Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 123

Tuesday, March 11 2003

• Shoshanas Yaakov & Purim
• Re: shalach manos
• shalach manos
• Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Re: Who is Posek?
• Re: apikorsus
• Re: assigning a shaliach via telephone/mail
• Re: FW: Proselytism
• Toras Purim 5763
• Egel HaZahav and Chronology
• Hebrew 101 -- "Es" vs "Eis"
• Re: Fwd (sholom@aishdas.org): Hebrew 101 -- "Es" vs "Eis"
• Re: Hebrew 101 -- "Es" vs "Eis"
• Re: Toras Purim 5763
• RE: Toras Purim 5763
• Re: Toras Purim 5763
• Re: Egel HaZahav and Chronology
• Re: Egel HaZahav and Chronology
• Re: Egel HaZahav and Chronology
• earliest mincha
• Who's afraid of dinosuars?

Nice pshat on Shoshanas Yaakov - see Yetev Ponim (from the baal Yetev
Lev)-2nd vol page 37. (If you don't have a copy you'll find one in your
nearest Satmar BHMD.

Also whilst looking for material on this subject, I saw a nice vort in
the Bnei Yissoschor (page 113 of the 2nd vol. - old edition).

He brings b'sheim the Chida (who is quoting Midrash Elihau b'shem
Yad Yosef)that Purim is kolel all the yomim tovim...Pesach - m'avdus
lecheirus, Sh'vuos - Matan Torah - hodor kiblihu, RH - sifrei chaim
umeisim psuchim - and here their lives were in danger, YK - mechilas
avonos and here they were also nimchal 'shenehenu miseudas oso rosho',
Sukkos - Ananei Hakavod and here 'nichnesu tachas kanfei haShechina
verabim me'amei ho'oretz misyahadim'.

The Chida adds that Purim is RT - 'P'esach 'V' (vov)veSukkos 'R'H, 'Y'K,
'M'atan Torah..

Finally the Shaar Yissoschor (a sefer in the style of the Bnei Yisosschor
- written by his descendant the Munkatcher Rav z'l), explains the reason
that there is a minhag (at least by chassidim)to have a seuda on Shushan
Purim - is to honor Ir Hakodesh Yerushalayim - where the 15th Adar is YT.

SBA

In a message dated 3/7/2003 3:20:45 PM EST, charlesf.brown@gs.com writes:
> Question: the Aruch HaShulchan writes that for matanos l'evyonim one's
> wife is yotzei with her husband's giving because they are like one guf.
> However, I have not see anyone (including A"h) suggest the same sevara
> by mishloach manos. Why?

Perhaps! Mishloach Monos is "Li'rei'ei'hu" (each ones individual) vs Matonos 
"Loevyonim" Stam.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com>
>>>> The item in question is this. I was told that the mishloah manot
>>>> must consist of at least two different berakhot!
...

> The SA says "two kinds of food", but nothing about two brachot. The Baer
> Heitev cites an opinion that if one sends fish & eggs, it's in doubt
> whether one has fulfilled the obligation - which seems to imply a
> necessity, or at least a preference, of two brachot.

I was quite surprised to read this posting about the Baer Heitev because
I remembered nothing of a sort. So I looked it up. It says nothing of
the sort. The Baer Heitev raises the question of egg cooked onto a fish
(sort of like the eggs on barekus they sell in Israel) and whether it is
halachikally considered one dish or two. Similarly it raises the question
of bread on egg and whether it is one dish or two. It has NOTHING to do
with one or two brachas. It has to do with how you define a dish.

Rav Soleveitchik writes in Halachic Mind footnote #4." And this concept
of the dialectic...and this view concerning the antinomic structure
of religious experience...give lie to the position that is prevalent
nowadays in religious circles, whether in Protestant groups or in American
Reform and Conservative Judaism, that the religious experience is of
a very simple nature - that is devoid of the spiritual tortuousness
present in the secular cultural consciousness, of psychic upheavals,
and of the pangs and torments that are inextricably connected with
the development and refinement of man's spiritual personality. This
popular ideology contends that the religious experience is tranquil
and neatly ordered, tender and delicate; it is an enchanted stream
for embittered souls and still waters for troubled spirits... It would
appear to me that there is no need to explain the self-evident falsity
of this ideology. First the entire Romantic aspiration to escape from he
domain of knowledge, the rebellion against the authority of objective,
scientific cognition...and second this ideology is intrinsically false
and deceptive. That religious consciousness in man's experience which
is most profound and most elevated, which penetrates to the very depths
and ascends to the very heights is not that simple and comfortable. On
the contrary it is exceptionally complex, rigorous, and tortuous. Where
you find its complexity, there you find its greatness. The religious
experience from beginning to end, is antinomic and antithetic. The
consciousness of homo religious flings bitter accusations against itself
and immediately is filled with regret...

I would appreciate knowing where this approach comes from and who espouses
this view today. While it seems totally compatible with figures in Tanach
e.g., Avraham,Yaakov, Moshe, Iyov and Dovid as well as the prophets,
it does not seem to reflect the concept of emuna/bitachon in Chazal
and especially in the rishonim. Is there a Rambam, Ramban, Kuzari that
expresses such a view?

                                                        Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 3/1/2003 8:33:37 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
>> 3) Who has the right to pasken?

> True, anyone who has a "heter horo'oh" has the "right" to pasken. But, 
> anyone who has no rebbe or recognized gadol (whatever the definition) in 
> the vicinity can pasken even without a heter horo'oh.

> Thus, in reality, there is practically no such thing as the as the "right" 
> to pasken. Go ahead, Reb Meir, pasken!

> That is not what we are discussing.

> We are discussing what makes someone a recognized "Posek," meaning someone 
> whose halachic statements possess a priori weight and must be taken into 
> consideration. Something well beyond Yoreh Yoreh, and even Yadin Yadin.
> <snip>

Q: 
What criteria made the Beis Yosef select Rif, Rambam, and Rosh over
all the others for his "virtual Beis Din"? {FWIW even this is probably
an over-simplifiction because he also weighs others such as the Rashba
fairly heavily}.

One thing for sure, we cannot easily anticipate the test-of-time or
durability of a poseik. If the piskei R. Yitzchak Elchonon Spektor
has been largely ignored, who can predict who will be next? I realize
that this was hotly debated on this list, AISI the Aruch Hashulchan was
regarded as THE Litvisher Poseik before WWII and has been superceded in
Orach Chaim {at least} by the MB wince WWII.

I can also tell you that the weight of R. Yosef Karo and R. Moshe Isserles
was immense 400+ years ago, yet nowadays it seems hardly anybody paskens
like them anymore. Also recall that the Levush {i.e. R. Mordechi Yaffa}
was highly influential at one time, too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Permit me to digress. L'havdil, when Chaim Sober taught Karate he
had us wear belts to designate our rank. He told us, in HIS school no
belts were needed, everyone intutively knew their relative ranks and
wer expected to line up accordingly.

Simlarly, as Potter Stewart might say: We know a Poseik when we see one.
When rabbi X punts to Rabbi Y that is one thing. When hundreds of
Rabbi X's defer to Rabbi Y that is even more.

And when dozens of Rabbi Y's defer to Rabbi Z that is even a greater
endorsement. This hierarchy may be hard to define or to quantify,
but it is obvious to most rabbanim how it works.

Now just how did Moshe Rabbeinu figure out the sarie alaphim over the
sarie mei'os, etc.?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is deciated in Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 2/25/2003 6:54:38 PM EST, mgofman@zahav.net.il writes:
> My original objection to
> RRW was his accusation that talmidei chachamim poskened a certain way
> to justify their own lifestyles.

I don't recall ever posting this.
Talmidei Chachamim don't -pasekn to justify their own lifestyles.
Rather I would say this:
Talmide Chachamim DO tend to make presumptions re: what is correct and
normative based upon their own backgrounds as opposed to objective reality

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illustration #1:
I once explained to a musmach who was my Chavrusa in MB that KAJ does
not say Avinu Makeinu on Ta'anis Tzibbur. He exclaimed that they MUST
have a reason for Omitting Avinu Malkeinu. What is the falacy in his
presumption?

Illustration #2:
A hisotrian asserts that Talmidei Chachamim use their own backgrounds
as a backdrop for deciding halachic psak. Someone infers from that -
that this is an alleggation that Talmidei Chachamim are justifying
their lifestyles. What is the falacy in that presumption?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FWIW, my Yoreh Dei'ahh Rebbe, R. Yosef Weiss Shlita asserted in shiur
once that Poskim do not have a pre-conceived agenda to go lechumra or
lekula etc. I didn't believe it when he said it and I don't believe it
now either.

It is fair to say that Poskim do not CONSCIOUSLY invoke a bias. To deny
that Poskim are not influenced by their various backgrounds just does
not seem to bear out in reality. Can you identify Hungarian Minhaggim
in the Kitzur? Can you spot LItvisher sytle in the MB?

And so you must ask how is it that the Rema lamost invariably favors
Tosafos and the Shulchan Aruch favors the Rambam? Are they being
objective? If so you wouldn't expect about a 50-50 split over the vast
numbers of issues involved?

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 2/23/2003 5:23:54 PM EST, gil@aishdas.org writes:
> Generally speaking, making a kinyan on shelichus is a minhag in order
> to ascertain that the appointment is done wholeheartedly. I believe
> that RYBS said, at least regarding mechiras chametz, that when a kinyan
> cannot be made the appointer should make sure to say (and mean) that
> the appointment is done wholeheartedly (be-lev shalem).

Lich'ora shlichus for Mechiras Chametz has "achin le'adam shelo befana"
in its favor.

There is a tshuva from R. itzchak Elcchan re: selling chametz at the last
minute before zman ha-bi'ur w/o any authorization and he discusses zachin

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 3/2/2003 1:44:55 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Li nir'eh, in the Romans' eyes, convincing people to worship one
> formless G-d would be prosletization. But it's not setting out
> to make geirim.


nitpick
Not Geirei TZEDEK perhaps but inducing Geirei Toshav MIGHT be a
poselytizing of a different color!


Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

A few comments/questions on RYGB's Toras Purim

1) You (RYGB) mentioned that techeiles = yiras ha'rommimus and that was the
yesod of the kabbalas hatorah of purim.
I have seen that Rav Tzadok in Pri Tzaddik mentions techeiles = yirah bt
I have also seen him mention that teh kabbalas hatorah was one of Ahavah.

In my mind it is more logical to sya it is m'ahavah since the message
of Purim is to relize that HKBH never abandons us and is always there
even when we least expect it (ayin GRA beg of Megillah) and this should
lead someone to greater ahavas hashem and not yiras hashem.

2) I have seen from Rav Goldvicht zt"l (I believe quoting the meshech
chochmah) that the kafah aleihem har k'gigis means that there was such a
gilui of HKBH, BN"Y were not able to say no. However, Purim time there was
a new kabbalah during a time when things were hidden and not clear. This
pshat would imply that Har Sinai was kabblah from yiras ha'romimus and
Purim a kabbalah from Ahavah

[If RGoldvicht said it, then I retract my saying the same in my own name.
Probably heard it from him and forgot the source. -mi]

So, most of us are perfectly aware that the Ramban holds that the events
in the last five parshiyos in Shmos happened as written, and Rashi holds
that the Egel Zahav occured before parshas Teruma, etc.

But, and most likely I missed it, I didn't see where Rashi answered the
question of _why_ the narrative is out of order.

Can someone point me to it?

Thanks,
Sholom

What is the difference between "Es" and Eis" (both written "Aleph -
Tav") -- (i.e., the word that signifies a definite direct object) --
that keeps appearing in this and last week's parsha.

-- Sholom

[In this post, RSM refers to "Mesorah" <mesorah@aishdas.org>. Just to
let new people in on the secret -- Mesorah is a list about the mesoretic
text, nusach hatefilah, diqduq, and the like. Ask me if you want to join
it. -mi]

From: sholom@aishdas.org
: What is the difference between "Es" and Eis" (both written "Aleph -
: Tav") -- (i.e., the word that signifies a definite direct object) --
: that keeps appearing in this and last week's parsha.

There is no difference. None whatsoever, according to the Masorah, except
that the word with a trop has a tzere and without a trop (i.e. connected
with a maqqef to the next word) has a segol. There is another word like
this, also brought in the Masorah: kol (meaning "all"). When it has a
trop it has a holam; when it has no trop it is with a qomatz (qoton for
those who differentiate).

So the question is reduced to: in which situations do these words have
their own trop and in which are they connected with a maqqef to the
subsequent word?

That, rabbosai, is a question of the system of trop, and so should
not bother the pretty heads of most people, even Mesorah cognoscenti.
But it indeed is embedded in the system of the trop, and, among other
factors, depends on what the following trop is.

Seth Mandel

In a message dated 3/10/2003 5:29:51 PM EST, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
> What is the difference between "Es" and Eis" (both written "Aleph -
> Tav") -- (i.e., the word that signifies a definite direct object) --
> that keeps appearing in this and last week's parsha.

Eis always has its own tropp or neginna
Es never does and is therefore more closely connected to the following word 
via a "makaff" which is like a hyphen.

Essentially theretfore the difference is contextual, how closely related they 
are to the next word


Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

At 03:07 PM 3/10/03 -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>In my mind it is more logical to sya it is m'ahavah since the message of 
>Purim is to reaize that HKBH never abandons us and is always there even 
>when we least expect it (ayain GRA beg of Megillah) and this should lead 
>someone to greater ahavas hashem and not yiras hashem.

>2) I have seen from Rav Goldvicht zt"l (I believe quoting the meshech 
>chochmah) that the kafah aleihem har k'gigis means that there was such a 
>gilui of HKBH, BN"Y were not able to say no. However, Purim time there was 
>a new kabbalah during a time when things were hidden and not clear. This 
>pshat would imply that Har Sinai was kabblah from yiras ha'romimus and 
>Purim a kabbalah from Ahavah

Yirah and simcha are connected.

This theme is reiterated in Reb Tzadok many times, based generally on
the Tanna d'Bei Eliyahu:" Ani yaresi mitoch simchasi vesmachati mitoch
yirasi."

Of course, Yitzchok the Av of Yirah, is bechinas tzechok.

I would contend that ahava and simcha are not necessarily connected:
"ki cholas ahava ani."

Let me make clear that I do not think yiras ha'onesh is connected
to simcha, but rather only yiras ha'romemus. The term "Yiras Hashem"
encompasses both, but I refer to the former.

As RAEK puts it:

    Yir'ah is not anguish, not pain, not bitter anxiety. To what may
    yir'ah be likened? To the tremor of fear which a father feels when
    his beloved young son rides his shoulders as he dances with him and
    rejoices before him, taking care that he not fall off. Here there is
    joy that is incomparable, pleasure that is incomparable. And the fear
    tied up with them is pleasant too. It does not impede the freedom of
    dance... It passes through them like a spinal column that straightens
    and strengthens. And it envelops them like a modest frame that lends
    grace and pleasantness...

    It is clear to the father that his son is riding securely upon him
    and will not fall back, for he constantly remembers him, not for
    a moment does he forget him. His son's every movement, even the
    smallest, he feels, and he ensures that his son will not sway from
    his place, nor incline sideways - his heart is, therefore, sure,
    and he dances and rejoices.

    If a person is sure that the "bundle" of his life's meaning is
    safely held high by the shoulders of his awareness, he knows that
    this bundle will not fall backwards, he will not forget it for a
    moment, he will remember it constantly, with yir'ah he will safe
    keep it. If every moment he checks it - then his heart is confident,
    and he dances and rejoices...

    When the Torah was given to Israel solemnity and joy came down bundled
    together. They are fused together and cannot be separated. That is the
    secret of "gil be're'ada" (joy in trembling) mentioned in Tehillim.
    Dance and judgment, song and law became partners with each other...

    Indeed, this is the balance... A rod of noble yir'ah passes through
    the rings of joy... [It is] the inner rod embedded deep in an
    individual's soul that connects end to end, it links complete joy
    in this world (eating, drinking and gift giving) to that which is
    beyond this world (remembering the [inevitable] day of death) to
    graft one upon the other so to produce eternal fruit.

    A Swedish wise man, when once discussing sanctity, said: "The
    sanctity of an individual proves that he who possesses it has a
    direct relationship with the strongest source of existence." In my
    opinion, in the conception of Judaism this is a definition of yir'ah
    (but sanctity - kedusha - is loftier still, we have a different idea
    of it, but this is not the place to define it). What is yir'ah? It is
    the broad jump over the vast gap between myself and my Creator... It
    is a mitzvah to separate - to separate from smallness! Fly over
    barriers! And from there quest Him, for there you will find Him...

Or, as Rav Hutner puts it:

    Dohs iz doch alemohl emes a'vadah
    Ah kol she'ken heint by ad d'lo yada

    Simcha mitt yirah
    Geflachten in einem
    A'chutz by Yidden
    Nishto by keinem

    V'gilu b're'odoh
    Iz doch in Avodah an ikkar
    B'frat noch heint
    Vehn men dahrf zein shikker

    Fuhn yirah der tzitter
    Fun simcha dehr flahm
    Tzuzamen bashafehn
    Dehm Yiddishen taam

    Un oht dehr taam
    Iz doch takkeh di zach
    Vohs hahlt unz shtendig
    Lebedig un vach

    Toh zohl zein azoi lebedig
    Undzer yedder minuht
    Az oib n'zohl ir tzu'shneiden
    Zohl rinen fun ir blut

    Un oht dehr taam
    Iz fahr unz an aliyah
    Un derfahr takkeh
    Fahr Amalek a mechiyah

    In hartzen oht di kavana
    In mo'ach oht dehr sod
    Tantzen miher in einem
    In korohod

    Simcha mitt yirah
    Geflachten in einem
    A'chutz by Yidden
    Nishto by keinem

    Mitt simcha un yirah
    Zohgen mihr l'chayim
    V'Atah tishma ha'shomayim!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

But you didn't answer my other question. I wasn't asking on simcha
but on ahavah. rav Tzaddok clearly says the kabbals hatorah was from
ahavah. How does that shtim with yiras ha'romimus.

In a message dated 3/10/2003 3:14:46 PM EST, cmarkowitz@scor.com writes:
> I have seen that Rav Tzadok in Pri Tzaddik mentions techeiles = yirah bt
> I have also seen him mention that teh kabbalas hatorah was one of Ahavah.
> <snip>
> 2) I have seen from Rav Goldvicht zt"l (I believe quoting the meshech
> chochmah) that the kafah aleihem har k'gigis means that there was such a
> gilui of HKBH, BN"Y were not able to say no. 

See Torah Ohr from the Baal Hatanya on Megilas Esther (page 98 col. 4)
where he discusses this issue and mentions that Kafah Aleihem Har K'gigis
refers to the Gilui of the Ahava Elyona, this is also mentioned in his
Lkutei Torah Parshas R'ei (page 22 col. 1).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/10/2003 5:28:19 PM EST, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
> But, and most likely I missed it, I didn't see where Rashi answered the
> question of _why_ the narrative is out of order.

The L. Rebbe Deals with this.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/10/2003 5:28:19 PM EST, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
>> But, and most likely I missed it, I didn't see where Rashi answered
>> the question of _why_ the narrative is out of order.

> The L. Rebbe Deals with this.

I have read an amazingly awesome (imho) sicha
from the Rebbe on the various chronologies. (See
<http://www.chabad.org/Parshah/Article.asp?AID=1329>).

The L Rebbe notes that there are _three_ chronologies: described by
Ramban, Rashi, and the Zohar - and then learns a lesson from all three.

But my question is slightly different -- my question is _not_ what we
can learn from the differting chronologies, but why _Rashi_ thought the
narrative was out of order. (Unless R Zirkund, you are saying that the
Rebbe is in accord with Rashi in the aforementioned article -- I hadn't
assumed as much, thinking that it was a chidush of the Rebbe).

-- Sholom

In a message dated 3/11/2003 8:05:32 AM EST, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
> But my question is slightly different -- my question is _not_ what we can
> learn from the differting chronologies, but why _Rashi_ thought the
> narrative was out of order. 

The L. Rebbe deals with the question directly, in Lkutei Sichos Vol. 26 page 
158, (also printed in brief in Biurim Lpirush Rashi on Shmos 31:18).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Is anyone aware of where I can find the shitah ascribed to R' Moshe that
one could daven at non-shaot zmaniot noon+1/2 hour year round(ie 12:30
or 1:30)?

KT
Joel Rich

T613K@aol.com wrote [on Areivim]:
> this very issue (dinosaurs) shook my 
> faith when I was 14 as did nothing else before or since.   In retrospect I 
> could have discussed it with my father, but when you are 14 you don't think 
> your parents know anything.  Another irony is that one of the books on 
> evolution that so shook me was one I found in my father's library.

> The reason I read, avidly, everything I could get my hands on about evolution 
> was that the Bais Yakov I then attended did not offer 10th grade 
> biology--precisely because the first chapter of the book was about
> evolution. 
>  So I, davka, had to become an expert in the verboten subject... 

> A book I found in my father's library many years ago, that proved to be 
> potent medicine, was *Challenge: Torah Views on Science and Its Problems* 
> edited by Aryeh Carmell and Cyril Domb.  I found a great deal in it that 
> spoke to me.  One passage that did NOT speak to me at the time, but which I 
> now know as the plain truth, is the following, from a letter by the last 
> Lubavitcher Rebbe:

> "If you are still troubled by the theory of evolution, I can tell you without 
> fear of contradiction that it  has not a shred of evidence to support it."
> 
> When I read these words, maybe thirty years ago, I thought that he was simply 
> mistaken, that there was a great deal of evidence to support evolution.  I 
> still think there is strong evidence for a very old earth, but that is not a 
> question that troubles me.  What my further reading has taught me is that the 
> Rebbe was right on this point, there is no evidence to support the theory of 
> evolution. 

> Darwin predicted that excavations would produce the evidence--the missing 
> links between one species and another--but a century and a half of digging, 
> and literally millions of fossils in museums all over the world, do not 
> support Darwin.  Even scientists who have written famous pro-evolution books, 
> like the late writer Stephen Jay Gould, were forced to admit that the missing 
> links have yet to be found.

Before I begin my comments I would highly recommend RYGB's tapes on the
"Age of the Universe". It is a series of 5 (IIRC) lectures on this topic
which I attended and is quite a thorough survey of the various approaches
to subject.

The subject of evolution has been discussed here on Areivim before. I too
had questions of faith when I first encountered the subject. Fortunately
I was taught the theory of evolution by a Shomer Shabbos scientist, a
professor of zoology at Roosevelt University when I was student there
back in the late sixties. He believed in it and convinced me that it
was not contradictory to Torah and it in fact re-enforced my Emunah.

Throughout the years subsequent to that zoology course I have had a
keen interest in the subject so fundamental to principles of Emunah, and
whenever I encountered material on it, it once again piqued my interest. I
have come to conclude that while evolution is not a proven theory, it is
a highly probable likelihood. There is far too much evidence of it to be
dismissed. One cannot take seriously anymore the idea that the universe is
less than 6000 years old. There is far too much evidence to the contrary.

Any understanding of the speed of light constant, forces one to conclude
that an explosion of a star that is more than 6000 light years away
would not be seen until more than 6000 years later, longer than the
rigid belief that the universe is less than 6000 years old. One must
therefore conclude that either the universe is older than 6000 years or
that it was created with the perception that a star exploded more than
6000 years ago but that it did not really happen. IOW, the explosion
that we are seeing now is the light from an explosion of a planet that
never exploded. While there are many people that believe precisely that,
to my mind it seems entirely ridiculous to assume that God would fool us
in precisely that way. It is far more likely that the universe is more
than 6000 years old and this idea can be found in Midrashic, Rishonic
and Achronic sources.

It is my own belief that an evolution of some sort did indeed take place
over the course of millions or perhaps billions of years. There is far
too much evidence of it. One can quibble about the veracity of this or
that piece of information. But the preponderance of evidence through
scientific study definitely points in that direction.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe's view is the same as R. Avigdor Miller's. When I
first came across R. Avigdor Miller's book entitled "Rejoice, Oh Youth!"
which was an attempt to refute the theory evolution, it angered and
upset me. Here, I thought, we have an individual in the name of Torah
doing his level best stifle rational thought and scientific inquiry. He
instead chose to ignore years of scientific research with arguments about
complexities of biology and remoteness of probability. This, I felt,
was counter-productive to Emunah in that it ultimately forces one to
devalue his senses, and rationality, and deny or dismiss scientific
evidence in favor of a set of pre-conceived notions that are overly
simplistic forcing one to submerge and shun the natural inclination
seek, understand, and analyze scientific data. One is forced to shut
down the brain and blindly accept doctrinaire beliefs which scientific
fact had disproved. Not that evolution itself has been proven, but over
the course of time, in the attempt to verify, or disprove evolution,
facts have been unearthed which have been verified and validated that
contradict certain of those preconceived beliefs. The questions raised
by R. Avigdor Miller can easily be answered by explaining that evolution
was not random but God designed and directed. This is perhaps the area
of greatest dispute between agnostic scientists and believers in God,
as agnostics say that evolution was entirely random.

In the end, we have proven that evolution is in fact taking place. My
daughter, who teaches biology in Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov does so every
year with her mosquito experiments. The question only remains, "Is that
the origin of the species?" Did man evolve over time from primitive
ancestors? I don't know the answer to that but I refuse to rule out
the possibility that when God created Man he did so by means of the
evolutionary process.

Orthodox scientist, Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis and the Big Bang"
believes that this is in fact what happened. Others say that man was
an independent creation. One could counter that Man was an independent
creation but the essence of what makes man different and therefore his
creation independent is the implantation and fusion of his soul with
the evolutionary physical body. Perhaps this is what creation meant in
Genesis when it says that God created Man.

So, in short one can believe that everything was created just short
of 6000 years ago in a moment. The exploding star that is 1 million
light years away from us never existed. God created the light from such
an explosion “midstream” to make it look like it existed 1 million light
years ago. But I choose to reject that explanation in favor of one that
is in concert with science.

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         ]