Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 052

Tuesday, January 4 2005

• Feet together by Kaddish
• Re: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Re: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• RE: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)
• RE: Why Are You Sleeping
• Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Age of the universe
• Re: Three angels real or a vision?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Age of the universe
• Re: Torah and Allegory (Moreh Nevuchim on Science)

The Shulkhan Arukh in OH 95:1 for the Amida and in 95:4 and 125:2 for
Kedusha indicates that one's feet should be held together. I have not
found any similar source by Kaddish, though I believe the general minhag
is to do so. Does anyone know of a source? What about Borkhu?

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 11:07:14PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: The Rambam does not mention the word "emanation" in Hilchos Yesodei
: Hatorah in the passages I quoted. To my knowledge, neo-platonic emanation
: is a *necessary* overflow from the unmoved impersonal first mover,
: and is not dependent on the free Will of the Creator (contra the Rambam).

As I'm not sure what "free Will" of a non-temporal G-d is, I can't
really respond.

: Here are three things that the Rambam states as Torah facts -- facts
: that the philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus etc.) denied:

: 1. Nature was created by G-d.
: 2. Nature is not fixed, i.e. miracles can happen at any time. This is
: because G-d continually sustains nature by His Will and His Wisdom.

Actually, as RDE recently posted, it's because G-d wrote these
exceptions into nature. He also indicates in Moreh III 17-18 that HP is
an alternative to teva, and someone who connects to the RSO to the point
of getting HP could get non-teva that way. I'm not sure what that means
about nisim geluyim, but it does seem to (a) identify HP with nisim
nistarim and (b) give a rationale for them.

: 3. Nature responds to our moral actions by G-d's Decree and Wisdom.

I don't see this at all. Rather, as above, that our moral actions can
bring us HP as opposed to teva.

: The Rambam clearly and unambiguously states that nature (which is
: contingent) does not have the same reality and existence as G-d (who
: has necessary existence).
...
: "All existence depends upon Him and He, may He be blessed, does not depend
: upon them. Therefore, His Reality is not like their reality. . He alone is
: Real and nothing else has reality like His Reality. The same thought is
: expressed by the Torah in the verse "There is nothing else besides Him."
: That is, there is no being besides Him that is really like Him."

But then RJO writes:
: There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that Averroes had any impact on
: the Rambam on these issues.

I don't see how both statements can be made in the same email.

Emanation is pretty clearly described in Yesodei haTorah 2:8-10 (2:10-13
in R' Y el-Qafeh's edition.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

From: "Jonathan Ostroff" <jonathan@yorku.ca>
> Here are three things that the Rambam states as Torah facts -- facts
> that the philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus etc.) denied:
>   <snip>
> 2. Nature is not fixed, i.e. miracles can happen at any time. This is
> because G-d continually sustains nature by His Will and His Wisdom.

Where does the Rambam say this? It seems to contradict what he says in PHM 
Avoth 5:5 (ed. Sheilat, p. 95).

David Riceman 

Does anyone know where the original igeret of the CC can be found?

Tzvi

[RMB]
>As I'm not sure what "free Will" of a non-temporal G-d is, 
> I can't really respond.

See below.

R. David Riceman wrote
> From: "Jonathan Ostroff" <jonathan@yorku.ca>
>> Here are three things that the Rambam states as Torah facts -- facts
>> that the philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus etc.) denied:
>>   <snip>
>> 2. Nature is not fixed, i.e. miracles can happen at any time. This is
>> because G-d continually sustains nature by His Will and His Wisdom.
> Where does the Rambam say this? It seems to contradict what he says in PHM
> Avoth 5:5 (ed. Sheilat, p. 95).

There is no contradiction. First some sources for the fact that nature
is not fixed, except to the extent so decreed by the free will of G-d.

[MN II.25]
"Know that with a belief in creation of the world in time, all miracles
become possible [contra Aristotle] and the Law becomes possible, and
the questions that may be asked on the subject vanish"

[MN II:49, quoted more fully in an earlier post]
"It is clear that everything produced must have an immediate cause
["sibah"] which produced it; that cause again a cause, and so on, till the
First Cause, viz., the will G-d ["ratzon Hashem"] is reached. . ... As
regards the immediate causes of things produced, it makes no difference
whether these causes are essential and natural ["teva"], freewill
["bechira"], or chance ["mikreh"] ... all these causes are ascribed by
the prophets to G-d.

[rough translation MN I:69]
"Here I wish to show that G-d is the "cause" of every event that
takes place in the world, just as He is the Creator of the whole
universe as it now exists. ... If G-d did not exist, suppose this were
possible, the universe would not exist, and there would be an end to the
existence of the distant causes, the final effects, and the intermediate
causes. ... existence and continuance of all forms in the last instance
depend on Him, the forms are maintained by Him, in the same way as all
things endowed with forms retain their existence through their forms. On
that account G-d is called, in the sacred language "chei-haolamim"
the life of the Universe as will be explained (chap. lxxii.). ... In
this way one purpose necessitates the pre-existence of another,
except the final purpose, which is the execution of the will of God
("retzono yisaleh") ... or the execution of the decree of His wisdom
("gezera chochmaso"). ... According to either opinion, the series of
the successive purposes terminates, as has been shown, in G-d's will or
wisdom, which, in our opinion, are identical with His essence, and are
not any thing separate from Himself or different from His essence."

I distinguish between Divine causation and Providence the former being
logically prior.

Divine causation: 
---------------------

In Aristotle's world nature is a fixed, necessary and immutable
consequence of an impersonal umoved first mover. For the Rambam,
by contrast, G-d by His free will and wisdom creates and continually
sustains nature.

Reb Micha wrote that "As I'm not sure what "free Will" of a non-temporal
G-d is, I can't really respond."

But realize that the Rambam does describe G-d as having free-will in
the context of Divine causation as quoted above (and elsewhere), and
as far as I can see there is no problem in discussing His free will
(especially if you consider it in the "via negativa").

Contra Aristotle's impersonal first mover, G-d acts out of complete
freedom and in accordance with His own purposes, e.g. by "the first
Cause of all things, I mean GOD's WILL and FREE CHOICE" ("ratzon Hashem
vecheftzo") [MN II, 48].

This is also why I object to the technical use of the word "emanation" in
translating the works of the Rambam. In neo-platonic thought emanation
is an impersonal *necessary* overflow (not a free-willed overflow)
from the first cause.

 From the various sources quoted above (and earlier posts) the Rambam
clearly states that G-d is the ultimate ground of all existence
as His existence does not depend on anything else -- He exists of
necessity. Everything else does not have that absolute level of existence
and cannot be said to exist in the same way, because everything else
only has contingent existence and is absolutely and totally dependent
on Him at each moment of time. This means not only that all existence
(including "teva", "nes", "mikreh", etc.) is created ex nihilo but that
G-d as the Lord of nature and history sustains existence at each moment
by His free Will ("retzono yisaleh") and His wisdom ("gezera chochmaso").

[Yesodei Hatorah]
 All existence depends upon Him and He, may He be blessed, does not depend
upon them. Therefore, His Reality is not like their reality. ... He alone
is Real and nothing else has reality like His Reality. The same thought is
expressed by the Torah in the verse "There is nothing else besides Him."
That is, there is no being besides Him that is really like Him."

Providence: 
--------------

In Hilchos Taaniot and the MN the Rambam states that it is the way of
cruelty to ignore tragedies and to say that they are the way of world and
"mikreh" [i.e. they have no known cause]. Rather we should fast and do
teshuva until Hashem has mercy on us [the Chofetz Chaim zt"l was visibly
shaken and undertook a partial fast in response to an earthquake in
Japan]. As in the above sources, I understand the Rambam as follows. A
"mikreh" is also the will of G-d and it is not by accident. Rather,
it is a loving call from our heavenly father to change our ways.

How does Providence work? This is a complicated topic. In part, it is
built into nature from creation as the Rambam states regarding miracles
(e.g. Avos 5:5 and also in SP). But this presupposes the logically prior
notion of Divine causation -- i.e. that all of contingent existence
continues to be sustained by G-d at each moment -- would He by His free
Will withdraw sustenance, all of existence would collapse and there
would be no nature and no miracles.

Further, in Avos, the Rambam only mentions that miracles are built-in
during creation. He does not mention, as far as I can see, how G-d
increases "mikreh" ("vetosif hatzara tzaros acheiros") when we refuse to
respond to tragedy. I could learn it either way. By His foreknowledge, He
knows when we will sin. Thus the response of nature to our moral behaviour
is built-in to creation in the same way as miracles -- we still need
continual Divine causation to ensure that contingent existence continues
with whatever properties of stability He endows it with. Alternatively,
tragedies, unlike miracles, are not built-in to creation and are a later
Divine response.

The Nefesh Hachayim [3rd chelek] and the Daas Tevunos refer to the
various Rambams on Divine causation and imply that they are consistent
with the mystical view (which also indicates that everything that happens
in the 6000 years is built-in at the time of creation). Nevertheless,
as a matter of Divine Causation, it is "uvetuvo mechadesh bechol yom
tamid maaseh beraishis".

[RMB]
> Emanation is pretty clearly described in Yesodei haTorah 
> 2:8-10 (2:10-13 in R' Y el-Qafeh's edition.)

Reb Micha:

I have the Frenkel edition as well as Hyamson's translation into English
(Feldheim). In neither do I see the word "emanation" in the sources
you quote, at least not as used in the technical sense of neo-platonic
emanation (see above).

I do not object to the non-technical use of the word "emanation" (e.g. for
"shefa") as long as it is not used in the neo-platonic sense of impersonal
necessary emanation.

I clearly do not understand your objections so I will have to ask you
to explain them in greater detail.

KT ... JSO

From domo@aishdas.org Sun Jan  2 14:19:07 2005
Received: from heras.host4u.net (heras.host4u.net [209.150.128.13])
	by majordomo2.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j02KJ7Q15661
	for <avodah.heras@majordomo2.host4u.net>; Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:19:07 -0600
Received: from lakermmtao02.cox.net (lakermmtao02.cox.net [68.230.240.37])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j02KJ6E24597
	for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:19:07 -0600
Received: from DELL ([68.224.197.117]) by lakermmtao02.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with SMTP
          id <20050102201900.CDEH2202.lakermmtao02.cox.net@DELL>
          for <avodah@aishdas.org>; Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:19:00 -0500
Message-ID: <030001c4f108$49324480$6601a8c0@DELL>
From: "Cantor Wolberg" <cantorwolberg@cox.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Subject: Mezuzah during Shema
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:18:55 -0500

From: "H G Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com> asks:
> I am looking for a reference about an old minhag(?) I vaguely recall
> that during Shema, not only would the davener kiss tzitzis and touch his
> tefillin but also kiss the mezuzah. This custom was suppressed (again
> what I want is the source for this) due to an attack on being to
> literal.

Frankly I have always wondered why if we kiss the tzitzis and tefillin
during Shema, logically kissing the mezuzah wouldn't follow? Also, our
sages have said that he who has tefillin on his arm and head, tzitzis on
his garment, and mezuzahs on his doorways can be assured that he will
not sin because he has many reminders. From this, one could reasonably
group the three together, so it isn't surprising that the custom once
existed and it also isn't surprising that it was suppressed due to it
being considered extreme. I wouldn't agree that it was because of being
"too literal," since that reasoning could be employed for the tzitzis
and tefillin also, since the same action is done. The difference,
however, regarding the mezuzah is 1) halachically, a synagogue dedicated
exclusively to prayer (i.e. not serving also for gatherings, lectures,
communal meals, etc.) is exempt from mezuzah, and 2) it would be rather
impractical (and make some very uncomfortable) if they had to jump up to
kiss the mezuzah). In addition, the halacha clearly states that if one
is already sitting at the "shema," he is to remain seated, and if one is
already standing, he is to remain standing (the reason being not to
interrupt one's concentration). Therefore, if that were indeed the
practice, one would have to already be standing.

What is quite interesting is the gemara which relates that when Rabbi
Akiba davened privately, he would start his tefillot in one part of the
room and end up in another. This was due to his vigorous bodily
movements. Now it wouldn't be surprising that his timing would be such
as to pass from one room to the next at the point of "uchtavtam al
m'zuzot baytecha..." and kiss the mezuzah. Most scholars share Judah
Halevi's view that the swaying at davening originated in the academies
and in the study rooms attached to the synagogues. Students would sway
at study, reading the texts aloud, and they resorted to swaying as a
means of shutting out the competing texts. This habit was transferred
from the beis hamedresh to the shul. These symbolic gestures developed
in the talmudic and geonic periods spread to communities everywhere.
This might explain the custom of kissing the mezuzah during the shema in
some cases.

The Talmud relates that when Onkeles, adopted the Jewish faith the
Roman Emperor sent a company of soldiers to arrest him. As he was taken
from his home, he stopped to place his hand over the mezuzah. When the
soldiers asked him to explain the meaning of his action he replied,
"A mortal king lives within and hires guards to stand outside to protect
him but the Almighty has his servants inside while he stands outside to
protect them as scriptures says, "God shall protect you as you come and
as you leave, forever'". The soldiers were so impressed by this remark
that they let him go and they, too, converted. Miracle? Indeed!

Richard Wolberg

> Does anyone know where the original igeret of the CC can be found?

> Tzvi

IIRC, one of the letters is in Kol Kisvei CC, 3rd part, letter 12. The
last paragraph is of great interest.

KT ... JSO

In a message dated 12/31/04 6:18:32am EST, mike_a_singer@yahoo.com writes:
> A friend recently mentioned having heard that the 365 positive mitzvot
> were each linked to a specific day of the year.

[R Yitzchok Zirkind:]
> You meant 365 Lo Sasei ?

Yes, that is correct.
In performing a positive mitzvah we do something for our companion;
by keeping the negative mitzvah we are prevented from doing something
against our neighbor.

The positive mitzvot number 248, which is the same gematria for bamidbar,
(and also correspond to the 248 limbs of the body). We may live and
not die in the "wilderness" when we do things for each other.

The negative mitzvot number 365 (which also correspond to the 365 giddim
[veins, nerves] of the body as well as the days in a solar year), is
the same gematria for hasheni. With unity in oneness, there is perfect
harmony. With the emergence of a second, opposites are introduced with
more probability of conflict and confrontation.

The Torah draws our attention to the importance of negative commandments
in our world of opposites by equating hasheni with the 365 negative
mitzvot. Regarding 'positive' mitzvot, since one is required to put on
tefillin at a certain time, one has to take the time to do that deed.
However, regarding 'negative' mitzvot-as long as I am not doing any of
the things on my "don't" list, I can be doing almost anything else. As
long as I am not working on Shabbos, I can be enjoying my child. As long
as I am not eating treif, I can be giving a lecture or be enjoying a
world of endless possibilities.

Now if you take these two symbolic gematrias - of bamidbar and hasheni,
we are living in "the second wilderness" and through the combination
of the two (which equal taryag) we will hopefully merit the ultimate
redemption and messianic age bimheira b'yameinu, Amen!

Richard Wolberg

In a message dated 1/2/05 4:10:04pm EST,  cantorwolberg@cox.net writes:
> Regarding 'positive' mitzvot, since one is required to put on tefillin
> at a certain time, one has to take the time to do that deed. However,
> regarding 'negative' mitzvot-as long as I am not doing any of the things
> on my "don't" list, I can be doing almost anything else. As long as I
> am not working on Shabbos, I can be enjoying my child. As long as I am
> not eating treif, I can be giving a lecture or be enjoying a world of
> endless possibilities.

Certain Lo Sasei will not let us rest until we remove the problem, the
prohibition against not giving Tzedaka requires us to give, Lo Sosim
Domim Biveisecha requires the positive act of vOsisa Maakeh, Bal Yeiroeh
and Bal Yimotzei requires the act of Tashbisu. etc.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/31/04 1:22:14pm EST,  micha@aishdas.org writes:
>> Check Pitum Haktores, and continuation in Tanya Bar Kapara " Achas
>> Lshishim Oi Lshivi'im Shana Hoy'sa Va Shel Shirayim Lachatzoin"

> What would you hope I'd conclude from that?

I am adding, the amount of Ketoras was 368 portions 365 for Kminyan
Yemos haChama, plus 3 for Yom Kippur, because of the discrepancy of 11
days per year despite the additional leap year every 60 - 70 years there
would be 1/2 supply.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 06:41:19PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: I am adding, the amount of Ketoras was 368 portions 365 for Kminyan
: Yemos haChama, plus 3 for Yom Kippur, because of the discrepancy of 11
: days per year despite the additional leap year every 60 - 70 years there
: would be 1/2 supply.

Over 60 years, the average Jewish year would run pretty close to
365.25 days. If it were really 184 leftovers because of missing
days, Pesach would be in the fall!

I thought the reason for the leftovers was simply the difference between
the three maneh set aside for Yom Kippur and the actual melo khofnav used
(barring mishap).

A fraction less than three maneh were extra, so in sixty plus a few
years there's 183 maneh left.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
micha@aishdas.org        but add justice , don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

In a message dated 1/2/05 7:51:02pm EST,  micha@aishdas.org writes:
> I thought the reason for the leftovers was simply the difference between
> the three maneh set aside for Yom Kippur and the actual melo khofnav
> used (barring mishap).
> A fraction less than three maneh were extra, so in sixty plus a few
> years there's 183 maneh left.

I stand corrected.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:31:23 -0500, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Over 60 years, the average Jewish year would run pretty close to
> 365.25 days. If it were really 184 leftovers because of missing
> days, Pesach would be in the fall!

In the current fixed calendar (although it's anachronistic in the context
of the temple), the average Jewish year is about 365.2468 days, which
is actually closer to the real solar year than 365.25, though not as
close as the Gregorian 365.2425.

Ha keitzad? Each lunar month is 29 days, 12 hours 793 halakim ~= 29.5306
days. In a 19-year cycle there are 12 regular years of 12 months and
7 leap years of 13 months for a total of (12 x 12) + (7 x 13) = 144 +
91 = 235.

So the average year is 235 x 29.5306 / 19 ~= 365.2468

See Yad, Hilchot Kiddush Hahodesh 10, 1

On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 08:59:45AM +0200, Simon Montagu wrote:
:> Over 60 years, the average Jewish year would run pretty close to
:> 365.25 days. If it were really 184 leftovers because of missing
:> days, Pesach would be in the fall!

: In the current fixed calendar (although it's anachronistic in the context
: of the temple), the average Jewish year is about 365.2468 days, which
: is actually closer to the real solar year than 365.25, though not as
: close as the Gregorian 365.2425.

This is a tangent, since I was using an average over only 60 to 70 years,
without knowing where in the 19-yr cycle they began, and our target
result is an estimate with 10 year precision (1 digit of accuracy). I
therefore simply used a round number. Lo daq.

FWIW, the solar year is a shade below 365.2422, which is as RSMontagu
writes, closer to the Gregorian calendar than ours. This error means that
Pesach is drifting later in the season and the rule that the equinox must
be either in the first half of Nissan or in Adar II could be violated.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - unkown MD, while a Nazi prisoner

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com posted 29 Dec 2004:
> Question: How was there a physical day one when the Sun/Moon were not
> created until day 4?

This question was addressed by the rishonim and acharonim. In general,
they hold that actually everything, including the celestial bodies,
was already created on the first day. The "Light" and "Darkness" were
independent of the sun. The physical day was determined either by (as per
Rambam MN II:30; Kuzari V:2) the 24-hour revolving of the celestial sphere
(or, in our parlance, the 24-hour rotation of the earth on its axis,
surrounded by the gravitational/gaseous/magnetic/or whatever field[s]
of outer space) or the waxing and waning Light in 24-hour cycles (so that
all parts of the earth experienced daylight simultaneously--Malbim). On
the fourth day that Light was attached to the heavenly bodies that now
contain it, and the heavenly bodies were positioned and put into motion
to produce the system whereby different parts of the earth experience
daylight at different times.

Zvi Lampel

Micha Berger said:
> I still don't see it. R' Avraham b"haRambam's explanation of how Yaaqov
> could be injured by getting hit in a nevu'ah (v. 26) seems to be quite
> clearly contrasting them quantitatively, not qualitatively. He directly
> denies the proposition, calling it "eino metzi'us". He says that instead
> it is dimyon. Then he speaks of someone who "yir'eh bachalomo ke'ilu" and
> calls its effects that of dimyon. "And if it's so for a *chalom haragil"
> implying that a nevu'ah is a chalom that isn't ragil, not a different
> beryah, and in fact uses the parallel turn of phrase as in the opening
> "mar'eh nevu'ah".

Hoe do you define dimayon?

> Actually, RAbhRMBM speaks of the Yaaqov of the chazon not realizing it
> -- "lo alah al libo *bechezyono*". As though it's not the real Yaaqov,
> and in the super-dream of nevu'ah, the "I" of his dream didn't realize it.

I do not understand the two-Yaakov understanding you suggest.

YGB

In a message dated 1/3/05 4:22:44pm EST,  micha@aishdas.org writes:
> FWIW, the solar year is a shade below 365.2422, which is as RSMontagu
> writes, closer to the Gregorian calendar than ours. This error means that
> Pesach is drifting later in the season and the rule that the equinox must
> be either in the first half of Nissan or in Adar II could be violated.

This was already discussed on Avoda long time ago, as per the Pirush
on Hil. Kiddush Hachodesh.

Kol  Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/3/2005 4:23:28pm EST, hlampel@thejnet.com writes:
> This question was addressed by the rishonim and acharonim. In general,
> they hold that actually everything, including the celestial bodies,
> was already created on the first day. The "Light" and "Darkness" were
> independent of the sun. The physical day was determined either by (as per
> Rambam MN II:30; Kuzari V:2) the 24-hour revolving of the celestial sphere
> (or, in our parlance, the 24-hour rotation of the earth on its axis,
> surrounded by the gravitational/gaseous/magnetic/or whatever field[s]
> of outer space) or the waxing and waning Light in 24-hour cycles (so that
> all parts of the earth experienced daylight simultaneously--Malbim). On
> the fourth day that Light was attached to the heavenly bodies that now
> contain it, and the heavenly bodies were positioned and put into motion
> to produce the system whereby different parts of the earth experience
> daylight at different times.

Point #1 - re: a difficulty between Torah and Science - why get stuck
with A model from Rishonim and Acharonim that is probably more problematic
than the Torah itself!

Point #2 - If you read the text carefully light is NOT the issue re: day
4's timing. the issue is that the Me'oros created time AS WE NOW KNOW
TIME. If the Rishonim and Acharonim made life SIMPLER by exrapoloting
and saying that today's 24-hour day even PRECEEDED the 4th day fine.

But you can't prove that facing other difficulties they would have stuck
with that model. Aderabbah, we have moutnains fo eveidence to show that
model as LESS SIMPLE and MORE prolbematic. It seems likely that in light
of our understanding of the creation of the meros thsoe same Rishonim
and Acharonim WOULD have used another model.

Ptoin #3. the ultimate inironies is that many in the Torah comunity
tell s that the physics of today IS NOT the physics of the era of Brias
ha'olom and therefore carbon dating is NOT reliable because since then
the metzius changed. But when I point out that the Torah itself does
not have a dating system prior to day four of crfeation- THEN Torah Jews
react and say DAVKA that the 24-hour systme used today must be extending
retroactively to BEFORE the Sun and Moon. It's a mind-boggling paradox and
so unnecessary. Let's face it, the general rule is that we ALWAYS assume
a chazkah d'hashta when it comes to reality and we psychologically assume
it has ALWY been that way. But in this case the Torah itself pretty well
tells us otherwise...

=============================================================

Lemashal let's say I found arachaeologial evidence that Avaraham Avinu
lived and that Nimrod lived BUT that same evidence shows that after all
their lives did NOT Overlapl.

Would you:
A) Accept the Arachaeology and then beHappy that the Torah's account
is confirmed?
or
B) Reject the same archaeology because it makes the Midrash shver; and
then come up with some reason to impurng that eveidenceeven if it were
a dochak?!

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

On Sat, Jan 01, 2005 at 11:07:14PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: The Rambam does not mention the word "emanation" in Hilchos Yesodei
: Hatorah in the passages I quoted. To my knowledge, neo-platonic emanation
: is a *necessary* overflow from the unmoved impersonal first mover,
: and is not dependent on the free Will of the Creator (contra the Rambam).

I would agree, although I still have no idea how to define the difference
between necessary and free choice WRT HQBH. The Rambam clearly says our
existance is contingent; thus, it's not a necessary outflowing from G-d.

I didn't see necessity as a defining feature of emanation. Using the usual
lamp and light mashal, the "Lamp" could choose whether or not to be on,
or even what filters to shine through. But it's still us being made of
"light" rather than manufactured of something that doesn't flow from Him,
or our being "pixels in G-d's imaginations (as Rn Gila Atwood's signature
file used to read).

I also await your response to my identifying HP with what is called by
others the "neis nistar", something beyond teva that people can merit,
rather than a lack of fixability within teva.

:> In the Moreh that you cite (I ch 69) he shows that the G-d-as-Maker
:> and G-d-as-Agent perspectives are identical. (He does this because of
:> a weird accident. Averroes, who translated Aristotle to Arabic, thought
:> that Plotinus's Enneads were by Aristotle. The Rambam therefore thought
:> that Aristotle believed in both the First Cause and Emanationism. The
:> latter is really neoPlatonism.)

: There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that Averroes had any impact on
: the Rambam on these issues.

I'm not speaking of Averroe's (ibn Rushd's) thought influencing the
Rambam, but of his error in identifying the author of the original when
publishing his translations getting inherited by the Rambam. There was
no other translation of Aristotle available to the Rambam. *Everyone*
of the time who studied Aristo in Arabic though that Aristotle taught
both First Cause and Emanationism.

The Rambam's argument identifying Cause with Agens (Moreh 1:69) is an
explanation of something he thought Aristo held. Whether he would have
considered them identical had Averroes not accidentally planted the
thought in his head is up there with "If you had a brother, would he
like noodles?"

-mi

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

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


[ 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         ]