Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 029

Tuesday, May 14 2002

• stamps with shem
• goyish shaala
• Tagim
• Re: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael
• Re: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael
• Re: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Eisav soneh leYa'akov
• Re: kaddish
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Belief
• re:Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• People didn't wear undergarments at the time of the CC !?
• Re: Wearing tzitzis outside one's clothes
• Re: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael
• Re: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael
• Re: Tagim
• Re: Belief
• Re: Belief
• Night before day, or after day?
• Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael
• RE: Proportion of First Borns to All B'nei Yisrael
• Re: Belief

One wrote that even if there is a bonafide, kadosh, shem Hashem on a
stamp, there is no issur of lifnei iver by allowing it to be cancelled
since this is performed by a machine.

I think this is not true. This is a psik reishei in other mitzvos.
See Igros Moshe which forbids bringing tefillin to a contagious patient
where the hospital will require it to be burned when the patient heals.

Shlomo Goldstein

A goy asked if he can hire a Jew to work on Shabbos. One answered that
the goy has no issur of lifnei iver since the Jew can find such issurim
elsewhere.

First, I would like to agree with the concern for encouraging employment
of Jews.

Yet, upon looking at Minchas Chinuch 232 I see that he states that there
is NO issur lifnei iver to goyim. This is clearly the position of Tos
and Rosh and probably the Chinuch as well. The footnote there says
PMG in Ginas Vradim disagrees, claiming goyim do have such an issur.
The Sde Chemed rebutts this claim with support of many acharonim. I do
not have a copy of Ginas Vradim, but prima facie I'm surprised that
anyone should be machmir.

The Minchas Chinuch there relates that the Rosh holds that there is an
issur of lifnei d'lifnei iver with a goy in between two Jews. It would
seem that the one ruling leniently to this goy has inadvertently violated
this issur. In this particular case, the Jew claimed and the goy agreed,
he could find work elsewhere. It would seem to me to avoid the issur
of lifnei iver he would need to find work at the same or better pay.
The Jew in question who is willing to work on Shabbos and of course the
goy have no neemanus. More due diligence is necessary to determine if in
fact there is such work available to avoid lifnei d'lifne iver. In this
particular case a claim could be made that the one identifying himself
as a Jew has a peh she'asar hu ha peh shehitair claim. This would not
be the case if the worker were known to be a Jew.

Even if technically there is no issur for the goy, I still find it
impossible to permit such a response. If a Jewish minor wishes to open
a restaurant serving Jews pork and clams, would we tell him it is only
the responsibility of his parents and beis-din to stop his activities?!
Perhaps the nishal does not have a din of beis din to be required to
prevent the Jew from violating Shabbos. Yet surely he should not injure
the community by working in the opposite direction. The nishal has a
mitzva min haTorah to help that Jew NOT violate the Shabbos. How is
this accomplished by permitting his employment?

Shlomo Goldstein

My eldest son asked me a question that I cannot answer. This is not
unusual, but in this case maybe the chevra has an answer. :-)

We assume the following to be true:
- We learnt that Rabbi Akiva learnt (mountains of) halochos from the
  tagim on each letter.
- Each letter has a predefined amount of tagim.

What could Rabbi Akiva learn from the tagim that was not in the
letter-sequence, as the tagim are merely a function of the letter
combination.

Any ideas?

- Danny

"Everything should be made as simple as possible ... but not simpler."
        - Albert Einstein

On 12 May 2002 at 10:02, Jay S. Lapidus wrote:
> My question is why is the proportion of first-borns to the rest of the
> Israelites in the wilderness so minuscule, about 1%? The meforshim AFAIK,
> including R' Abravanel, did not ask the question. The mortality rate
> of bechorim could not have been that astronomical.

AIUI it's because of shisha b'keres echad ("paru, va'yishritzu, 
va'yirbu, va'ya'atzmu me'od me'od" Shmos 1). 

-- Carl

"Jay S. Lapidus" wrote:
> My question is why is the proportion of first-borns to the rest of the
> Israelites in the wilderness so minuscule, about 1%?

Two (complementary) answers:

1. large families (around 60 IIRC) to get from 70 to 600,000 in 210 years.

2. differential mortality: if the bechorim were the old priests you would
expect them to die in excessive numbers during cheit haegel.

David Riceman

On 12 May 2002 at 10:02, Jay S. Lapidus wrote:
:> My question is why is the proportion of first-borns to the rest of the
:> Israelites in the wilderness so minuscule, about 1%? The meforshim AFAIK,
:> including R' Abravanel, did not ask the question. The mortality rate
:> of bechorim could not have been that astronomical.

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:28:00PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: AIUI it's because of shisha b'keres echad ("paru, va'yishritzu, 
: va'yirbu, va'ya'atzmu me'od me'od" Shmos 1). 

On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:37:03AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Two (complementary) answers:
: 1. large families (around 60 IIRC) to get from 70 to 600,000 in 210 years.

Actually, it "only" takes around 6 per family. Not even 6 per birth (as
the medrash reads). This would yeild 15million people (of whom 4/5 were
not redeemed) in a single generation with room to spare. Not to mention
that more than one generation actually left.

: 2. differential mortality: if the bechorim were the old priests you would
: expect them to die in excessive numbers during cheit haegel.

Since Jay mentioned Abarbanel in particular, we should note that he'd
prefer RDR's answer to RCMS's.

IIRC, Abarbanel considered this habit of taking medrashim literally to
be one of the odder elements of *Ashkenazi* thought. See, e.g. Yeshu'os
Meshicho 2:1.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             "unity" be over domineering?

On 9 May 2002 at 23:43, yosef stern wrote:
> My search was not at all in vain, the Ba'al ha'Ittur DOES infact mention
> it in Hilchos Tzitzis (shaar 2, Chelek 1 and Chelek 3)...

So let's turn the question around. Assuming that R. Seth has seen all 
the photographic evidence, why did most people not follow the Baal 
HaItur until relatively recently? Is there anyone who specifically 
sasy NOT to wear them out (as opposed to being silent on the issue)? 

-- Carl

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 11:39:25PM -0400, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:                       Even if you should insist that the use of the
: term "halacha" when referring to Esav's enmity implies something more
: permanent than the attitude of the person, Esav. ...
:                                           What is the basis, however,
: for generalizing Rome to all nations? ...

This is Galus Edom. Therefore, those amongst whom we are exiled are Edom
-- whether genetically or not, culturally the dominant civilization is
that built by Rome.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             "unity" be over domineering?

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:37:55PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: RYBS (miPeninei haRav) also held that the main kaddish was kaddish
: derabban

R' De Sola Poole quotes numerous ma'amarei chazal to show that Qaddish
served to close shiurim well before it was used in tefillah.

Leshitaso, particularly aggadic shiurim, and it served to close the
shiur with mention of the ge'ulah. (Much as is still done today.)

I would give more detail but my copy is currently lent out to serve a
greater cause.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             "unity" be over domineering?

On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 03:02:59PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: According to these Rishonim, how would someone who is not yet married 
: be yotzei mitzvas tzitzis? Did everyone wear taleisim then?  

It's a mitzvah machsheres, not chiyuv (to use R' Dovid Lifshitz's
terminology). So, unless a single man happens to buy a four cornered
garment, why would he have to be yotzei?

-mi

On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 01:02:27AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: R'Elchonon Wasserman says in his maamar on emunah: "The Rambam writes in
: Sefer Hamitzvos that first mitzva is to know and to believe in G-d. It
: is necessary to understand how it is relevant to command belief?...."
:                                     He answers his question by stating
: that emuna is something totally obvious and rational - except if one's
: lusts interfere. Thus the mitzva of emuna is to work on controlling one's
: lusts and purifying oneself to the degree that the normal intellect can
: express itself.

The Rambam seems to make a chiluq between emunah, which he feels can be a
chiyuv, and attitude and emotion which he seems to avoid making a chiyuv.

For example:

Hilchos Dei'os tells you that learning science and philosophy are chiyuvim
because they lead one to ahavas Hashem. Note that the Rambam turns the
obligation to love into one of learning how/why to love. He does not do
so for emunah.

The Rambam sides with those who make "lo sachmod" into an issur of acting
on that desire.

Hilchos Teshuvah opens with telling you that *Vidui* is a chiyuv.

But this doesn't 100% work if one takes emunah to require a hasaras
hamonei'ah of ta'avah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 46th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (413) 403-9905                             "unity" be over domineering?

> the Ba'al ha'Ittur DOES infact mention
> it in Hilchos Tzitzis (shaar 2, Chelek 1 and Chelek 3): And our holy
> teacher writes in the name of the Chochom R. Yitzchok b. Moron Levi that
> those who wear their tzitzis under their garments are not fulfiling the
> Mitzvah of Tzitzis....because the Torah says Asher Techase Boh (which
> implies the outer most garment, this does not include an overcoat as in
> Gemara Moed Katan 22:2 (Apikrotzuso = overcoat)).

According to this citation, there would be no problem if the outermost
garment was the one with tzitzis, but those tzitzis were tucked inside,
since the only problem he has with tzitzis under the garment is the
garment itself.

Would R. Yitzchok b. Maran (I find the transliteration as given an
impropriety) Levi hold that it is permissible to wear a four-cornered
garment without tzitzis, if it is not an outer garment?

Elazar M. Teitz

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> I was trying to think of why putting tzitzis in the corner is okay,
> but not to put them in the pants. The only thing I can come up with is
> that perhaps they did not wear undergarments. .. If I am
> correct, then the Chofetz Chaim would have no problem with someone who
> was among non-Jews and wore underwear and did have the tzitzis inside
> his pants.

Please, rabosay! 
People didn't wear undergarments at the time of the CC !? She'al ovicho
veyagedcho - zekenecho veyomru loch...

Of course it is less bizoyon to place the tzitzis in their own little
pockets that to have them flowing down into your pants.

In fact now I remember when we were kids, that is how many of us did
it. We tucked the tzitzis into its own handy little pocket.

Maybe Reb Seth can give us the reasons why in the past 20-30 years Tallis
Koton manufacturers began to sew up all sides of that little pocket...

SBA

On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 03:02:59PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>: According to these Rishonim, how would someone who is not yet married 
>: be yotzei mitzvas tzitzis? Did everyone wear taleisim then?  

On 13 May 2002 at 12:34, Micha Berger wrote:
> It's a mitzvah machsheres, not chiyuv (to use R' Dovid Lifshitz's
> terminology). So, unless a single man happens to buy a four cornered
> garment, why would he have to be yotzei?

There's a difference between saying you're not chayav and saying you
cannot peform the mitzva. By that logic, should a woman ever sit in a
Succah or bentch Lulav and Esrog?

The fact is that we do wear four-cornered garments b'davka so that
we can be obligated in, and fulfill the mitzva. But if you cannot be
yotzei with a garment that is not capable of atifa, how would a bachur
be yotzei? (Ain hachi nami, RDS is correct that Sfardim and Yekkes wear
a talis from Bar Mitzva. I'm asking about the rest of the world).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

From: "Jay S. Lapidus" <jlapidus@snet.net>
> My question is why is the proportion of first-borns to the rest of the
> Israelites in the wilderness so minuscule, about 1%? The meforshim AFAIK,
> including R' Abravanel, did not ask the question. The mortality rate
> of bechorim could not have been that astronomical.

Assuming that 50% of all first borns are female, you have a 2% frequency -
or 1 in 50. I can dream up 3 solutions:

1. Since they frequently gave birth to sextuplets, if each mother had
"a mere" 8 such pregnancies you would get a 2% first-born ratio.

2. We know that only chamushim (1/5 or 1/50) came out of Egypt, the other
dying for their refusal to leave. You could argue that the youngsters
were too young to argue and/or be punished, hence a visible reduction
in the older part of each family.

3. With the Egyptian decree to kill babies, it's plausible to argue that
the first borns were killed more often, as they are more noticed. Mothers
with more children may have had a better change of hiding them - both
pre and post natal.

- Danny

Jay Lapidus wrote:
>My question is why is the proportion of first-borns to the rest of the 
>Israelites in the wilderness so minuscule, about 1%? The meforshim AFAIK, 
>including R' Abravanel, did not ask the question. The mortality rate of 
>bechorim could not have been that astronomical.

See my post in volume 4 no. 89.
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n089.shtml#08>

Gil Student

> We assume the following to be true:
> - We learnt that Rabbi Akiva learnt (mountains of) halochos from the
>   tagim on each letter.
> - Each letter has a predefined amount of tagim.

> What could Rabbi Akiva learn from the tagim that was not in the
> letter-sequence, as the tagim are merely a function of the letter
> combination.

An explanation is presented in the introduction to the Igros Moshe volume I.

"...With these crowns - G-d made the letters of the Torah into kings. In
other words a talmid chachom could take his understanding of what was
said in the Torah and make generalizations and pasken halacha based upon
his understanding of the reasons found in the letters of the Torah. Even
when there were disputes between chachomim as to how to understand the
letters, the understanding of the majority prevails even though they
might not have ascertained the truth i.e., what G-d had intended. That
is because G-d gave the Torah to the Jews that they should do with it
according to what they understand was written in it within the context of
the oral tradition that was given at Sinai. G-d does not provide further
explanation or direction concerning the laws of the Torah since it is "Not
in Heaven". Rather from the beginning He agreed with the understanding
and explanation of the talmdei chachomim. In sum, the letters of the Torah
are kings so that talmidei chachomim rely totally on their understanding
of this authoritative source - even though it is perhaps not in accord
with G-d's understanding....Thus G-d replied to Moshe that by means of
these royal crowned letters - Rabbi Akiva, as well as all the chachomim,
would generate unlimited amount of halachos. They would be restricted
only by what was written in the Torah and what was given in the mesorah...

                    Daniel Eidensohn

> That's fascinating. R. Wasserman then belives that belief must be
> rational and that and that any previously held beleif must be discarded
> if rationality disproves it. It also seems obvious that his own belief
> was based on rationality.

Viewing belief as being obvious to an objective rational being doesn't
mean that rationality is the criterion for its validity. I don't
see how your extension is inherent in Rav Wasserman's writings. The
issue of what constitutes rationality is an interesting and confusing
topic. The term rationality is sometimes used in the sense of something
which doesn't violate the rules of logic. However there are things which
can be proved rationally which in fact are wrong since they are based
on faulty premises. The premises themselves are based upon observation
or commonsense or tradtion etc. However rationality typically refers to
something which most people agree to and is not dependent upon logical
linkage between the elements.

>                             I think I understand what "controlling one's
> lusts" means. It probably means that if one lusts after Issur whether
> it be Gashmius or Ruchnius in nature, than he will blind himself to the
> rational truth of that Issur. But what does he mean by "purifying oneself
> to the degree that the normal intellect can express itself."? Does he
> mean to rid oneself of lusting after Gashmius would mean to see the
> pristinly rational nature of the Truth of G-d and His Torah?

I would suggest you look at the original essay. His model is bribery. A
person who has any pressure to deviate from objective reality is not to
be trusted as a judge. Therefore a person who has strong motivation not
to give up on the pleasures prohibited by the Torah as well as resisting
the positive state of kedusha and purity would have greater trouble seeing
the validity of Torah than an person who does not have these pressures.

> This does not seem to me to be the nature of rational thinking. To me,
> rational thinking is a mathematical enterprise impervious to the bias
> of being spiritually "impure".

Modern psychology and philosophy would indicate that rational thinking
is not a mathematical enterprise. On the one hand Descartes claimed that
only in the absence of emotional involvement could one think rationally
(assuming you were properly educated). On the other hand many researchers
such as Dr. Demasio ("Descartes Error) argue that human thought has an
emotional basis. Thus something seems reasonable because of a feeling. A
question is asked when the person is bothered by what he sees. Accordingly
if a person's emotions are not refined then his intellect is used in the
service of his lusts. Rav Wasserman is consistent with either paradigm -
lack of spiritual and emotional refinement alters the way one understands
the world. Most of what we call rational thought or behavior is not
causally related to an identifiable mathematical process. This is fact
has been fairly well established by the failure of the strong version
of the artificial intelligence program which asserted that the basis
of human thought was describable and identical to computer programs.
The weak version i.e., that computers can at times mimic the outcomes
of human intellect has been productive. However the weak version does
not assert that the comparable results are due to identical processes.

                        Daniel Eidensohn

Harry Maryles wrote:
>That's fascinating. R. Wasserman then belives that belief must be rational 
>and that and that any previously held beleif must be discarded if 
>rationality disproves it. It also seems obvious that his own belief was 
>based on rationality.

Yes and no. REW believes that proper rational thought leads directly
to the Torah. In this, he is following (perhaps unwittingly) Ralbag
and AIUI Moses Mendlessohn.

If rational thought leads you to any place except for Torah then the
rationality of your thougts is suspect. Thus, you should not reject
Torah if rationality disproves it because your "rationality" is then,
by definition, irrational due to circumstances that are ultimately under
your control.

As an aside, Menachem Kellner has a footnote in one of his books in
which he argues on REW because Martin Heidigger was brillian and was
also a Nazi. Leaving out the debate over Heidigger's sympathy for
the Nazis, the argument totally misses the point. According to REW,
even someone brilliant will be mistaken IN CERTAIN AREAS if he does
not control his ta'avos. However, a ba'al ta'avah will not be wrong
in EVERYTHING. He will not be unable to add 2 and 2 and arrive at 4.
Rather, some of his conclusions will be incorrect.

Gil Student

Another issue relating to this issue has come up.

Why does aveilus end during the day?

Possible reasons from R Micha:
>The night is considered a different beryah than the day. (The philosopher
>in me would phrase this as: the night is too experientially different
>to take the role of experiencing daytime shiv'ah.)

>Perhaps, although I'm not sure, "miktzas hayom kekulo" actually refers to
>yom as opposed to laylah.

 From R Gershon:
>This may be a general rule.  Even if not, aveilus in particular is more 
>connected to day than night;  aninus yom rishon is de'Oraisa while aninus 
>laila is derabanan.

>More generally, though, I cannot think of an instance requiring miktzas 
>hayom where the night works.

 From R Gil:
>[I saw this asked elsewhere by someone else and] The answer he got is 
>that aveilus has to end publicly and that is in the day.

Any other thoughts/comments?

-- Sholom

From: "Jay S. Lapidus" <jlapidus@snet.net>
:My question is why is the proportion of first-borns to the rest of the
:Israelites in the wilderness so minuscule, about 1%? The meforshim AFAIK,
:including R' Abravanel, did not ask the question. The mortality rate of
:bechorim could not have been that astronomical.

Rav Schwab in his sefer on Chumash (Maayan haSho'eva) addresses this as
well as why the proportion of males 30-50 was such a HIGH percentage of
the total Levi population.

I hope the source is traditional enough <g>. I'd summarize if I had it
with me and, more importantly, the time.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Two (complementary) answers:
> 1. large families (around 60 IIRC) to get from 70 to 600,000
> in 210 years.

It doesn't require large families -- given a 15 to 20-year generation, we
are looking at 11-14 generations.

I'll try to dig up a excel spreadsheet I made a few years ago -- but the
problem was how to keep the population DOWN to 600,000 after 210 years.

Akiva

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>> That's fascinating. R. Wasserman then belives that belief must be
>> rational and that and that any previously held beleif must be discarded
>> if rationality disproves it. It also seems obvious that his own belief
>> was based on rationality.

> Viewing belief as being obvious to an objective rational being doesn't
> mean that rationality is the criterion for its validity. I don't
> see how your extension is inherent in Rav Wasserman's writings.

I haven't seen his writings. But I surmized from your statements on
those writings, that R. Wasserman's belief system required rationality
and that in it's purest unfettered sense, (that is unaffected by the
bias of Taavos IIUC) rationality would result in beleif in G-d and His
Torah. But at the core of belief, is rationality itself.

> The issue of what constitutes rationality is an interesting and confusing
> topic. The term rationality is sometimes used in the sense of something
> which doesn't violate the rules of logic. 

This is my understanding of it. But logic is only one aspect of
it. Rationality consists of perception of reality combined with logic so
as to interpret that reality. Those perceptions are then tested. Data
is collected and studied. The scientific method is then applied in
testing hypothesies based on observations of reality so as to develop
theories. Logic is applied to reach conclusions which are repeatable
to determine certain scientific truths. Both deductive and inductive
reasoning as part of logical thought are used to reach ultimate truths of
nature. The 15 billion year age of the universe is a useful illustration
of how scientific inquiry based on observable data and rational analysis
modified former universally held beliefs about the age of the universe
being only about 6000 years old. This does not mean that all deductive
reasoning based on experiments using the scientific method always produce
an ultimate truth. Experiments can be flawed and indeed human bias will
oft times cause false conclusions of a given truth,as you point out with
the following:

> However there are things which
> can be proved rationally which in fact are wrong since they are based
> on faulty premises. The premises themselves are based upon observation
> or commonsense or tradtion etc. 

So one can therefore say that the proccess is flawed. But rational
thinking, flawed though it may be is all we have at our disposal to
understand the nature of reality. And I beleieve based on what you said,
that R. Wasserman finds it indespensible to belief. The question is, does
belief superceed rattionality or does rationality superceed belief? If
the former than we are forced into a postion where the quantitative
disproof of long held views in Judaism forces us to abadon logic and
reason completely. For example: Rabbenu Tam's(RT) concepts of the
cosmos which he holds to be truth. IIRC he holds that the sun travels
from east to west during the daytime slipping just below the horizen
past a dome which covers the earth and the sun then travels back west
to east over the dome until morning where it slips past the dome back
under it to travel once again east to west. And we base Halacha on his
Shitah. But are we supposed to beleive that this is reality when we now
clearly know that it this not what happens? And how do we know that it
doesn't? We know it through scientific inquiry and ultimately through
observation which of course was not possible during the life time of
RT. Is it possible that the early scientific studies leading to the
conclusions that the earth travels around the sun have been flawed?
Sure. But who would doubt the truth of that fact today?

So despite the fact that scientific inquiry which is feuled by rational
thinking may be flawed it has often proven to be quite accurate and is
the best means we have of determining the truth of nature.

> However rationality typically refers to
> something which most people agree to and is not dependent upon logical
> linkage between the elements.

I do not agree. Such thinking is not rational but emotional.

>>                             I think I understand what "controlling one's
>> lusts" means. It probably means that if one lusts after Issur whether
>> it be Gashmius or Ruchnius in nature, than he will blind himself to the
>> rational truth of that Issur. But what does he mean by "purifying oneself
>> to the degree that the normal intellect can express itself."? Does he
>> mean to rid oneself of lusting after Gashmius would mean to see the
>> pristinly rational nature of the Truth of G-d and His Torah?

> I would suggest you look at the original essay. His model is bribery. A
> person who has any pressure to deviate from objective reality is not to
> be trusted as a judge. Therefore a person who has strong motivation not
> to give up on the pleasures prohibited by the Torah as well as resisting
> the positive state of kedusha and purity would have greater trouble seeing
> the validity of Torah than an person who does not have these pressures.

As I said rational thinking in it's purest form is based on the
mathematical model which is impervious to bias. The fact that human
beings are the one's doing that rational thinking makes it's utlity
flawed. Human beings will bring bias to any situation. Scientific
studies are often flawed by the agendized bias of the individual, no
matter his protestation to the contrary. I would venture to guess that
many scientific study that have concluded "X" only to be disproven by
later studies are victims of such bias. But in it's purest form if that's
even possible, I would say one can trust the results of one's rational
conclusions based on scientificly tested observations.

>> This does not seem to me to be the nature of rational thinking. To me,
>> rational thinking is a mathematical enterprise impervious to the bias
>> of being spiritually "impure".

> Modern psychology and philosophy would indicate that rational thinking
> is not a mathematical enterprise. On the one hand Descartes claimed that
> only in the absence of emotional involvement could one think rationally
> (assuming you were properly educated). 

This is what I beleive.

> On the other hand many researchers
> such as Dr. Demasio ("Descartes Error) argue that human thought has an
> emotional basis. Thus something seems reasonable because of a feeling. A
> question is asked when the person is bothered by what he sees. Accordingly
> if a person's emotions are not refined then his intellect is used in the
> service of his lusts. 

This is similiar to what I said above. Never-the-less scientific proofs
will often become so overwhelming that no amount of bias will negate those
results. This is why RT version of the cosmos has been disproven. But
a follower of RT who states that beleif superceeds rationality would
reject any proof that does not agree with RT. But is it really possible
for him to say that and still be honest with himself?

> Rav Wasserman is consistent with either paradigm -
> lack of spiritual and emotional refinement alters the way one understands
> the world. Most of what we call rational thought or behavior is not
> causally related to an identifiable mathematical process.

But this is not rational thought in it's purest sense. It is as you say,
"what we call rational thought". In my view the impact of anything
such as emotion on rational thought dilutes it from it's mathematical
purity. Spiritual purity OTOH should have no bearing on rational thought
although spiritual impurity certainly does.

> This is fact has been fairly well established by the failure of the
> strong version of the artificial intelligence program which asserted
> that the basis of human thought was describable and identical to
> computer programs.
> The weak version i.e., that computers can at times mimic the outcomes
> of human intellect has been productive. However the weak version does
> not assert that the comparable results are due to identical processes.

I am not familier with the concepts you mention of "the strong version"
versus "the weak version" of AI. But I do not see AI having bearing on
beleif. AI is nothing more than an extremely sophisticated machine without
the ability to think, deduct, or conclude. If anything is mathematical
it is AI. But it does raise an interesting point:

How much of a factor is intuition on belief? Since I believe that
rationality is a key factor in beleif, I do not think it is the only
factor. Rationality can only go so far in the cause of belief. But
ultimately it falls short of actual proof. If it could then would that not
preclude Bechira Chafshis? If one could prove G-d's existence wouldn't
everyone be a beleiver? Doesn't belief have to at some point rely on
intuition which is comprised of many "proofs" but not conclusive proofs
in the final analysis? While I believe that rationality is indespensible
in seeking truth I don't think it is possible to rely soley on it. That
would leave one in a state of agnosticism. I think it is therefore
necessary to rely on as much scientific evidence as one can and rely
on intuition for that "leap of faith" into belief itself. IOW I think
rationality is indespensible to belief but cannot alone support it.

HM

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


[ 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         ]