotzey midei P'shuto" is a fundamental and universal premise
of our Mesorah.

As to the "Hand of G-d" etc. which is not interpreted by it's plain
translation,

a) 'G-d" is obviously a different structure than "Man" so too "Yad' has a
different connotation by G-d than by Man, just as Tzelah means rib by a
person and the wall of a structure by the Tabernacle.

b)The torah itself says "lo Reitem Kol Temunah" (you saw no image) so we
need to understand why this does not contradict the concept of "the yad
(hand) of G-d"
Here we are forced to reinterpret the P'shuto by the intrinsic structure
of Torah itself - a good reason to do so 
On the other hand, a human, transient theory (i.e. the incomplete - full
of holes - pseudo scientific theories of the "origins of the universe and
it's prehistory") would seem to be no reason or authority to reinterpret
the P'shuto of the Torah.

In v3n127, Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu> writes:
: I have spoken with Schroder about the flood and he admits that this is the
: one area that he has not yet found an answer.

The event is lima'alah min hatava -- and we expect a teva explanation for
it? The lack of answer doesn't surprise me. (Any more than the fact that
an olive tree lived though it and didn't even wash away.)

: Another, major problem is Joshua making the sun stand still. Taken
: literally with modern science that would require stopping the earth from
: rotating which would cause untold havoc on the world.

Again, if the world could suddly lose (and later regain) angular momentum
despite conservation laws (which in modern physics is a consequence of
something as basic as rotational symmetry) -- why can't Hashem prevent
the other consequences of the event? Or perhaps create time that was
experienced by the warring parties but by no one or nothing else -- so
the earth didn't move and other peoples didn't notice.

(I seem to vaguely remember an Asian legend about a long night that could be
dated to Joshua's time.)

Why are we even looking for answers, to explain these things. They're nissim!

Can you explain the luchos being readable from both sides?

: In any case, I strongly disagree with the statement that accepting the
: modern theory of the age of the earth and universe indicates a
: fundamental lack of belief in the Torah.

I agree, but. There's this trend in the modern world of making a "God of
the Gaps". In previous eras, when the universe was a scary place, everything
was the 'Hand' of G-d. As we explain more and more, modern man reduces the
authority he ascribes to his god. I'm afraid this is more of the same. As
we explain creation, the origins of the languages, or map out history, we
reduce His role in each as well. G-d becomes merely a way to smooth over
the gaps in our knowledge.

That's not to say that I think having a scientific explanation reduces the
importance of G-d as the metaphysical one. Rather, it's the whole relationship
to G-d as a means of coming to terms with the unknown that is unhealthy.
Yir'as Shamayim is far more than that.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Jul-99: Chamishi, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 338:13-339:4
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 7b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 13-16

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]