Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 069

Sunday, August 15 2004

• Re: Age of the Universe and Creation
• Re: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• 10 Ma'amaros
• Re: WAS Creation and Evolution
• Re: WAS Creation and Evolution
• Re: Og Melech Haboshon
• RYBS on tcheilet and lavan
• Re: lice
• Re: Lice
• sheva brachos
• Re: WAS Evolution and Creationism
• RE: Scientists and religion
• The LR on evolution
• Re: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• Re: Og Melech Haboshon
• Re: Og Melech Haboshon
• Re: Lice

R' Tzvi Lampel perhaps solves something that has been puzzling me since
I re-read Rav Avigdor Miller's books a few days ago.

He points out, quite correctly, that the objections to the world being
created 5764 years ago is that (a) there are lots of things that make it
look much older than that, and (b) the idea that it was created looking
old is objectionable.

He proceeds to defend (b). At this point I must clarify that when myself
and many other people attack "creationism," we are not talking about
(b). Most (Christian) creationists do not argue that God created the
world to look billions of years old. They argue instead that all the
scientific evidence showing the world to be billions of years old is
mistaken. It is this view that myself and many others reject as bad
science and altogether absurd.

On the other hand, saying that God created the world to look billions of
years old is not scientifically objectionable at all. According to this
view, carbon dating, varve analysis, etc., is all correct. This view
is not disprovable. It is supported by the famous Gemara about things
being created in their final form (although it MUST be pointed out that
some explain this to mean that things would eventually reach a perfect
form, not that they were created that way). As others have pointed out,
it's not even clear that there is anything significantly different
about this view to the standard scientific view - there are certainly
no ramifications. The reason why I find it unreasonable is... well,
I'll get to that soon.

Now here comes the puzzle. Rav Miller's books, for the most part, do
not take this approach. He generally engages in extensive arguments that
scientists are wrong, scientists are evil, scientists cannot be trusted,
their material is flawed, etc. And yet, in some cases (I think stars
was one of them), he concedes that the science is correct, but argues
that Hashem made it look that way so that the world would look old.

Well, which is it? If Hashem made the world look billions of years old,
then all the science is correct, and there's no need to disprove it!

Now let me get to my objection to the approach that Hashem made the
world look old. I agree that there is some basis for saying that Hashem
would have made the world to appear mature. But the world doesn't just
appear mature - it could be much younger and still be mature. Instead,
the world shows many previous cycles of existence. There was an age of the
dinosaurs. There was an age of mastodons and sabre-toothed tigers. This
indicates history rather than mere maturity.

In order to avoid this problem, perhaps this is why R' Tzvi is arguing
that, although the world does indeed appear to be billions of years old,
the dinosaurs only lived a few thousand years ago. Unfortunately, this is
patently false - the same evidence that shows the world to be mature and
billions of years old, also shows the dinosaurs to have lived millions of
years ago. Contrary to the belief that this is only asserted on the basis of
some "refusal principle" that can be negated, it's actually quite easy to
prove - in fact, much easier than that the world is billions of years old.
You don't even need to know any science. All you need to do is go to any of
the numerous locations where tens of thousands of dinosaurs fossils have
been retrieved (there are many such places in the US). See if you can find,
in those locations, the fossils of dogs, cats, humans, or any modern
creatures. Or, in Israel, go down to the Ramon crater, and look at all the
fossils embedded in the rock. There are thousands of ammonites - extinct
marine creatures - but no modern aquatic life-forms. This is clear evidence
that there were different eras of life in earth's history, and dinosaurs did
not live in the same era as these creatures. (or did the Mabul neatly sort
all the different groups of creatures into different layers...?)

Incidentally, with regard to the question of why the Torah would have
portrayed the billions of years as being six days, see Rav Dessler.
Basically he says that it has mystical meaning, and that it is conveyed
in simple terms so that even simple people can grasp it, and that the
time-scale is downplayed to convey its spiritual insignificance.

Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin
www.zootorah.com

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 12:47:05PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
:> Since evolution is supposed to be gradual, Behe couldn't see how two
:> components that each need eachother could arrive on the scene at the
:> same time. Impossible? No. But negligable.

: The key word is negligible... not impossible...

Two fellows were on a safari when a lioness leaped up and ran for them.
One of the men started running away from the lion, when the other asked,
"What's the point? You could never outrun the lionness?" "Who needs to
outrun the lionness? I only need to outrun you!"

A theory is no longer scientific when it defies Occam's Razor. When
the odds of undirected cosmogony, planet formation and evolution are
miniscule, far smaller than the odds of a Creator, accepting those
theories as random processes is no longer scientific.

How likely is it that G-d exists? Well, that's a judgement call, as it's
not a random process that can be mathematically measured.

But the odds intelligence would exist given the assumption there's a
G-d is far greater than the odds it would exist given the assumption
there isn't.

Since there is intelligence, the odds He exists is FAR greater than the
odds he didn't.

How high? Well, just the odds of the universe starting in a low-entropy
state is 1 in 10^10^123. That's a number with 10^123 zeros, which in
turn is a number with 123 zeros after it.

Ignoring the unlikelihood of anything else, that already puts atheism
well beyond Occam's razor.

Gut Voch!
-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

Toby noted that the Mishnah in Avos states that G-d created the world
in 10 ma'amaros. Therefore, she stated, it is impossible to suggest
that certain parts of Creation evolved (with Divine guidance) because
they were explicitly created. However, the explanation of this Mishnah
by the Rambam (and the Meiri and probably others) does not allow her
deduction. According to the Rambam, the Mishnah is only commenting on the
length in which the Torah describes the Creation, using ten ma'amaros
rather than one verse stating "And G-d said, 'Let there be heaven and
earth and the sun and moon and staters and water and land and birds
etc.'" The Mishnah is not stating that G-d made ten different Creation
activities but only that the Torah describes Creation in ten steps.

As to exactly which verses count as ma'amaros, that is an old debate.
See the footnote to Kafah's edition of the Rambam's commentary and
Rashbatz's Magen Avos.

Gil Student
Yashar Books Inc.
www.YasharBooks.com

hmaryles@yahoo.com posted on: Aug 13, 2004:
> There is no physical universe at all. It is all a "dream" in the "mind"
> of God. We are led to believe that there is a corporeal universe and
> are given 5 senses to detect evidence of it. But can we know anything
> beyond our senses? Are they real? Do they really tell us that there is a
> such thing as matter? If we had no senses at all (no sight, no hearing,
> no touch, no smell, no tatse) would we even know that an "outside" world
> exists? Since we must rely on or senses to "prove" an outside world I
> submit that there is no real world at all. We are in effect "fooled"
> into believing that we are in one.

How about putting it like this:

"All existing things require G-d for their existence, but He,
blessed-be-He, does not require them, nor any one of them. Therefore
His reality is not like the reality of any of them. This is what the
prophet means when he says, 'V'Hashem Elokim Emmess'--He alone is the
reality and none other has reality like His reality. And this is what
the Yorah says: 'Ain od mil'vaddo--the is nothing besides Him.' Meaning,
there is no existing Reality besides Him which is like Him." (Rambam,
Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Yesoday HaTorah, 1:4)

Zvi Lampel

On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:08:11PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: "All existing things require G-d for their existence, but He,
: blessed-be-He, does not require them, nor any one of them. Therefore
: His reality is not like the reality of any of them. This is what the
: prophet means when he says, 'V'Hashem Elokim Emmess'--He alone is the
: reality and none other has reality like His reality. And this is what
: the Yorah says: 'Ain od mil'vaddo--the is nothing besides Him.' Meaning,
: there is no existing Reality besides Him which is like Him." (Rambam,
: Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Yesoday HaTorah, 1:4)

This is actually emanationism, not creation in the sense of manufacture.
Which has nothing to do with whether the unfolding of that emanation
was through a natural or supernatural process.

In the Moreh, the Rambam shows that being the Agent of emanation and
the Cause are in reality identical.

On a related subject, something that I recently posted on another forum
that perhaps someone here (or RYGB's uncle?) can explain:

I don't understand the Ba'al haTanya's position on the subject. He
starts out explaining beri'ah in terms of atzilus, but then conclusioned
that "ein od milvado" means that there is no Reality besides Him --
period. Panentheism (the universe is of G-d, but G-d is greater than
the universe).

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

I haven't been following this thread too closely, but there's a point
that I didn't notice anyone else raise, so I'd like to make it just in
case. Namely:

If someone wants to say that a 10-amah-tall Moshe Rabenu was some sort
of miracle, fine. But to say that even a one-mile-tall Og was miraculous
presupposes that he was human, and in actuality he *might* have been
descended from other pre-flood species.

Akiva Miller

In a drasha on "tcheilat and lavan", RYBS tied together several threads
which have appeared recently on Avodah. The drasha apprears in the
recent work by R M. Yair Kahn, "Shiurei Hagrid - al inyanei tfillin,
ktivat stam vetzitzit", Mosad Harav Kook, 2004, pp 225-6.

The following briefly summarizes a small part of the drasha, and surely
does not do justice to the original.

According to RYBS, tcheilet and lavan represent two different ways man
looks at himself and at the world outside of himself. Lavan - clarity -
represents logic, and objective, observable, measurable reality -- in
short, science. Tcheilet, on the other hand, represents that which
transcends science and logic. "Tcheilet resembles the sea, the sea
resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the heavenly throne." say our
sages. Tcheilet resembles the sea, whose great extent and depth make it
beyond man's ability to control. Similarly, tcheilet resembles the sky,
because of its great distance from man, and its inaccessibilty. Tcheilet
resembles the heavenly throne, which is utterly beyond the cosmos.

Judaism, continued RYBS, has always had a dual approach to the cosmos,
because the reality which surrounds us is dual. One aspect of reality
is rational and logical, and functions according to the principle of
causality. The ability of science to land a man on the moon demonstrates
the great power of scientific inquiry, and demonstrates the extent to
which the world can be understood and controlled by scientific enquiry.
But science has limitations, and some aspects of our world are so complex
that science fails to master them. Although the physical sciences have
made great achievments, the life sciences are grappling with problems
beyond their control, and are helpless in the face of some diseases;
scientists who can land man on the moon cannot deal with a single cell
which multiplies uncontrollably. Nature, so generous with its secrets
in some fields, is niggardly with them in others.

SM:
I venture to say that what is missing among many, but surely not all,
scientists is tcheilet. Any position or hypothesis which is beyond
the power of science to objectively measure and validate is regarded
with the utmost of suspicion. Sadly, the tcheilet which resembles the
heavenly throne is not part of the world-view of many scientists. In a
more perfect world, all will have both lavan and tcheilet, intertwined.

Saul Mashbaum

eli turkel wrote:
>The question is why this emphasis on lice. It is well known that numerous
>poskim including RMF have changed individual halachot because science
>has changed. Usually with the answer of nishtane hateva...

>So why not just simply state that though lice may have spontaneously
>generated in the days of chazal they no longer do so and so it is
>forbidden to kill them on shabbat like the Pachad Yitzchak.

That is the basis of my question. The fact is that the poskim do not take
this approach but simply ignore the findings of science in this case. One
simple answer is that we generally do not state that there has been a
change of nature - without some source in the rishonim or early achronim.

>In summary the Pachad Yiyzchak may be a single posek in the case of lice
>but his sevara is used by many other poskim.

I disagree with the above. I have not found other poskim who agree with
the sevara of the Pachad Yitzchok - with the minor exceptions cited by R'
Gil Student. The Pachad Yitzchok does not say that nature has changed but
in fact says that since the halacha was based on a faulty understanding
of reality it must be annulled.

>This is in fact the thrust of the article by Shlomo Sternberg in BDD
>without mentioned the Pachad Yiyzchak.

Prof Sternberg does take this as his theme in his polemic against
rabbinical authority - asserting that not only are contemporary rabbis
ignorant of science but they don't understand the nature of Torah either.

In sum. I just wanted to demonstrate that by and large contemporary
halacha is not necessarily concerned with scientific reality - but
rather precedent in the halachic literature. Lice is a good test case
since the science is clear and universally accepted. In contrast in the
world of halacha - except for the Pachad Yitzchok - there is absolutely
no interest in whether spontaneous generations is a reality.

                        Daniel Eidensohn

On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 05:09:08PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: R. Menachem Kasher argues that halachah should be changed EXCEPT
: that we do not change it so as not to be motzi la'az on earlier
: generations...

I'm getting conflicting impressions of his shitah.

Version 1 is as RGS describes it above. It requires believing that
lashon hara is docheh Shabbos. Perhaps perhaps this is a case of melakhah
she'einah tzerichah legufah; but still, docheh the derabbanan.

Version 2 is that RMK is saying that al pi sevarah he would think the
pesaq is in error. However, as it's impossible for such implied la'az
to be true, there must be some unknown flaw in the sevarah.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 04:26:49PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:> Because it is your understanding that is incorrect. To reject even a 
:> kutzo shel yud of "Torah" - chas me'l'hazkir!

: Since this discussion was transferred from Areivim - I might be missing
: the context to understand it properly. As it stands now the issue of
: whether every statement in the gemora must be objectively true - has been
: recycled many times in this forum. Rav Moshe Feinstein clearly states
: in the introduction to the Igros that a view can be objectively wrong
: and yet still have the status of eilu v'eilu...

1- Given RMF's letter to his son which seems to contradict this definition
of eilu va'eilu, I have no idea how to understand the haqdamah's portrayal
of the idea.

2- It's not the topic at hand.

We're discussing a rejection of the gemara's pesaq, that it reached a
false maskanah. That's very different than saying that a shitah which
did not become the gemara's pesaq can be both a false understanding of
Torah and still be within the mitzvah of talmud Torah.

That's not to say I necessarily agree with RYGB's original statement.
For example, as phrased it would exclude RAYK's and RMK's positions.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 07:32:38AM -0400, I wrote:
: I don't recall how much of the following is RDL and how much my
: understanding of my rebbe's position. But I understand my rebbe to have
: meant that it is irrelevent whether they knew what "officially", or as
: I would have said it, technically, happens. Halakha only addresses that
: which we can perceive ourselves, without help. (I am pretty sure the
: last sentence was a translation of RDL's words.)

: Now for something I know is my own: We speak of "the metzi'us" without
: thinking about the shoresh. Metzi'us is that which a person can "find",
: not that which technically or "officially" occurs / exists.

Along the same lines, RDL did speak in terms of the microscopic lacking
"mamashus". Thinking about it I realized: I doubt RDL was thinking in
these two terms, but where does the term mamashus comes from? Doesn't
it too implies something one can feel?

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

Related to a recent thread about the necessity of making sheva brachos:
http://www.thebronsteins.com/archives/000261.html

Avi Burstein

Fri, 13 Aug 2004 Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com posted: 
>I believe that God would not deliberately fool
> us by giving us vast evidence that indicate an old universe while in
> reality he created it 6000 years ago to "look" that way, despite R. Zvi
> Lampel's argument of it as truth.

You can believe what you want, but please answer: Why would Hashem
deliberately fool us by writing in the Torah that He created the world
in a mature state, in six days, 5000 years ago, while "in reality"
He started creating it billions of years ago?

Zvi Lampel

On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 17:28 -0400, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
> There are other examples of this type and intelligent design theorists
> will certainly confirm the difficulties they face. A dear friend of mine
> who has a Ph.D in biology from a good university told me that to raise
> any problems in her department with the orthodox theories of biology
> was in effect an academic death warrant.

this isn't just biology, this is in general in academia. have to be
very brave to veer off the "normal" path.

Links to the Lubavitcher rebbe's writing on evolution.

From: "Chana Benjaminson, Chabad.org" <cbenjaminson@chabadonline.com> 
    <http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=61943>
    <http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?AID=60946>
    <http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=112699>
    <http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=112083>
the following are based on the Rebbe's teachings: 
    <http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=2901>
    <http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108395>

If you need further assistance feel free to contact us again, 

Best wishes, 
Chani Benjaminson Chabad.org 
<http://www.chabad.org/tools/subscribe/>

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> A theory is no longer scientific when it defies Occam's Razor. When
> the odds of undirected cosmogony, planet formation and evolution are
> miniscule, far smaller than the odds of a Creator, accepting those
> theories as random processes is no longer scientific.
...
> Since there is intelligence, the odds He exists is FAR greater than the
> odds he didn't.
...
> Ignoring the unlikelihood of anything else, that already puts atheism
> well beyond Occam's razor.

That may be true but Scientists claim of randomness has yet to be prooven,
Atheist scientists will claim. They are constantly striving to increase
their odds and since randomness is as of yet disproven they maintain that
it is still the most viable explanation. Or at least as viable as that
of Intelligent design. As there is no evidence of that except the remote
statistical probablity of God's existence relitive to randomness they can
still "play the game". Science does not deal with comparatively remote
possiblilities. They deal with facts. Scientists then come up with with
possible theories to explain those facts. Why random mutations appeals
to them more than an intelligent design is a question you would have to
ask them.

HM

SBA wrote:
: Or are you also denying OBH's longevity?

RMB:
> Why not? It's an aggadita, which you agree there is a mehalekh (which
> frankly seems to be the norm amongst rishonim) not to assume they're
> historical.

Norm amongst the Rishonim !?
Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Rosh etc - all seem to more or
less accept the aggadta on OMH.

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

RMB:
> It's in his haqdamah to pereq Cheileq in his peirush hamishnayos.

Thanks. I have just spent an hour or 2 learning it. As expected nowhere
did I find that the Rambam is referring to pesukei Hatorah.

RMB:
> Funny that you cite the ani ma'amin (which he didn't write), his version
> is shortly after the quote in question.

Saw that too.  Does anyone doubt that the Ani Maamins
are based on the words of the Rambam?
[BTW, who did compose them?]

RMB:
> The Rambam you want describes three katim.
> The first think that all these stories are meant literally, find them
> absurd and therefore ridicule the Torah.
> The second kat think that all these stories are meant literally,
> believe them, and thereby belittle the Torah.

I think you mixed up your Kats. It's the other way around.
[Not that it makes any difference at all..]

RMB:
> The third kat understand that the rabbis were speaking in parable.

SBA: Not exactly.
Rather: "Were ALSO [or SOMETIMES] speaking in parable"

So how actually does the Rambam expect a person - who wants to be of
the 3rd Kat - to know when the Torah or Chazal are talking plain pshat
and when by parable??

You think the Rambam wants or expects us to be smart enough to make such
serious decisions?
I strongly doubt it [especially after seeing that he writes that this
3rd Kat is so miniscule that it can't really be called a Kat].

Vozhe den?
No sofek at all, that the Rambam would tell us to follow the directions
and hashkofos imparted by the gedolei hameforshim - Rashi, Ramban etc -
and we won't go wrong.

BTW, how anyone can try a drei this Rambam into saying that he is
dismissing Rashi [or even worse - telling US to dismiss Rashi!] or to
use this to say Rashi is wrong - CV - is beyond me...

SBA

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 02:38:33PM +1000, SBA wrote:
:>> Or are you also denying OBH's longevity?

My reply:
:> Why not? It's an aggadita, which you agree there is a mehalekh (which
:> frankly seems to be the norm amongst rishonim) not to assume they're
:> historical.

Reb Shloime's new comment.
: Norm amongst the Rishonim !?
: Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Rosh etc - all seem to more or
: less accept the aggadta on OMH.

Umm... I was saying that it's the norm amongst rishonim not to assume
aggaditos are historical. And their quoting a particular aggadic stories
only proves they agree with the nimshal, not that they believe the
historicity of the Mashal.

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

:> It's in his haqdamah to pereq Cheileq in his peirush hamishnayos.

: Thanks. I have just spent an hour or 2 learning it. As expected nowhere
: did I find that the Rambam is referring to pesukei Hatorah.

Nor did I expect you to. Your first sentence implied you needed a mar'eh
maqom, so I gave it.

This is an old debate between RMS and I. I believe that the Rambam was
only willing to entertain the possibility of declaring Bereishis 1 as
allegory (if it had been philosophically necessary) because there are
meqoros for doing so from chazal.

:> Funny that you cite the ani ma'amin (which he didn't write), his version
:> is shortly after the quote in question.

: Saw that too.  Does anyone doubt that the Ani Maamins
: are based on the words of the Rambam?
: [BTW, who did compose them?]

We don't know who wrote "Ani Ma'amin", nor are there even guesses.

However, my point was that the kind of diyuq you're making may be the
kind of thing inherent in the difference between versions, and the
Rambam's original should be quoted instead.

The "Ani Ma'amin" simply states that all the words of the nevi'im are
truth, that Moshe was the greated of the nevi'im, and that the Torah we
have now is the Torah given to Moshe and will never be abrogated."

That doesn't necessarily assert that the words of the nevi'im are
historical. A mashal whose nimshal is true is also true -- as long as
it was the navi's kavanah to give a mashal.

:> The third kat understand that the rabbis were speaking in parable.

: SBA: Not exactly.
: Rather: "Were ALSO [or SOMETIMES] speaking in parable"

You see those words? Here's what I see:
"The third class is few and far between, and can only be called a
class in the sense that the sun is the only member of the class of all
suns..." [Given that the Rambam wouldn't call stars "suns".] "This class
understand that they were speaking parables, and you must study their
words carefully to get the meaning."

: So how actually does the Rambam expect a person - who wants to be of
: the 3rd Kat - to know when the Torah or Chazal are talking plain pshat
: and when by parable??

I assume you threw in "Torah or" by error, given your words above
that he speaks only of divrei chazal.

I took the Rambam to mean we don't really care whether a medrash's mashal
is historical or not. The Torah is the nimshal. Even if you can't make
the distinction there is no problem -- the difference is a side-issue.

: You think the Rambam wants or expects us to be smart enough to make such
: serious decisions?
: I strongly doubt it [especially after seeing that he writes that this
: 3rd Kat is so miniscule that it can't really be called a Kat].

That's the kat of people who even believe there is a decision to be made,
not of people capable of making the decision.

: BTW, how anyone can try a drei this Rambam into saying that he is
: dismissing Rashi [or even worse - telling US to dismiss Rashi!] or to
: use this to say Rashi is wrong - CV - is beyond me...

But perhaps the Rambam's implication is that we must entertain the
possibility that Rashi was repeating a mashal, and peshat in the pasuq
inheres in its nimshal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

Micha Berger wrote:
>1- Given RMF's letter to his son which seems to contradict this definition
>of eilu va'eilu, I have no idea how to understand the haqdamah's portrayal
>of the idea.

The apparent inconsistency does not invalidate the clearly worded
introduction to the Igros. In other words a frum Jew has every right
to rely upon the hashkofa expressed in the introduction and thus the
accusation of "chas me'l'hazkir!" is inappropriate. Furthermore the
introduction is not a daas yachid - and is totally consistent with the
Chinuch, Drashos HaRan as well as Rashi Kesubos 57a. In fact I once
asked Rav Eliyashiv about the apparent contradiction and he replied that
Rashi's view of eilu v'eilu was the explanation. Again all of this has
been rehashed many times in this forum.

>2- It's not the topic at hand.
>We're discussing a rejection of the gemara's pesaq, that it reached a
>false maskanah. That's very different than saying that a shitah which
>did not become the gemara's pesaq can be both a false understanding of
>Torah and still be within the mitzvah of talmud Torah.

I don't understand why this is not the topic at hand and I simply don't
understand the distinction you are asserting. Lice is a psak apparently
based upon a false premise. If one assumes that the halacha is totally
based upon the premise then the maskana must also be false. If one
accepts Tosfos's view that the value of pi is incorrect in Shas than
it follows that halachic conclusions based upon it are also incorrect.
Furthermore whether a psak is based on a mistaken understanding of reality
or using a sevara or shitah which objectively (in terms of the Heavenly
Torah) it is still incorrect - assuming the view of eilu v'eliu of the
above mentioned rishonim. In all these permutations one still receives
reward for studying these views found in the gemora and even paskening
according to these views - if you mistakenly view them as correct.
The problem of "chas me'l'hazkir!" only arises from the view that there
are multiple truths and thus there is no basis for saying that one of
these views is false or mistaken. As far as I know - there has never
been a ruling of Sanhedrin that one must accept the view of multiple
truths. Furthermore there is an ironic paradox that even the view that
there is only a single objective truth - of necessity must be accepted
as legitimate by those that assert that there are mulitple truths.

Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]