Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 044

Monday, December 20 2004

• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Eshes Pinchas
• Re: Eshes Pinchas
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Yisrael
• value of the prutah
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• RE: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• RE: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Torah and Science

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 11:05:16AM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: I agree that RMS's teirutz works. He and I agree that scientists have
: no role in value judgements. However, the proponents of the above ideas
: present their "factuality" as reasons that one must engage in those
: practices to be healthy, and how can you believe in a G-d who makes
: you do unhealthy things or prevents you from doing things to preserve
: your physical, mental and emotional health? Thus "...religion--even the
: religion of those who find ways to conform it to present-day "scientific"
: thought--is primitive." So we discriminate in what we accept from
: scientists.

The beis hamiqdash required at least one full-time doctor to handle
medical conditions from mitzvos (bare feet, a meat-rich diet) known to
be unhealthy.

The issue of whether one can "believe in a G-d who makes you do unhealthy
things" must be addressed regardless of this debate.

: So, regardless of the validity of the kushya I posed, I wonder whether
: RMS concedes to my point: that the assertion that once you accept one
: field of science you must accept all others is flawed, because (1)
: each field (especially medicine and surgery vs. archeology, etc.)has
: its own methods, and (2) fields dealing with the nature of the distant
: past are totally not verifiable in the sense that medicinal and surgical
: practices are on people of the present.

At least hypothetically, it's possible to create a conflict that
avoids both issues.

What if it were claimed by contemporary medical theory that some issur
deOraisa runs risks of piqu'ach nefesh in every case. Invoking the notion
that PN docheh kol haTorah kulah would be problematic, as it would mean
that the issur was given with no application. It would require invoking
the same notions as ben soreir umoreh but without chazal for support. Or
even worse, with pesaqim to the contrary!

Ani ma'amin that this hypothetical can't occur.



On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:41:06AM -0500, Moshe & Ilana Sober wrote:
:                       When the narrator announced in a confident
: and authoritative voice that the sun was formed from the debris of a
: supernova, my eight-year-old turned to my five-year-old and whispered,
: "This part is not true. Hashem created the sun."

: I hope she will always maintain that basic assumption that what the Torah
: says is true, and, where there is a conflict, it overrides Science. Plain
: and simple. She will iyH become more sophisticated in her understanding
: of which conflicts are irreconcilable and in her understanding of the many
: levels of interpreting the Torah and evaluating scientific theories....

I, like RHM, disagree with the the notion of overriding. We should teach
our children that Torah provides the bedrock and it's science that must
be accomodated. Same dilemma, same results, opposite attitude.

It's great if one could inculcate that ranking at a young age. But to do
it by giving the child pat overly simplistic answers sets up a good number
of them for failure. When they see the flaws in the resolutions they were
given, some will assume no real resolution exists.

Or they'll engage in "intentional ignorance" and refuse to see the
questions. A far lesser problem, but not an approach to emes I could
want to encourage in my children.

Last, because the relearning experience teaches the child that emes
is flexible. with all the objections I raised to that approach on
that thread.

IMHO, the key is to realize that the emunah one tries to encourage
in children at these ages is an emotional stance. It is not simply a
stripped-down version of a philosophical position, but a deep non-cerebral
attachment to G-d and His Torah. One doesn't need to feed it ideas,
doubly so wrong ones. It's built on encouraging a relationship with HQBH,
not thought about Him.

What's so terrible with telling your child "I don't know" or "I don't
fully understand"? Isn't that better than making up an answer to
hold them off until later?

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:56:35PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
:> This idea that teva only has "some reality as the regular 'ratzon Hashem'"
:> is Desslerian. The Rambam, upon whom RJSO relies on for the vast majority
:> of that post (the difference between the ubar and the finished product)
:> considers it an actual beryah.

:> You are probably referring to Shemoneh Perakim (and elsewhere), but see
:> more quotes from the Rambam below. This needs much further elucidation.

Skipping ahead to the quotes of the Rambam...

: Rambam to Hilchos Tainios (1:2-3) writes that when the community cries out
: in prayer and sounds an alarm when overtaken by trouble, everyone is bound
: to realize that evil has come upon them as a consequence of their own evil
: deeds....
: Rambam writes in Hilchos Teshuva: (chapter 9) that we are promised in the
: Torah that if we fulfill the mitzvos with joy, a positive spirit and wisdom,
: then G-d will remove from our paths all impediments to our success....

Actually I was thinking of the Moreh III ch.s 17-18 and 51, which was
discussed here in the past on many occasions. (Before your arrival.)
The Rambam says that hashgachah peratis (HP) is earned, and others are
abandoned to teva. He clearly states that teva is a nivra, not an
illusion, however people can develop their connection to shefa. (Ibn
Tibon's terms.)

: ==
: The vast majority of leading scientists today are atheistic. They cling to
: methodological naturalism ["nature is all and man is the measure of all
: things" like the ancient Yevanim and Misyavnim] despite evidence to the
: contrary. According to them, G-d does not control nature nor does nature
: respond to our moral deeds; both the bad and the good are a function of
: necessity and chance, resulting in perverse values -- moral Darwinism and
: all its accompanying evils.

I disagree that this position is a defining one for Greeks. Democratus
believed that existance was entirely atoms and the void, and from their
Protagoras reached the conclusion you quote and Epicurous developed a
school that fits that description. But weren't the Stoics Greek? The
three biggies -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were deists, not belieng
that nature responded, but did believe that there is a moral bad and
good. (See Euthyphro, for example.)

But that's totally tangential.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

My husband has been involved with Noahides for many years, and often
responds to questions posted on a Noahide internet discussion group.

He's been doing some research for them about geneivah, and specifically,
he's been reading up on the incident of Rochel stealing her father's
teraphim. Yakov says, "Whoever stole the teraphim will die," which seems
to indicate that the penalty for theft was known to be death.

However, the question which my husband has on this pasuk is not about
geneivah, but about a somewhat obscure Ibn Ezra on this pasuk (Ber.
31:32).

When Yakov says "Whoever stole the teraphim, he will not live," I.E. says
that means, "I, Yakov, will put him to death." As stated above, this
seems to be the correct penalty for geneivah.

I.E. then mentions another opinion, only to dismiss it. "Some say this
was a tefillah (i.e., may he die) and that's why Rochel died." He then
adds sarcastically, "If so, who will inform us who davened for the wife
of Pinchas [to die]?--Mi hispallel al eshes Pinchas?"

He seems to be saying that Eshes Pinchas died for no stated reason--no one
prayed for her death or wished it on her. And therefore he's suggesting
that a man's wife can die just because. But--what's the story on Eshes
Pinchas? Where do we see in Tanach or other sources anything about
Eshes Pinchas?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> I.E. then mentions another opinion, only to dismiss it. "Some say this
> was a tefillah (i.e., may he die) and that's why Rochel died." He then
> adds sarcastically, "If so, who will inform us who davened for the wife
> of Pinchas [to die]?--Mi hispallel al eshes Pinchas?"

> He seems to be saying that Eshes Pinchas died for no stated reason--no one
> prayed for her death or wished it on her. And therefore he's suggesting
> that a man's wife can die just because. But--what's the story on Eshes
> Pinchas? Where do we see in Tanach or other sources anything about
> Eshes Pinchas?

1 Shmuel  4:19-20.

David Riceman 

In  Avodah V14 #43 dated 12/17/2004 RDR writes:
> My recollection is that the Abarbanel held that according to the
> Rambam the entire maaseh Sdom was part of Avraham's nevuah, which only
> ended the following morning when "vayashkem [signifying the end of the
> vision] ... vayashkef ... v'hinei laha kitor haaretz [signifying that
> the portion of the vision indicating that Sdom would be destroyed had
> been fulfilled]". How is Avraham's incapacity during that time a kasha
> on the Abarbanel?

I find this whole scenario--that everything up to the destruction of
Sedom was just a vision Avraham was having while unconscious--difficult
to accept. When Avraham woke from the vision, Sedom was really
destroyed--that much you acknowledge. What about Lot? Was he really
alive? If so, how did that happen? How did he get out of Sedom? And was
his wife really a pillar of salt or was that only in Avraham's vision? If
she was a pillar of salt--why? She was told not to look back, but that
command was only given to her by angels in someone else's dream?!

Toby Katz
=============

From: Rabbi Alexander Seinfeld <seinfeld@daasbooks.com>
> There is an alternative interpretation: Yisroel means "God's Lieutenant"
> - ie - although in the past you've been accused of being a "Yaakov" -
> deceitful/tricky - now people will recognize that you're righteous.

Further corroborating this alternative interpretation of Yisrael is
the etymological link to Yeshurin (the straight and righteous), which
is another name for the Jewish people, and Yaakov's grandmother, Sarai
(or Sarah), meaning princess (e.g., Sar shel Eisav).

<http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/VYG65ovayigsh.htm>

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> I find this whole scenario--that everything up to the destruction of
> Sedom was just a vision Avraham was having while unconscious--difficult
> to accept. When Avraham woke from the vision, Sedom was really
> destroyed--that much you acknowledge. What about Lot? Was he really
> alive? If so, how did that happen? How did he get out of Sedom?
> And was his wife really a pillar of salt or was that only in Avraham's
> vision? If she was a pillar of salt--why? She was told not to look
> back, but that command was only given to her by angels in someone
> else's dream?!

It's true that it does require a revision of how you understand what
happened. According to this opinion Avraham had a nevuah in which he
learned (a) that he would have a son and (b) that Sdom would be destroyed
with the exception of Lot and his two daughters. He also learned why Sdom
would be destroyed: he saw in his vision that, except for Lot, the town
was extremely inhospitable. He learned that Lot, though he practiced
hospitality, did not have the concept clear ("hineh na li shnei banoth
..."), but that the practice was enough to save him. He also learned
why Mrs. Lot was not saved, but I have no idea how to interpret that
particular bit ("vatabet ishto meacharav"). IIRC there's quite a bit of
midrashic discussion about it. He did not learn how Sdom was destroyed.

The advantage of this interpretation is precisely that it follows the
Rambam's opinion that angels appear only in prophetic visions, and that
prophetic visions appear only to prophets.

Why is it different from Hagar (who was not a prophet)? It's too close
to Shabbos to write it out now, but nudge me next week (I have to go to
a chasuna in Baltimore on Sunday so not before Monday or Tuesday).

David Riceman 

I wrote
> The message of the Yavanim was that nature is all and man is the measure
> of all things (Protagoras). It seems to me that the message of the
> lights of Chanukahs, the zman we are currently in, is to see that there
> is a transcendental Creator, the author and constant Guide of creation,
> and that the apparent absoluteness of nature is merely a figment of the
> imagination ("hamehadesh betuvo bechol yom maaseh beraishis").
> ..
> (I am aware that "teva" does have some reality as the regular "ratzon
> Hashem" and does play a role in mitzvos, halacha and life itself; my
> point in the last remark above is that it is not the absolute entity of
> chochmas chitzonius)

RMB wrote  
> This idea that teva only has "some reality as the regular 'ratzon Hashem'"
> is Desslerian. The Rambam, upon whom RJSO relies on for the vast majority
> of that post (the difference between the ubar and the finished product)
> considers it an actual beryah.
>    [and in the next post]
> Actually I was thinking of the Moreh III ch.s 17-18 and 51, which was
> discussed here in the past on many occasions. (Before your arrival.)
> The Rambam says that hashgachah peratis (HP) is earned, and others
> are abandoned to teva. He clearly states that teva is a nivra, not an
> illusion, however people can develop their connection to shefa. (Ibn
> Tibon's terms.)

What I did say was that the "apparent absoluteness of nature is merely
a figment of the imagination". Do you disagree? [See below]

Though I did not quote the Rambam, I do believe this to be fully
consistent with his teachings of Divine causation (in MN I and II,
which is logically prior to "hashgacha" in MN III). From the Rambam
in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, 13 Ikkarim, and the first mitzvah in Sefer
Hamitzvos it is clear that the G-d is not only the transcendental Creator
of the universe but is continually and ontologically the source of all
existence by His Will and His Wisdom. G-d is the only **true existence**
because His existence is necessary whereas the existence of everything
else is not real in the same sense as it is contingent on Him. It is
thus an illusion to think of nature as having absolute existence as I
stated in my original post.

[Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah I:3]
Therefore, His Truth [i.e. His reality] is not like their truth [as
the Pirush explains, all other existence is contingent upon Him and He
is necessary existence and you cannot compare the reality of necessary
existence to contingent existence.]

[rough translation MN I:69]
"Here I wish to show that G-d is the "cause" of every event that
takes place in the world, just as He is the Creator of the whole
universe as it now exists. ... If G-d did not exist, suppose this were
possible, the universe would not exist, and there would be an end to the
existence of the distant causes, the final effects, and the intermediate
causes. ... existence and continuance of all forms in the last instance
depend on Him, the forms are maintained by Him, in the same way as all
things endowed with forms retain their existence through their forms. On
that account G-d is called, in the sacred language "chei-haolamim"
the life of the Universe as will be explained (chap. lxxii.). ... In
this way one purpose necessitates the pre-existence of another,
except the final purpose, which is the execution of the will of God
("retzono yisaleh") ... or the execution of the decree of His wisdom
("gezera chochmaso"). ... According to either opinion, the series of
the successive purposes terminates, as has been shown, in G-d's will or
wisdom, which, in our opinion, are identical with His essence, and are
not any thing separate from Himself or different from His essence."

[MN II:49 ; "teva", "mikreh" and "nes" are aspects of "ratzon Hashem"]
"It is clear that everything produced must have an immediate cause
["sibah"] which produced it; that cause again a cause, and so on, till
the First Cause, viz., the will G-d ["ratzon Hashem"] is reached. The
prophets therefore omit sometimes the intermediate causes, and ascribe
the production of an individual thing directly to G-d, saying that G-d
has made it. This method is well known, and we, as well as others of
those who seek the truth, have explained it; it is the belief of our
Torah. ... As regards the immediate causes of things produced, it makes
no difference whether these causes are essential and natural ["teva"],
freewill ["bechira"], or chance ["mikreh"] ... all these causes are
ascribed by the prophets to G-d. ... [For example] As regards phenomena
produced regularly by natural causes, such as the melting of the snow when
the atmosphere becomes warm, the roaring of the sea when a storm rages
[I quote the following passages], "He sendeth his word and melteth them"
(Ps. cxlvii. 18):" And he saith, and a storm-wind riseth, and lifteth
up its waves" (ibid. cvii. 25) In reference to the rain we read:" I will
command the clouds that they shall not rain," etc. (Isa. v. 6). You see
clearly that the providing of a cause, in whatever manner this may take
place, by nature, accident, or freewill it is always expressed by one of
the five terms, commanding, saying, speaking, sending, or calling. Note
this, and apply it everywhere according to the context. Many difficulties
will thereby be removed, and passages apparently containing things far
from truth will prove to be true. This is the conclusion of the treatise
on Prophecy, its allegories and language. It is all I intend to say on
this subject in this treatise. We will now commence to treat of other
subjects, with the help of the Most High."

Thus, via Divine causation (ratzon Hashem), G-d is both the Lord of
nature and the Lord of History. Nothing happens without Him willing it
to be so whether it is "nes", "teva" or "mikreh". They are all created
and maintained by G-d. "Teva" or "mikreh" (and all their intermediate
causes) continue to exist only by virtue of His ratzon. I thus have no
problem with calling any of them His beriah, but in the sense that they
are all aspects of ratzon Hashem, thus having no absolute reality. At
any moment, the Rambam writes, G-d could cause whatever change He in His
Wisdom desires [unlike Aristotle and the rest who claim that nature can
never change, and who thereby deny miracles and the ability of nature
to respond to our moral choices].

Thus, when G-d abandons reshaim, by virtue of their evil actions,
to "teva" or "mikreh" it is "derech achzarios" (the way of cruelty)
for them to treat this as an accident of *unknown* cause (the other
meaning of "mikreh") unrelated to their evil behaviour. To the contrary,
such difficult events are a loving call to them by Hashem to respond by
changing their ways (HT I:3).

KT ... JSO

[Micha:]
>: "And all of them, when they experience prophecy, their limbs shake and
>: the strength of their bodies is feeble, and their senses are deranged,
>: and the mind remains empty in order to understand what it sees...
>: (Rambam Yesodei Hatorah 7:5)
>...

>You're right. This is a strong kushya on the Abarbanel.

RABHARAMBAM specifically notes how the nevuah of Yaakov was at such a high
level that it and the tangible world were one seamless reality. Evidently,
in the case of the Avos the normal limitations were transcended...

YGB

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> RHM wrote
>> I respect your obvious superior knowledge of science. You seem to
>> have at your fingertips tremendous amounts of scientific knowledge.
>> But you have yet to prove your assertion that all of the scientific
>> evidence countering your notions of creation is absolutely false.

> These are not my notions. I merely state Chazal and Rishonim from our
> authentic mesora, and as carefully documented by RZL. Our mesora is that
> Adam Harishon was created "afar min haadama beyom hashishi".

> Of course, if I am wrong, RHM should at the very least be able to produce
> quality repeatable observable experimental evidence that unintelligent
> natural processes can create the wondrous complexity of plan and purpose
> found in nature. [But see the " Sudden Origins" quote below first].

You are using a bait and switch tactic and it isn't going to work. I
wasn't arguing about the creation of man. In my mind that is an open
question. I have no clue as to the method God used in his creation.
"Afar min haadama" does not necessarily mean instantaneous "afar min
haadama". But I remain unconvinced by current evolutionaty theory.

My question was about THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE, not the evolution of
man. The evidence for that is far more compelling.

Nor have you addressed my question about R. Aryeh Kaplan. Do you consider
his beliefs Apikursus?

HM

Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu posted on: Dec 16, 2004:
> We accept from scientists what is correct. Many scientists would like
> to extrapolate from their knowledge to values - and here we can disagree
> [with them].

> [Justifications of halacha] by some spokespeople on the basis of utility,
> or on the basis that it is natural ... are dangerous. eg, ... if various
> other religious prohibitions are justified by means of health benefits,
> then scientific studies of those presumed benefits become relevant (eg,
> objections to onanism on health grounds - today mostly discredited -
> and the only reason to keep it remains because it is (and remains)
> halachically assur.

Agreed, that offering ta'amei hamitzvos can be dangerous. This danger
becomes real when one considers contemporary positions on medicine and
health (and natural sciences) to be "known, and not [merely] believed"
as undeniably true, because of "overwhelming data." For, as history as
repeatedly shown (see R. J. Ostrov's postings), the "known 'facts'" of one
age often become the sham of another. One must clearly distinguish between
real, observed facts, and the conclusions drawn from them and then also
considered what I will heretofore refer to as "facts," in quotation marks.

This impacts on the Moreh Nevuchim's position on ta'amei ha-mitzvos in
general, and his explanation for the pork-prohibition in particular. But
the Rambam finds it problematic to suggest that Hashem's mitzvos are
essentially un-rational--whether "mishpattim" or "chukim." Rather than
saying that "the only reason to keep [prohibitions] remains because it
is (and remains) halachically assur," I think one should continue to
maintain that the mishpattim, at least, all have good reasons behind
them. We may not know them, but we benefit from our attempts to find
those reasons based on our current beliefs of the "facts," nevertheless
always being ready to substitute different reasons when our beliefs
change. Nonetheless, as you say, the simple fact that Hashem told us
something is the bottom-line reason we do (or believe) it.

> So, regardless of the validity of the kushya I posed, I wonder whether 
> RMS concedes to my point: that the assertion that once you accept one 
> field of science you must accept all others is flawed, because (1) 
> each field (especially medicine and surgery vs. archeology, etc.) has 
> its own methods, and (2) fields dealing with the nature of the distant 
> past are totally not verifiable in the sense that medicinal and surgical 
> practices are on people of the present. 

RMS:
> As a scientist, I accept from scientists what is good science - not
> everything that is called science. Different fields have different levels
> of validity - many physical scientists and mathematicians, for example,
> do not view the social sciences as science (some may recall a major fight
> in the late 1970s, when the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton
> wanted to start a new sociology section, and the mathematicians publicly
> revolted). In psychology, one has to differentiate between experimental
> psychology and Freudian and related fields, etc. Therefore, the notion
> that there exists something called science, and anything that goes by
> that name is automatically correct is anathema to any real scientist.
> However, that is unrelated to our discussion.

It was related to the post to which I was responding. My "chilluk" between
medicine and surgery on the one hand, and the isssue of the age of the
universe on the other, was, as I wrote, a response to the question of
why we rely on the one and not the other. From what you wrote above, and
expressed so well, you agree that there is a chilluk. Now onto your issue:

RMS:
> The age of the universe being (much, much) greater than 6000 is something
> that every serious scientist knows (not believes) to be true - the data
> is overwhelming.

Review above about health "facts," and R. J. Ostrov's postings re:
the accuracy of reported observations of facts (Haeckel's embryos and
the Piltdown Man come to mind), and the methods of intepreting data
especially the quote from Dr. Lewontin. But above all, there is the
classic approach I've been advocating, that one must nor confuse the
age of the world with its length of existence. Hashem created the world
and its occupants with an age. Once this is realized, the age of things
becomes irrelevant to their period of existence. To this, you respond:

RMS: 
> While no scientific proof can disprove this, this position has the 
> following problem - because it implies something about hashem and the 
> world. It means that 1) I can't rely on any deduction and observation 
> that I make about the world 2) hashem created the world in a fashion 
> that would lead us, if we would use our own minds in the best possible 
> fashion, but independently on mesora, to wrong conclusions. 

1. Theoretically, and utopianly, the soundness of relying on one's
deductions and observations alone sounds lovely. But what can one
do? History as shown as a fact that one cannot totally rely on the
deductions one makes from his observations. It's certainly pragmatic
to do so, but one must always keep an open mind to change. (Isn't this
what science teaches?) Don't you hold that the scientific opinions
of past generations, based on what they also confidently considered
"overwhelming data," were mistaken? So how strongly do you really want
to "rely" on this one's--independently of mesorah? Must we forever
play the game of chanting "people used to believe, but now we know,"
through which every generation is convinced that it has determined the
undeniable truth? Again, pragmatically we are forced to conduct our
lives according to our impression of the way things are, but when the
interpretation conflicts with our mesorah, it should raise a red flag.

2. If these two conclusions are to be considered problematic, then the
very account of creation, which states that Adam was created to look
30 years old, with old trees bearing fruit for him to eat, would have
been "problematic" -- long before introducing evolutionary theories
and new discoveries of additional old-looking items. But it hasn't
been problematic to any classical Jewish thinkers of all the past
generations. (I said "classical" in case someone digs up some obscure
commentary someplace that says otherwise.) The fact of Hashem's creating
the world to look older than it is, has always been the understanding
of the Torah's account of Creation.

For example, the Kuzari (1:81), in denying that Judaism is the result of
a growth and progression of belief, states that the universe, as something
initiated by the Creator, "arose suddenly ('pith'om"): He said, "Be!" and
it became, /just as the creation of the world./") The sudden creation
of the world's properties in their full form is the very definition of
Creation. This makes erroneous any mesorah-less determination, through
the world's characteristics, of its length of existence.

The Maharal (B'er HaGolah amud 83), too, emphasizes that Creation was
not conducted according to present processes of nature: "Know that He,
yisborach, Himself and in His Own Glory, brought all things to actual
existence during the six days of Creation, not through an agency, viz.,
nature, the way it is post-the six days of Creation, when Hashem conducts
the world through an agent, meaning nature."

To insist that the traditional way of understanding how and how long ago
the world was created is contradicted by the present way things develop,
is like saying that one does not believe in an invisable G-d because He
cannot be seen, or that one does not believe in miracles because they
are scientifically impossible.

If it is problematic "that hashem would create the world in a fashion that
would lead us, if we would use our own minds in the best possible fashion,
but independently on mesora, to wrong conclusions," then the belief than
any miracle the Torah reports took place--from staves turning into snakes
to seas splittiing into parts--would be problematic. For independent of
mesorah, the world was created in such a fashion that using our minds
would deny the posssibility of these miracles.

If the Torah had been written by mortals, then one might suggest that
the writers were not aware that it takes time for light to travel. But
Hashem, Who Himself created this phenomenon, knew it when He created
the stars, which He wanted to be visible on earth, at a vast distance
from the earth. It is therefore most reasonable to deduce that when He
created the stars, He also created their lightwaves in a state already
reaching the earth.

At any rate, there is no need to be dismayed by the prospect of
overturning one's entire worldview. The alarming prospect that the world
is not necessarily as one interprets it can be restricted to those few
areas where the Torah is telling us not to be fooled, as in how and
when the world was created, the miracles the Torah reports, and (as per
Rambam in Payrush HaMishnayos [and R' Yosay Haglili in Sanhedrin 90a] as
opposed to Mishneh Torah) when Hashem allows a false prophet to perform
miracles. In all other areas, we can go on with our life behaving as if
the world as we interpret it is how it indeed is. Indeed, this is our
obligation (ain l'dayyan ela mah she-aynayv ro-inn).

We can (tentatively) rely on any deduction we make about the observable
world as long as the Torah doesn't provide us with information that
shows us we're mistaken. The mesorah, no less than a new geological
find, is also something to be initially figured into the collection of
factors that together bring us to our conclusions. We should not first
make deductions from other observed facts, sans the mesorah, and then,
if those deductions differ from the mesorah, revise (or "reconcile")
the mesorah to fit.

For yes, the mesorah tells us things are otherwise than what we may
deduce from observed facts. The Ramban writes, "The Torah is "me'irass
eynayyim" (enlightens the eyes), because it revealed to us the secret
of the world's formation, i.e., ma'aseh braishis. As it says in Ayleh
Sh'mos Rabbah [30:9]: 'Onkelos the Ger...said: The smallest of them
[i.e., the youngest Jewish child] knows what the nations do not know, for
[whereas the nations think the world always existed,] [the Jewish child]
knows what was created the first day, and what was created on the second
and third...." ("Toras Hashem Temimah," Mossaad HaRav Kook, 5728, p. 155)

The Kuzari (1:65) appreciated the results of observation and logic,
but cautioned his generation that since the experts of their age did not
have the benefit of the mesorah, they reached the wrong conclusions about
the origin of the world. Apparent contradictions between our mesora and
other factors may be found, but the best solutions cannot deny either
of them. And one must always first determine whether there really is a
contradiction before

RMS:
> [T]hese two conclusions [1) I can't rely on any deduction and observation
> that I make about the world 2) hashem created the world in a fashion
> that would lead us, if we would use our own minds in the best possible
> fashion, but independently on mesora, to wrong conclusions]... are
> completely incompatible with the position of the rambam.

The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Y'soday HaTorah, 1:4) makes it clear that only
Hashem is Emmes, i.e., He is the only entity that is really real. Of
course, the "reality" that He has created us in (and continuously
maintains) is the one we are expected to work within. Yet who today
accepts the very "facts" that the Rambam himself held to be undeniably
true about the sublunar world--which "facts" he held are attainable by
the human mind (MN II:25)? To realize that the Rambam accepts the fact
that the Torah may at times inform us that the world is not always as it
seems from our perception of it, one need only recall his characterization
of Aristotle as the "Prince of philosophers" who came the closest to
the truth humanly possible /without the benefit of the Torah./ Indeed,
"Hashem created the world in a fashion that would lead us, if we would
use our own minds in the best possible fashion, but independently of
mesora, to wrong conclusions." The Rambam's context does not allow one
to suggest he was merely referring to knowledge about the Torah's chukkim
u'mishpattim.

RMS:
> I would add that the logical implication of this position is that the
> only truth that we can believe in is the mesora - because everything
> else is potentially falsified ...-

Sounds pretty basic to me.

RMS:
> ...It is this religious position ...that the world is structured to look
> in a way different than it is that is problematic from a religious sense,
> and is incompatible with the position that emunah does not require us
> to go against the mandates of reason.

Well, what did you want Hashem to do? He wanted to create a fully mature
world, and--in order to prevent any misunderstandings--told us clearly
that He really created it a relatively short time ago. You are demanding
that He should have created it in an incipient stage, just so as not to
confuse those who refuse to accept His explanation of what He did! This
is reminiscent of the philosophers who declared that if Hashem were really
against idolatry, He would destroy all its forms. Chazal's answer is that
Hashem created the world to run as He wished, and will not change its
course merely because fools refuse to heed His words (Avodah Zorra 54b).

The source of the current aversion to the less-than-6,000 year existing
world may be the unwarranted assumption that Hashem's agenda in making
the trees, rocks, etc., was to give us a tool by which to determine how
long the word existed. One must realize that Hashem has His own purposes
for creating the world and its occupants at the stage He did, just as he
has His own purposes in creating its occupants with the shape, size, and
number of legs He decided upon. As the above-cited Gemorra continues,
stolen grain will nevertheless grow, but we are not to deduce that
this contradicts the mesorah that Hashem forbids theft; and forbidden
relationships will nevertheless produce offspring, but we are not to
deduce that this contradicts the mesorah that such relationships are
forbidden. Similarly, the world shows age much, much over 6,000 years,
but we are not to deduce that this contradicts the mesorah that it was
created less than 6,000 years ago.

RMS:
> The only way to make both positions compatible is to hold a radically
> sceptical position on the limitations of human knowledge - which the
> classical exponents (and most modern ones as well) of accepting the
> mandates of reason do not accept. I would add that while one can not
> disprove the radically sceptical position, I don't know any one who
> truly believes it...

See above.

[Email #2. -mi]

micha@aishdas.org posted on: Dec 17, 2004:
> The beis hamiqdash required at least one full-time doctor to handle
> medical conditions from mitzvos (bare feet, a meat-rich diet) known to
> be unhealthy.

> The issue of whether one can "believe in a G-d who makes you do unhealthy
> things" must be addressed regardless of this debate.

Interesting! Perhaps we can invoke the principle that Hashem created
the refuah (the doctors) before the makkah.

> What if it were claimed by contemporary medical theory that some issur
> deOraisa runs risks of piqu'ach nefesh in every case. Invoking the notion
> that PN docheh kol haTorah kulah would be problematic, as it would mean
> that the issur was given with no application. It would require invoking
> the same notions as ben soreir umoreh but without chazal for support. Or
> even worse, with pesaqim to the contrary!
> Ani ma'amin that this hypothetical can't occur.

Amen: "V'chai bahem." (I'm sure that you qualified your scenario by
"in every case," so as to put aside the the case of the person who
was denied gaining pleasure from an aishes ish, even though he would
otherwise die, or any other of the ye-horage v'al ya'avor dinnim. Also,
I recall a discussion about metsitsa b'peh that touches on this issue.)

[Email #3. -mi

> reflect on what one would say regarding the "scientific 
> thought" in those fields of science which taught and/or teach that 
> premarital sex, masturbation and adultery are healthy, homosexuality 
> is normal, and religion--even the religion of those who find ways to 
> conform it to present-day "scientific" thought--is primitive. Would one 
> say we should reinterpret the Torah to fit these ideas? (It's been done, 
> you know.) 

hmaryles@yahoo.com posted on: Dec 9, 2004:
> Have I ever said that we have to fit the Torah to accommodate science
> Chas V'Shalom? ... We are talking about looking at scientific data and
> trying to understand how the Torah's narrative is reconciled with it.

Okay, replace the word "reinterpret" (mine) or "accomodate" with the word
"reconcile." It's all the same. I'd say reconcile accurate data (not
merely current claims of what it is, and what the correct interpretation
of it is) to the Torah.

RHM:
> We are not talking about the observance or violation of Mitzvos in the
> light of scientific knowledge as in the examples you cite.

No, we are talking about the history the Torah teaches us, which is
quite clear.

RHM:
> If there is a preponderance of evidence accumulated by various different
> disciplines that all point to a universe that is older than 5765 years,...

You continue to utterly ignore the fact that Hashem and Chazal revealed to
us that He created the world in an aged state, making the age it possesses
irrelevant to the length of time it's existed. You are expressing emunah
sh'leima in the attitudes, mindsets, assumptions and intepretations of
current academia, rather than fitting observable data to the Torah's
narrative.

RHM:
> and there are valid Chazalic, Rishonic, and Achronic interpretations to
> allow for an older universe...

The understanding of the proponderance of these authorities has been to
avoid as much as possible the conclusion that the universe has existed
for more than around 5,700 years of 365 24-hour days. (I admit it is a
fall-back position, but, as I said, it is avoided like the plague, and
fought tooth-and-nail.) But more to the point of the post to which you
are replying, I challenged the notion that once you accept one scientific
discipline you must accept all. And if you do accept all, then you must
not only accept the current teaching about the length of the world's
existence, but also the teachings about all vegetation's, animal's and
man's evolutionary emergence from lower forms of life. You will not find
support for this from Scripture, Chazal, Rishonim or Acharonim.


RHM:
> If we can find sources in Chazal that allow for creation days to be G-dly
> days and not earthly days (i.e... one G-dly day equals 1000 earthly
> years according to the Tifferes Yisrael) we have already extended
> creation beyond 6000 years by at least an additional 6000 years. Once
> you have broken that threshold, you can evaluate scientific evidence
> that the universe is even older than that if there is various Mesorah
> to corroborate it

No; if the posuk (Tehillim 90:4) says a year is a thousand years, then
it is not a billion years. The Midrash on the posuk brought by Rashi
says this refers to the specifically thousand-year lifespan of Adam
emphasizing that it was not a day more (Rashi). Other peyrushim explain
the posuk as telling man, "Even were you to live a thousand years,
ultimately in retrospect it will seem as a mere day that just passed,
so repent of your evil pleasures." Or, more Midrashically, as cited
in the Talmud and as elucidated by the Ramban, "Sheyshes yamim asah
ess haShamayyim v'ess haAtretz," Hashem created the world /to be/ six
thousand years in existence, and each day of Creation was a portrayal
of each of the coming thousand years. There are no sources in Chazal
(to the best of my knowledge) that say that the six days of creation,
wherein the various forms of life were created and formed, were any
longer than 24 hours. Certainly, as said above, there are no sources
in Chazal that support an evolutionary development of man from lower
forms of life. Even RYmA doesn't support the scenario of the world's
evolvement as presented by today's academia. One cannot just presume,
"Well, hey! If the TY was able to find Midrashim to back up the opinions
of his day, there's just gotta be Midrashim somewhere that we can use
to back up the opinions of our days!"

(By the way, of interest to R. Micha Berger, the Ramban in "Torahs Hashem
Temimah" says over the same vort, but, whereas in his Torah commentary he
says the sixth day /is/ the epoch of Moshiach, in Torahs Hashem Temimah,
he writes the sixth day is a /remez/ to Moshiach, and there are other
such stylistic changes regarding other days. I don't think there is
any significance in his saying it /is/ rather than it is a /remez,/
any more than when Yoseph tells Pharoah that the seven fat cows /are/
seven years of plenty. Anyway, he introduces his entire piece on the
Torah commentary by citing the Ibn Ezra who says that the six thousand
years of the world's existence is /merumaz/ in the six days of Creation.)

But regardless, the Tifferess Yisroel, b’m’chilas k’vodo, was responding to what he thought was unbiased scientific opinion. He constructed a scenario based upon heretofore denied interpretations of Midrashim (such as “previous worlds” meaning physical rather than spiritual ones, and the “thousands of years” to be referring to past-creation rather than post-creation years [as explained by Ramban]). This Midrash-“supported” scenario conformed to, and only to, the specific scenario he understood to be the one touted by the science of his day. It consisted of a specific number of epochs that were subject to destruction, each of  which left behind the fossil remnants scientists found. I doubt that the scientists of his day accepted his version of the events. He certainly did not subscribe to the scientists’ claims that the “higher forms of life” biologically descended from the “lower forms of life.” And his version certainly does not confom to the version scientists tout in our !
day, leaving our day’s science unsupported by his Midrashim.

RHM:
That the universe is 15 billion years old is the conclusion to which R
Aryeh Kaplan came using precisely that method.

R. A. Kahn has pointed out the difficulties with R. Kaplan, zt"l's
calculations. And the ages asserted occur before, not during, the
creations and formations spoken of during the six days of Creation,
and so again do not really conform to current scientific thought on the
development of present life. Regardless, I would ask the same question
to Rav Kaplan, were I able: Why abandon the traditional understanding of
Braishis, when the physical data does not really contradict it? Perhaps
he would have answered, "Technically, you're right; but the yetzer hara
has gotten such a hold on our youth today, that many of them find this
approach unpalatable. So rather than turning them off from Judaism,
I'm offering them a way to stay connected. Perhaps, as they immerse
themselves in Torah, Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim, they will mature in
their learning and understanding, and will eventually realize the truth."

Just a guess.

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]