Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 066

Thursday, August 12 2004

• Evolution
• R. Elyashiv on cancer
• Lice
• Re: Lice
• Re: Lice
• Re: Lice
• Lice
• kiddush hachodesh
• Re: t'cheiles (was: tfillin not worn)
• Re: t'cheiles (was: tfillin not worn)
• Re: Lice
• Re: Evolution and Creationism
• Re: Hoshgocha Protis - only for the tzadik?
• Re: Evolution and Creationism
• Re: Evolution and Creationism
• Re: Og Melech Haboshon

There are several different issues regarding evolution, and each should
be treated separately.

1) Age of the earth. The scientific evidence for a universe older than
5764 years is overwhelming. AIUI, this is not an overwhelming problem
for us because there is no imperative to believe that the six days
of creation were literally days. The concepts conveyed in the early
chapters of B'reishit are understood to be a deep, multilayered, and
ultimately inaccessible truth which is not essentially in conflict with
an old universe.

2) Relatedness of different species. RNS presents some good examples of
evidence for this - vestigial structures in marine mammals and non-flying
insects. There's also some pretty convincing DNA evidence. In fact, there
is even convincing evidence that human beings are physically related to
other primates. This is also not essentially in conflict with Torah. IIUC,
the only aspect of creation which is necessarily a nes galui is the
original beriah yesh me'ayin. There is not necessarily a problem with
G-d creating one species out of another. G-d is still the Designer and
Ruler of the universe. To take an example from another field (history),
secular historians have very plausible explanations for the Assyrian,
Babylonian, and Roman conquests in Eretz Yisrael, destruction of the
Temples, galut, etc. In fact, the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans
themselves certainly did not believe that they were acting as G-d's
instrument to punish us. We know that G-d is the Author of history,
but the events He decrees may occur b'derech hateva.

3) Random mutation as the mechanism for change, and natural selection as
the driving force. This is where the scientific evidence is weakest, and
the religious objections most serious. I think that if the evolutionist
scientists could stop being so defensive in the face of creationist
attacks, and have the courage to question some of their root assumptions,
they might discover a much better scientific mechanism. Maybe even
something that is as overwhelmingly convincing as an old universe. But no
matter what mechanism they come up with, we will continue to understand
that evolution is ultimately directed by HKBH.

4) Randomness as an atheistic philosophy. Jews, and other religious
people, should continue to object to this in the strongest possible
terms. It is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one.

 - Ilana

Two points to note, that seem to be unknown amongst those discussing
the topic on Areivim. (Where discussion of any political fallout should
remain.)

It wasn't a teshuvah, it was in the haqdamah to a seifer shu"t. The
nafkah minah is that it was NOT written to someone who had reason
to ask why someone got cancer.

Second, Rav Eliashiv doesn't say that a person gets cancer ch"v because of
his chata'im. Rather, that the upsurge in number of cancer (makah she'ein
lah refu'ah, which I presume is meant idiomatically as cancer) patients
is because of an upsurge in chata'im. Not an assertion of onesh behai alma
on a personal level, but rather an observation of the state of the nation.

To question sechar va'onesh behai alma on a national level requires
addressing the tochachos, as well as the 2nd pereq of Shema.

As we know from chazal makas bechoros, once the mal'ach hamaves is let
loose it doesn't choose its victims so particularly.

 -mi

PS: Given my own connection to this topic, my signature generator once
again happened to pick an apt quote.

 -- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Peter Marshall

I am wondering if anyone can clarify R' Aharon Soloveitchik's position
regarding lice. Did he hold
(a) that they really do spontaneously generate, and that scientists
are mistaken;
(b) that Chazal were talking about a type of lice that really does
spontaneously generate and is currently unknown;
(c) that spontaneous generation isn't really the reason for the halachah,
even though the Gemara indicates that it is, and that's how the Rishonim
understood it;
(d) that even though Chazal were mistaken, the halachah must still be
upheld so as to preserve the authority of the Gemara.

Can anyone clarify this? Did anyone hear it from him directly - assuming,
of course, that he said what he really felt, and not what he thought
you wanted to hear... ;-)

Thanks
Nosson Slifkin

Zoo Torah wrote:
>I am wondering if anyone can clarify R' Aharon Soloveitchik's position
>regarding lice. Did he hold

Does anyone know of any poskim who say that the halacha has changed
because of the scientific rejections of spontaneous generation? I
have found only a single source - the Pachad Yitzchok. Even the Pachad
Yitzchok's rebbe insisted that the halacha did not change and thus the
Pachad Yitzchok rejected his rebbe's view. Furthermore even such an
advocate of scientific knowledge as Rav Hertzog (Heichel Yitzchok #29) -
insisted that the halacha about lice has not changed because of scientific
discovery. If in fact the Pachad Yitzchok is the only authority who has
advocated changing the halacha than R' Aharon Soloveitchik's purported
position is much more understandable.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:52:54PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Does anyone know of any poskim who say that the halacha has changed
: because of the scientific rejections of spontaneous generation? I

RAYKook, as cited in previous encarnations of this thread, holds that
kinim found within meat are treif. His reasoning, that new science can
introduce chumros by showing that all the criteria for assumed for a
kulah may not exist, would apply to hilkhos Shabbos as well. (Eliminating
a single reason for chumrah does not cause a kulah, as other reasons
lehachmir may still exist.)

I also recommend RGS's essay "Halachic Responses To Scientific
Developments" at <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/science.html>. He
discusses your case (as well as a number of parallel cases) and brings
a survey of responses (including the one in question; as well as similar
reponses in other cases.)

-mi

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

At 04:00 PM 8/11/2004, [RNS] wrote:
>I am wondering if anyone can clarify R' Aharon Soloveitchik's position
>regarding lice. Did he hold
>(a) that they really do spontaneously generate, and that scientists
>are mistaken;
>(b) that Chazal were talking about a type of lice that really does
>spontaneously generate and is currently unknown;
>(c) that spontaneous generation isn't really the reason for the halachah,
>even though the Gemara indicates that it is, and that's how the Rishonim
>understood it;
>(d) that even though Chazal were mistaken, the halachah must still be
>upheld so as to preserve the authority of the Gemara.

None of the above.

That Chazal's definition of spontaneous generation is not our definition
of spontaneous generation; that they knew that "officially" the reproduce
sexually, but Halacha nonetheless categorizes their reproduction as
asexual. From RMB's post from RDL it seems that he held the same way,
as IIRC did REED.

YGB

Zoo Torah wrote:
> I am wondering if anyone can clarify R' Aharon Soloveitchik's position
> regarding lice.....

OK. I'll bite.

I heard RAS say this in shiur. He said that anyone who said that it is
Assur to kill lice on Shabbos because we now know that they reproduce
sexually should be put in Cherem. But I do not recall him addressing
why he held that way. So, I am reluctant to give you my impression of
what he meant but if I had to guess (and that is purely what it is)
I would say that he thought scientists were wrong.

I realize that this is the most radical of the above reasons of RAS's
view but this is what my intuition suggests... for some reason.

I think it may be because I am aware of RAS's view that Chazal were
infallible in all areas, not just in Halacha but in Metzius as well.
This is not my own view but I know for a fact that RAS held that way.
For example, he explained that Mazikin that are mentioned in the
Gemmarah are germs since that description of Mazikin describes equally
the description of germs (or bacteria). RAS's views on Mazikin can be
found in his book "Logic of the Heart Logic of the Mind".

Now I suppose it is possible to say that the lice of the Gemmarah are a
species of lice that is not found today and that RAS might have agreed
that todays lice are different. It is also possible that RAS meant that
even though they sexually reproduce it is still Mutar because this is
how our Chachamim Paskined and that anyone who says it is Assur should be
put in Cherem. However, based on my understanding of my Rebbe, I believe
that he simply thought that scientists are wrong.

If there is anyone who can further clarify RAS's view. I would greatly
appreciate it.

HM

> After Hillel, ALL days have been automated and no further action by BD is
> required.

It is clear that the bet din in Israel through most of the gaonite
period announced the date of the new moon. This may have been purely
ceremonious or not. In any case as others have remarked Rambam disagrees
with the above.

Eli Turkel

R' Micha Berger explained <<< There is a machloqes rishonim as to whether
the lavan strings should/must be (see next paragraph) white or the color
of the beged... However, neither say that the string(s) one wears instead
of techeiles must or even should be any particular color. >>>

So it would be okay to have some strings which are either white or the
color of the beged, and then instead of a techeles string(s) I could
use pink or green?

Akiva Miller

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:38:03PM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: So it would be okay to have some strings which are either white or the
: color of the beged, and then instead of a techeles string(s) I could
: use pink or green?

Yes, I'm suggesting that the only problem would be "al tifrosh min
hatzibbur".

-mi

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> Does anyone know of any poskim who say that the halacha has changed
> because of the scientific rejections of spontaneous generation? I
> have found only a single source - the Pachad Yitzchok. 

It is the Pachad Yitzchok that RAS said he would put in Cherem if he
were alive today because of this very ruling.

HM

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 03:03:37PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Precisely.  The world *is* millions of years old.  It just hasn't
: existed for millions of years.  I recall seeing somewhere that Adam, when
: he was created, was 20 years old.  Now, to those who insist that saying
: something is old is the same as saying it has existed for a long time,
: what could that possibly mean? ...

(Despite the subject line, evolution has nothing to do with this part of
my email. Evolution is not the primary issue WRT the age of the universe.)

Time itself is a nivra. Part of what we're trying to find is the begining
of time.

I'm therefore not sure it is meaningful to speak about 15 billions
of years of aging that was pre-written into the universe. There is no
ontological difference between such a "false aging" and actual passage
of time. The "fake" would be too effective -- it would be real.



On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:32:39AM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
:  From a scientific POV it isn't preposterous -- research in chaos theory
: and Nonlinear Dynamics (especially at the Santa Fe Institute) has shown
: that *very* complex systems can spontaneously and quickly arise from
: simple pre-conditions.

: (Of course, *creating* those conditions is not simple...but that's what a
: creator is for :-)

In fact, the odds of the initial conditions arising is at least equal
to the probability of the final product itself.

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:04:28AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: "Irreducible complexity" is a system composed of several well-matched,
: interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the
: removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
: functioning.

There are means for these to evolve as well. Components can arise for one
purpose, become redundant and fall into another role. Or a part could do
a poor job at solving a problem, gains a helper part, and then loses the
(now superfluous) ability to function alone. Or that A and B exist to
serve disparate goals, develop a secondary function working together,
and then the original goals become superfluous and the other parts to
accomplish them evaporate. Or...

There is a section on defending evolution against the complaint of
irreducible complexity on the talk.origins web site.

However, again I can insist the odds are still astronomical.

How can I be so sure?

Von Neumann, one of the fathers of computer science, did a study of
Autonoma Theory (a book of published lectures). In it, he defines the
concept of automaton -- a set of interacting components that serve some
function. An exact parallel to the irreducibly complex biological entity.

The information content of an automaton is the number of bits necessary to
describe this automaton to the minimum precision necessary for it to work.

The probability of the evolution of an automaton of a complexity of n
bits is 1 / 2^n (using "^" for exponent).

Unless the selection criterion was statistically correlated to
the existance of the automaton, it does not increase the odds of its
emergence. IOW, unless survival in this generation was more likely BECAUSE
IN THE FUTURE it would allow some irreducibly complex system to exist,
this explanation doesn't increase the odds.

The astronomical odds of all the parts emerging at once can't be less
probable than the odds of the majority of the parts necessary to get
the job done happen to be available as debris from earlier solutions
that they were also useful for.

Similarly, the likelihood of a chaotic system having the rules necessary
to create an organism capable of some function can't be greater than
the odds of a comparable organism emerging through rolls of the die.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:57:38PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Perhaps you could spell out the scenario in detail: list what elements
: of the mashal correspond to what elements of the nimshal. I really don't
: understand how you think the Rambam would parse this as a story about HP.

Replacing the burning of oil with usual teva (miqreh) and the burning
of vinegar with HP, we get...

RHbD was in a position where he would fail if he relied on regular teva.
However, he was aware that the Cause of teva is certainly capable of
guiding the results of teva in the manner necessary for him to fulfil
his purpose in life (exemplified by shabbos lights) -- ie he had full,
heartfelt da'as of HP. And because of that da'as, he got the HP.

(Not that any of this necessarily occured...)

-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      

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I'm therefore not sure it is meaningful to speak about 15 billions
> of years of aging that was pre-written into the universe. There is no
> ontological difference between such a "false aging" and actual passage
> of time. The "fake" would be too effective -- it would be real.

I disagree. Ontologically, there might be a distinction, but what
I think you're really saying is that it would be a distinction w/o
a difference. Perceptually there is no difference what so ever. But,
conceptually, the distinction would be in whether to believe the universe
was created 6000 years ago or 15 billion years ago. Science would say an
old universe that came into being 15 billion years ago is evidenced by a
detailed record. This is the ontological specification of the concept of
an old universe. Creationists would say that our old earth was created
to look old and included all such detailed evidence of it... into it.

> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 06:04:28AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>: "Irreducible complexity" is a system composed of several well-matched,
>: interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the
>: removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease
>: functioning.

> There are means for these to evolve as well. 

I agree. Thus is Behe's "irreducible complexity" refuted. The very
idea that anything is "irreducible" is illogical because it implies
that all matter and energy are innately infinite. What Behe probably
meant is that cellular microbiology is so complex it is unreasonable
to assume that the randomness of sudden mutations are means whereby
the development of single celled organisms into human beings took
place. Unreasonable... yes. Impossible... no.

> However, again I can insist the odds are still astronomical.

Yes and the demonstration you go on to explain (deleted) demonstrates
the degree of improbability. Yet, evolutionists will say that this is
indeed what happened, Ve Ha Rayah... were here. It is not necessary
for them to say that an "Intelligence" guided the process. It is
sufficient enough to say that in a random world theoretically, it is
possible that humans can evolve from a single celled organism... and
here's how... through the Theory of Evolution. No matter what the
odds, it is possible and to them it is as likely to say that it
happened randomly, as it is to say God did it. They therefore say,
"Why bother with God?" 

Astronomical odds do not preclude something happening, as I tried to
demonstrate in an earlier post. As another example, take the power
ball lottery. What were the odds that the last winner would win the
gazillion dollars? Astronomical, I'm sure. Yet, He won.

The only way science would recognize the existence of God is through
the scientific method. You start with the Null Hypothesis: God does
not exist. Then you set up experiments to show that He does, If you
can do that repeatedly than science will acknowledge His existence.
If you can't, than the Null Hypothesis remains in place. This does
not preclude a strong and firm belief in God by scientists.
Scientists do not have to be atheists. But belief is not in the realm
of science.

HM

R Harry Maryles wrote:
>> I'm therefore not sure it is meaningful to speak about 15 billions
>> of years of aging that was pre-written into the universe. There is no
>> ontological difference between such a "false aging" and actual passage
>> of time. The "fake" would be too effective -- it would be real.

> I disagree. Ontologically, there might be a distinction, but what I
> think you're really saying is that it would be a distinction w/o a
> difference. Perceptually there is no difference what so ever. But,
> conceptually, the distinction would be in whether to believe the
> universe was created 6000 years ago or 15 billion years ago....

Stick with the "I disagree" rather than the "you're really saying". No,
I'm saying there is no REALLY difference.

How do we define when time was created? Since we're discussing the
creation of time, it doesn't really have a when. Rather, we discuss when
the first moment was.

A universe with a complete "fake history" is one in which the moment
of creation is would be in the middle of the timeline. However, as
above, there is no literal moment of creation other than the timeline's
beginning.

>> However, again I can insist the odds are still astronomical.

> Yes and the demonstration you go on to explain (deleted) demonstrates
> the degree of improbability. Yet, evolutionists will say that this is
> indeed what happened, Ve Ha Rayah... were here...

Of course, because the person who believes in a directed evolution
also believes in evolution. The only empirically measurable difference
between the two is whether the odds of intelligence emerging, in any
form, using any chemistry (or energy for all I know), in any location
of the universe is so small as to make belief in it happening by chance
rather than Will absurd.

> Astronomical odds do not preclude something happening, as I tried to
> demonstrate in an earlier post. As another example, take the power
> ball lottery. What were the odds that the last winner would win the
> gazillion dollars? Astronomical, I'm sure. Yet, He won.

Poor example, as "the last winner" is a phrase defined by his winning. The
odds of anyone winning is not astronomical, and whomever the winner is,
he'll be the one amazed by his fortune.

This is the basis of the anthropic principle. We can't wonder why
things ran perfectly for us to exist -- the fact that we exist is why
we wonder. Rather, the question is the odds of anyone bright enough to
wonder why they exist -- as I wrote above, in any way shape or form --
would in fact emerge.

It's still mindbogglingly unlikely. In fact, the odds of having a
universe in which the constants of physics (the speed of light, the
relative strengths of the fundamental forces, etc...) are fit to yeild
a concept of elements and from there, chemistry, are tiny. So small that
cosomologists wonder if ours is one of an infinite number of universes,
each with their own constants! In short, a theology -- they're invoking
the concept of infinite, but in a manner that doesn't involve Divine Will.

And they didn't even consider, nor do I know of a way to measure, the
odds of sufficiently useful rules of physics that those constants plug
into. And the odds of having rules at all, rather than tohu vavohu!

But since it's an issue of which is more plausible, I agree with RHM that
cosmology and theology will never force eachothers' hand. For that matter,
the science of cosmology can never disprove the "it's all a miracle"
approach to anything, never mind a Will-behind-nature approach.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

I have pasted up a few posts on the subject of Og Melech Haboshon and
will try to make a few relevant comments
[lav davka al rishon rishon v'al achron achron - a bit of a mishmash
some old stuff repeated both bemezid and beshogeg]

From: Zoo Torah zoorabbi@zootorah.com
> There is an oft-cited Gemara (Berachos 54b) which states that Moshe
> was ten cubits (approximately fifteen feet) tall. This is difficult to
> accept at face value for several reasons:
> First, it is physically impossible....it is physiologically impossible
> due to the constraints of the human body.

SBA - old
> Neither is Krias Yam Suf and the earth swallowing up Korach and his gang
> "physically possible"...
> What about the 10 makkos in Mitzrayim? Or Sarah Imeinu giving birth at
> 90 or Yocheved giving birth etc etc.
> I think you overlook the fact that we are talking about 'abnormal'
> zemanim and times - when 'ro'aso shifcho al hayom....'

ZOO TORAH:
> The mysterious SBA writes that the idea a fifteen-foot Moshe and a
> skyscraper Og need not be discounted due to its physical impossibility,
> because:
>> Neither is Krias Yam Suf and the earth swallowing up Korach and his
> gang "physically possible"... What about the 10 makkos in Mitzrayim?...

> And later in the same digest, Rebbetzen Katz writes regarding the
> emergence of new species that:
>> why not go all the way and postulate the there was a separate creation
>> for each species or at least for every major class?

> the same basic point is being made by both these Areivimites: since
> Hashem can do miracles, then we can accept anything as being a result
> of miracles, and we need never look for alternate explanation

> I must disagree. Sarah Imeinu laughed at the thought that she would give
> birth, for good reason. Nobody on Areivim is denying Hashem's ability
> to perform miracles. But we do not believe that miracles are things that
> Hashem does lightly, for lots of reasons.

Who is talking about "lightly"?
[OTOH we DO say 3 times a day 'v'al nisecho shebechol yom imonu..']

ZT:
> The Gemara records a miracle of a man who grew breasts to nurse his
> baby (which is actually known in medical literature and is called
> gynecomastia.)

I doubt it is the same thing. Medically, it is an embarrasing and
'freakish' condition. The story in the gemoro refers to him suddenly
growing breasts to enable him to nurse the baby. A man with gynecomastia,
can't.

ZT:
> Abaye says, Woe to this man, that the order of the world had to be
> changed for him!

Why didn't Abaye try to explain it away allegorically????

ZT:
> A skyscraper Og would be an extraordinary, ongoing miracle.

As mentioned by others, the skyscraper sized Og is mostly explained -
but the fact that Og Melech Haboshon was a giant is documented in the
Torah and I am puzzled at the repeated denial of this.

ZT:
> I'm not averse to the possibility of Rashi making mistakes,

I am.

ZT:
> Going back to Og - SBA also claimed that Rashi had a mesorah from
> Sinai that Moshe was literally ten amos tall and Og 300 or so. So what
> of Rambam etc. who held that these were not literal - didn't they have
> a mesorah too?

I'll let the Rambam defend himself...but the gemoro seems to talk
about OMH's size kepshuto - see Shabbos 151b, Eiruvin 48a, Yuma 80b,
Zevochim 113b

The Tur OC 218 paskens to say brocho if one sees the rock that OMH wanted
to throw at BY. So we believers have a pretty good team to rely on.

SBA - old:
> Hashem created him as a 'freak'- ... ...Og survived the Mabul -
> meaning he lived for a thousand years plus. If you start analysing this
> medically and physiologically, you would also say that his body parts
> and equipment should have worn out a long time ago - but we see he was
> still leading battles against Bnei Yisroel at the end of his long life.

You didn't reply to this.
Or are you also denying OBH's longevity?

SBA -old:
> Why do you think this is documented in Hallel Hagadol -
> "Lesichon Melech Ho'emori ulOg Melech haboshon"??
> ...Reducing Og to just another king - would beg the question why he gets
> such a high 'billing'?...

No reply to this either...

RZT:
> So, as Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (2:42) concludes, we must take the nine
> cubits of Og's bed as being measured by the cubits of an ordinary person.
> This would still place Og as being about fourteen feet tall, which is
> too much to accept....

So are you now saying that you have difficulty with the Ramban as well?
[Actually, in The Living Torah by RA Kaplan says- according to the MN -
9 feet .]

SBA - old:
> ....is is the only place in the Torah ..It actually tells us where
> Og's bed [or rather cradle] is Why are we being given the exact details?
> Maybe Moshe Rabeinu knew that there will be 'doubters' about Og's size -
> so he gave us the location of the 'proof'... [Bederech Efshar]

I originally added that 'bederech efshar', but I now feel that it is
the 100% truth...

ZT:
> Rambam and many other Rishonim did not use the reasoning of "Hashem can
> do anything" to accept the numerous fantastic stories in the Gemara at
> face value.
> "There are those... are those who believe in their literal (or "simple")
> meaning. They do not under any circumstances reason that there is a
> hidden explanation, and they consider that the impossible is always
> necessarily true. ...."And this is the group of the intellectually weak.
> One should bemoan their foolishness; for they think that they are honoring
> and elevating Chazal.

I'd like to have a look at the Rambam inside. But from your quote we
clearly see that the Rambam is talking about Chazal - NOT the Torah, CV.
[See further comment]

After all,  the Rambam includes in the 13 Ikkarim "Ani maamin...shekol
divrei neviyim emmess..."?

From: T613K@aol.com
> In Avodah V13 #62 R' Nosson Slifkin writes:
>> The mysterious SBA writes that the idea a fifteen-foot Moshe and a
>> skyscraper Og need not be discounted due to its physical impossibility,
>> because:

> SBA is not mysterious at all and will tell you what his initials stand for,

Shkoyech, rebettzen...

RTK:
> 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.

I may have missed something here. Did someone say that the above are
allegorical?
Shabbos and YT [not to mention Pesach] and at almost every occasion
we mention Zecher Yetzias Mitzrayim.And in case anyone has forgotten,
it is in Krias Shema and Aseres Hadibros etc etc.

In Pirkei Ovos [5:5] it tells us of the 10 nissim that happened in
Mitzrayim and the 10 nissim 'al hayam'. I have before me the Avodas
Yisroel siddur where the peirush explains what the 10 nissim 'al hayam'
were - according to - of all people - the Rambam, who writes that all
these miracles are pure Midrashic stuff - no less fantastic than some
of the OMH stories.
The Rambam obviously has no problems at all with it.

RTK:
> There is a critical distinction between "fantastic stories" in the Gemara
> and Midrash, and miracle stories in the actual written Torah. Explaining
> the Mabul or Kriyas Yam Suf as allegorical stories that didn't actually
> happen is kefira or very close.

No doubt.

ZT:
> Miracles in the written Torah are few and far between,

I don't know what you call few - but I can think of quite a number
even as I write. Besides the obvious [at least to me] of the 10 makkos,
yetsias mitzrayim, mattan Torah, surviving in the desert, Man, water,
slov, victory over Amolek and Midyon etc etc.

And, BTW, the miracle of Man - was a daily occurence for 40 years!!!

[And of course the 10 nissim that occured regularly - some even daily -
in the BHMK. Pirkei Avos 5:8]

But of course, I may again be showing my ignorance and there may indeed
be a rational explanation for that as well..

Finally just for the edification and pleasure of those who may never
come across this interesting aggadta [Niddah 24b] - :

It was taught: Abba Saul: I was once a grave-digger. On one occasion,
when pursuing a deer, I entered the thigh-bone of a corpse, and pursued
it for three parasangs but did neither reach the deer nor the end of
the thigh-bone. When I returned I was told that it was the thigh-bone
of Og, King of Bashan.

It was taught: Abba Saul stated, I was once a grave-digger and on one
occasion there was opened a cave under me and I stood in the eye-ball
of a corpse up to my nose. When I returned I was told that it was the
eye of Absalom.

THE GEMORRO CONTINUES:

And should you suggest that Abba Saul was a dwarf [it may be mentioned
that] Abba Saul was the tallest man in his generation, and R. Tarfon
reached to his shoulder and that R. Tarfon was the tallest man in his
generation and R. Meir reached to his shoulder. R. Meir was the tallest
man in his generation and Rabbi reached to his shoulder. Rabbi was the
tallest man in his generation and R. Hiyya reached to his shoulder,
and R. Hiyya was the tallest in his generation and Rab reached to his
shoulder. Rab was the tallest man in his generation and Rab Judah reached
to his shoulder, and Rab Judah was the tallest man in his generation and
his waiter Adda reached to his shoulder. Pushtabna1 [one of the tallest
men] of Pumbeditha reached to half the height of the waiter Adda, while
everybody else reached only to the loins of Pushtabna of Pumbeditha.

<http://www.come-and-hear.com/niddah/niddah_24.html#PARTb>

The Ben Yehoyodo gives a pshat al pi kabolo on the first half of the
story but he leaves the 2nd half - re Abba Shaul's height - alone,
indicating that here here poshut pshat is acceptable.

This shows that while some of the more 'fantastic' Chazals may need some
'help' - not everything does..

----
[The unmysterious]
Shlomo Boruch Abelesz
[please note in your PDA...]
sba@sba2.com

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


[ 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         ]