Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 049

Tuesday, December 28 2004

• Re: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Re: Age of the universe [and revised chronology on the side]
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Authenticity of the Zohar
• Re: Al HaNissim
• Re: Torah and Science
• Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Re: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Al HaNissim
• Re: Authenticity of the Zohar
• Re: Torah and Science
• Torah and Science (Credibility Ladder and the starlight problem)
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?

In  Avodah V14 #48 dated 12/25/2004 R' Zvi Lampel writes:
> The  way I always thought of it (and so taught) is that the Rambam is
> teaching  that nature and we are a figment of /His/ imagination (which I
> guess we can  term absolute reality, and perhaps contrast with the term
> "ultimate  reality.")

I don't think calling us a "figment of His imagination" is accurate
or even kosher. It doesn't seem to leave room for bechira, for human
autonomy.

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

					Bs"d

Concerning the age of the universe thread, forgive me if what I want
to mention has already been said - but I couldn't find it in an archive
search - it seems to me that there are two data points (from drastically
differing areas!) that need to be addressed that haven't yet been: 1)
According to (at least) the Ramban, when the Torah states in 1:1:5 that
it was "yom echad" and not 'yom rishon,' this is because there was not
yet a second day that would allow the latter terminology to be used - it
was still singular, the only one of its kind, standing on its own; hence,
"one day" and not 'day one' - which would imply something following it,
the first in a series, which wouldn't have yet been in existence. Does
this not mitigate, at least according to the Ramban (no small thing!),
that the account of Creation is to be taken literally?

2) From what I understand, one of the biggest headaches of the Apollo
program was that they had no idea how deep the dust was going to be on
the lunar surface, and they were actually afraid that it would be so deep
that it would have swallowed anything that landed on it. The one thing
they were totally unprepared for was what the reality actually was: an
exceedingly thin layer of dust, much more in keeping with the idea of a
relatively recent creation rather than one of billions of years, which
should/would have left a much deeper layer. How do those who maintain
that the account of Creation is not literal address these two points?

[As a total aside,a few digests ago, I posted an enquiry about how the
revised chronology of the Exodus and Egyptian kings is critically viewed
today, and if it is negative, then is the negativity lame and most likely
attributed to cognitive dissonance, or is there some substance to the
criticism? So far there's been no response, so I'd like to toss out the
query again. Any takers?]

Kol tuv,
Eli

R' Micha Berger clarified his post about Rosh haShanah 11a: <<< I should
have said, "You're assuming the position of R' Eliezer, as understood
without R' Yehoshua ben Levi." As I tried to write with my "as explained
by", the machloqes is more in the Amora'im's treatment of the original
machloqes than in the tana'im themselves. >>>

Yes, I suspected that's what you meant.

But *IS* there a way to understand R' Eliezer without R' Yehoshua ben
Levi? I didn't notice it in the gemara. It is implied, but not explicit.
And I got a headache trying to figure what such a shita would hold. Which
is why I tried to simplfiy the issue by asking whether that shita -
or any other - would hold that Adam HaRishon was created as an infant.

(Over the years, I have heard of legitimate authorities (I don't know
whether they're gemaras. midrashim, or whatever) which discuss whether
or not Adam had a navel. I'd imagine that those discussions would be
very relevant to this question, namely, (for the benefit of those who
may have forgotten how this topic started) is it possible that HaShem
would create the universe in a deceptive manner. But I don't know where
those discussions (about Adam's navel) are found. Does anyone else know?)

Akiva Miller

I heard a fascinating observation from R Y Haber ( a RY in the BM Program
in RIETS) from R N Slifkin on the issue of creation and dating the age
of the world, If we assume that the world went thru a Divinely ordained
process that went for billions of years but which the Torah describe
as having occurred in what is described for six days, then all of the
creation of nature including dinosaurs, etc are eminetly plausible and the
creation of nature ended after the "sixth day." However, the Malbim points
out that the creative tension between tzadikim and rshaim just began on
that very day. See Malbim on Breishis 2:3 s.v. Vavrech as yom Hashivi.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: R' Lipman Phillip Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
: I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but wasn't there a computational
: linguistic analysis that showed that the similarity between the
: Zohar's language and that of RMdL's (other) works was too great to be a
: coincidence?...

I asked R' Shlomo Argamon about it, as this kind of textual analysis is
his kind of work.

He made two interesting points:

1- R' Moish Koppel (CC-ed) and a student did a study comparing sections
of the Zohar to eachother. I invite his description of their findings.

2- Why would RMdL's other works be in Aramaic? Presumably he wrote in
Hebrew, and that would rule out the kind of analysis RLPM describes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

See the gemara in Shabbat 21b and 24a (Rashi: lomar al hanissim
b'hoda'ah). I believe the actual text of Al Hanissim is in Messechet
Sofrim 20th Perek).

Josh

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 08:39:46AM -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: I think that you misunderstand my perception of the role of religion -
: which is I think closer to the heart of the mesora. That is, the primary
: aspect of religion from the mesora is to give us values and obligations.
: It is not a knowledge base - even though the mesora has some knowledge
: base that motivates and governs the values and obligations it gives.
...

Tangent:
I think you're abusing the word "knowledge" in a manner akin to my
complaint about RHM's use of the word "fact". Someone can be knowledgable
in halakhah, so clearly halakhah is a body of knowledge. As part of
my campaign against the slide toward considering the empirical as being
more real, I had to chime in.
And, it's in fact quite telling language, as it better fits someone who
holds the very position you're denying!

...
: To give primacy to the knowledge that is presumed part of the mesora -
: rather than to the motivations behind the knowledge - is to misunderstand
: the role of knowledge in the mesora...

Primacy is not the issue. We aren't saying that the mesorah is more
about ma'aseh bereishis than something else. Asserting that it's in the
mix doesn't equate to asserting it's the essence.

However, you don't example why this lack of importance you attribute to
historical statements made in bereshis doesn't apply to those made in
shemos. IOW, if your methodology does not insist on the historicity of
any naarative, that not being the point of mesorah, then why believe in
yetzi'as mitzrayim or ma'amad har sinai?

Obviously there is historical empirical knowledge that you wouldn't put
on the negotiating table. You have yet to explain what -- other than
your personal decision to be a ma'amin -- justifies believing in the
one methodology benidon didan, and another WRT matan Torah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

micha@aishdas.org posted on: Dec 24, 2004;
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2004 at 10:47:38AM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote: 
>: The way I always thought of it (and so taught) is that the Rambam is 
>: teaching that nature and we are a figment of /His/ imagination (which I 
>: guess we can term absolute reality, and perhaps contrast with the term 
>: "ultimate reality.") 

> I don't think that's what the Rambam said. It [ZL's suggestion?--ZL]
> might even be a presentation of an understanding of beri'ah that the
> Tanya was mechadeish.

> ...Imagination is a metaphor that is at least halfway to pantheism. Shefa
> flows from G-d, but Imagination would reside "within" Him....

> There are two concepts that were confused earlier on this thread: 
> contingency, and absoluteness. Hashem could have decided to make a 
> beri'ah in which there is no Micha Berger. However, that doesn't make 
> me any less real once He decided to create me. 

> To put it a third way: I could decide whether or not to make dinner. 
> That doesn't mean that dinner, once made, is only imaginary.

I was focussing on Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:3-4, which, after saying
(1:1), "All existing things of the heaven and the earth and what's between
them only exist as a result of the truth/reality of His Existence,"
states:
    ...His Emmess [Reality--ZL] is unlike the "reality" of any of
    them. And this is what the Prophet [Moses] says: "Hashem Elokim
    Emmess [Hashem Elokim is Reality]"--He alone is the Reality, and
    nothing else has a reality like His Reality. And this is what the
    Torah says: "Ein od mil'vaddo," as if to say, there is no real
    existing thing besides Him like Him [k'mosso. Perhaps this should
    read k'amitasso--like His Reality?].

I meant that all existence is a figment of Hashem's imagination (not
in the sense that it is what we would now consider imaginary, but) in
the sense that it is only a result of His continuous Will. I.e., we are
a figment (something merely imagined or made up in the mind--Webster
CD) of HIS Mind/Will--my use of the word "imagination" being perhaps
provocative but accurate, and nowhere near pantheism ("the doctrine that
G-d is not a personality, but that all laws, forces, manifestations, etc.,
of the self-existing universe are G-d"--Webster CD). G-d is a personality,
and the universe is not self-existing; and it is not identical with G-d,
but it is the result of G-d's Will.

Therefore, as I (and I think RJO in his postings) understand it, Rambam is
saying that even once Hashem most fortunately decided to make Rabbi Micha
Berger, Rabbi Berger is still not as real as Hashem, i.e., his reality
is not on the same plane--not as permanent, for instance. And although
Rabbi Berger's dinner is not imaginary to the world, it's existence
does depend upon Hashem's continuous Will, just as the existence of
the electromagnet's power is dependent upon its continuous connection
to the battery, and is therefore not as "real" as, say, the battery,
which is not as "real" as Hashem.

Zvi Lampel

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 02:20:58AM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com quoted me
and wrote:
:> I don't think that's what the Rambam said. It [ZL's suggestion?--ZL]
:> might even be a presentation of an understanding of beri'ah that the
:> Tanya was mechadeish.

Yes, by "it" I meant using Divine Imagination to describe creation.

:> ...Imagination is a metaphor that is at least halfway to pantheism. Shefa
:> flows from G-d, but Imagination would reside "within" Him....

I should have written here "panENtheism". Pantheism is the belief that
the universe is god. (A key part of Spinoza's kefirah.) Panentheism the
the belief that the universe is of G-d, but that G-d is greater than
the universe.

:> There are two concepts that were confused earlier on this thread: 
:> contingency, and absoluteness. Hashem could have decided to make a 
:> beri'ah in which there is no Micha Berger. However, that doesn't make 
:> me any less real once He decided to create me. 

: I was focussing on Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 1:3-4, which, after saying
: (1:1), "All existing things of the heaven and the earth and what's between
: them only exist as a result of the truth/reality of His Existence,"...

The Rambam believed in emanation, not panentheism.

If you need a mashal, you could say that according to the Rambam, we're
all rays of light emitted by His Existance. Like a lamp, the light
only exists because of the lamp. However, the light is not part of the
lamp itself.

: I meant that all existence is a figment of Hashem's imagination (not
: in the sense that it is what we would now consider imaginary, but) in
: the sense that it is only a result of His continuous Will. I.e., we are
: a figment (something merely imagined or made up in the mind--Webster
: CD) of HIS Mind/Will...

Still, you seem to be blurring the design, which is surely within His
Will (figmemnts of His Imagination, if you'd like) with the actual
thing designed.

: Therefore, as I (and I think RJO in his postings) understand it, Rambam is
: saying that even once Hashem most fortunately decided to make Rabbi Micha
: Berger, Rabbi Berger is still not as real as Hashem, i.e., his reality
: is not on the same plane--not as permanent, for instance...

That's certainly true, and the words of the Rambam. However, that's
not the same as saying that we are less absolutely existant. AIUI,
The Rambam's notion of "existance" isn't about us being less real,
simply less necessary and permanent.

: Rabbi Berger's dinner is not imaginary to the world, it's existence
: does depend upon Hashem's continuous Will, just as the existence of
: the electromagnet's power is dependent upon its continuous connection
: to the battery, and is therefore not as "real" as, say, the battery,
: which is not as "real" as Hashem.

I'm not sure that according to the Rambam things exist as a product of
"Hashem's continuous Will" as much as His initial Will to make them and
his continguing Will not to destroy them.

Since "continuous" is a word that refers to how it persists in time,
I'm not sure what either of us are saying in those sentences anyway.
G-d's Will isn't "continuous" over time, it's atemporal.


Speaking of the Tanya, I don't understand this part of the Tanya at
all. There he uses the lamp metaphor, but in one sentence compares
existance to the rays of light, and in the next he compares existance
to the pattern of light left on the wall. Then his conclusion is not
that we are rays of light at all, but that we exist through G-d giving
us free will, and the illusion that not all is G-d!

-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

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 08:56:21AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:> No matter where you try to put the seam and say, "From here on, it's 
:> real, until here, it's vision," you will have problems.

: But certain problems concerned the Rambam more than others (mainly events 
: contrary to scientific law), and those are resolved.

The Rambam has no problem with the story's violating scientific law.
The notion that nisim never violate law is one attributed to the Ralbag
(and I'm not convinced it's his position), but not the Rambam.

His problem is definitional. He defines a mal'ach as being tzurah beli
chomer, as being seichel nivdal by which the RSO's will interacts with
the world. Each interaction He has with creation requires an intellect
imparting impetus to cause change -- that being the laws of Aristotilian
physics -- and the mal'ach is that intellect. You can't see thought,
therefore you can't see a mal'ach.

(Unless you mean that the impossibility of seeing thought to be a
scientific law..)

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 04:08:08PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:> You have yet to acknowledge (or prove I misunderstood) another part of
:> Abarbanel's explanation of the Rambam's position. Even if Avraham saw
:> the whole thing, it was not then reennacted -- he saw how events played
:> out in heaven while Lot experienced them on earth.

: I'm sorry. The Abarbanel's ouevre is so voluminous, and I'm so ignorant
: of most of it, that I dons't even know where that idea comes from.
: Here's what he says in his commentary on MN II:42 (p. 88a in the middle
: of column 1 in the yeshivish edition, s.v. v'hakushia hashvi'is ... va'ani
: meishiv..."):

That's why I referred to my vort in MmD, to RYGB's posts, and to earlier
incarnations of this thread. The Abarbanel says this on the Rambam's
discussion of the Kavod Nivra, not his discussion here. See also the
Ramban on Bereishis 46:1.

The Abarbanel sees the Rambam's problem with the "Man" in the Merkavah
as being because the Rambam's model of nevu'ah is that of seeing real
metaphysical things. Therefore I concluded, while the Rambam can simply
consider the "Man" to be a metaphor in the nevu'ah for HQBH, to the
Rambam there it must be a nivra.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
micha@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

[R' Zvi Lampel:]
> Does anyone have information on the "Al HaNissim" re: when it was
> authored, by whom, and/or when and by whom it was inserted into the
> Sh'moneh Essray?

The Al Ha-Nissim prayer is of geonic origin. It is already mentioned in
an eighth century work. In the She'iltot (Vayishlach) by the Gaon Aha
we read: "One is obliged to recite the Al Ha-Nissim in the thanksgiving
benediction."

Richard Wolberg

[Micha:]
> 2- Why would RMdL's other works be in Aramaic? Presumably he wrote in  
> Hebrew

He did indeed write in Hebrew. Nevertheless the Aramaic of the Zohar
seems to be using the same set of metaphors, loans from Arabic and
Spanish etc., apart from a Hebrew syntax in Aramaic, in spite of the
fact that the language is a mix of Onkeles and Bavli, with no traces of
the Yerushalmi where RSbY lived.

I'm afraid I don't have the time to really go into this for myself, and
my near-desktop resources offers only Gershon Sholem's work of more than
50 years ago. (This is a problematic source anyway, because he wasn't
observant. OT other H, he showed great awe towards the Zohar. He has
a lenghty overview of its language, style etc. and why he thinks RMdL
wrote it.)

Lipman Phillip Minden

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004, Micha Berger wrote:
>: That's not correct. It only implies that you can not use current
>: observations to extrapolate backwards into the past. You can, however,
>: use current observations to exrapolate into the future...

> What about using scientific method to make predictions about what relics
> of the past you expect to find in the future?

That is a falsifiable theory. However, it still predicts only the future.

>Isn't that what the sciences involved set out to do?

Perhaps as an ideal. But in practice it is easy and natural to
(mis)understand those sciences as making objective claims about the past -
how the past 'actually was'.

>The historical explanation is the theory that justifies those predictions
>of future experimental results, not the experimental reuslts themselves.

But this historical explanation is pure metaphysics - it itself
is not falsifiable. In this sense then, it serves as little more
than a tool to make our calculations/thinking easier. For example,
the concept of an electric 'field' is simply a tool to help us
visualize/understand/calculate predictions about charged particles'
behavior, and so on. The 'field' itself does not exist, or at least
does not need to exist, as any kind of an independently real entity. The
same goes for historical scientific theories like for instance the big
bang theory. From a purist physicist's standpoint it does not matter
whether there was or wasn't a tremendously dense lump of energy at
the beginning of the universe, or in fact whether it was 15 billion
or some other number of years ago. These are all concepts that serve
as aids/tools for us to be able to predict the future. Once you start
assigning measures of reality to them you will be overstepping the
boundaries of pure physics and entering unfalsifiable metaphysics. All
that really matters is the set of testable laws that predict the future -
how they were derived is immaterial. You might argue that we can employ
Occam's razor to give preference to a more simply derived theory (but
which is otherwise identical in its predictions) over others. But that
is a separate discussion in itself - I'll just note that

1. Why should we give such importance to the concept of Occam's razor
and who says it has proven itself to be a help, rather than a stumbling
block. ("Look for simplicity, ignore complexity", they tell us. But what
if the universe _is_ complex?)

2. Even given that we accept the concept of Occam's razor, we can always
argue that saying 'G-d created the world to look old' is a much simpler
and a less assuming explanation than some current scientific models of
the universe coming into being and its evolution.

   Eliezer Portnoy

R. Jonathan Ostroff and I have some points of agreement but many
differences. He states:
> But during Maaseh Beraishis natural law did not apply at all times
> nd many aspects of Creation are profound and beyond our ken.
.....
> The true knowledge of Maaseh Beraishis is more profound than we think
> and we can only know of it that which G-D has revealed.

I do not disagree with the above sentiments, but have a different
understanding of their implications than RJO. Divine Wisdom and Power
is beyond our abilities to fully comprehend. We can, however, gain some
understanding from hints in the Divinely revealed Torah, and through our
carefully examination of G-D's world while making the full use of the
mental and spiritual capabilities implanted in us. The knowledge gained
through our own observations and logical deductions is incremental in
nature, once barriers such as reliance on authority have been lifted.
Thus, our knowledge of the world and the universe is far superior to
that of the ancient Greek philosophers and the medieval world which
largely followed in their footsteps. The beliefs of the great medieval
commentators such as Rashi, Ramban, and Rambam about the world should,
therefore, not be considered as dogma - if we believe that we have a
superior understanding of the matter. Specifically, the view that the
creation days lasted 24 hours in accord with the literal translation
of the text, need not be taken as dogma. There is the ancient view of
the Amora'im R' Yehuda ben Simon and R' Avahu that there were times
prior to the creation of light and that G-D created and destroyed
worlds. (Bereishit Rabbah 3:7). R' Yitzchak of Acco, an early kabbalist
and student of the Ramban, deduced from such statements that the world
was really 15 billion years old (cited in R. Aryeh Kaplan's posthumous
work on Immortality, Resurrection...). R' Yisrael Lifshitz,
 the author of the Mishnaic commentary Tiferet Yisrael, uses these
ideas and the discovery of fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct animals
to interpret the 2nd verse of Bereishit as alluding to an earlier stage
of this earth wherein a great impact destroyed life. The subsequent verses
then relate the reestablishment of the conditions for existence subsequent
to that cataclysmic event (his lengthy essay on Resurrection found at
the end of Nezikin that is translated in the above book by Kaplan).
The fact that there are other non-literal ways of understanding the
creation story is implied in the tradition that there is an esoteric
understanding of these verses. The Rambam even calls such an esoteric
understanding - "natural science" (MN, Intro. p. 7 - Friedlander).
Later in the introduction, he refers to a midrash which states, " It
is impossible to give a full account of the Creation to man, therefore
Scripture simply tells us, 'In the beginning, G-D created the heavens
and the earth' (p. 12)". The same midrash is cited by the Ramban early
in his commentary on Bereishit. Another medrash states, " R' Yehuda ben
Simon says, 'From the beginning of the creation of the world, He reveals
deep things but covers them - Bereishit bara Elokim...'"(B.R 1:6). Thus,
I agree with RJO that many aspects of creation are profound and even
beyond our ken, but that is not to say that we must adhere to a literal
translation, and that scientific inquiry can not illuminate such matters.

Now, Jonathan, overlooks or dismisses these "minority" views of chachamim
about the creation story. Yet, he siezes on certain minority views of
scientists when it comes to advancing a critique of the leading theory
of the evolution of the universe. I can sympathize with those who are
unwilling to part with the traditional view of the creation days as
literal days - especially when they do not have the background to assess
any contrary scientific evidence. I certainly do not wish to possibly
reduce anyone's feelings about the sanctity of shabbat by introducing
notions of a shabbat era. I have entered into this discussion because
of the challenge presented by RJO and in defence of current scientific
understandings. I hope to respond more fully to Jonathan's challenge on a
justification of the "big-bang" theory in a subsequent post. For now, let
me conclude with a response to his refutation of one of my demonstrations
that an extremely high speed of light during the creation days conflicts
with astronomical observations.

Jonathan is correct that I inadvertently used a biased model in describing
the radial distance of the SN1987a supernova debris ring. I should have,
instead, used the qualitative model that he suggests. When I do that,
using algebraic expressions, there remains an anomaly which calls into
question the validity of assuming an extremely high light speed during
the creation period. I am assuming (with Jonathan) that light from the
supernova was emitted at the end of the creation period [ I calculate that
3.3 seconds of light at a calculated speed of 1.55 x 10^12 relative to the
modern value is sufficient to have that light reach us in the year 5748
A.M. (1987 CE). That superluminal light would have reached the debris
ring in some 13 microseconds. The distance then travelled from the ring
to earth is virtually the same as the distance from the supernova to
earth (168,000.000002 vs. 168,000). Yet the observed elapsed time from
the flare up of the supernova to the appearance of a bright ring is 240
days (0.658 years). I don't see how one can account for this observation
by this step down model for light speed where the modern value of light
speed was in place immediately after creation. The other 2 models that I
presented did not involve the radius calculation and need not be modified.

Jonathan, in turn, offered what he called a very speculative model for the
creation period. In it, the Hubble observation of receding galaxies is
projected backwards in time to a period when all the galaxies clustered
about us.( assuming that we are at the center of the observed expansion,
rather than a non-local expansion of space). He then invokes the General
Relativity result that time would run slower in such a high gravity
environment. Aside from the inconsistency in when to use or not use
General Relativity, the model is totally unrealistic and inconsistent
with the creation verses. At the extremely hight gravity required to
change billions of years to days, all life would be crushed. Moreover,
the sky would be lit up by the billions of nearby stars throughout the
earths rotation period, i.e. no night. I see this as grasping at any
excuse to rationalize a 24 hour creation day.

Yitzchok Zlochower

At 09:40 AM 12/20/2004, [R Zev Sero] wrote:
>"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <ygb@aishdas.org>
>>RABHARAMBAM specifically notes how the nevuah of Yaakov was at such a high
>>level that it and the tangible world were one seamless reality. Evidently,
>>in the case of the Avos the normal limitations were transcended...

>He does? The piece that was faxed in recently doesn't indicate that
>at all. On the contrary, he compares Yaacov's fight with the angel to
>an ordinary dream, and explains the fact that Yaacov woke up with an
>injured thigh by referring to ordinary people waking from vivid dreams
>and feeling pain that they had suffered in the dream. In other words,
>he says the story did *not* take place on the physical plane, and the
>injury was psychosomatic.

>Are you referring to a different quote?

Firstly, he says that if it is true about a regular dream *kol she'kein"
in a nevuah. But a nevuah is beyond a dream.

Moreover, the quote I was actually referring to is the one in pasuk 30
- that Yaakov perceived the mareh as "reality," and it was only upon
"awakening" that he realized that his fiht had been in a prophecy.

YGB 

Micha Berger wrote:
>The Rambam has no problem with the story's violating scientific law.
>The notion that nisim never violate law is one attributed to the Ralbag
>(and I'm not convinced it's his position), but not the Rambam.

 Rambam (Shemona Perakim #8): G-d's will is that from the six days of
Creation eveything should function solely on the basis of natural law.
This is stated in Koheles (1:9): "What was -- will be and what has
happened -- will happen and there is nothing new under the sun". Because
of this our Sages had to state that the miracles that are against nature
ג€" those that have happened as well as those that will happen ג€" all
of them were built into Creation. Thus the "violations" of nature occur
when they were programmed from the time of Creation. However when this
miraculous "violation" of nature occurs it is erroneously perceived as
something new.

 Rambam(Avos 5:6): We already mentioned that our Sages did not believe
that G-d miraculously alters nature on a regular basis. However at
the beginning of Creation He created nature and the laws that it would
follow. This included the rare occasion when there would be a miraculous
divergence from natural events as well as the typical conduct of nature.
Thus miracle was built into nature when it was created....But since all
miracles are built into nature why does the Mishna list only these ten?
You should know that it is not limiting the principle of natural miracles
to these ten but simply that these were the ones created just before
Shabbos. In fact all miracles are built into nature.

 Rabbeinu Bachye (Avos 5:8): We can conclude from these medrashim that
everything that was, is and will be has already been decreed from the
first six days of Creation since there is nothing truly new since then.
Thus everything that comes into existence is only a revealing of that
which was created in the beginning. This is true also of the miracles.
If you insist that G-d did not actually create them until they happened
that would mean that something new was created ג€" G-d forbid. In fact
from Creation there has been no actual change in Nature because at
the time of Creation it was implanted in Nature that it would happen
according to G-d's wishes

 Bereishis Rabbah( 5:5): G-d made the creation of water conditional on
its splitting before the Jews when they left Egypt....It was not just with
the sea that He made a stipulation but with everything that He created
during the six days of creation.... G-d commanded the sea to divide,
the heavens and earth to be silent before Moshe...the sun and the moon
to stand still before Yehoshua, the ravens to feed Eliyahu, the fire not
to burn Chananya, Mishael and Azariyah, the lions not to harm Daniel,
the Heavens to open before Yechezkeil and the fish to spit out Yonah.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 08:07:03PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:>The Rambam has no problem with the story's violating scientific law.
...
: Rambam (Shemona Perakim #8): G-d's will is that from the six days of
: Creation eveything should function solely on the basis of natural law.
...
:                                   Thus the "violations" of nature occur
: when they were programmed from the time of Creation. However when this
: miraculous "violation" of nature occurs it is erroneously perceived as
: something new.

: Rambam(Avos 5:6): We already mentioned that our Sages did not believe
: that G-d miraculously alters nature on a regular basis. However at
: the beginning of Creation He created nature and the laws that it would
: follow. This included the rare occasion when there would be a miraculous
: divergence from natural events as well as the typical conduct of nature.
...

(Sources other than the Rambam, deleted.)

RDE doesn't write why he posted these sources, but they support my
contention. The Rambam has no problem with stories that violate the norm,
his problem is with considering them as new things that G-d didn't have in
"Mind" when he wrote the law.

At most it shows my choice of terminology was wrong.

-mi

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

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


[ 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         ]