Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 178

Friday, August 20 1999

• Revel and lower criticism?
• Re: Lashon Hara About the Dead
• Shmiros
• Re: Shmiros
• Shmiros
• cognitive dissonance
• Breishis Literalism - Some Machshovo
• Re: Shmiros
• Torah texts
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants
• Shmiros
• Re: Proofs of G-d
• Re: Formal Proofs of G-d's existence DO exist
• Re: Proofs of G-d

RRWolpoe wrote: 
<FWIW, we were taught in Benrard Revel Graudate School that the Rambam's 
insistense that the Troah in our hands is that of Moshe Rabbeinu. etc.
refers 
only to the fact that neitherdid Moshe, nor did any subsequent scribe 
intentionally alter or forg anything.  However, it did not preclude the 
possibility of "honest" (ie. unintentional) scribal errors.
As such, I have accepted the possiblity of "lower criticism" in many cases;
but 
reject "higher criticism" which is based>

Just a quickie for the record, I too, in a much previous incarnation,
attended Revel and find the above assertion simply astonishing. I am not
disputing what RRW is testifying to, since I clearly was not present at
whatever era he attended and thus am in no position to provide contrary
contemporaneous testimony.  But for the record, the above formulation is
quite foreign, indeed very radically so, to my own on-the-spot-first-hand
eidus. i wonder whether RRW might not want to sharpen up exactly what it is
he believes he heard since it's possible that his brief summary may not do
sufficient justice to an accurate understanding of his experience. 

One other generalized objection however. Whatever the substance of what RRW
did or didn't hear, it is not the Bernard Revel Graduate School which taught
such. Scholarly perspectives are held by individual scholars and shared with
talmidim in any graduate school. A formulation which ascribes a teaching to
a school implies a shared consensus of the scholarly community around which
it is formed.  i am quite certain that no such consensus may be ascribed to
the school as a whole.  so such a formulation as above, accurate or not,
ought be given only bi'sheim omiro.

Mechy Frankel						H:  (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil					W: (703)
325-1277

--- Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> Moshe Feldman writes:
> > I looked up these sources last night.  It seems to me that the
> Chofetz Chaim
> > did not prohibit speaking lashon hara about the dead.  Rather, he
> prohibited
> > (a) disparaging & cursing and (b) being motzi shem ra (which is
> what the
> > Mordechai says).  Lashon hara, in contrast, is speaking the
> truth, and not
> > necessarily in a disparaging way.
> 
> My fault - I didn't cite you all the sources in the footnotes of
> the 
> Otzar Chaim edition of the Chofetz Chaim. This morning in shul I 
> looked up the question in the Kuntras Zera HaChaim in the back of 
> the Nesivos Chaim edition of the Chofetz Chaim (got all that? :-). 
> The Otzar Chaim and the Zera HaChaim both cite the Mordechai 
> Siman 106 in Bava Kama with respect to speaking Lashon Hara 
> about the dead generally. 
> 
> The Mordechai proves from a Medrash Tanchuma in Parshas 
> VoEschanan (I found it in Os Vav there) that Moshe Rabbeinu did 
> not go into Eretz Yisrael because of six aveiros. One of those 
> aveiros was that he spoke Lashon Hara on the dead of Bnei Yisrael 
> (although the Medrash Tanchuma speaks of Avraham, Yitzchak 
> and Yaakov, the last aveira looks clearly to be having spoken 
> lashon hara on the dor hamidbar ("vHinei Kamtem Tachas 
> Avoseichem Tarbus Anoshim Chatoim")). 

I saw the Mordechai inside.  He talks only of motzi shem ra.  The
case of "tarbut anashim chataim" could be understood as motzi shem ra
(B'nei Gad and b'nei Reuven were in fact not guilty of what Moshe
accused them of).  Certainly it wasn't lashon hara--he was talking
directly *to* them, not *about* them.

I also have a svarah to distinguish motzi shem ra from lashon hara
regarding the dead.  It's not right to falsify information about a
person whether he's dead or alive.  But the sin of lashon hara
(speaking the truth) is really one of causing the person pain; dead
people don't feel pain (see Brachot 19a).

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Unfortunately, I can't cut and paste because I erased much of my previous
e-mail, but I wanted to comment on the discussion which I started about
Shmiros.
For starters, I want to disassociate myself from the very strong
sentiments expressed by RJH re shmiros.  I understand why he said that its
smacks of avodah zarah, and I am also concerned that some people might
fall into the trap of thinking that the amulet rather than HKBH is helping
them Chas VeShalom.  However, I would never ever chas veshalom accuse the
gedolim who supported these things as being guilty Chas Veshalom of that
aveirah RCHL.  I request that such langauge be toned down in the future.
I don't want our chashuveh list to deteriorate into a screaming match.
I always was moreh heter for those people who use such things in a similar
way that R YGB and others have explained, that these objects might remind
someone to contemplate holy thoughts, improve oneself etc....and that
bezchus this the Ribbono Shel Olam will help. The greatest source for this
is the Gemarah near the end of Rosh Hashanah about the nakhash, vechi
nachash meimis venakhash mekhayeh?... Elah Lomar Lakh...(I don't have a
gemarah with me so please excuse me for not bringing the entire lashon.)
I still don't think that shmiros really are a good thing, and
I ally myself to the statement that I quoted from the aruch HaShulchan.  I
realize that elu va'elu divrei Elokim Chaim, but when it comes to Avodas
Hashem one has to search for the derekh that brings him to the greatest
level of Yiras Shamayim.  I called it a pet peeve, because too often I've
seen people that are confronted, Lo Aleinu RCHL, that are confronted with
tzaros, who try all sorts of magical segulos, some of which have more
value than others, in an attempt to solve their problems.
Sometimes, even a mitzvah, a real bona fide mitzvah, can become a
"segulah."  The best example is how some people run to check their mezuzos
if something is not going well with their lives.  Obviously, there can be
no objection to a person trying to be mekayem this or any mitzvah in its
proper manner.  However, if someone forgets that it is the Ribbonon Shel
Olam who protects, and they think that somehow this mitzvah is what is
protecting him, they are very clearly missing the point and wasting their
time.  If I am not mistaken, the Nosei Keilim of the shulkchan aruch make
this point in hilchos mezuzah, but I don't have my library with me here.
So not only can some "segula" be misinterpreted, even a mitzvah can be
degraded into some sort of "magical Segula."
I've even seen pamphlets promoting asiyas hamitzvos (some put out by major
kiruv organizations) because they are "segulos" for this that or the other
thing.  I understand that the writer's realize that doing a mitzvah only
has importance because one is supposed to realize that this is the Ratzon
Hashem, and that one uplifts oneself by its performance.  But it still
bothers me, because the peshutey Ha'am don't know how to make this
distinction, and the error of believing in something other than HKBH can
be a terrible one, possibly even leading to RJH's concern of avodah zarah.
Let me give an example.  Many people believe in various herbal and other
alternative therapies for illness.  Some have some validity , some don't,
most are harmless, some are even harmful.  Many mekubalim today promote
various things which supposedly have supernatural powers to heal various
illnesses.  People who believe in this stuff (in general, I don't, but
that is beside the point), are often easily drawn into what has been
called the "culture of alternative medicine,"  i.e. some people with long
beards and peyos have been promoting all sorts of alternative remedies.
In fact, some of these remedies have very suspicious origins, possibly in
Avodah Zarah.
Let me give one example, some people have used pigeons to heal hepatitis.
By putting the pigeon near an afflicted  persons navel, the pigeon
supposedly dies by taking the "yellowness" from the ill person and thus
the person is healed and the pigeon dies.  A "mekubal" (whatever that
means-and I will not mention his name) came to my town in Chicago,
claiming that this had its origin in
the Zohar and he promoted this treatment.
In fact, there is no such Zohar.  In fact the earliest reference to this
"treatment in a "Torah" source is a book of remedies written by a
Hungarian Rav in the late 1890's (I will bli neder whgen I get home look
it up and give the exact quote) and it made it into the famous "taamei
haminhagim" making it a popular remedy in the Jewish world.  This sefer
did not quote a source.
Between me and you, I have strong suspicions that the source of this
"remedy" is from Hungarian peasantry, and the many pagan customs which
abounded in the Hungarian "backwoods."  This smacks of some real live
animal sacrifice, and possibly some real live bonafide Avodah Zarah.
As for the efficacy of this "treatment" Dr Fred Rosner once published a
study on this treatment in the NY Journal of Medicine (I don't think this
journal is punblished anymore) I will bli neder look up the reference.  He
discovered that miraculously, most people actually did recover
completely from their
illness several weeks after treatment.  However, so does just about
everyone else who gets hepatitis!  In addition, some pigeons died, and
some didn't (about 50%), those that died had no eveidence of jaundice, but
they did have ruptured spleens!  Apparently, when the "mekubal" placed the
bird near the patients navel he twisted it in such a way that the spleen
ruptured.  It is not surprising that it died!  What a miraculous feat!
Not much of a reason to engage in a practice that is borderline Avodah
Zarah!  In fact there are more examples of "mekubalim" using remedies that
originated in clear Avodah Zarah.
Another is the practice of throwing molten lead into a pot of cold water
over someone's head to avert avodah zarah.  There are still practitioners
of this in Yerushalayim.  I must admit that in my younger years, I had
this done to me.  My grandmother Alehah Hashalom (who grew up in
Yerushalayim, pre-war), remembers how the Arab
women used to use this method.  A historical analysis I once read, found
the origins of this practice to be in the pagan practices of the
Pre-Islamic arabs.
There are many such examples.  Nowadays, with all of the eastern
"medicine" that is becoming so popular in some circles, we have to be very
careful in what we learn from them.  On the one hand, some of what they
seem to have learned over the centuries can teach us (eg. accupunture has
shown to be beneficial in many studies for some uses especially in the
alleviation of pain.)  But let us be very careful that we are not
engaging in practices of Avodah Zarah.
Most importantly of all I echo R Nadooffs sentiments, we must remained
focused on the Ribbono Shel Olam.  If you are truly using a "shmira" as a
reminder that you should be serving Him, I guess I can't object to it.
However, I don't believe that there is any intrinsic value to these
things.  And I think that the harm caused by them, by diverting people's
focus away from the IKKAR, is greater than the benefit caused by them.
This is why I think the Arukh HaShulchan called it a "Chutzpah kelapei
shemaya."  He didn't call it Avodah Zarah.  It is the greatest chutzpah,
when HKBH makes a person suffer in order to be meorrer him to teshuvah,
and instead of waking up, this person goes and tries to find some amulet
to prtect himself.  Can you imagine a greater Chutzpah!  I just imagine
myself giving mussar to my child and I send her up to her room, instead of
telling me that from
now on she will behave and stop fighting with her brother, she tells me 
that I must have been angry with her because she forgot to take her lucky
Barbie doll to school with her that day.  "Tommorrow, daddy I promise I
will take my dollie!"  That would make me feel like my punishment really
accomplished a lot, wouldn't it!  It isn't pleasant for HKBH to punish us,
any more than it is pleasant for us to punish our children, I'm sure He
wants us to get his message!
Good Shabbos and Kesiva VaChasima Tova,
Shaul Weinreb

In a message dated 8/20/99 10:55:24 AM EST, sweinr1@uic.edu writes:

>  The greatest source for this
>  is the Gemarah near the end of Rosh Hashanah about the nakhash, vechi
>  nachash meimis venakhash mekhayeh?... Elah Lomar Lakh...(I don't have a
>  gemarah with me so please excuse me for not bringing the entire lashon.)

For those with out Gemara a Mishnayos will do, and for those with a Chumash 
and Rashi they can find it in Bamidbar 21:8 (briefly alluded to in Shmos 
17:11).

>  "segulah."  The best example is how some people run to check their mezuzos
>  if something is not going well with their lives.  Obviously, there can be
>  no objection to a person trying to be mekayem this or any mitzvah in its
>  proper manner.  However, if someone forgets that it is the Ribbonon Shel
>  Olam who protects, and they think that somehow this mitzvah is what is
>  protecting him, they are very clearly missing the point and wasting their
>  time.  If I am not mistaken, the Nosei Keilim of the shulkchan aruch make
>  this point in hilchos mezuzah,

As a Lubavitcher I add, that it is known that the Rebbe Ztz"l would tell 
people with needs to check Tephilin and/or Mezuzahs, also in response to the 
criticizim that was directed at his Mivtza Mezuza, from the Rambam, the Rebbe 
spoke at legth, it is printed in Shaarei Halacha Uminhag Vol 3.

>  There are many such examples. 

Yodua the issue of Kaporos.

As to the Etzem discussion I don't need to add my 2 cents in something much 
disussed in Poskim, and in different parts of the S"A.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

R. David Nadoff writes:

>>Rabbi Bechhofer also asks why a Chumash or other sefer kodesh wouldn't
>>function as a shmira in the same manner as a Chitas (Chumash,Tehilim
>>and Tanya in one volume). The Lubavitch answer to this is that the
>>Chitas has unique shmira value because the word chitas, which is
>>formed by the roshay tayvos of Chumash, Tehillim and Tanya, appears in
>>B'rayshis 35:5 regarding the fact that b'nay Yaakov were not pursued
>>following the Sh'chem massacre because the fear of Hashem (chitas
>>Elokim) was upon the inhabitants of the land. Apparently, a
>>combination of sifray kodesh whose roshay tayvos form chitas has
>>special power to arouse chitas Elokim and ward off harm.

RYGB responds:

>What about a Chumash Bereshis with the word "chitas" in it? And, does
>that mean that the shemira of the Chitas is limited to evils perpetrated
>by non-Jews (l'afukei, let us say, accidents)?

It seems to me there should be room for some personal creativity here.

How about Hullin, Terumot, Temurah?

Or for those Rishonically inclined: Hinnukh, Torat Ha-Bayyit, Temim
De'im.

Parshanut/Midrash:  Hizkuni, Tanhuma, Torah ve-ha-Mitzvah (Malbim).

Other suggestions are welcome!

Eli Clark

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:

>This is also used to explain the phenomenon of various
>apocalyptic cults who increase  missionizing activities when
>their predictions fail. Apparently if they can convince others
>of their beliefs then dissonance is reduce.

I am sure this was unintended by RDE, but reading the above made me
think of a certain phenomenon within  a certain sector of the halakhic
community.

Eli Clark

I give credit to Chaim Potock's Book Wanderings for identifying the latest in a 
series of "kulturkampfs".  It is true that Judaism started out with Avrohom 
protesting paganism . Later in history, we stood out in contrast to Christianity
and Islam.

Regardless of the precise Halachic considerations for Christianity and Islam 
from a machshovo POV our biggest "threat" or bar plugto for about the last 200 
years or so has been secular humanism.  

What most secular Jews deny, but I'll stand and accuse them anyway, is that 
they are promoting a brand NEW religion, and that is secularism.  And Darwin is 
one of the "prophets" of that cult, so is Marx and a few others.

As such, teaching Darwin to the exclusion of competing theories is in fact 
promoting THAT theory above others.  And as such it is promoting secularism over
religion.

It is also a revisionist belief to hold that the constitution opposes supporting
religion.  The separation of church and state is designed to deny government the
ability to favor any one religious sect over any other.  However, we have a de 
facto religion that IS being favored, and that newly established religion is 
secularism.

IMHO, it is no less a threat to teach Darwin in class then it was 40 years ago 
to force kids to sing Xmas carols.  In recognition of the importance of Darwin, 
it would be a good idea to teach it as a theory, one that has earned the 
greatest acceptance among scientists.  However, MOST schools go beyond that and 
teach it as a form of dogma, and relegate the non-believers (i.e. those that 
adhere to a theory competing with Darwin) to being some kind of 20th century 
Neanderthal.

Without promoting Breishis literalism, public schools should IMHO take a neutral
stance and neither promote nor undermine any religion. The facts as I see it is,
that they ARE promoting a new cult, the cult of secularism.

My 2 cents
Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 8/20/99 11:37:12 AM EST, clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

> >What about a Chumash Bereshis with the word "chitas" in it? And, does
>  >that mean that the shemira of the Chitas is limited to evils perpetrated
>  >by non-Jews (l'afukei, let us say, accidents)?
>  
>  It seems to me there should be room for some personal creativity here.
>  
>  How about Hullin, Terumot, Temurah?
>  
>  Or for those Rishonically inclined: Hinnukh, Torat Ha-Bayyit, Temim
>  De'im.
>  
>  Parshanut/Midrash:  Hizkuni, Tanhuma, Torah ve-ha-Mitzvah (Malbim).
>  
>  Other suggestions are welcome!
>  
One would think, that the author of this sat down when he learned the word 
Chitas and was thinking how can we turn that into a Shmira today, and what 
does it stand for (and decided to find one Sefer of Torah one of Ksuvim and 
one of Chassidus), Vehameivin Yovin.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

RRhendel asks:
< Subject: 8 differences between Yemenite/Ashkenazi Torahs
Could someone give a list with references
Russell Hendel;>

Okay. but a word of caution first. while some have referred to these as
ashqenazi-sefardi differences, this is essentially no longer true. The
ashqenazis basically, and uncharacteristically, seem to have thrown in the
towel and practically any sefer torah that you are likely to run across in
an ashqenazi shul will look just like the sefardi one (aside from the
calligraphy of the letter shapes).  you ba'alei qiriyoh out there can test
this assertion this very shabbos by noticing how piztuoh dacoh is spelled in
whatever you're leining from. i'd be very surprised if any of you encounter
the "ashqenazi' spelling with an aleph.  i don't know exactly when this
stems from but my guess would be that it began to evolve after the miqro'os
gidolos issued an edition corrected according to, and containing, the
Minchas Shai.  There are however, surviving differences in communal use
today - but they are in the yemenite torahs, which agree partially with the
old ashqenazi spellings and partially with the sefardi.  In any event there
are more differences between the torah than spelling.  Since you ask, i
enumerate the following 9 'classical" ashqenazi-sefardi spelling
differences:

Bireishis:	4:13 (mnsoa)
			7:11 (maayonos)
			9:29 (vayihi/vayihiyu)
Shimos:		25:31(teioseh)
			28:26(ho'efod)
Bimidbor:		1:17 (bishimos)
			10:10(chodsheichem)
			22:5 (bior)
divorim:		23:2 (dacoh)   
               
There are other differences as well:
1. inclusion of an open poroshoh in vayiqroh 7:21 and none at 7:28 in the
yemenite and breuer chumosh - BTW someone mentioned the halochic vector
associated with having a moleh-choseir messed up. having dfferrent poroshoh
breakup is no less halochically resonant. perhaps these are what have
charedim in an uproar. shades of the previous thread on erroneous pisaq.
does anybody really think they are going to change halochic/ritual practice
in a shul by changing the accepted torah if it is "proved' that breuer is
more right -i.e more identical to the ben-asher which all of the other
torahs were trying to duplicate, which clearly he is.  (though in the middle
ages ben-nathan torahs were also deemed acceptable).  the irony in this
particular case, however, is that it seems for the vayiqroh 7 poroshah
dispute it is likely that both breuer and the yemenites are in fact wrong,
and the keter likely agreed with the ashqi-sfards (see penkower).  
2. Word separation. 
Shimos 17:16 (kais-koh) yemenites and breuer have 2 words.
Divorim 32:6 (Ha-lahashem -and yes, i'm familiar with the minchas shai's
direction to read as "hal") yemenites don't separate the hey - interestingly
breuer deviates from the yemenites here because he had the real keter in
front of him for the end of divorim where it is seen to agree with the
ashqisfards.
Bireishis 41:45, 41:50, 46:20 (poti feroh), yemenites -though not breuer -
have one word.
3. arrangement of the shiras - (the number of lines, arrangement and spacing
of lines and words beginning lines.) 
4. bimidbor 25:12  (sholom), Breuer though not anybody else corrects
according to the gimoroh qidushin 66b to print a 'broken vov".

Mechy Frankel						H:  (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil					W: (703)
325-1277

On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

>  On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
>  
>  > all: what constitues "criticism."  In the most recent issue of something
>  > called the Torah U-Madda Journal, there is a discussion of the propriety
>  
>  The same article in the Tora U-Madda Journal(Dear YGB - what was the
> intent of referring to the "something" journal?) deals with the issues

See snippet above from REC.

> raised by Moshe concerning the pros and cons of history.  It also
> contains the author's (I'm not sure why not to name him but I'll follow
> that protocol for now) explanation as to why he did not feel from a
> halachik basis that the publicizing of the letters was "forbidden or
> outrageous". He concludes with a public apology in case he was mistaken. 
>

The author is entitled to his opinion (generated expost facto). It is this
writer's opinion that it is flat out wrong. This writer finds the manner
in which the "apology" was written even more outrageous than the original
publication. The gratuitous wipes at the right for the overwhelming
majority of the essay, on matters that concern devarim shel ma b'kach;
the dragging of the Gadol b'Torah who was the topic of the origiinal
publication through even lower levels of muck and mire that is
inexcusable, and the self-serving equivoactions over whether an apology is
eve warranted - all are depressing, demoralising, and worse.

Ani es sheli asisi. For almost two years I have held my fire here on
Avodah in the hope that the individual in question would be courageous on
his own (see fn 177 in the essay). I myself would not have said anything
had someone else not raised the issue. But once it has been raised, there
is a chiyuv mecho'o.

YGB

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

In a message dated 8/20/99 1:13:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 
 The author is entitled to his opinion (generated expost facto). It is this
 writer's opinion that it is flat out wrong. This writer finds the manner
 in which the "apology" was written even more outrageous than the original
 publication. The gratuitous wipes at the right for the overwhelming
 majority of the essay, on matters that concern devarim shel ma b'kach;
 the dragging of the Gadol b'Torah who was the topic of the origiinal
 publication through even lower levels of muck and mire that is
 inexcusable, and the self-serving equivoactions over whether an apology is
 eve warranted - all are depressing, demoralising, and worse.
  >>
Dear R'YGB,
As you say, we're each entitled to our opinions. I have to say that I didn't 
perceive the muck and mire that you did and perceived the soul searching over 
the need for an apology realistic. Of course the bochain klayot will make the 
final determination.
To the educators in our midst, what is the general take on role models - are 
we better off with ones who completely model perfection (as we perceive it) 
or imperfect ones who have struggled to overcome obstacles (and seem more 
realistic?)?

Kol Tuv, shabbat shalom, KVCT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 8/20/99 12:26:35 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> To the educators in our midst, what is the general take on role models - 
are 
>  we better off with ones who completely model perfection (as we perceive 
it) 
>  or imperfect ones who have struggled to overcome obstacles (and seem more 
>  realistic?)?

In the context of the thread, where one thinks that so in so made an error, 
and therfore he is bpoeil imperfect, the Gemara states "Im Horav Domeh 
Lmalach...Tvakeish..Vim Lav..", furthermore Hamiharheir Achar Raboi (which 
refers to actions) Kmharheir....

KVCT

YItzchok Zirkind

Just alitle correction to m previous post. The molten lead business was to
avert AYIN HORAH, not avodah zarah as I had mistakenly wtitten.
Shaul Weinreb

Yitzchok Zirkind writes:
: Yodua the Diuk in Loshon HoRambam "Leida" vs. "Lha'amin" Shyesh Sham...

The Rihal's point is that tradition is a more certain yedi'ah than
philosophy. I don't think he disagrees on the need for yedi'ah.

That said, I think emunah has greater motivating power. We need both
Think how worked up people can get about things that are under dispute
than they are about ideas that are clearly provable. How many people get
passionate any more about the fact that the world is round?

Sh'nas "vihu yashmi'einu birachamav SHEINIS" tovah umsukah!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Aug-99: Shishi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 358:24
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 25b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Russell Hendell mentions proofs of G-d based on modal logic, and bayesian
probability. Robert Schwartz writes that Kurt Goedel fount an ontological
proof.

Can someone give me details on any of these? Explanation or a citation
would be appreciated.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Aug-99: Shishi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 358:24
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 25b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> writes
: Did those cultures start with small groups of individuals, or large
: groups? My understanding is that "the Kuzari argument" admits to the
: possibility of a small group of people starting a story and getting away
: with it. Its strength is that *our* story makes the claim to have started
: with a *large* group, and there is no way for that to occur without some
: (or most) people realizing that it was made up.

The number of people is itself currently denited by bible critics. The
best I could counterargue is that had someone invented inflated population
claims the people he'd have to convince of the historicity of the legend
would want to know why their numbers have dwindled. Clearly the number
of Jews we believe to be at Har Sinai had to match what people were seeing
WRT population trends during bayis rishon.

: As my evidence, I cite Sefer Devarim: "Since the day that G-d created man
: on the earth, from one end of the universe to the other, has such a thing
: ever happened, OR HAS IT EVEN BEEN RUMORED? ...
: The implication is that, no, no other nation can even make this claim. If
: there are any nations who have made comparable claims, I'd like to hear
: about it.

For sure, the claim of national prophecy is unique. Also, these other stories
to not involve salvation but creation. However, just the idea of a religion
based on national revelation as opposed to being created by a single person
makes Yahadus unique. In terms of comparative religions -- IOW going from
"there is a G-d" to "the G-d that exists is the Jewish G-d" -- this pasuk
shows why Yahadus has a unique claim to being Hashem's message to mankind.

The following is from D S Levene <D.S.Levene@durham.ac.uk>, posted
on sco.culture.jewish on 20-Jul-98:
: ... consider, for example, the Theban foundation legend, according
: to which the original Thebans sprung fully-formed from the earth after their
: lawgiver, Cadmus, had sowed dragons' teeth into it.  If (as I presume) you
: don't believe this legend to be true, then on your account you should have
: difficulty explaining how the Thebans, supposedly descended from these
: people, believed it when it was introduced.

And, two days later:
: When I cited the Theban myth as an example, I did call it a "random"
: example.  In retrospect it was not the best parallel, because, while it is
: true that thousands of Thebans claimed descent from these men born from
: dragons' teeth, the number of men who were supposedly so born was only five
: (see Aeschylus fr.376).  ...
: nevertheless a better example - and the one I *should* have picked! - would
: be the Locrians, who likewise believed their ancestors to have been born out
: of (in this case) stones thrown onto the earth, and where the number
: supposedly so born *was* a full population (Strabo 7.7.2).

Gidon Cohen <gdc101@york.ac.uk> got into the same conversation in late
September. Here's some of his comments:
> Irish Mythology tells of the interaction between gods, faries and man.
> Including battles between masses of the ancestors of the modern Irish with
> gods. (Numbers in the 100s of thousands are mentioned- most notable event
> is the 2nd battle of Moy Tura). The humans defeated the gods and drove them
> under the ground. Weird, yet it was believed as historical by the Irish. We
> know this because it was taught as 'history' in many rural Irish schools
> until very recently. There are even some history text books from the 1960s
> which treat the events as factual.

and:
} Scottish National History was rewritten and distorted in the 18th
} century. National dress and tradtions (such as the kilt and highland games)
} were invented. The whole thing started in a well intentioned fashion and
} then was taken up by some hoaxters. The point is that according to Kuzari
} style arguments one would expect the Scottish people to have rejected this
} invented history, after all it lied about what their ancestors did and were
} like. Instead they eagerly accepted the false history, which made gave them
} a central place in the historical narrative. It was this acceptance of false
} tradtion that lead many gulible historians down a path of nonsense for a
} generation or more. (more detail on this can be found in Trevor-Roper's
} essay in Ranger and Hobsbauwm (ed) The Invention of Tradition - other chapter
} provide further amples)

I would be thrilled if someone with knowledge of history (or a father who
has such knowledge <grin>) or mythology would take up the gauntlet.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 20-Aug-99: Shishi, Seitzei
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 358:24
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 25b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

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


[ 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         ]