Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 040

Thursday, December 9 2004

• The Reality of the Vision of Malachim
• RE: Torah and science
• Re: Midrash Avkir
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Arayos
• Maskil L'Dovid
• Re: Vayeishe Yaakov
• Re: Vayeishe Yaakov
• Tamar
• Re: The Reality of the Vision of Malachim
• Vayeishe Yaakov and Iyov
• Re: Vayeishe Yaakov and Iyov
• Re: Maskil L'Dovid
• Re: Maskil L'Dovid
• Re: The Reality of the Vision of Malachim
• Re: Maskil L'Dovid
• Re: Kuzari question
• Ono with a Heh or Aleph
• Shir Shel Yom for Chanuka: 30
• Re: Shir Shel Yom for Chanuka: 30
• Re: Ono with a Heh or Aleph
• Torah and Science

On Shabbos, quite by happenstance, I opened the Peirush of Reb Avraham
ben HaRambam al HaTorah and subsequently decided to see what he says
about Yaakov's vision of the Sar of Esav (the other issue, the Malachim
and Avraham Avinu, is missing from the ms. from which the Peirush was
published). I have scanned it and sent it as a .pdf to Micha to post.
[See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/rabhrmbmNevuah.pdf>. -mi] The
issue is discussed and explained explicitly - a vision is no different
from "reality." It is certainly not an "allegory."

YGB

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> How it is that science is so successful in providing technological
> breakthroughs if it can also make such huge errors? The answer, it appears,
> is rather simple. Not all the "facts" of science are equally credible. From
> higher to lower credibility we have:

> 1.	Facts established by repeatable observable experiments;
> 2.	Interpolation;
> 3.	Extrapolation (especially huge backward extrapolations from a small
> subset of observations to huge eons of time).
> 4.	Deep theory (hypothetical objects and fields which have no direct
> experimental verification).

Perhaps. But you cannot simply dismiss mountains of accumulated evidence
in category three. It is one thing to say that a given extrapolation is
subject to error. But when you have many such extraopolations from various
different disciplines or studies and from many independant sources, such
evidence becomes far too significant to simply dismiss out of hand as
you do. It is certainly true that none of these studies are foolproof,
but niether is your preconceived version of creation the only legitimate
view. As long as there exists credible sources in Chazal, Rishonim,
and Achronim, it is more logical to say that scientific evidence (even
if it isn't direct) that the universe is more than 5765 years than it
is to say that it is exactly that age.

> Are the 92% of leading scientists who do not believe in the Creator or a
> transcendent soul not at all biased? Perhaps we can all admit to our biases
> and then deal with the substantive issue on the table -- which is -- is
> there "massive evidence" for a 14by old universe based on big bang cosmology?

Would you say that the AOJS is a group of Maaminim? I haven't taken a
poll but I suggest to you that the vast majority of them believe the
universe is more than 5765 years old. Apparently their knowledge of
the science behind the bielef in an old universe has convinced them.
I am not a scientist. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge in that
department. But I suggest that you are in the minority of the scientific
world believing as you do.

Yes, we all have biases. But you seem to cling to yours most stubbornly,
rejecting any suggestipon of an older universe as inconclusive and
therefore untrue. Your insistence on a religious view of a "new" universe
forces you to dismiss ...just because there is no "acid test"...what
most Orthodox Jews in the scientific community have accepted.

HM

HG Schild asked:
> Who compiled Midrash Avkir that is quoted in Yalkut Shimoni, etc. Was
> it published by itself? Is the sefer in print or in a library? available?

Can't answer anything definitive, but the introduction to the Yalkut
in my shul says that the Midrash Avkir must have been around some 400
years ago. This is based in the fact that earlier Yalkuts referenced a
lot of sayings to "Midrash" and about 400 years ago they suddenly were
re-assigned to the Midrash Avkir.

 From what I could infer, there aren't any copies of Midrash Avkir around.

Midrash Avkir or Abkyr seems to be the acronym for Amen Beyameinu Kein
Yehi Ratzon - which supposedly was the way every section of the Midrash
Avkir ended.

 - Danny

R Zev Sero wrote:
> Actually I was discussing both sides, at different points:

Perhaps I'm lost because I don't see how the current discussion goes
beyond that of the rishonim.

> 1. According to the Rambam, who holds that all human-angel meetings are
> visions, how does he explain the Lot story?

This is asked by the Ramban, and answered by the Abarbanel.

> 2. Let's assume the Rambam's wrong, angels can manifest physically and
> interact with humans who are in a normal state of consciousness, and
> therefore stories of human-angel meetings should in general be taken
> literally; how does that explain *this* story, where it *must* at least
> *begin* as a vision? My intention was to suggest that this story was a
> vision lechol hade'ot.

> RTK is addressing this second branch, and showing how it could have
> started as a vision and switched to physical reality at a plausible
> point - when Avraham sensed the mal'achim approaching.

Which is the shitah of the Ramban and Rashi.

...
> I still haven't seen the Abarbanel, but the MmD isn't relevant. I had read
> the MmD before I asked my question in the first place, and my question
> already assumes what you had written there. Yes, something happening
> 'in a vision' doesn't mean it's just imaginary, hypothetical, made up;
> it is actually and really happening, just not on the physical plane. But
> to an observer watching a navi having a vision, all that can be seen is
> a man having what appears to be an epileptic fit or something (cf the
> episode when Shaul meets the bnei hanevi'im)....

I think this is a false assumption. Yes, the Rambam says that a navi other
than Moshe Rabbeinu needed to prepare him- or herself for the nevu'ah.
However, he does not necessarily hold that nevu'ah comes during a trance.

I think that assuming that Lot was able to walk around and do things
while using six senses (the 5 usual plus nevu'ah) is would better fit
the Abarbanel's portrayal of the Rambam's opinion.

 -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

In light of Last week's Parasha, Parshas VaYeshev involving two very
explicit sexual stories, one about Yehudah and the other about Yosef,
I thought that it would be worthwhile discussing some issues raised in
the past involving Arayos.

What type of behavior is permissible between the sexes? Can there ever
be any touching? Under which circumstances? What does the Shulchan Aruch
say? What about Rishonim? And how do we Paskin?

I would like to relate a Teshuvah in the Igros Moshe. As many know from
past discussion there is a Machlokes as to whether touching members of
the opposite sex SheLo B'Derech Chiba is permitted. The Beis Shmuel in
EH 20: 1 and 3 states it is Assur... on a D'Oraisa level according to
the Rambam, and a D'Rabbanon Level according to the Ramban. However, R
Moshe Feinstein Paskins in EH 2: 14 that the above mentioned Issur only
applies to one's wife when she is a Niddah. Other women, OTOH... even
married ones... Niddos, or non Jews there is no Issur, as long as there
is no Taavah involved. RMF says this is true according to everyone.

To corroborate this Teshuva, there is an interesting anecdote about this
issue cited by the the Pischei Teshuva (YD 157:11) in the name of the
Chavas Yair. There were 2 women who needed to travel cross boundaries
which required passports, that they didn't own. This would have required
a massive tax upon reaching the tax-collector at the borders. So,
the 2 women asked two men traveling with them to pretend they were
married to them so the tax collectors wouldn't penalize the women for
having no independent passports (...wives didn't require independent
passports). When arriving at the border, the tax collector did not
believe their claims of marital status and said that they should either
kiss or swear that their wives were Nidos The Chavas Yair Paskin's that
they should kiss because there is no Issur except a D'Rabbanan and it
was not B'Derech Chiba. To use his Lashon, Ein B'Kach Klum. Lying under
oath, OTOH, about the state of Nidus was forbidden as it constitutes a
Shvuas Sheker.

When we discussed this issue in then past, I do not recall RMF's Teshuva
being mentioned nor did anyone quote this Chavas Yair. Since I came
across these Teshuvos yesterday, I thought that it might shed some
further light on the issue.

HM

Does anyone know where I can read/learn about R' Dovid Pardov (sp?),
the mechaber of Maskil L'Dovid on Rashi Al HaTorah? He lived approx 250
years ago.

Thanks, Gedalia

Gary S. Litke
Email: glitke@torys.com

I posted:
> There's a well known Rashi on the title pasuq of Vayeishev, in which he
> quotes a Chazal that says that it's unfair for tzadiqim to expect a quiet
> life in olam hazeh. They are getting olam haba, and they expect olam hazeh
too?
...
> However, as we say every morning "Eilu devarim she'adam ocheil
> peiroseihem ba'olam hazeh, vehaqeren qayemes lo li'olam haba..." Olam
> hazeh need not be at the expence of olam haba. Or conversely, why couldn't
> Yaaqov avinu expect to enjoy those peiros?

Someone wrote me in private email::
> See R. Boruch Epstein in Tosefes Beracha where he quotes the midrash
> that Rashi was looking at. It's a misprint in Rashi, he says. It's the
> Satan that is saying that Tzadikim shouldn't also have a nice Olam Hazeh;
> not HKBH. (Like your proof from davening, R. Epstein refers to the
> promises in the Torah of living in peace & tranquility on this earth for
> keeping the mitzvos). ...
> BTW, if you look closely at that Rashi - the location of that
> Rashi being on posuk 2 instead of back in posuk 1 - almost like an
> afterthought (or, perhaps, added by someone other than Rashi?)

With that ammendment, the medrash reads like the opening of Iyov. In
both cases, I would say that the role of the Satan, being lesatein, is
to provide challenges for people who can cruise through parts of their
current life, who are thereby missing opportunities for tiqun hamiddos /
deveiqus that challenges provide.

The begining of Iyov is often misunderstood by Jews who know more
Xianity than our own tradition. I've been forced repeatedly on scj(m)
to defend the Jewish understanding of Iyov against the Xian dualist
interpretation. Here's one example:
> On 2 Apr 2001 20:17:18 GMT, Moggin <mog...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>: Y--- [sheim havayah deleted -mi] boasted about Job to Satan. Satan
>: suggested Job's faith was contingent on his good fortune

> This is a false view of how G-d and the Satan relate. Given the Jewish
> anti-dualist perspective, you're putting an entirely wrong spin on the
> first chapter of Job.

> Start with his name, that the Satan exists to challenge, not to
> lead astray.

> So, G-d asks the Satan, "Have you put heart to my servant Job? For
> there is none like him in the land, a pure and upright man, who fears
> G-d and avoids evil."

> The Satan's answer, "Does Job fear G-d while having nothing?" Has
> G-d not given Job everything he needs for a happy life? Would job still
> serve G-d, or curse him, if it were all taken away?

> Note that these are all phrased as questions in the original. The
> spin is to make these sarcastic rhetorical questions. But there is
> no indication of that in the text. It's quite clear from the text (if
> approached without prejudice) that G-d and the Satan aren't having a duel,
> but are cooperating to develop Job to his maximum potential.

> G-d notes to the Satan that Job has grown all he could in his current
> role, the Satan -- the Challenger -- notes that Job never had to deal
> with serving G-d from a position of a have-not.

> So, G-d approves this mission.

-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

> See R. Boruch Epstein in Tosefes Beracha where he quotes the midrash 
> that Rashi was looking at. It's a misprint in Rashi, he says. It's 
> the Satan that is saying that Tzadikim shouldn't also have a nice 
> Olam Hazeh; not HKBH....
> BTW, if you look closely at that Rashi -- the location of that Rashi 
> being on posuk 2 instead of back in posuk 1 -- almost like an 
> afterthought (or, perhaps, added by someone other than Rashi?)

Chavel's edition of Rashi based on earlier manuscrips has the comment so 
it was not added later. Look at Torah Sheleima note #9 where he notes 
that both versions of the medrash exist.

Daniel Eidensohn

Can anyone suggest why Tamar waited until her pregnancy became a public
issue? Would it not have been more effective, prudent and appropriate to
surrender her evidence identifying the father, as soon as she realised
she was pregnant? This would have given Yehudah the opportunity to marry
her himself or to his son and would have prevented any public display
of questionable behaviour on anyone's part, or perhaps have her sent
away to never return or return some time later.

If she knew the usual punishment for such behaviour, how would it have
been permitted for her to undertake such a risk?

meir

RYGB wrote:
> On Shabbos, quite by happenstance, I opened the Peirush of Reb Avraham
> ben HaRambam al HaTorah and subsequently decided to see what he says
> about Yaakov's vision of the Sar of Esav...
> The
> issue is discussed and explained explicitly - a vision is no different
> from "reality." It is certainly not an "allegory."

I read the page you sent and reached the exact opposite conclusion.

On 32:25 "Vayoseir" he writes in part (emph mine): That physical hibodedus
arose to a spiritual hisbodedus until at the end hisig hasagas nevu'ah
SHENIDMEH LO BAH KE'ILU "Vaavoq imo ish".

On v 26, in his comments on "kaf raglo": And don't wonder how this could
happen in a situation that wasn't metzi'us but only a dimyon. For a
person ... who sees in his dream as though he was hit can wake up with a
pain. For the limbs are acted upon by the power of dimyon. And if this
is this way by the effect of a regular dream, all the more so that it
would be by the effect of a mar'eh nevu'ah.

Last, I'm not even sure R' Avraham ben haRambam holds that the Yaaqov
in the dream was the actual Yaaqov! Look at v. 30 d"h "Vayish'al
Yaaqov". "... for until this time it lo alah al libo bechezyono..." as
though there is a difference between what Yaaqov thought and what Yaaqov
saw in the nevu'ah that he thought.

In short, I would not have concluded that RAbhRMBM understood his father
the way the Abarbanel does.

-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

micha@aishdas.org posted on: Dec 6:
>...The begining of Iyov is often misunderstood by Jews who know more
> Xianity than our own tradition. ... [that] Job's faith was contingent
> on his good fortune. {Actually, however,] G-d and the Satan aren't having
> a duel, but are cooperating to develop Job to his maximum potential.

Y'yasher Kochacha on your clarification to something that has bothered
me. (Truth be told, I somehow originally understood it the Xtian
way--ugh!) I hope to see your p'shat backed by mekoros.

Zvi Lampel

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 08:42:20AM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Y'yasher Kochacha on your clarification to something that has bothered
: me. ... I hope to see your p'shat backed by mekoros.

I didn't get into sources, as I was in a polemical mode and didn't want
to stress the "one man's opinion" side of it. My point was to take the
dualist edge off the way the text is read, and that's something consistant
in Yahadus.

However, I got this peshat from R' YB Soloveitchik. He places the
discussion between the Satan and HQBH in the context of Iyov's silence
at the persecution of the Jews by the Mitzriim. He explains the opening
of Iyov (including the pesuqim I quoted) as Satan assuming the job of
teaching Iyov empathy, and so the book concludes when Iyov davens for
his friends.

-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

From: "Litke, Gary S." <glitke@torys.com>
> Does anyone know where I can read/learn about R' Dovid Pardov (sp?),
> the mechaber of Maskil L'Dovid on Rashi Al HaTorah? He lived approx 250
> years ago.

IIRC he was chief Rabbi of Sarajevo in the mid 1700's. He wrote peirushim
on Mishna (which I've never seen but hope someone reprints), Tosefta
(REALLY good), and Sifrei. He was quite literally "baki b'chol pinos
haTorah". I recall reading a biographical essay about him once, but I
don't recall where.

David Riceman

Litke, Gary S. wrote:
>Does anyone know where I can read/learn about R' Dovid Pardov (sp?),
>the mechaber of Maskil L'Dovid on Rashi Al HaTorah? He lived approx 250
>years ago.

Encyclopeida Judaica

ARDO, DAVID SAMUEL BEN JACOB (1718-1790), rabbinical author and poet.
Born in Venice, he went to Sarajevo for a time as a result of a dispute
over an inheritance, and from there to Spalato, in Dalmatia. From
approximately 1738 he was a teacher of children, at the same time
studying under the local rabbi, Abraham David Papo. Eventually Pardo was
appointed rabbi of the town. From 1760 he was rabbi of Sarajevo. From
1776 to 1782 he traveled to Erez Israel, settling in Jerusalem where he
served as head of the yeshivah Hesed le-Avraham u-Vinyan Shelomo. Pardo
was regarded as one of Jerusalem's great rabbis. Of his many works
his series of commentaries and novellae on tannaitic literature are
especially original. His first work was Shoshannim le-David (Venice,
1752), a commentary on the Mishnah. The somewhat sharp language he
employed in the first part in criticizing contemporary scholars gave
rise to friction between him and David Corinaldi and Mas'ud Rokeah in
Leghorn. But after he mitigated his language in the second part and
published an apology, a reconciliation took place.

Pardo's Hasdei David (Leghorn, 1776-90; Jerusalem, 1890) on the Tosefta
is considered the most important commentary on this work (the portion on
Tohorot, the manuscript of which is in the National Library of Jerusalem,
has not been published). He completed the work in Jerusalem on his 68th
birthday. Portions of it were published in the Romm Vilna edition of
the Talmud with the text of the Tosefta. Similarly, his Sifrei de-Vei
Rav (Salonika, 1799), which he commenced in 1786 and was published by
his son Abraham after his death, is the most important commentary on
the Sifrei. In it he makes use of commentaries of Hillel b. Eliakim,
Solomon ibn Okhana, and Eliezer ibn Nahum, all of which he had in
manuscript. Other works he wrote are Mikhtam le-David (Salonika,
1772), halakhic decisions and responsa; Maskil le-David (Venice,
1761), a supercommentary on Rashi's biblical commentary; La-Menazze'ah
le-David (Salonika, 1765), on those talmudic passages where alternative
explanations are given; Mizmor le-David (Leghorn, 1818), notes on the
Perot Ginnosar of Hezekiah da Silva and Hayyim ibn Attar on Shulhan
Arukh, Even ha-Ezer. Pardo's liturgical poems and prayers are included
in the Sephardi daily and festival prayer books. His arrangement of the
Avodah for the Day of Atonement, which was adopted in the Sephardi rite,
appeared in his Shifat Revivim (Leghorn, 1788).

Of his sons, Jacob Pardo became chief rabbi of Ragusa and died in
Jerusalem. He was a noted talmudist and well versed in Kabbalah. His
chief works were Kohelet Ya'akov (Venice, 1784), a commentary on the
early prophets; Appe Zutre (ibid., 1797), on Hilkhot Ishut of the Shulhan
Arukh Even ha-Ezer, and Minhat Aharon (ibid., 1809), which deals mainly
with the laws of prayer. A second son, Isaac, was rabbi of Sarajevo,
while a third, Abraham, who married the daughter of H. J. D. Azulai,
became head of the yeshivah Hesed le-Avraham u-Vinyan Shelomo after
his father-in-law's death. Pardo's disciples included Shabbetai b.
Abraham Ventura, who succeeded him as rabbi of Spalato, David Pinto,
and Abraham Penso.
[Shlomoh Zalman Havlin]

Micha Berger said:
>> On Shabbos, quite by happenstance, I opened the Peirush of Reb Avraham
>> ben HaRambam al HaTorah and subsequently decided to see what he says
>> about Yaakov's vision of the Sar of Esav...
>> The
>> issue is discussed and explained explicitly - a vision is no different
>> from "reality." It is certainly not an "allegory."

> I read the page you sent and reached the exact opposite conclusion.

Unfortunately, you misconstrued the word "dimayon" as the modern Hebrew
"imagination." As you should recall from R' Aryeh Kaplan, who calls it the
"dream center" and other sources, such as Rav Hutner and the Piascezner,
this is not correct. It is the locus in the brain where all internal
images appear. As you see from where, towards the end, RABHRMBM notes
how for Yaakov "reality" and "nevuah" were the same, it is impossible
to construe nevuah as "allegory."

Kol Tuv,
YGB
rygb@aishdas.org   www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
> Encyclopeida Judaica
> Pardo's Hasdei David (Leghorn, 1776-90; Jerusalem, 1890) on the Tosefta
> is considered the most important commentary on this work (the portion on
> Tohorot, the manuscript of which is in the National Library of Jerusalem,
> has not been published).

This is outdated. Saul Lieberman published the portion on Tohoroth, and
his edition was republished (with his name expunged) in the republication
of the complete work.

David Riceman 

Many thanks to those who have responded to my questions about Kuzari 1:95.

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< I thought at this point the king already
accepted the premise that the Torah is accurate, and here the rabbi is
explaining the how and why of chosenness, rather than proving it exists.

That's very interesting. You may be right, but I don't know. It seems
to me that in 1:10 the king merely shifted the focus of his inquiries,
but on the other hand he does not return to the other religions later
on. My feeling is that in Section 1 of the book, the king is still
investigating, and has not yet accepted the truth of the Torah. Maybe he
will later on. I think that it may be difficult to distinguish between
when the king accepts a premise merely for argument's sake, and when he
is genuinely convinced. It will be something to keep my eye open for.

In any case, it is easy to forget that The Kuzari is not intended as a
historical document, but as a method for R' Yehuda Halevi to teach us
his philosophy. And that's where I'm going to keep my own focus. Still,
the skepticism of the king is a useful tool.

RMB wrote <<< The Torah singles out Enosh's lineage, as well as Sheim's.
That implies something superior about their legacy, no? IOW, we know
Enosh was superior because he is a noted cause of Noach, and similarly
Sheim and Avraham. Besides, Sheim's spiritual superiority is noted by
Noach explicitly. >>>

I don't see the causal relationship. Yes, those individuals were great,
but the rabbi concedes that some of the intervening ones were not so
great. His interpretation is that the greatness was genetic, carried
from father to son, though it skipped occasional generations. To me,
that is not clear logic; it borders (or worse) on "fudging it".

It is much simpler, in my view, to say that there was no genetic
superiority that went from Adam to Hevel to Shes to Enosh to Kenan. There
may or may not have been other people in the world who were as great -
or greater - than Enosh or Mesushelach. The simple reason why their
names were not recorded was because they were not ancestors of Noach.
Similarly, if we accept the idea that Yaakov went to learn by Shem and
Ever, then it is a safe bet that no one was greater than they, but again,
there's no reason to presume that genetics has anything to do with this.

These are some of the logical flaws which I see in Kuzari 1:95. If the rabbi
would have said that the chosenness of the Jews results from the effort
that the avos expended on finding G-d, that would make sense. But he says
that the chosenness results from some sort of "father-to-son but skip a
generation now and then" lineage, which makes no sense to me.

Akiva Miller

I noticed again this morning that in Hallel the word Ono takes on
2 spellings.

In Mo Oshiv it's written Aleph Nun Hey and in "Ono haShem" it's Aleph
Nun Aleph.

What does it mean in Mo Oshiv? I can't seem to work it out.

A freilich Chanuka
 - Danny

According to Minhag haGro (as the Yeshivishe velt calls it) the SSY of
Chanuka is psalms 30 - mizmor shir chanukas habayis.

I was wondering where this information came from.

After all, the SSY mimics those said in the Mikdash. That would mean
that according to the Gro, half way into the 2nd Mikdash the SSY was
changed for the days of Chanuka.

Who would have the authority to do this change?

A freiliche Chanuka
 - Danny

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:16:24PM +0100, Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR ** wrote:
: After all, the SSY mimics those said in the Mikdash. That would mean
: that according to the Gro, half way into the 2nd Mikdash the SSY was
: changed for the days of Chanuka.
: Who would have the authority to do this change?

I presume the menatzei'ach.

But I don't think you can make that deduction. Minhag haGra includes a
special SSY for yom tov sheini shel galiyos. Obviously not mimicry.

 -mi

In a message dated 12/8/2004 9:06:44am EST, schoemann@lucent.com writes:
> In Mo Oshiv it's written Aleph Nun Hey and in "Ono haShem" it's Aleph
> Nun Aleph.
> What does it mean in Mo Oshiv? I can't seem to work it out.

The  Minchas Shai discusses this 116:16.

Yimei Chanukah M'erim,
Yitzchok Zirkind

R' Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> (Thu, 2 Dec 2004) asked:
> Why is it that when it comes to practical applications of scientific
> knowledge, we so totally rely on it that we virtually bet our lives
> on that knowledge? If science can be so wrong, how is it Halachicly
> permissible to ever board an aircraft? How can we ever undergo open
> heart surgery if scientists may be wrong? After all, there are respected
> scientists who quarrel with established medical practices all the time.
> If scientists are so wrong about the age of the universe what makes anyone
> think they aren't wrong about a quadruple by-pass operation? Should we be
> putting our lives in the hands of doctors who rely on the scientists who
> pioneered such operations?... It is hypocritical in my mind to accept
> scientific discovery and advancement when it comes to our health and
> welfare while automatically rejecting the very same methods when they
> are applied to study of the origins or age of the universe. If you accept
> one you must accept the other.

To answer this, reflect on what one would say regarding the "scientific
thought" in those fields of science which taught and/or teach that
premarital sex, masturbation and adultery are healthy, homosexuality
is normal, and religion--even the religion of those who find ways to
conform it to present-day "scientific" thought--is primitive. Would one
say we should reinterpret the Torah to fit these ideas? (It's been done,
you know.) I don't think anyone of us in these cases would insist that
if you accept one scientific discipline you must accept the other,
and for the following good reasons:

1. One cannot speak in blanket terms about "scientific knowledge." There
are different fields of science using different methods. The sciences
involved with our health and welfare do not use "the very same methods"
as the sciences that attempt to determine the age of the universe
or the length of its existence. The doctors operating on patients,
the scientists designing aircraft and spacecraft, the electricians
hooking up your lights, and the plumbers installing your sewer system,
are different people utilizing totally different theories and methods
that are irrelevant to each other.

2. Practical applications such as medicine are to some degree
verifiable. You see if the patient responds well to the treatment
or surgery, and if he doesn't, the treatment is modified or
abandoned. Spacecraft are not simply aimed and sent up to their
target, but are equipped with devices by which their course can be
modified. And even with all the expert planning and precautions taken,
mistakes--sometimes tragic ones--occur. These kind of reality checks
are absent in the "science" of taking the real, physical properties and
appearances of objects and interpreting them to determine past events
that are ultimately unknowable in a real sense--sans revelation.

3. When it comes to other purely academic current positions of science
that do not contradict Torah teachings, we have no problems accepting
them, but no problem if they turn out to be wrong, either; and we have
no investment in their reliability.

RHM:
> Can scientific study be wrong?... Because the very nature of science
> is to keep testing those facts with newer methods and in the light of
> newer information to see if those "facts" are truly facts.

And therefore, when the transient theories contradict the Torah's
teachings (as transmitted through our mesorah), why abandon (though
denial or reinterpretation) those teachings? To feel comfortable with
current thought?

RHM:
> To keep saying that the universe is only 5765 years old in the face of
> the massive evidence that it is older... There is a lot more scientific
> evidence for our views that there is for yours.

RJO (to whose post this was a response) provided a fact-laden
demonstration that the claims in question are really matters of opinion
based upon unproved assumptions. The seeming "incontrovertible properties"
of things are not so incontrovertible, without accepting assumptions
that ultimately are based on the dismissal of a full-grown Creation as a
serious possibility. The impressive edifices of current scientific thought
simply build upon a postulate--which, admittedly, without the Torah's
guidance may be quite reasonable--that there was no six-day Creation of
an aged universe. To consistently ignore this and dogmatically insist
that "there is massive evidence" that the universe is older--i.e.,
has existed longer than the Torah says it did--is simply evading and
dodging the issues raised and the facts that RJO documents so well.

(Hashem created Adam and the rest of the universe to possess the
particular ages, and at the particular stages, He in His wisdom decided
they should have at their creation. Why He chose to create Adam to be
30 years old and not 28 years old, and why he perhaps chose to create
some trees to be hundreds of years old and not 30, and why he decided to
create this star to be at a distance of 10 light years away and that one
at 30 light years away, this one with its light waves reaching Adam and
that one not, is not for us to explain. It is no more for us to explain
than we must explain "for which reason some of the insects are made with
wings and some without; or, for which reason some worms have many legs
while others have but few; or what the precise purpose of this specific
worm or that particular ant is." Maimonides' Introduction to the Talmud
[Hakdama L'Payrush HaMishnayos] p. 156, see also Moreh Nevuchim, end of
chap. 25.)

(The argument that this position--that Hashem created the universe
to look very aged, although it is really less than 6,000 years in
existence--implies that Hashem is deceiving us, has been addressed
before. It would perhaps be deceiving us if Hashem hadn't told us the
fact that He created Adam and vegetation and animals beyond their most
incipient stages. Now that He has, though, we are not deceived. If,
on the other hand, Hashem created the universe in its incipient stage,
the question might well then be asked: Why would have Hashem planted in
the Torah a teaching which He knew would, as it turns out, /successfully/
deceive all generations of Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim until today,
when--according to some--we've been "enlightened" as to the Torah's
"true" meaning?)

RHM:
> ...with much corroboration by various Chazal, Rishonim, and Achronim...

I don't think you'll find corroboration in Chazal, Rishonim, and Achronim
that this world evolved, starting from an incipient form, over aeons of
time--the view held by the "scientific knowledge" of the day to which we
are supposed to be beholden, since we submit to current medical practices.

RHM:
> ...as well as many modern day Talmidei Chachamim...It is OK to believe
> that the universe is 5765 years old. If that's what you want to believe,
> you are halachicly in good company. But please do not so quickly condemn
> those of us who do not share this view with you.

"Condemn" is a harsh word. It's the nature of debate to consider
one's opponent wrong. My position has been called one that no rational
person could entertain, and that of one whose "head is in the sand." No
problem. Baruch Hashem, all in this discussion have not crossed the
line of belief in ultimate Creation ex nihilo. Perhaps if someone
suggests that this principle, too, must be reinterpreted as allegory
(based upon the consensus of scientists, of course) perhaps meant to
teach profound and beautiful ideas, all other Avodah members will join
in condemnation. Until then, we can just continue to vehemently disagree.

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]