Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 068

Tuesday, December 20 2005

• Re: Zohar
• RE: Plato (was Rambam on reinterpreting ma'aseh breshit)
• Re: Plato (was Rambam on reinterpreting ma'aseh breshit)
• Re: Gould
• Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and Length of Maaseh Breshis
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Eisav and Rome
• Chanukah - Where were the Jews of Bavel?
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha (science of origins is speculative and suspect)
• Re: Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky and Length of Maaseh Breshis
• RE: Chanukah - Where were the Jews of Bavel?
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• RE: Plato (was Rambam on reinterpreting ma'aseh breshit)

"Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> You haven't read the account of R' Yitzchak d'min Acco, have you? If you
> had, you would know that the widow tells R' Yitzchak point blank that
> there was no original manuscript - her husband made it up.

This is not true. You haven't read that part of his account, and nor
has any other living person. We don't know whether he ever did meet
the widow, and if so what she told him. The only extant copy of his
account is the excerpt in Sefer Hayuchasin, and that stops before he
finds the widow. All we know for sure is that he heard a second-hand
account that the widow had made such a claim.

> It's one of the primary sources for late authorship of the Zohar.
> R' Yitzchak seems not to have believed her, though.

Either that, or she denied ever saying any such thing. Or perhaps he
never found her, and decided that the person who claimed to have heard
her say it was not credible.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On December 19, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
>: If he was merely referring to logical precedence, he had no business
>: stating that the Creator is the cause of the hiyuli's *existence*.

> Why not? You repeatedly make statements that seem to identify logical
> and temporal sequencing, and I can't tell why

And I can't tell why you conflate logic with time. If the Creator is
the cause of the hiyuli's existence, it follows that the hiyuli would
not exist without the presence of the Creator. This is not merely a
logical precedence. It is an inherent one. I don't see your difficulty
in grasping this apparently simple equation. Besides, even if ontology
would fall under the category of logical sequencing, which it does not,
I've already mentioned that the concept of kadmus is applied equally by
the Rambam to the Creator and the hiyuli. They can't both be logically
prior to each other. That would be illogical.

...
>: I'm sorry but he does. "eino nimtza biladav v'gam hu eino nimtza bil'adav"
>: which translated means "and it (the substance) does not exist without
>: Him and He does not exist without it" i.e. co-dependency.

> As I wrote before:
>     "Eino nimtza biladav" -- because Hashem is their necessary cause;
>     "Hu eino nimtza bil'adeihem" -- because He is sufficient cause.

This is disingenuous. If the words "eino nimtza biladav" imply necessary
cause, how can the words "eino nimza bil'adeihem" imply sufficient cause?
Besides, it doesn't follow. If Hashem is sufficient cause for the beriah,
this doesn't mean that he could not exist (eino nimtza bil'adeihem)
if the beriah didn't exist. Just as the Rambam states in the beginning
of Yesodey haTorah.

Simcha Coffer

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:20:40AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: And I can't tell why you conflate logic with time. If the Creator is
: the cause of the hiyuli's existence, it follows that the hiyuli would
: not exist without the presence of the Creator...

And, Plato would continue, since the Creator always existed, so did
the hyle; QED.

:                                              Besides, even if ontology
: would fall under the category of logical sequencing, which it does not,
...

But according to Plato, it does!

For that matter, also according to the Rambam. See Dei'os 2:5-9.

For that matter, according to Plotinus's Enneads as well. Anyone studying
Aristotle in Arabic would have thought that the Enneads were his, not
Plotinus's. When Averroes translated A's Metaphysics, he apparently
thought the Enneads were part of the work -- they're all translated as
one long piece. I suggested in the past that it's likely the Rambam was
something of a Neoplatonist more than an Aristotilian because of this.
(It certainly explains his need to show why Agens [Plotinus] and Cause
[Aristo] are really the same thing.)

: I've already mentioned that the concept of kadmus is applied equally by
: the Rambam to the Creator and the hiyuli. They can't both be logically
: prior to each other. That would be illogical.

So, if qadmus were to mean "eternal" (in the direction of not having a
"before"), your problem would evaporate.

: >: I'm sorry but he does. "eino nimtza biladav v'gam hu eino nimtza bil'adav"
: >: which translated means "and it (the substance) does not exist without
: >: Him and He does not exist without it" i.e. co-dependency.

: > As I wrote before:
: >     "Eino nimtza biladav" -- because Hashem is their necessary cause;
: >     "Hu eino nimtza bil'adeihem" -- because He is sufficient cause.
: 
: This is disingenuous. If the words "eino nimtza biladav" imply necessary
: cause, how can the words "eino nimza bil'adeihem" imply sufficient cause?

No, they say what they say: Does not exist without. Creations do not exist
without G-d, and G-d (according to Plato) could not exist without them.
The first happens to be because Hashem is their necessary cause, and the
second happens to be because He is their sufficient cause.

: Besides, it doesn't follow. If Hashem is sufficient cause for the beriah,
: this doesn't mean that he could not exist (eino nimtza bil'adeihem)
: if the beriah didn't exist....

No, it means that it's impossible that He would exist and the beri'ah
not.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
micha@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

In  Avodah V16 #67 dated 12/19/2005  R' Alan Rubin writes:
> If you read what Gould has written you will see that he is a pretty
> Orthodox Darwinist. His theory involves rapid change occuring in small
> populations. ...Fossilisation is a rare event and if populations are
> small few fossils will be seen in the fossil record. ... The KT boundary
> is rathee more than 'yada yada'. You might not like the theory but don't
> misrepresent it

I've read him, found him fascinating but completely unconvincing.
There is no proof and no logical reason that genetic changes would
occur more rapidly in a small isolated population. In other contexts
scientists assume a steady rate of genetic change -- a genetic clock
-- and claim to be able to pinpoint how long ago a subgroup separated
from its parent group, based on the amount of genetic difference.
The only actual evidence for punctuated equilibrium is the LACK of a
fossil record. Gould comes up with a good rationalization why there
might be no fossils but PE remains so far a fairy tale for believers.
Believers in Darwin, that is. Lack of evidence is not the same thing
as evidence.

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

From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has categorically stated that
>one might -l'chatchila - accept that the universe is more than 6000
>years old because we don't have a clear mesora on this issue.

Could you please provide sources for this statement.

KT,
MSS

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
On December 18, 2005, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Where is it stated that one must believe that the world is less than
> 6000 years old?

>The source is Chumash. You say it every Friday night. What are you

Circular reasoning. 

>thinking in your mind when you say "yom hashsishi..."? Also, the asseres

6 eras.

>haDibros states, ki sheyshes yamim assa Hashem..." Ein mikra yotzey
>miday pishuto unless you have a very compelling reason to do so. The

Had the possuk stated "Ki sheshet yamim SHEL ESRIM V'ARBA SHA'OHT",
you would have made your point.

I did a very cursory check on the terms YOM and YAMIM in Tanach. In
many places (e.g. Hoshea 6:2, Tehilim 86:3) mefarshim indicate that
YAMIM refers to an era. Likewise: Shmuel Alef 29:3, Yechezkel 38:18,
Micha 7:12, Shoftim 18:30, Yehoshua 5:9, 9:27; Devarim 34:6. And that
was cursory (10 minutes). I'm sure there are dozens of other instances
where YOM or YAMIM aren't taken literally.

>literalists (like myself and Jonathan) believe there is insufficient
>evidence to reinterpret the pesukim (there's more to it than that
>but I'm presenting one argument). The non-literalists disagree. The
>literalists claim there are Chazal and Rishonim backing their shittos
>whereas the non-literalists claim that much of what I would refer to as
>source material is distorted. There is a ton posted on this issue on
>Avodah and besides RMB wants to tone down this subject so if you want
>more info I suggest you read the posts. Hafoch ba vahafoch ba dikula
>ba. The only way to reach a proper conclusion in this issue is with
>tenacity and frankly, I would personally like to hear your take on this
>issue. Perhaps a new topic for Daas Torah 2?

Note that I posted the original message whose header was: "Length of
Maaseh Breshis has no impact on HALACHA" [caps mine]. Whereas there is
a mitzva of zecher amalek, and one of zecher yetziat mitzrayim, there is
NO corresponding CHIYUV HALACHA to believe in a 144 human hour period of
MB. Not in Rambam Hilchot Yesodei haTorah, not in his Sefer haMitzvot,
not in the hasagot of the Ramban on the Sefer haMitzvot, not in the SEMAG,
not in the SEMAK, not in the TUR Orach Chayim 268 or 271 (relevant areas),
not in the Mechaber there OC 268/271, not in the Mishna Brura, not in the
Aruch haShulchan OC 268/271. And not even in Orach Chayim 227 (bracha on
seeing lightning and hearing thunder) re: Oseh maaseh breshis. Is it a
bracha l'vatala if one doesn't believe that it took 144 hours ? If so:
show me a source. Do you have a girsa that the bracha should be "oseh
maaseh breshis b'meah arbaim v'arba sha'oht" ? Is this somewhere in the
gemara in Brachot 54a that I missed ? Eppis a Meharsha? Haga'oht ha'BACH ?
[Sorry for the sarcasm]. If it isn't codified, it's not halacha l'maaseh.

As per the gemara in Chagiga, the Rambam (Hilchot De'ot 2:12) does state
that we aren't to concern ourselves with what happened during the Briya.
It has absolutely no halachic relevance. We are only required to believe
that Hashem created the world (yesh m'ayin).

KT
Josh

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote in a reply to Joe Slater:
>Anyone who is turned off by statements
>like these is not the person I am addressing my comments to anyway. This
>type person would never pick up a copy of Rejoice O Youth because he is
>too convinced of the infallibility of scientists. 

As it happens I both own and have read _Rejoice O Youth_. None the less,
I'd have to think less of R' Miller if he were to assert that the rate
of nuclear fission depends on the temperature.

>>surely the point is that [carbon14 testing] can accurately measure
>>dates greater than 5766 years?

>this was treated by my comment re: parent daughter
>relationships.

OK, let me make your argument explicitly. At present we can observe
atoms of nitrogen being converted into atoms of carbon 14. This happens
when slow neutrons impact the nuclei of nitrogen atoms. The supply of
these neutrons is roughly constant, and so a roughly constant amount of
carbon14 is produced every moment. If carbon14 were stable then there
would be no nitrogen in our atmosphere. Thank G-d, carbon14 is quite
unstable and the amount of fresh carbon14 produced roughly balances the
amount destroyed. I frankly find this balance to be miraculous.

According to your theory this balance must be relatively recent, because
everything that can now be tested as being extremely old must have grown
before this balance was reached. For instance, something which is tested
as being 23,000 years old must have grown at a time when there was about
1/16th as much carbon14 in the atmosphere as there is today. Something
tested as being 11,500 years old would have had to have grown at a time
when there was only 1/4 as much carbon 14 in the atmosphere. Is this
what you believe?

>It seems you may not have read my post in response to RMB yet. I mentioned
>dating methods such as Potassium Argon and invoked the parent daughter
>thing to explain them.

I didn't think that you were putting this idea forward seriously. I hope
that I have shown that it is conceptually unworkable with relation to
carbon14. It is also unworkable with respect to uranium-lead dating,
because uranium and lead have very different chemical properties and a
mineral (e.g., zircon) incorporating uranium will *only* contain lead
as a result of the uranium's decay.

>>>The Christians are big on
>>>this and do an admirable job proving what affects the flood would have on
>>>dating methods.

>>Christians are not obliged to be an "am chachom v'navon".

>And yet they are making such wonderful strides. Can you imagine how
>great is our chiyuv?

Surely R' Miller would not have agreed that there is Torah bagoyim.
Surely he would not have taken lessons in avodas hashem from ovdei elilim.

jds

I have a recollection of an essay by Rav Herzog (in English) on the
Edom/Rome connection that I referenced when writing a paper in college
for Dr.Louis Feldman, but someone with access to a better library than
I would have to check that.

Rabbi Daniel Yolkut
Cong. Keneseth Beth Israel
Richmond, Va 23226
www.kbi6300.org

For a number of years I have been puzzled by the following. The battles
of Chanukah took place over a 30 year period. Yet I am not aware of any
mention of the Jews of Bavel, who certainly must have been aware of what
was going on in EY, sending aid, whether in the form of men to fight or
money for supplies. Are there sources that deal with this? What indeed
did the Jews in Bavel do the help their brethren in EY?

Yitzchok Levine

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote in a reply to Joe Slater:
>>Anyone who is turned off by statements
>>like these is not the person I am addressing my comments to anyway. 
>>This type person would never pick up a copy of Rejoice O Youth because 
>>he is too convinced of the infallibility of scientists.

[Joe Slater]
> As it happens I both own and have read _Rejoice O Youth_.
> None the less, I'd have to think less of R' Miller if he were
> to assert that the rate of nuclear fission depends on the temperature.

We don't know what the nuclear decay rates were in the early universe; if
you take away untestable uniformatarian assumptions, scientists today can
only speculate what the early state of the universe was. The cosmologist
Harrison in his textbook states that the first law of thermodynamics
(energy conservation) does not hold during big bang expansion, and others
state that the speed of light was 60 orders of magnitude greater in the
early universe thus violating relativity!

If it is admitted in the published scientific literature that fundamental
laws and constants could have been different in the early universe,
on what basis can one assert with conviction that nuclear fission was
always constant?

Even today, when the decay rates are measured to be constant in a
wide variety of conditions and backed by QM, we do not know under what
conditions decay rates can change. For example, the Re/Os radiometric
clock is supposed to have a half life of 42 billion years (42Gyr) and
this clock was originally used to measure the age of meteors.

Yet it was discovered in 1996, that in in a storage ring, the half life
is 33 years!

33 years vs. 42 billion years!

Yet one of the greatest radiometric dating experts Darymple (in his
Stanford U. 1991 text) writes that decay rates have never been observed
to change more than 0.18% even in the most extreme conditions (p89).

==========

PRL december 1996

Observation of Bound-State b2 Decay of Fully Ionized 187Re: 187Re-187Os
Cosmochronometry F. Bosch,1 T. Faestermann,2 J. Friese,2 F. Heine,2 P.
Kienle,2 E. Wefers,2 K. Zeitelhack,2 K. Beckert,1 B. Franzke,1 O. Klepper,1
C. Kozhuharov,1 G. Menzel,1 R. Moshammer,1 F. Nolden,1 H. Reich,1 B.
Schlitt,1 M. Steck,1 T. Stöhlker,1 T. Winkler,1 and K. Takahashi2,3 
1Gesellschaft f?r Schwerionenforschung mbH, Planckstrabe 1, D-64291
Darmstadt, Germany 
2Physik Department E12, Technische Universität M?nchen, James-Franck-Strabe,
D-85748 Garching, Germany 
3Max-Planck-Institut f?r Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strabe 1, D-85748
Garching, Germany 
(Received 20 September 1996) We observed the bound-state b2 decay of fully
ionized 187Re nuclei circulating in a storage ring. With two independent
methods the time dependent growth of hydrogenlike 187Os ions has been
measured and a half-life of 32.9 6 2.0 yr for bare 187Re nuclei could
be determined, to be compared with 42 Gyr for neutral 187Re atoms. With
the resulting log ft value of 7.87 6 0.03 the half-life of 187Re ions
in any ionization state can be calculated. Thus one can correct the
187Re-187Os galactic chronometer calibration, by taking account of the
b2 decay enhancement in stellar interiors, which will lead to a more
accurate estimate of the galactic age.

===========

So I take all these claims of constant decay rates, or closed systems etc.
with a very LARGE grain of salt and I think we should withold our consent
until more compelling testable evidence can be brought to bear.

This whole topic demands much more than has been stated here.
But recognize that great scientists such as Einstein, Newton and
even Aristotle thought that the universe was static and eternal (t =
-\infinity). Only about half a century ago, did scientists became
convinced that the universe was neither static nor even necessarily
eternal with the creation time of our universe now supposed to be at t =
-13.7 billion years.

This is a discrepancy of infinite proportions from what was originally
held. How did (and do) such mistakes come to be made?

And the rather simple answer is that these and other speculations about
origins were based on untested foundational assumptions (a current example
is the cosmological principle), vast extraoplations, stubborn anomalies
and hypothetical entities that are supposed to be there but have not been
found (the inflaton, dark matter and energy, transitional fossils etc.).

By contrast, operational science (the type that gets us to the moon or
maps the human genome) is much more reliable basing itself directly on
repeatable observable experiments. Please see my posts on this over the
last year and a half or see the big bang article at toriah.org.for more.

Kol Tuv ... JSO

Samuel Svarc wrote:
>From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>>Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has categorically stated that
>>one might -l'chatchila - accept that the universe is more than 6000
>>years old because we don't have a clear mesora on this issue.

>Could you please provide sources for this statement.

Rav Meir Triebitz - who is married to Rav Nosson Kaminetsky's daughter who
is the niece of Rav Shmuel is the source of the above quotation. He is a
very brilliant talmid chochom and a good friend who wrote the introduction
to my sefer Daas Torah. He is also very close with Rav Sternbuch.

On December 20, 2005, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> For a number of years I have been puzzled by the following. The battles
> of Chanukah took place over a 30 year period. Yet I am not aware of any
> mention of the Jews of Bavel, who certainly must have been aware of what
> was going on in EY, sending aid, whether in the form of men to fight or
> money for supplies.

Why are you certain? The Jews in Bavel were not autonomous. They had no
ability to dispatch any aide to their brethren in EY. In fact, some Jews
fled EY and immigrated to Bavel during the 30 year war. A large number of
Jews living in EY attempted to stay neutral.

> Are there sources that deal with this? 

The book of Chashmonaim is a good place to start.

Simcha Coffer 

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On December 18, 2005, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> Where is it stated that one must believe that the world is less than
>> 6000 years old? 

> The source is Chumash. You say it every Friday night. What are you
> thinking in your mind when you say "yom hashsishi..."? 

That HaShem created the universe in six Godly days but not in six human
days. IOW It has nothing to do with time as humanly understood. It has
to do with six Tekufos of HaShem which he calls days so we humans can
relate to it.

HM

On December 20, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 12:20:40AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: And I can't tell why you conflate logic with time. If the Creator is
>: the cause of the hiyuli's existence, it follows that the hiyuli would
>: not exist without the presence of the Creator...

> And, Plato would continue, since the Creator always existed, so did
> the hyle; QED.

QED? Why? I understand what Plato would conclude. My question is why? Why
does cause necessarily exist only with effect? Let's just remove the
semantic description 'cause' (which implies effect) and we remain with
an entirely independent Creator. Even if you would demonstrate to me
that this is indeed Plato's opinion i.e. hiyuli is logical "outgrowth"
of Creator, I would still perceive a contradiction in the Rambam's
presentation because the term kadmus could not logically be applied to
both entities equally. After all, one is an outgrowth of the Other.

>:                                              Besides, even if ontology
>: would fall under the category of logical sequencing, which it does not,

> But according to Plato, it does!

Perhaps this is the key. But I don't see this in the words of the Moreh. I
do admit though that I may be wrong.

> For that matter, also according to the Rambam. See Dei'os 2:5-9.

I don't have a Yad in front of me so I will bl'n respond in a future post.

> For that matter, according to Plotinus's Enneads as well. 

I haven't studied Neo-Platonism in depth so I can't comment on
the above. As far as I'm concerned NP seems to me to be a jumble of
monotheistic ideas mixed with some remarkably similar concepts to kabbala
but as I said, I haven't studied it so I don't know. All I know is the
words I read in the Rambam. If you wish to invoke Plotinus, fine. But
I still require a resolution to the Rambam's shita.

>: I've already mentioned that the concept of kadmus is applied equally by
>: the Rambam to the Creator and the hiyuli. They can't both be logically
>: prior to each other. That would be illogical.

> So, if qadmus were to mean "eternal" (in the direction of not having a
> "before"), your problem would evaporate.

Why? How can both be simultaneously logically prior to each other? If
neither had a 'before', the implication is that nothing preceded them,
logical or otherwise. This definition should apply equally to both
entities. You are obviously understanding the term "kadmus" as modifying
different concepts. Like I mentioned above, this might be the key (in the
sense that kadmus can imply logic i.e. relationship of hiyuli to Borey,
and it can denote unqualified precedence as in the Borey to all reality)
but I still don't see it in the Rambam.

>>: As I wrote before:
>>:     "Eino nimtza biladav" -- because Hashem is their necessary cause;
>>:     "Hu eino nimtza bil'adeihem" -- because He is sufficient cause.

>: Besides, it doesn't follow. If Hashem is sufficient cause for the beriah,
>: this doesn't mean that he could not exist (eino nimtza bil'adeihem)
>: if the beriah didn't exist....

> No, it means that it's impossible that He would exist and the beri'ah
> not.

Apparently we disagree on the implication of sufficient Cause (would
you care to dilate?). Once again, I wish to stress that I may be
wrong. Normally I have a confident grasp of my subject material;
otherwise, I wouldn't discuss it. I am not experiencing the same
sensation here.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]