Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 064

Tuesday, August 10 2004

• Rambam
• RE: minhag avoteichem
• Re: bechira chofshit
• Re: Who saw the Luchos?
• Re: evolution
• Re: Torah and truth--never the twain shall meet?
• Re: scientists and religion
• scientists and religion
• kriyas yam suf
• Chazl affecting reality
• Re: Cleaning up the world
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Shiv'im pa'nim la'torah
• Evolution
• Re: "Height of People in Chumash" ties in with "Evolution"!
• Re: Torah and truth--never the twain shall meet?
• Re: evolution
• Re: scientists and religion

RMB:
>Second, about the Rambam: if they truly have the power of a Sanhedrin,
>why doesn't the Yerushalmi take a far greater role in halakhah than does
>the Bavli?

The Rambam [Hil Sanh 4:11]says if all chochamim in Eretz Yisroel reach
a consensus, they can restart "real" smicha and presumably Sanhedrin.
He doesn't say they have done this. Parallel to machlokes in Mishna
which did not always have a Sanhedrin resolution.

Shlomo Goldstein

RMB wrote:
> Second, about the Rambam: if they truly have the power of a Sanhedrin,
> why doesn't the Yerushalmi take a far greater role in halakhah
> than does the Bavli?

In, hakhi nami. Perhaps this explains the Rambam's preference of a
halakhah pesukah from the Yerushalmi to an inference from the Bavli (a
phenomenon that was discussed at length on Avodah in the neighborhood
of V7 #29).

 -D.C.

Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> ...what sort of bechira chofshit did Dor Hamidbar have? Or anybody
> else who saw open miracles?

Different era. This was a time where Bechira Chashis meant something
else. Remember for example that the idea of monotheism was not very
popular in those days. Even The Bnei Israel in the Dor HaMabul tried out
an Egel HaZahav. If God can do miracles, maybe there are other gods who
can do them too. Bechira Chafshis for them was choosing the real God.

> AFAIK, bechira chofshit consists of *knowing* that G-d exists, 

What do you mean by "knowing"? You cannot proove His existence. You can
only believe in His existence. The more you "know" Him, the less likely
you are to disobey Him.

HM

>>Who, besides
>>Moshe, saw either the Luchos Rishonos or Shniyos? If they were put away
>>immediately after they were carved, did anyone, in Moshe's generation
>>or later, ever see them?

Today I "happened" to see the Avos d'Reb Nosson 2:3 state that as Moshe
came down from the mountain and saw the Eigel, he turned around to go back
up. The 70 elders then grabbed the luchos - (and in the ensuing tug-o-war)
Moshe won. When he realised the letters had "escaped" he threww them down.

 - Danny

I am not sure why exactly this issue keeps coming up over and over again.
(For that matter, there are many issues like that on Avodah!).

There are very straightforward and logical reasons to utterly reject
non-directed evolution to produce complex biological systems, an
utterly preposterous proposition. A wonderful book on the topic is
"Yellow and Pink" by William Steig (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NY 1984),
a real metziah at Amazon for $4.00 new:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374386714/qid=1092138921/aishdas

At 03:05 AM 8/10/2004, you wrote:

>However, I disagree that this phrase necessarily indicates that each
>item was created ex nihilo (or from dirt) rather than evolving from
>other creatures. Why should it mean that? One of these phrases refers
>to the creation of the luminaries. Now, as far as I know, there is
>excellent scientific knowledge regarding how these formed. Another of

"Scientific *knowledge*," Huh?

Which scientist, exactly, was present at the creation of the luminaries, to 
possess said "knowledge?"

[Email #2. -mi]

Although it really is not the same without the drawings, a Google search 
revealed that the entire text of "Yellow and Pink" is at:

<http://bj2.netsh.com/bbs/96650/messages/1899.html>

Since I suspect that the site violates copyright laws by printing the text 
verbatim, I will not reproduce it here myself. Ayain sham.

YGB

In  Avodah V13 #63 dated 8/10/04 Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> writes:
>> Really? Are there many "questions" other than those that exist simply
>> because the questioners refuse to accept the principle (which was not
>> first invented to "answer" evoutionists) that Hashem created the universe
>> in full form, and yes, with light-waves from stars already on their way
>> to earth?  [--R' Zvi Lampel]

> One major objection: it isn't scientific.

> Putting it bluntly -- "God" has no place in a scientific theory.

Either He created the world, or He didn't.  I don't know how you can split 
the difference.  

(But I agree that He probably did not start the universe in medias 
res--giving a young universe the illusionary patina of hoary old age.)

>> We Creationists have a mesorah from HaKadosh Baruch Hu,

> Where? The Torah is NOT a scientific textbook.

Nor is it a book of fables.

>> we look with skeptisicm at claims that contradict it. What compelling
>> cause is there that makes evolutionists discount creation out-of-hand?

> The total lack of evidence?
> Science and Religion are two DIFFERENT systems -- it's a mistake to use one
> to explore and explain the domain of the other.
> (AIU Gould's last book discusses this idea)

No time for a real answer now but this is total kefira, I'm sorry to
say--and I do respect your knowledge and usually enjoy your posts.

Gould's sneering, condescending attitude to religion has no place in a
Jewish weltanschauung. He considers the Torah, or any religion, to be for
psychological comfort only and in no way related to objective reality.
How can Torah Jews share such a view?

It is not true that there is a "total lack of evidence" for creation.
There is a great deal of evidence for creation--and also evidence for
no-creation. With ambiguous or conflicting evidence, it is not necessary
to say that science has all the answers in the realm of objective reality.

Torah and science cannot be used, you say, to "explore and explain
the domain of the other." That may be true 99% of the time--until you
ask, how did the universe start? How did life start? Then, you cannot
simultaneously hold in your mind two mutually contradictory faith systems.
And at that early point--science IS a faith system.

The speculative science of origins is Science-R, and is not the same
thing as the search for evidence conducted by Science-O. Sometimes the
two overlap; often they do not.

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

[In reply to RnTK. -mi]

You say you know many "high level scientists who do indeed believe in
G-d." Scientists who believe in G-d are fairly common, actually. But in
their fields of expertise they dare not mention their religious beliefs,
or they can never get tenure and never be published in respected journals.

I went a few years to the presentation of the "Wolf" prize in physics
which is 1 level below the Nobel prize. Certainly rarefied atmosphere.
The recepient spoke about the comparison of astronomy and the beauty of
Genesis and the value of each of them.

Eli Turkel

> R. Eli is not quite right. Polls of scientists tend to show that there
> is no "typical scientist" but that life scientists tend to deny God's
> role in creation or his very existence whereas physical scientists are
> more likely to believe in a God who creates.

I accept Melech's qualification. My background is from the physical
sciences and not the life sciences. I did read that the discoverer of the
double helix for the DNA was extremely anti-religious and once publically
thanked his parents for bring him up as an agnostic.

Eli Turkel

<I don't think the miracles in the Torah are supposed to be understood
allegorically. I think, for instance, that the Ten Plagues, Krias Yam
Suf and Ma'amad Har Sinai all really happened.>

Why does the Torah mention that an east wind blew all night? Seems like
the Torah is trying to describe some semi-rational explanation of krias
yam suf.

BTW does Chumash ever describe the 10 plagues as a miracle out of the
possible natural explanations? Is there anything to prevent one from
believing that after Moshe prayed G-d caused some natural phenomena to
happen? Such theiries have been around for quite a while.

Eli Turkel

 From: Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com>
> What about the notoriously difficult case in Shabbos where the ruling is
> that one can kill lice on Shabbos because they spontaneously generate? (I
> know that the halachah may still be valid because the eggs are too small
> to be halachically significant, but that's not what the Gemara means.) If
> Chazal ruled thus, why didn't that force the reality to change and lice
> to spontaneously generate?

If the halacha is still valid nowadays, there would be no need for
Chazal's ruling to force the reality to change. The point of the stories
is that Hashem is bound by the Halacha as understood by human sages. It
might not apply to the logic of the Rabbis,only to their actual Psak.
As for situations where Dayanim in the Gemora admitted that they erred, I
would say that where the error was obvious to their contemporaries & they
could have known better,this concept of their Psak affecting reality would
not apply.Such is the case in Sanhedrin 33. where Rav Tarfon paskined that
an animal whose womb was removed as being Traifoh. The Gemora concludes
that the other Rabbis cited the testimony from"Doctor Todus" that all the
female cows and pigs that leave Egypt have their wombs removed,proving
that it is not Traifoh. Rav Tarfon then retracted his psak.

Kol Tuv,
Moshe Schor

On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 10:52:52PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Yes, you can call it Torah, because that's what it was. Adam Harishon
: knew the Torah and taught it to his descendants. Noach taught it to
: Shem and Ever, who taught it to the Avos. The Avos voluntarily kept
: the mitzvos...

In Nefesh HaChaim I, RCVilozhiner writes that the avos /deduced/ the
mitzvos though their self-awareness and ability to know what their
souls needed.

Implying they did not learn the mitzvos (other than the 7MBN) from
Sheim ve'Eiver.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 11:44:51AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: But according to the Rambam RHbD's "awareness" of God is false doctrine
: (that God makes vinegar burn)...

But Hashem making vinegar burn is part of the mashal, not the nimshal!

If one assumes the story is a mashal, RHbD's daughter never actually
filled the licht with vinegar. The whole scenario, not just the neis at
the end, is mashal.

In the nimshal, an observation about HP is placed in RHbD's mouth, (who
probably didn't say it, but was used because he's the usual protagonist
in miracle meshalim) that HP couldn't be beyond the powers of the One
Who made teva. Which is a true observation.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 01:29:34AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: I haven't researched this but the question is why 70 and not some other
: number like 100 or 10 etc.

: Well is it a co-incidence that there are 70 members of Sanhedrin?

I would think it's more the original 70 zeqeinim. After all, a member
of the Sanhedrin had to be able to handle 49+49 (letamei uletaheir) panim.

But I don't know how strong the question is. "70" is often used by Chazal,
to the point where I assumed it was an idiom for "many". There are 70
nations, and 70 languages -- even though there are fewer languages than
nations. A bloody beis din is one that (in one lashon) executes someone
once every 70 years. Etc...

70 is therefore a more likely choice for the same reason RRW wondered
about 10 or 100.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

T613K@aol.com posted on Sun, 8 Aug 2004, a very intelligent presentation
of the issue of Evolution. In other words, I agree with it... mostly. For
example, very well taken is the point:

> In the eyes of the scientific establishment, 
> a person who believes that G-d created the Big Bang and then set the
> universe in motion ... or a person who believes in "guided
> evolution"--such people are self-deluded fools, no wiser and no more
> "scientific" than the most fundamentalist Millerite who believes in a
>literal six-day creation.

> You can bang on their doors begging for acceptance, but the Asimovs, the
> Goulds and the Sagans do not and will not recognize you as a member of
> their august fraternity. Like anti-Semites who can't tell the difference
> between old cultured Jewish money and tattered refugees from the shtetel,
> scientists do not distinguish between intellectual, sophisticated
> religious believers and primitive, ignorant religious believers.

Well said! However, by going on to say ...

> My own personal belief is that the sheshes yemei bereshis were six eras
> rather than six literal 24-hour days ...  how long it took,
> we cannot know.

... the writer is setting herself up for the same treatment. Case in
point, an article by someone dedicated to "debunking" religion:

"Isn't it somehow ironic, that the adherents of the view that the Bible
is in full harmony with science have to modify their interpretation of
the text of the Bible each time a scientific theory is changed?... [T]hey
routinely manipulate at will their interpretation of the Bible in order
to fit the prevailing view of contemporary science. If the prevalent
scientific view happened to be that, say, the universe was created in
six seconds, Aviezer would have no problem with an assertion that [the]
word 'yom' in the Genesis [account] actually meant... 'second,' rather
than 'epoch.'... Naturally, such an interpretation can be changed in
whatever any at any time, adjusting it to any twist in the prevailing
scientific view."

I'm sure that RTK will reply that an unliteral "day" is is her belief,
not in order to curry favor with, or to feel accepted by, the scientific
establishment, but because this is how the facts point, and if here the
secular world agrees and there it disagrees, let the chips fall where
they may. But then, I'm sure that's what the Areivin/Avodah participants
she is addressing would reply, too.

Before I go on, let me make it clear that I am a "fundamentalist Millerite
who believes in a literal six-day creation," but included in this group
are the Rambam, the Ramban, and indeed all rishonim and Chazal. So,
when RTK states,

RTK:
>So my feeling is--in for a penny, in for a pound. If you are already going
> to postulate a supernatural interference in the course of the universe,
> why not go all the way and postulate the there was a separate creation
> for each species or at least for every major class?

And why not accept that Hashem did it all in six days? Or did Hashem
and Chazal (both repeatedly) tell us it was done within six days just
to mislead us?

I hope to post more on the subject ....

Zvi Lampel

--- T613K@aol.com wrote:

> I don't think the miracles in the Torah are supposed to be
> understood
> allegorically. I think, for instance, that the Ten Plagues, Krias
> Yam
> Suf and Ma'amad Har Sinai all really happened.

Yes, but was it B'Derech HaTeva or was the "plane of nature"
breached? This is the debate amongst Rishonim and which ever way one
believes, it is a legitimate MeHalech. If one chooses to believe as
the Rambam does that it was B'Derech HaTeva, he is in good company.

>>> <<my feeling is--in for a penny, in for a pound. If you are
> already going
>> to postulate a supernatural interference in the course of the
> universe,
>> why not go all the way and postulate the there was a separate
> creation
>> for each species or at least for every major class?>>

Why not believe in a "virgin birth", then? The argument that: God can
do anything therefore he did "this" ...never held any sway with me. I
am a firm believer in the use of Occam's razor: One should not
increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required
to explain anything  ...which is why I like the Rambam's approach so
much.

>> Obviously, there would never have been any scientific progress if
> we had
> just said about every phenomenon in the world, "That's just how G-d
> does
> it." The knowledge that science has brought into the world has
> greatly
> deepened our awe of a Creator whose workings are so incredibly
> complex
> and amazing. "Mah gadlu ma'asecha Hashem" takes on greater
> resonance,
> the more science we know.

Which is exactly the correct approach in my opinion.

>  The beginning of
>> the universe would have to be a miracle - physical coming from
> spiritual -
>> but there's no reason why other events in the later development
> of the
>> world would have to be miracles.

> When the Torah says something happened, it happened. 

I do not look at the "Big Bang" as a miracle, necessarily. If science
ends up explaining the phenomenon as a natural occurrence then it
will be no more a miracle than the occurrence of lightening. Science
has not yet proven how the "Big Bang" happened so the jury is still
out. But either way it does not diminish my belief in the Creator.
God could have created the laws of nature before the "Big Bang".

> ...But He (God) may have created major classes, which then had the
potential
> to evolve into new species, but not into entirely different classes
> of
> species. You don't actually know how He created the species.

> "Be'asarah ma'amaros nivra ha'olam." Not just one creation, but
> several...

> He may have created just one single-celled plant, from which all
> other
> plants evolved. Just one sheretz species, from which all others
> evolved,
> Belief in a "Deus Absconditus" who set the world in motion once,
> with a 
> single creation, and then left--is not normative Judaism.

"Deus Absconditus" is the Aristotelian model of God. While it is a
logical concept it is not normative Judaism, as you point out. "Deus
Absconditus" is not the same as an active and creative God who has
Hashgacha pratis and is Sholet over the entire world. We believe in
an active Creator, not the passive one of Aristotle. But that does
not mean that he created "species" instantaneously by just
"speaking". He could have easily created them along the evolutionary
path as science seems to indicate. This is in line with Occam's
Razor. 

> True, the written Torah itself cannot be taken literally in every
> instance... However, when the Torah says an incident took
> place--it took place.

> In the case of Creation, there were clearly several acts of Creation
> along the way, as the world and everything in it came into being...

>...I am basing myself on what is
> clear in the Chumash. What the Chumash leaves unclear is how long this
> all took and how exactly He created all the different species. Yes,
> there is room for evolution, but not in any sense that would make Asimov,
> Gould or Sagan happy.

I can't speak for those three dead people: Asimov, Gould or Sagan,
(although I loved Sagan's PBS series "Cosmos" back in the eighties).
But I CAN speak for myself.

I think you are too limiting of the definition of creation, or
better... the creative process of God. Creation as I said above
does not have to mean God "spoke" ...and instantaneously something
happened. Although it COULD mean that (after all, God can do
anything). Once again, why assume the most miraculous methods? Why not
use Occam's razor? Why not say that God's creative process followed the
path of nature? His multiple creations can simply mean that those new
species were "created" along the natural path of evolution?

VaYomer Elokim" at a certain point in time can mean that God's
evolutionary and natural process "created" that species at that moment
in evolutionary time.

Just because God CAN do anything doesn't mean He does. Using Occam's
Razor allows for honest evaluation of scientific discovery and has the
least conflict with Metzius.

HM

T613K@aol.com wrote:
>>> We Creationists have a mesorah from HaKadosh Baruch Hu,

>> Where? The Torah is NOT a scientific textbook.

> Nor is it a book of fables.

The Torah is neither a scientific textbook nor a book of fables. It is a
book of Truth. But since it was written somewhat cryptically, that Truth
is open to interpretation. This is where Chazal and Rishonim come in.

>> The total lack of evidence?
>> Science and Religion are two DIFFERENT systems -- it's a mistake
>> to use one
>> to explore and explain the domain of the other.
>> (AIU Gould's last book discusses this idea)

> No time for a real answer now but this is total kefira, 

I think you misunderstand RAA. Of course he can speak for himself but
I believe he is not saying that he AGREES with one or the other. He
is simply defining the two disciplines and indeed they ARE different.
You can not answer a factual question with an answer that is based
entirely on belief. This is not Kfira. One can be the utmost of believers
in Torah and not resort to scientific facts at all.

> Gould's sneering, condescending attitude to religion has no place in a
> Jewish weltanschauung. He considers the Torah, or any religion, to be for
> psychological comfort only and in no way related to objective reality.

Yes, Gould's beliefs are Kefira. But that is his own conclusion. He
refuses to countenance any belief that cannot be proven. His condescending
attitude is one of complete arrogance.

> How can Torah Jews share such a view?

They cannot.

> It is not true that there is a "total lack of evidence" for creation.
> There is a great deal of evidence for creation--and also evidence for
> no-creation. With ambiguous or conflicting evidence, it is not necessary
> to say that science has all the answers in the realm of objective reality.

I believe that objective science does ultimately have all the answers. We
may not know all of science yet but if we did we would know how God's
universe works. Reality and Torah do not conflict. If science discovers
a reality, how can we deny it? To the extent that it seems to conflict
with Torah (as I have said many times) is to the extent that we either
do not understand the metzius, the Torah or both.

> Torah and science cannot be used, you say, to "explore and explain
> the domain of the other." That may be true 99% of the time--until you
> ask, how did the universe start? How did life start? Then, you cannot
> simultaneously hold in your mind two mutually contradictory faith systems.

Belief in God is to believe in the concept of cause and effect. God
is the First cause. It would not make any sense to say that matter or
energy pre-exists without saying that matter or energy ..IS... itself
God! So, yes, the universe was created by and directed by God. It is
incomprehensible to say otherwise. God created the laws of nature and
He is the active guiding force of nature. But to say more than that is
not necessary.

HM

I wonder why we're going around this loop yet again. But there are some
basic issues lying under this argument I felt compelled to address.

I personally agree with the Maharal, that ma'aseh bereishis as a
historical event is totally incomprehensible. To think that either
nevu'ah or chokhmah can capture it is a mistake.

Notice that the Maharal is has not problem with the idea that Bereishis
1 is allegory. (Of course, he would think that science is also only
capable of approximating the truth.) Nor did the Rambam.

And the multiple creation theorists, the Ramban, the Zohar, the Tif'eres
Yisrael, have no problem giving the universe history between yeish
mei'ayin and the rest of 6 yemei bereishis.

The Ramban's talmud, R' Yitzchaq mei'Akko, the rav they turned to to
answer the question of whether the Zohar should be accepted as part of
the mesorah, a man whose words thereby determine a sizable number of
your daily actions from how you wash neigl vassr to what you say along
with Shema al hamitah, somehow got the same kind of age for the universe
as current theory. Again, no problem assuming it was allegory.

We aren't Kara'im, what the Torah says is NOT necessarily what is peshat
in the pasuq; the concept of Torah is much greater than that.

Until RZLempel shows the numerous ma'amarei Chazal he feels insist that
yeish mei'ayin was less than 6,000 years ago, I see little reason to
believe this is the Torah's position. As far as I can tell, it was the
shitah of a mi'ut -- until the 19th century, when many of us dug in
our heals.

OTOH, I have a HUGE problem with a "G-d of the gaps" approach to religion,
where the claims of religion are relegated to the unprovable.

Just because the Torah can be broader than the text, doesn't mean it must.

The people (Rambam aside, pace RMShinnar) I quoted above had mesoretic
reasons for choosing a non-literal approach. This notion that if it runs
counter to science it's more likely to be allegory than lema'alah min
hateva is IMHO a poor stance for O Jews.

There are arcehologists doubting yetzi'as mitzrayim, Yehoshua, the
Shofetim, and the united kingdom of Sha'ul, David and Shelomo. They feel
they have proof that we settled Israel in a different order, etc.... You
and I aren't in a position to know why the evidence for this position
is bad, while something someone might allegorize (bereishis, no'ach,
the migdal) would be accepted.

Those who are allegorizing are making a non-rational decision that
anything that doesn't shake up their lifestyle can be acdepted. That's
no way to pursue truth.

Either the process is an acceptable means to truth or not. The impact
on your life is unrelated. And if you won't accept the ad absurdum of
denying ma'amad har Sinai, how can you choose to ever take archeologists'
conclusion as meaningful.

Perhaps, as unsatisfying as this may be to someone with a hunger to
explain things, it really was "all miracle". Definitionally, there will
never be a way to prove otherwise.

I gave reasons why miracles would not leave a record, ones that not
involve assuming Divine duplicity. I won't bother again this iteration.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Until he extends the circle of his compassion
micha@aishdas.org        to all living things,
http://www.aishdas.org   man will not himself find peace.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Schweitzer

eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote: 
> I did read that the discoverer of the
> double helix for the DNA was extremely anti-religious and once publically
> thanked his parents for bring him up as an agnostic.

James Watson is an avowed atheists and a crusader for the cause. He
risdicules religion with a vengeance. But what is equally astonishing and
perhaps not so well known is that Rosalind Franklin who is considered
to be the unsung hero of the discovery of DNA was also an atheist. It
was through her work that James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the
properties of DNA.

Who was Rosalind Franklin? She was the daughter of an Orthodox Jew who
publicly and totally rejected her father's teachings.

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         ]