Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 050

Thursday, December 30 2004

• Re: Torah and Science
• RE: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and allegory
• Nekamah on Non-Jews
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Age of the universe [and revised chronology on the side]
• Machshava Classics - Drafting a 4 year Syllabus
• Re: Authenticity of the Zohar
• Re: Kabbalah and Ikkarim
• Re: Machshava Classics - Drafting a 4 year Syllabus
• Re: Age of the universe [and revised chronology on the side]
• RE: Torah and Science (Credibility Ladder and the starlight problem)
• Light, Apollo Dust, History
• Re: Light, Apollo Dust, History
• Re: Age of the universe [and revised chronology on the side]
• Re: Torah and Science (Credibility Ladder and the starlight problem)
• Re: Machshava Classics - Drafting a 4 year Syllabus

Leonid Portnoy <leonid.portnoy@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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.

The reason to apply Occam's razor is because there is never a reason to
explain anything in more complex ways than required. It is kind of like
monotheism versus polytheism. Both systems can expalin existence of the
universe through creation. But Occam's razor precludes polytheism. Your
second point argues against Occam's razor, not for it. When evidence
exists that suggests a physically old universe. It requires a greater leap
of faith than is necessary to explain creation. By ignoring evidence you
need a more complex explanation to explain the evidence away. Occam's
razor requires one to use the path of least resistance and incorporate
observed historical data in the most reasonable and logical of ways. One
should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities
required to explain anything.

HM

> (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?)

I remember similar discussions - but my recollections is that those
discussions focus on a different issue - is the navel merely a sign
that one is born (and therefore its presence in adam superfluous and
misleading) or a natural part of human physiognomy - regardless of its
origin -and therefore adam, as a perfect physical specimen, had one.

The notion of the world appearing older, rather than being created fully,
doesn't appear (eg,no one claims that adam, even though created in the
prime of life, had memories or mementoes of his childhood.....) in any
classical source - and would like proof to the contrary from those who
so assert it.

Meir Shinnar

> 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?

Because the mesora itself ascribes normative value to zechirat yetziat
mitzrayim - (mitzva of zechirat yetziat mitzraim) .the only value knowing
about yetziat mitzrayim is because the mesora says it is valuable -
and it doesn't do so about most historical issues....Narratives are
only of normative value when the mesora itself gives them that value -
giving the factual content that they presuppose (or at least the minimal
factual content consistent with it) normative value. Other stories
and histories are not given that value - and giving them that value is,
in some ways, a problem with bal tosif..

remember the first rashi - all of sefer breshit is, in some sense,
superfluous to the ikkar hatora - although there are clear lessons to
learn from it.

Meir Shinnar

Does anyone have any mareh mekomos on whether there is an issur to take
nekamah on a Non-Jew. (I apologize if this is a mefurash halacha-I just
haven't had a chance to look around)

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 06:25:04PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Not that I have the right to say a word about Rambam--but nevertheless,
: I will say--I don't have the problem the Rambam evidently had. That is,
: I have no problem accepting all appearances of malachim in Tanach as
: real...

: Malachim may be given temporary bodies for a particular mission (no
: harder to accept, in principle, than a neshama clothed in a body--which
: is what human beings are)...

It's not harder to accept, it simply violates his definition of mal'akh.
You can't say a mal'akh is a "tzurah beli chomer" (the definition in
the Yad) but can sometimes get chomer. Or that it's a "seichel nivdal"
(as he does in the Moreh) but sometimes isn't nivdal.

Such things simply wouldn't be mal'akhim by his definition of the word.

According to Aristotilian physics, every event starts with an intellect
imparting impetus, which then moves/changes something until it runs out.
To the Rambam, a mal'ach is the seichel necessary to cause G-d's Will to
be manifest. It's defined by the point of interaction between His Will and
the beri'ah. It is definitionally the implementation of a single tafqid.

-mi

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

On Sun, Dec 26, 2004 at 12:01:09AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: 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.

Why not? If existance means "residing in G-d's Imagination" how are we
in any way changed?

(Also recall that His Imagination is atemporal, so even it we were changed,
it implies nothing about free will or causality.)

-mi

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 10:46:46AM -0500, Leonid Portnoy wrote:
: 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?)

Occam's razor simply says that the likelihood of A is always greater
than the likelihood of both A and B. Therefore, when looking for an
explanation, go with just A.

Second, whether the cause is A or the combination of A and B, we must
accepting the truth of A. We can view it as knowing A, while B remains
unproven.

-mi

In a message dated 12/26/2004 5:48:09pm EST, linaseli@netvision.net.il writes:
> 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?

Question: How was there a physical day one when the Sun/Moon were not
created until day 4?

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

Dear List:

I am outlining a plan for a 4 year 8 semester course on Machshava
Classics. The purpose is to fashion a Machshava program to accompany
a 4 year Semicha program.

The order is more or less Chronological by era. There is built in
flexibilty in offering alternate texts. The biggest missing component
is that of selections from certain larger works such as Chinuch, Ramban
Rashi etc.

Semester 1(Tanach)

Mishle or Iyyov.  {I would consider Iyyov a more advanced text}  I have not 
identified a definitive peirush, but, so far Rashi or Malbim, or ???  

Semester 2. {Mishna/Talmud}  Pirkei Avos and 1 of the following masechtos 
k'tanos:
Avos derabbi Nosson or Derech Eretz or Kallah or Pirke Dr. Eliezer.

For Peirush on Avos, so far Kehatti or  Me'iri, or ???..
I like Kehatti bcause he does a brief bio of various Tannaim which is very 
helpful for understanding their personalities.

Rishonim
Semester 3:  Chovos Halevavos or Kuzari

Semester 4: Rambam Moreh Nevuchim or Sefer Mada   

Actually any 2 of the above would be OK, but I would prefer 1 Rambam and 1 
not Rambam

Acharonim:
Semester 5:  Either Nesivos Olom nesiv Hatorah or one of Ramchal's works e.g.
Mesilola Yesharim or Derech Hashem or ...

19th Century
Semester 6:
Either Nefesh Hachayyim or a selection from Hirsch: e.g. 19 letters plus 
Grunfeld's  Intro to Horeb 

Semester 7: Shmiras Halashon
It's my only REQUIRED text.   

20th Century
Semester 8: Either Michtav Me'eliyahu or something by Rav Kook or RYBS

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 10:15:45AM +0100, Minden wrote:
:> 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...

I know this argument, both from RYE and Scholem.

I was repeating RSA's reaction to RLPM's post that:
: 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?...

Such a computational analysis can't be done if RMdL didn't have any
other Aramaic works.

Which still allows RYE's opinion that the ammendations occured over the
millenium between RSBY and RMdL, rather than it being the latter's words.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 11:50:59PM -0500, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
:> PmhTz, which I'm defining as
:> being different for no good reason. Whether or not anyone else knows.

: Is there a dictionary for PmhTz the way there is for fact? ;-) I question
: your limiting PmhTz to "being different for no good reason," but I see
: how you come to your conclusion based on such a definition. Thanks.

Being different for a good reason is lo sisgodedu. As we see in
discussions in the acharonim about mixing tefillin wearers and non-wearers
on chol hamo'ed. And, as we see in those discussion, it's okay if you're
not blatant about it.

The connection between PmhTz, being different for no good reason, and
yuhara is made by the Sedei Chemed, IIRC. Which is, happily enough,
quite close to being a dictionary.

-mi

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

At 12:51 AM 12/29/2004, [RRW] wrote:
>I am outlining a plan for a 4 year 8 semester course on Machshava
>Classics. The purpose is to fashion a Machshava program to accompany
>a 4 year Semicha program.
...
>Semester 1(Tanach)
>Mishle or Iyyov.  {I would consider Iyyov a more advanced text}  I have not
>identified a definitive peirush, but, so far Rashi or Malbim, or ???
...
>Acharonim:
>Semester 5:  Either Nesivos Olom nesiv Hatorah or one of Ramchal's works e.g.
>Mesilola Yesharim or Derech Hashem or ...

>19th Century
>Semester 6:
>Either Nefesh Hachayyim or a selection from Hirsch: e.g. 19 letters plus
>Grunfeld's  Intro to Horeb

>Semester 7: Shmiras Halashon
>It's my only REQUIRED text.

>20th Century
>Semester 8: Either Michtav Me'eliyahu or something by Rav Kook or RYBS

I think Iyov or Mishlei the first year with Malbim is far too daunting and 
you won't get very far either. I would do the first volume of MME the first 
year. In fact, a good machashavah curriculum for five years is one volume 
of MME per year, as they get successively more profound.

Anyway, you really need some Chassidus - perhaps Chovas HaTalmidim. Shem 
meShmuel is very good on a more basic level than R' Tzadok or the Sefas 
Emes, and Ohr Gedalyahu is also very good.

YGB

At 12:22 AM 12/29/2004, [RRW] wrote:
>Question: How was there a physical day one when the Sun/Moon were not
>created until day 4?

Chazal say the Ohr until the fourth day was nignaz la'tzaddikim l'asid 
lavo. Now all you have to do is understand that Chazal :-)

YGB

R. Yitzchok Zlochower wrote:
> 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. 

I am pleased that we are slowly reaching an agreement on the technical
issues surrounding SN1987A after which I will, iy"h, address the other
issues that RYZ raises
> 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. 

Unless I am very much mistaken, RYZ still has not allowed the light
emitted by the supernova to "turn the corner" at elevated speeds when
it reaches the cloud, at which point it traverses the hypotenuse H of
a right angle triangle, whose opposite side is the cloud radius R (.658
current light years) and whose adjacent side is the distance D (168000
current light years). When the light "turns the corner" at the cloud,
and heads in the direction of an observer on earth, it still continues
at the higher speed for most of the distance of the hypotenuse.

Again, let's make some of RYZ's assumptions, except that I will use a
speedup of light by about 10^12 for approximately 5 seconds (just to
make the presentation easier).

Consider two photons of light simultaneously emitted by the supernova
in the last 5 seconds of the creation era. The first photon traverses
D. The second photon traverses R followed by H (i.e. R+H) then reaching
an observer on earth. Since R is approximately the same distance as D
(the angle "a" being small), we have that R+H is approximately 168000.658
current light years in distance, i.e.

(1) Photon-1 travels 168000 current light years.

(2) Photon-2 travels 168000.658 current light years.

The travel time for each of the above photons is described by the two
equations below (just calculate and compare the left hand side to the
right hand side to see that these equations are correct):

(3) 168000*c  =  (5-seconds)*10^12*c  +  5748*c

(4) 168000.658*c  =  (5-seconds)*10^12*c  +  5748.658*c

where (5-seconds) is 1.62252*10^-7 of a year (this is really 5.2 seconds
but I am calling it 5-seconds for simplicity).

Equation (3) tells us that the following two descriptions are
equivalent. We can either assume that the speed of light is constant and
it took Photon-1 a total of 168000 years to reach us (LHS). Alternatively,
Photon-1 reached us in 5748 years (traveling at c) plus 5 seconds
(travelling at the accelerated rate) for a total of just over 5748 years
(RHS).

Note that 162,252 of the distance was travelled at the elevated speed.

Equation (4) tells us that the following two descriptions
are equivalent. We can either assume that the speed of light is
constant and it took Photon-2 a total of 168000.658 years to reach us
(LHS). Alternatively, Photon-2 reached us in 5748.658 years (traveling
at c) plus 5 seconds (traveling at the accelerated rate) for a total of
just over 5748.658 years (RHS)

Conclusion:
---------------
In RYZ's step-down model and under his assumptions, the light of the
supernova explosion first reached us approximately 5748 years after the
supernova explosion and the photons from the surrounding cloud reached us
240 days later approximately 5748.658 years after the supernova explosion.
In his model and with the observations considered thus far, supernova
SN1987A is consistent with a less than 6000 year old universe.

Can RYZ either confirm the above conclusion, or point out which steps in
(1) to (4) are faulty.

=== Energy Conservation =====

RYZ raised an additional problem with the step-down model. He wrote as
follows:
> If the most distant stars are
> really as distant as astronomers believe, then the light travel time 
> for the above model must agree with a 13 billion year travel time at a 
> speed of c. Setting up that simple equation gives the ratio c(a)/c =
> 1.6x10^12 for 3 days of super-fast starlight or 1.2x10^12 for 4 days.
> Such an enormous ratio implies a much different state of nature during 
> the creation days.
> For one, the total energy content of any matter would have been 10^24 
> as great as what is observed in modern times (from Einstein's E= mc^2 
> relationship that has been verified in many thousands of nuclear 
> reactions). Moreover, what happened to all that enormous energy when 
> light speed assumed its normal value?

It seems to me that RYZ here states that there is a flaw in the young
universe step-down model because energy is not conserved.

In response, I pointed out that cosmologists have tried various schemes
to conserve energy in big bang cosmology. Yet a respected cosmologist
stated (quite recently) as follows:

"The conservation of energy principle serves us well in all
sciences except cosmology. .... Where does all the energy go in an
expanding universe? And where does it come from in a contracting
universe? The answer is NOWHERE, BECAUSE IN THE COSMOS ENERGY IS NOT
CONSERVED". [emphasis added, Page 349 --Harrison, E.R. Cosmology:
The Science of the Universe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;
New York, 2000.]

Both the speed of light and the conservation of energy were sacrosanct
constants based on careful experimental evidence. Yet, when we consider
the origins of the cosmos, respected cosmologists speculate that neither
may have held. I identified more than five major reasons to doubt a big
bang cosmology age of 14 GY. Yet, I did not bother to include the lack
of conservation of energy as one of them.

However, since RYZ has stated that the violation of the conservation
of energy is a flaw of the step-down model, then surely (if Harrison is
correct) it is equally a flaw in the big bang theory?

RYZ did not respond to my challenge in the previous post, so perhaps he
is still researching the energy conservation issue. But can he please
confirm that should there be an absence of conservation of energy then
that would count against the big bang theory, and hence would provide
at least one reason to doubt the 14 GY age.

KT ... JSO

while i don't wish to engage in torah/science exchanges in fora such
as this, I was a bit tickled by postings alluding to theories of
non-constancy of the speed of light in the past. participating chevra
might be interested/amused to hear the speed of light is not -- in the
most accurate sense -- quite constant even in the present. traveling from
point A to point B, light actually has an amplitude to travel both faster
and slower than "the speed of light". and while such amplitudes are much
smaller than the contribution to the probability that light will go at
the usual C, and these amplitudes also cancel over macroscopic distances,
they must be accounted for at a much shorter scale.

as long as I've made one technical comment I'll also respond to RELinas
who writes: <<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,>>

it is an urban (creationist?) myth that managers of the Apollo program
were "actually afraid" or were "totally unprepared" for the reality of a
thin dust layer. rather they considered and dismissed the alternative. as
to why the few people who propounded it weren't taken seriously -- it
was the bad science they used. (bad science in the sense of bad data,
and neglect of physical mechanisms).

<<.. 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 noted, thin layer does not mean brief time. The true rate of
accumulation is very low.

On a historical note: <<[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>>

if by "revised chronology" of exodus/Egypt you mean velikovskian
history, it is not different today than it's ever been,
i.e. unacceptable. personally, I'm quite fond of velikovsky (a"h) and
am very familiar with his body of work. I've also read every one of his
published volumes -- including his historical series -- (ramses and his
times, peoples of the sea, etc) and he is always entertaining -- a much
better writer than his critics. but he is(was), alas, a quack. what
I still find most interesting about him today was not his -- highly
original to be sure -- reconstructions of ancient history, but rather
the whole sociology of the "velikovsky affair". I.e. the startling
insight of the organized scientific community as a self-protective,
highly conservative social grouping given to mealy mouthed hypocrisy,
witch hunts, and book burnings with a zeal in no way inferior to that
of the most red-necked of fundamentalist bible belt school boards, when
confronted by the "outsider". but that still doesn't mean velikovsky
had it right. or perhaps you're referring to something else entirely?

michael.frankel@osd.mil
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@gmail.com

On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 04:31:30PM -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
: if by "revised chronology" of exodus/Egypt you mean velikovskian
: history...

Acutally, he said he was referring to the word of Brad Aaronson and
Lisa Liel. The version Brad Aasronson wrote for Jewish Action is on
Lisa's web site at <http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/exodus.html>,
and there are sketchy references to other retails at history section
of <http://www.starways.net/lisa>.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n044.shtml> for a post
that I got Lisa to write for our chevrah. RAmihai Bannet replied at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n045.shtml#08>. And her rebuttal
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n046.shtml#04>.

-mi

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

In a message dated 12/29/2004 4:05:20pm EST, ygb@aishdas.org writes:
> At 12:22 AM 12/29/2004, [RRW] wrote:
>>Question: How was there a physical day one when the Sun/Moon were not
>>created until day 4?

> Chazal say the Ohr until the fourth day was nignaz la'tzaddikim l'asid 
> lavo. Now all you have to do is understand that Chazal :-)

Ein hachi nam!
Just remember that the m'oros were not ONLY for light they were for
Yamim v'shanim
Even on a peshat level it is really hard to fathom the TIMING of the
first 3+ days! Of course there could be periods of ligth and dark,
but how long did they tkae nad how were they measured?

Sure it is possible that each of the 6 days of the briah were 24 hours
long - my point simply is that the Torah itself does NOT suggest 24
hours per day - lechal hpachos for the first 3 days.

As I've posted before: The simple Peshat of the dating scheme in Seder
ha'Olam is based upon y'mos Adam haRishon; i.e.that he lived 930 years.
And except for the abmiguity of the word "yom" we can rely upon little
or no allegorization to make the first perek of Brieshis work ok with
a modern understanding of Creation.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

On Wed, Dec 29, 2004 at 01:21:41PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: However, since RYZ has stated that the violation of the conservation
: of energy is a flaw of the step-down model, then surely (if Harrison is
: correct) it is equally a flaw in the big bang theory?

No, it would be a worse flaw in the big-bang theory.

Emmy Noether (1882-1935) was a brilliant mathemetician whose finding
revolutionized modern physics. She proved that every conservation law
had a corresponding symmetry, and every symmetry implies a conservation
law. The fact that the laws of physics are identical anywhere in space
leads to the law of conservation of momentum; that they are identical at
any rotation leads to conservation of angular momentum, and so on. Most
relevent to us, symmetry over time leads to the conservation of energy.

The step-down model breaks symmetry across time, the laws of physics
differ depending upon which side of the step your experiment is on.
Therefore it's perfectly valid for it not to conserve energy. Big bang
theory postulates a very time-assymetric universe, but only in what
exists for the laws to apply to -- not the laws themselves. It must
preserve the conservation of energy.

I can't asses RJO's argument that the big bang does violate energy
conservation. However, there is no qushya on the step-down theory if it
does. Lehefech -- the qushya would be if energy was conserved despite
the assymetry!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In a message dated 12/29/2004 4:05:19pm EST, ygb@aishdas.org writes:
> I think Iyov or Mishlei the first year with Malbim is far too daunting and 
> you won't get very far either. I would do the first volume of MME the first 
> year. In fact, a good machashavah curriculum for five years is one volume 
> of MME per year, as they get successively more profound.

> Anyway, you really need some Chassidus - perhaps Chovas HaTalmidim. Shem 
> meShmuel is very good on a more basic level than R' Tzadok or the Sefas 
> Emes, and Ohr Gedalyahu is also very good.

Well taken

By the way, the semesters COULD have students coming and going at any
time So, for exmaple, a first year student in the 4th year of the
cycle might come in for the end.

As far as Chassidus goes, I hear you. I jsut assumed that between Ramchal
and Chafetz Chayim you get a fair amount of Kabbalistic oriented stuff
that at least approaches Chassidus. But I am not averse to adding a
Chassidic text. I would have guessed that Toldos Yaakov Yosef as being
a basic, classic, text, but I'm no expert.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

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


[ 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         ]