Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 089

Thursday, March 3 2005

• Re: Relationship of Science to Torah
• Re: Aveilus for an intermarried parent
• Re: guided evolution
• Re: Aveilus for an intermarried parent
• Re: guided evolution
• Re: guided evolution
• Re: guided evolution
• Re: guided evolution
• migdal bavel
• Re: age of universe
• guided evolution
• Re: age of universe
• Rav Aryeh Kaplan's approach to age of the Universe
• Re: Rav Aryeh Kaplan's approach to age of the Universe
• Re: Rav Aryeh Kaplan's approach to age of the Universe
• Eilu va'EIlu - RHS

On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:51:14AM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Chagiga 12a:
:  Said Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: Ten things were CREATED ON THE FIRST
:  DAY: Heaven and Earth, Tohu Va-Vohu, Light And Darkness, Ruach And Mayyim,
:  Middass Yom And Middas Layla.

: I.e., From yeish meiyan, Hashem created the Heavens and Earth, from which
: point the first day began. (The meforshim deal with how the first day's
: time was measured, including the explanation that the heavenly spheres'
: revolution/the earth's rotation began immediately.)...

You realize that your conclusion is presumed in these meforeshim, not
in the gemara itself?

The gemara is choleiq with Bereishis Rabba, which says that tohu vavohu
is the relic of the previous olam(os).

: Rashi and Ramban have been cited before and are easily found in MIkraos
: Gedolos...

Rav Dessler destroyed your ability to use the Ramban as a raayah. Nor
is he, Rashi, or Rabbinu Chananel members of chazal. The size of REED's
chidush prevents me from citing it as well.

: Sanhedrin 38:
: 12 hours from Adam's creation to birth of two sons and banishment from
: Gan Eden. (So the sixth day(time) was 12 hours, and the others, including
: the first, were the same.)

: My math: Since the sixth day's daytime was 12 hours, then the nighttime
: was around 12 hours (including the period of "tohu va-vavohu")....

Rav Dessler questions the measurability of time before the eitz hadaas,
others question before Adam. Neither position lets you extapolate from
this gemara to a time before Adam.

I therefore still don't see a statement by chazal that rules out both
shitos, and certainly nothing that can be considered their consensus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R. Micha left out a key section of my post on the USENET discussion group
soc.culture.jewish.moderated. Yoreh Deah 345:5 "kol ha'porshim mi'darchei
tzibbur, v'heim ha'anashim she'parku ohl mutzvot me'al tzavaram, v'ein
nichlalim bi'klal yisrael ......... EIN ONNENIM V'EIN MIT'ABLIM ALEYHEN
ELAH ACHEYHEM U'SHE'AR KROVEYHEM LOVSHIM LEVANIM U'MITATFIM LEVANIM
**V'OCHLIM, V'SHOTIM U'SMEICHIM** "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Shach there s"k 9 indicates "she'avdu son'av shel makom". See also
Rema in YD 340:5 "v'chol she'kein mumar l'avodat kochavim". [This is not
to be conflated or confused with someone who becomes a goy and is killed.
See Taz there s"k 3 who relates the story of Rabbenu Gershom who mourned
for his shmadded son who was KILLED].

I do see that the Pitchei Tshuva YD 345 s"k 3 differentiates between ONE
(first) day of aveilut vs. the entire 7 days. He also quotes the Chatam
Sofer that there may be an obligation to BURY them.

Josh

"S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 7) Since the beriah is Hashem's creation, it is illogical that he would
> have created a beriah that looks like it was bidavka not created by a
> Designer chs'v.

Not illogical.  "Ve'ein tzayar keilokeinu"; He is the Supreme Artist,
and this world is His masterpiece.  Artists make things appear to be
other than they are all the time; they're not liars, because they tell
the public what they've done.  And He did so, in the Torah.

In general, I cannot abide arguments that start off assuming what Hashem
"wouldn't" do. He is not human, and we cannot assume anything about what
He would or wouldn't do.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I thought even a mamzer is obligated in kibud av va'em, which would
presumably include avelut when they die. So why is this person worse
than the mamzer's parents? Or is the mamzer only obligated to honour
his parents if they've done teshuvah since his conception?

 - 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:44:09AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: First of all, it has been my general experience that most (though not all)
: people who maintain this view do so due to a lack of knowledge regarding
: the Torah sources, the scientific sources, or both...

Your experience is not complete. Intelligent design is supported by a
large number of people who study evolution, geology, cosmogony, or any
of the related sciences. And, as already summed up by RYGB, it's the
literallists who have a mi'ut al mi lismoch. We've been debating this
since last Elul.

: countless ma'amarei Chazal which seem to indicate that Chazal understood
: MB kipshuto, and it contradicts our collective mesorah which our nation
: has maintained for thousands of years.

Now we're at "countless maamarei chazal"? We can't even find one we'll
all agree upon. There is no proof that any member of chazal thought that
time during the six days (until Adam or the eitz hadaas) resembles time
as we know it, some proof that members of chazal did not, and much proof
that many of them believed in a long duration between Bereishis 1:1 and
1:2. As for the mesorah, are not the Ramban, REED, RSRH, the Tif'eres
Yisrael, and nearly every mequbal (except the Ari, who does not believe
the pre-yom 1 shemittos were physical) baalei mesorah?

The Maharal writes that Bereishis 1 can not possibly be understood, and
you're insisting that countless maamarei chazal tell us to simplyu go
with a literal understanding?

: 2) To say that all of the complex phenomena here on earth took 3.8
: billion years to evolve severely undermines the idea of the world being
: the creation of an omnipotent Creator. After all, if it took so long to
: evolve, what's so miraculous about the complexity here on earth? ...

Lehefech! With the same results, it shows MORE artistry to reach them
through self-imposed restrictions than without. Think, not only did He
make man, but he did so by putting all the pieces in place biollions of
years before such that He knew they'd all fall out correctly, with no
intervention that violates the system.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice , don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

Micha Berger wrote:
>: 2) To say that all of the complex phenomena here on earth took 3.8
>: billion years to evolve severely undermines the idea of the world being
>: the creation of an omnipotent Creator. After all, if it took so long to
>: evolve, what's so miraculous about the complexity here on earth? ...

> Lehefech! With the same results, it shows MORE artistry to reach them
> through self-imposed restrictions than without. Think, not only did He
> make man, but he did so by putting all the pieces in place biollions of
> years before such that He knew they'd all fall out correctly, with no
> intervention that violates the system.

This last part is you playing the other side, right? Earlier you
commiserated with RMS that the emergent trend in contemporary O is not
to say "L'hefech" with your reasoning. To quote you:

"I think that's what RMS was writing about when he quoted "Nevertheless
their concern is to make even this miraculous event as close to nature as
possible. In other words, they much prefer to make the world as natural
as possible and to minimize the miraculous.""

elly

--
Elly Bachrach
Engineering Intent http://www.EngineeringIntent.com
mailto:EBachrach@EngineeringIntent.com

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 04:35:47PM -0600, Elly Bachrach wrote:
: This last part is you playing the other side, right? Earlier you
: commiserated with RMS that the emergent trend in contemporary O is not
: to say "L'hefech" with your reasoning. To quote you:

:> I think that's what RMS was writing about when he quoted "Nevertheless
:> their concern is to make even this miraculous event as close to nature as
:> possible. In other words, they much prefer to make the world as natural
:> as possible and to minimize the miraculous."

But in the same letter, I write:
> I'm also concerned by this reaction to the shock of modernity, common in
> a large segment of the population. Someone emailed me about the current
> "ansisophical" trend in world view. He described it as a reaction to the
> birth of Reform. I also described this phenomenon way back at the start of
> the creationism discussion, when I wrote that I believe that more people
> insist on literalism now than did before there was a scientific challenge.
...
> There is no word "antisophical". The tendency to prefer black-and-white
> solutions is described from a word related to the Sophists, though: it's
> "unsophisticated". Preference should be given precision, not simplicity.

> This trend I see as more damaging even than another reaction to R --
> the neglect of Nakh and diqduq.

I have problems with both trends. I think both are looking to avoid the
Adam I - Adam II confrontation, as I put it in a later post.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

This is meant as a response to RSC. I apologize if it seems tangential
to his concerns, but I think that reframing the issues helps answer
his questions.

First, a list of opinions about miracles.

1. The Rambam attributes to the Kalam (e.g. at the end of part 1 of MN)
the opinion that there are no laws of nature; everything that happens
is directly caused by God's Will.

2. The Rambam himself (e.g. in Avoth 5:4) seems to believe that there
are laws of nature; and that God has designed nature anticipating the
necessity of certain miracles which override the laws nature under
specific conditions.

3. The Ramban (Deut. 18:9) believes that there are a hierarchy of laws;
laws of nature which can be overridden by the laws of miracles.

4. The Maharal (and I don't understand this at all) claims (Gevuroth
HaShem, second introduction) that whether something follows the laws of
nature or the laws of miracles depends on the observer.

Second, before the French revolution people just assumed that the world
has always been as it is now. Only in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries have we realized that the world cannot be in a steady state,
and that it is changing.

Third, properly speaking creation cannot be described as either following
the laws of nature or as miraculous, since creation is prior to the
establishment of the laws of nature. The period from breishis bara to
vay'chulu for science, and from vayita hashem elokim to vay'garesh
es ha'adam for morality is in an indeterminate state, neither fully
unformed nor fully formed. The mekuballim spend a lot of time and effort
trying to define what that state is; as far as I know it has not been
a subject of much discussion by Jewish philosophers (but see MN 1:2 for
the moral part).

Of course what you think is going on during that period depends on your
position about the laws of nature and miracles. It also depends on whether
you believe the world has been static since then or whether you believe
it continues to change.

My own impression is that a careful reading of the beginning of Breishis
reinforces the idea that it describes a world in flux. I have previously
pointed out on this list that the first perek is unusual in that it uses
words to mean one thing and defines them to mean something different
(e.g. Breishis bara . es ha'aretz . Vayikra . layabasha eretz, vayikra
. la'or yom . yom ehad).

The second and third perakim also describe a world in flux. There's still
some flux in the natural world (as in the three curses) but the primary
focus is on the change in relationship between people and God.

I think it's undeniable that that flux never stops. The entire Tanach,
and the entire history of the Jewish people, is all related to the
changes in our relationship with God, and our attempts to return closer.

So I find it puzzling that people are offended at the thought that
the other flux also never stops. Dodos became extinct since hasimas
haTalmud. Tangerines were developed only in the times of the aharonim.
We're somewhat behind in our knowledge about which stars have gone
nova, but even though God enumerates them ("moneh mispar lacochavim")
the number is constantly changing.

What scientists attempt to do is to find the immutable substrate: the
law which remains constant despite the changes in details. I would
think that both the Rambam and the Ramban would applaud that. The Kalam
wouldn't care, and I don't understand the Maharal's approach well enough
to say how he would react.

David Riceman

According to simple pshat ALL the people in the world lived in one spot,
in Bavel (and so inparticular not in EY), before the dispersion which
was already in the youth of Avraham. In fact I just saw a word from the
Netziv tha the sin of the generation was that they didn't let anyone
leave so that thos in charge could control everyone.

Question: Are there any midrashim that indicate that other groups of
population might have existed outside of Bavel at that time?

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:02:18PM -0500, Shaya Potter wrote:
: Is there any reason one has to say all men are biologically descended
: from Adam?

    Whoever destroys the life of a single ben adam / a single life /
    the life of a single Jew, it is as if he destroyed an entire world,
    and whoever save the life ... [three girsa'os as above] is though
    he saved the entire world. This is why Adam was created alone...
		    - Sanherin 4:5, as found in mishnayos, the Bavli
		      and Y-mi (5:12-13) respectivly

    Rabbi Aqiva says: "Ve'ahavta lerei'akha kamokha" -- this is a great
    principle in the Torah.
    Ben Azzai says: "Zeh seifer toledos haadam" is a greater principle
    that that.
				    Y-mi Nedarim 9:3 (30b)

I personally would not presume to tamper with a kelal gadol.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

> First of all, it has been my general experience that most (though not
> all) people who maintain this view (guided evolution) do so due to a
> lack of knowledge regarding the Torah sources, the scientific sources,
> or both.

One of the fans of guided evolution is Natan Aviezer. As a professor of
physics he certainlt knows his science. I have not given him a test in
gemara but would classify him as knowledgable in Torah sources. He has
spoken on these matters extensively.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 09:00 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Is there any reason one has to say all men are biologically descended
>: from Adam?

>    Whoever destroys the life of a single ben adam / a single life /
>    the life of a single Jew, it is as if he destroyed an entire world,
>    and whoever save the life ...
>		    - Sanherin 4:5...
...
>    Ben Azzai says: "Zeh seifer toledos haadam" is a greater principle
>    that that.
>				    Y-mi Nedarim 9:3 (30b)

>I personally would not presume to tamper with a kelal gadol.

It doesn't say that we are all descended from Adam, just that Adam was
created alone. Which still fits with what I hypothesized (have no idea if
it has basis or not). i.e. Adam was created initially alone by inserting
a neshama into man-animal. Then hashem repeated it again.

Perhaps one can make the argument that this happened with migdal bavel.
the dispersion was actually the inserting of new neshamot into dispersed
"man animal". again, totaly hypotesizing without any idea if it has a
basis or not. How this fits with pshat I'm also unsure.

RYGB:
>You will have to ask those Rabbonim to ascertain their positions. In the
>event that they do reject Rabbi Kaplan's (aka the Tiferes Yisroel's)
>position, I have noted here previously in holding that the universe
>is only 5765 years old yesh lahem al me lismoch, albeit on a minority
>opinion.

On what basis do you say that holding the age of the universe to be 5765
years old is only a minority opinion in Judaism? Also, where does R'
Kasher discuss this topic?

The Steipler in Koreino L'igroso pages 57-58 rejects the opinion of
Tiferes Yisroel that the previous worlds that were destroyed according
to the Midrash refers to cycles in our world.

He also writes that speculating on such would be included in the
prohibition of the Mishnah beginning of 2'nd perek in Chagiga "Ma Lifnim".
He writes that Tiferes Yisroel only said it to answer the Apikursim,
but it is not the true pshat in previous worlds.

 All the best,
Yisroel Felder

Emesliameto@aol.com wrote:
> The Steipler writes that Tiferes Yisroel only said (that prveious 
> world spoken of in Kabbalah refers to cycles in this world) to answer 
> the Apikursim, but it is not the true pshat in previous worlds.

The Steipler says that the Tiferes Yisroel lied about pshat? It is OK
to lie to Apikursim? Why answer them with a lie? Who cares what they
believe? Was somebody holding a gun to his head?

But even if The Steipler did say that, it at least proves that the
The Steipler believed that is is NOT Apikursus to believe in an older
universe. Otherwise lying to an Apikores to counter his Apikursus with
Apikursus wouldn't make any sense.

HM

At 09:42 PM 3/1/2005, [R Yisroel Felder] wrote:
>On what basis do you say that holding the age of the universe to be 5765
>years old is only a minority opinion in Judaism? Also, where does R'
>Kasher discuss this topic?

I discussed this in my post to Avodah several weeks ago. Kachenu me'sham.

>The Steipler in Koreino L'igroso pages 57-58 rejects the opinion of
>Tiferes Yisroel that the previous worlds that were destroyed according
>to the Midrash refers to cycles in our world.

The Steipler was one of the Geonei Ha'Dor and true Torah giants. Gadol
me'Rabban shemo. Zechuso yagen aleinu. Nevertheless, he is not a Rishon
and an opinion he held is subject to dispute. I can think of two off
the bat in which I do not accept the Steipler's position:

1. His issur of the Bnei Israel of India lavo ba'kahal.
2. His issur to attend college (and on secular studies in general).

[For the record, RSZA, among others, disputed both positions. Although
I do not believe one needs to adhere to the mahalach of any one specific
Gadol in Torah or Avodas Hashem, RSZA is the Gadol of the last generation
to whom I feel the greatest affinity and who is a ner l'ragli v'or
l'nesivasi. Zechuso yagen aleinu.]

>He also writes that speculating on such would be included in the
>prohibition of the Mishnah beginning of 2'nd perek in Chagiga "Ma Lifnim".
>He writes that Tiferes Yisroel only said it to answer the Apikursim,
>but it is not the true pshat in previous worlds.

It is self-evident that this is not necessarily the pshat in the TY and
many great lomdim (v'ani ha'kattan b'socham) have understood the TY to
be stating his own definitive position as opposed to a da ma she'tashiv
opinion. As I have demonstrated previously, this mahalach in the TY
is borne out by many, many (the majority of) authorities and ma'amarei
Chazal. So, in this instance, as in several cases in the Bigdei Shesh
on Bava Basra, the Bigdei Shesh suggests l'aniyus da'ato - miht raayos,
fahrshteitzach - ahz mihr kehn lehrnen anderish vee der Kehillos Yaakov
zt"l zy"a.

YGB

R' Saul Mashbaum wrote up his notes on a shiur given by RHS on the
Avodah perenniel "Eilu va'Eilu". I was able to put it on line at
<http://www.aishdas.org/articles/rhsEilu.pdf>.

Rashei peraqim:
    Introduction
    Siyata diShemaya
    Variety in Avodas H'
    Halachic Implications of EvE
    Eilu veEilu in Hashkafah

Just to get the ball rolling, something that I noted was RHS's assumption
that hashkafic debate is simply a machloqes bedinei chovos halvavos, and
therefore the rules of pesaq DO apply. Presumably, this includes those
points that actually are included in these chiyuvim, and not every point.

It's akin to RGS's posts (and book review) that discuss the role of pesaq
WRT beliefs with impact lema'aseh, except even broader by remembering
to include chiyuvim other than those affected by how we define kefirah,
apiqursus, and meenus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

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


[ 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         ]