Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 091

Wednesday, March 9 2005

• Reading "Vaya'as Chiram"
• Age of the Universe
• Re: guided evolution
• The Teffilos of HaShem
• chayav livsumei
• Rabbinic authority
• RE: The Teffilos of HaShem
• Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• RE: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• Common Ancestry (was: age of universe)
• Shaimos
• Re: Relationship of Science to Torah
• TAch v'Tat and Purim
• Re: Relationship of Science to Torah

During most years, one of three special Sabbaths coincides with Pekudei.
In those years the regular Maftir and Haftarah are replaced with the
readings for either Parashas Shekalim, Parah or HaChodesh.

This year, Pekudei is Shekalim and Rosh Chodesh, and Vayakhel was
regular. Asheknazim read "Vaya'as Chiram." (When Pekudei is regular,
there are different opinions as to what is read, really complicating the
situation). [There is also one rare 12-month year-type when the sedras
are read separately and Vayakhel is Para and Pekudei is HaChodesh).

Here comes the amazing fact... The last time Vaya'as Chiram was read
for Vayakhel was twenty-one years ago! So for those of you who are 41
years old or less, you weren't even of legal age the last time Vaya'as
Chiram was read. And for those of you my age, we just had approached
our second bar-mitzvah.

Happy Shekalim!  (May your half-shekel earn interest).

Richard Wolberg

R. Simcha Coffer wrote:  
>  From this we see two things. 1) Nothing, including the purely spiritual,
> existed before the Torah's account of Day One, and 2) Day One, in addition
> to documenting the spiritual components of the beriah, is also literally a
> physical day as evidenced from the creation of "midas yom valayla". 

Actually, there is a gemara that the Torah was created 974 generations
before the Creation, based on the d'rash of "Davar Tziva Le-Elef Dor,"
and another that HKBH looked into the Torah to create the world. To the
extent that RSC's conclusions on age of the universe is dependant on
his above statement that "Nothing, including the purely spiritual,
existed before ... Day One" (although I don't necessary think it is),
they may bear re-examination.

Shalom L. Kohn

At 09:45 PM 3/6/2005, you wrote:
>As far as RYGB goes, I had a lengthy backchannel debate with him
>regarding this issue in which he agreed that his sole unambiguous source
>for a billion year world/universe was Rabbeinu Bachya in Bereishis. He
>brought the debate to Avodah and I responded with a long post outlining
>why RB could not be used as a ra'ayah. (Please see "The A of U" at the
>following site:)

Slight error there...

I did not argue that the world is billions of years old - I have no idea
that it is - but whether there are sources that indicate that it is more
than 5765 years old. Of those there are plenty - as I said, a majority
(including the RB in B).

YGB 

Today's Daf talks about the Teffilos of HaShem. That is to say just as
we humans pray so does God. This appears to be thgeological nonsense. To
whom does God pray? Our Magid Shiur admitted that he could not understand
exactly how this Gemarah is to be be understood.

I would like to offer the following novel interpretation. (Perhaps
it is not novel but I hevn't heard anyone else say it.) The infinite
and singular nature of God is the very essence of our belief. He is
infinitely mighty and there is nothing superior to Him. To say that
God prays implies that he is either asking a Bakasha or is praising
Himself. It is unlikely that God praises Himself so He must then be
asking a Bakasha. This implies there is a recipient to His Teffilah.
But is it possible that the Creater of all things is being Mispallel?
To whom? For what?

I believe the answer to this question is yes. God does pray. It has to
do with Bechira Chafshis. God gave mankind Bechira Chafshis so that we
can choose to do (or not do) His will. It isn't that He doesn't know the
outcome of all human activity. He, of course, does... but that does not
take away our Bechirah. Humanity still chooses which path to take, right
or wrong, good or evil. But God wants us to take the "right" path which
is why He gave us His Torah. And this is His Teffilah. His wanting us
to do Mitzvos is tantemount to prayer. Granting the world free will, He
is desirous ..."praying to His creation, mankind"... to follow His will.

Just a lttle thought that occurred to me this morning.

HM

in re time to drink. i assume that this chiyuv is tied to the seudah
ie not to drink right after shacharis and all day long , but rather as
part of the seudah. i also assume that most people these days seem to
hold their seudah fairly late in the day into the night-- maybe 2 hr
or less till nightfall. this would mean drinking a lot fairly quickly
[ or actually yama arichta--first getting drunk after nightfall] ; or
for those who drink till they sleep rather than drunkenness-- they will
be mekayem the mitzva by falling asleep after nightfall? so then the
mitzva of drunkenness is fairly difficult to accomplish on the day of
purim itself, unless one starts the seuda early, allowing more drinking
time..... am i missing something?

<http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm?shiurID=710275> 

A shiur by Rabbi Y Sacks (Riets) reviewing some of the basic
sources of the narrow and broad definitions of Lo Tasur (a perennial
Areivim/Avodah favorite). Includes questions of Sanhedrin vs. other,
Doraita vs. Drabbanan, and particular requirement vs mitzvah klalli
vs. logical reasoning. (Bottom line-listen to the Rabbis:-)

KT
Joel

From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com] 
> Today's Daf talks about the Teffilos of HaShem. That is to say just as we
> humans pray so does God. This appears to be thgeological nonsense. To
> whom does God pray? Our Magid Shiur admitted that he could not
> understand exactly how this Gemarah is to be be understood.

How about that the gemara is giving an example for the purpose of
imitato dei?
That's how our maggid shiur explained it.

KT
Joel

[R Shalom L. Kohn] skohn@Sidley.com posted on: Mar 7, 2005> 
> Actually, there is a gemara that the Torah was created 974 generations
> before the Creation, based on the d'rash of "Davar Tziva Le-Elef Dor,"
> and another that HKBH looked into the Torah to create the world. To the
> extent that RSC's conclusions on age of the universe is dependant on
> his above statement that "Nothing, including the purely spiritual,
> existed before ... Day One" (although I don't necessary think it is),
> they may bear re-examination.

And  ygb@aishdas.org posted on: Mar 7, 2005 (Re: guided evolution)
> I did not argue that the world is billions of years old - I have no idea
> that it is - but whether there are sources that indicate that it is more
> than 5765 years old. Of those there are plenty - as I said, a majority
> (including the RB in B).

This discussion began with the issue of whether our mesorah allows for
(a) evolution and/or (b) the age of the universe as asserted by current
science, whose conclusions are, after all, interwined with, and whose
conclusions use as evidence, alleged physical evidence of an evolving
development of the heavenly bodies, of the earth and of its inhabitants,
including man, over those billions of years. The sources mentioned above
(even if one were to accept their meaning to be as suggested by the above
posters) do not support such an allowance, and indeed speak against it.

Am I correct in understanding that the above posters would agree with
this assessment?

Zvi Lampel

At 09:52 PM 3/8/2005, [R Zvi Lampel] wrote:
>This discussion began with the issue of whether our mesorah allows for (a) 
>evolution and/or (b) the age of the universe as asserted by current 
>science, whose conclusions are, after all, interwined with, and whose 
>conclusions use as evidence, alleged physical evidence of an evolving 
>development of the heavenly bodies, of the earth and of its inhabitants, 
>including man, over those billions of years. The sources mentioned above 
>(even if one were to accept their meaning to be as suggested by the above 
>posters) do not support such an allowance, and indeed speak against it.

>Am I correct in understanding that the above posters would agree with this 
>assessment?

Our mesorah does not allow for (a) but allows for (b).

YGB

In response to R. Lampel's challenge for a statement of my position (not
that it really should matter to anyone):

My own view is that once one gets past the issue of whether a "day"
in Creation is a day similar to the current day (as to which there is
a multiplicity of views even in traditional sources, as the recent
discussions have shown), there are only two requisites of aligning
current scientific thought and Torah. The first is that G-d created the
world out of nothingness (Yesh Mi-Ayin), and the second is that man was
created from the earth (afar min ha'adama). The Yesh Mi-Ayin is perfectly
consistent with the notion that there was some matter which Hashem
created out of nothingness, and then subjected it to a Big Bang. Afar
Min Ha'adama, although potentially subject to metaphoric interpretation,
can be understood as Hashem's having chosen adam to be a unique creation,
unlike that of other creatures who may have evolved from other species.
(That is also consistent with the description of the creation of Chava.)
On this basis, Science is consistent with a literal reading of Bereishis.

I am unwilling to limit the power of the Ribbono Shel Olam to create His
world in any particular way, and find it perfectly consistent with the
ideas of briyah and yetzirah that they occurred through an evolutionary
means, if that was the path that Hashem chose. Or not -- the key is that
we need not accept the existence of a conflict. In fact, the general
admonitions about not inquiring about what is before (mi-kodem) and
after (me-achor) or to delve into the secrets of ma'asei bereishit can
be understood to preclude exactly the types of inquiries and debates
which have pervade avodah and areivim these increasingly many months.
Our attitude, it seems to me, should be "OK, it can all fit together.
Now let's learn Torah and do mitzvot."

It also appears to me that a good deal of the current controversy
regarding Science and Torah is an outgrowth of Daas Torah philosophy.
One would have thought that there are enough wonderful things in the
gemara and medrash that one need not burden Faith with a dictate that
every comment of Chazal about otherwise secular and non-halachic matters
is literally and eternally true. It does not diminish Chazal to say that
they were in part products of their times, but that although they reign
supreme in areas of Das and Halacha, they are not final arbiters of
scientific knowledge. For example, the notion that the earth revolves
on its axis, which I assume would be universally accepted even among
the fervent Slifkin-ostracizers (see the R. Sternbuch letter whose
URL R.D. Eidensohn so kindly posted), is contrary to Pesachim 94b.
At times, of course, we will need to struggle with the overlap between
science and halacha, as in the issue of whether one may kill a louse on
shabbat, where the gemara's psak is based on the fact that the louse is
not sexually propagated, and there is a resulting dispute between RAS
and others as to whether a change in Halacha is appropriate given our
revised understanding. But ordinarily, Chazal's scientific comments,
like their recitation of various cures, would not need to be vested with
all the gravitas of undeniable Faith in order to maintain our devotion
to Chazal, and indeed, the demand to reject any contrary science may
be well counter-productive to emunah. Here too, our attitude should be
"OK, so that is what they thought at the time. Now let's learn Torah
and do mitzvot."

However, to one who espouses the strongest views of Da'as Torah, Chachamim
have to have infallible sway in all areas, even if not matters of Faith
or Halacha. On this view, if the chachmei ha'gemara were mistaken about
anything, kal va'chomer the chachamim of our times may not be infallible
either. Some may see this as a challenge to their core beliefs. It is
not; one can accept Da'as Torah without assuming infallibility, on the
ground that the chacham may not be perfect, but is "more perfect" than
the ordinary person, so the chacham should be obeyed nonetheless. But
this a more nuanced statement, and it might be harder to persuade people
to surrender their own judgments (perhaps even about the conduct of their
own lives or that of their families) in favor of a rav who is simply more
probabalistically likely to be right that one who is infallibly right.
Nevertheless, infallibility is a very hard standard to keep maintaining
-- for example, trying to explain away those gedolim who directed their
followers not to leave Europe in the years before the Holocaust.

It was not my purpose to expand this debate into one about Da'as Torah
(heaven knows that as a lurker and only rare contributor to these lists,
I don't have the time to participate in those discussions), but did want
to draw what seems to the common philosophical orientation and attitude
between the Da'as Torah and science/Torah issues. It would not surprise
me that the people who are open to Science are more skeptical about
Da'as Torah, and vice versa.

Shalom L. Kohn

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:01:35AM -0500, Shaya Potter wrote:
...
:>    Ben Azzai says: "Zeh seifer toledos haadam" is a greater principle
:>    that that.
:>				    Y-mi Nedarim 9:3 (30b)

:>I personally would not presume to tamper with a kelal gadol.

: It doesn't say that we are all descended from Adam, just that Adam was
: created alone...

I disagree. Ben Azzai's moral imperative derives from our having a
single ancestor. One could say that peshat in the pasuq is enough to
imply morality, but the absence of other ancestors in the pasuq need not
be history. However, as I wrote, that would be tampering with a kelal
gadol. I'd need large pleitzos on which to rest such an edifice.

Also, one would have to posit a mesoretic source for survivors of the
mabul other than Noach's family (and Og). Otherwise, post-mabul, we all
come from Adam.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Someone's recent posting to Areivim about the new "Shaimos boxes" reminded
me of a question I had about burial of Shaimos. I have occasionally
seen a plastic box full of Shaimos dropped into the grave on top of the
casket. In light of the fact that not only was the grave dug for the
particular niftar, but the niftar has even been placed inside, is it
proper to then place the shaimos inside as well?

On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 12:54:05AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
:>: Chagiga 12a:
:>:  Said Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav: Ten things were CREATED ON THE FIRST
:>:  DAY: Heaven and Earth, Tohu Va-Vohu, Light And Darkness, Ruach And Mayyim,
:>:  Middass Yom And Middas Layla.

:>: I.e., From yeish meiyan, Hashem created the Heavens and Earth, from which
:>: point the first day began. (The meforshim deal with how the first day's
:>: time was measured, including the explanation that the heavenly spheres'
:>: revolution/the earth's rotation began immediately.)...

:> You realize that your conclusion is presumed in these meforeshim, not
:> in the gemara itself?

: Shtey teshuvos badavar, Firstly, I believe that the above statement is
: incorrect. The fact is that ZL's conclusion most naturally presumes in
: the Gemara itself as follows.

: I ran a search on ZL's posts and turned up an excellent piece (September
: 9, 2004) detailing an exhaustive list of meforshim that all seem to take
: ma'aseh bereishis literally....

Did you seem to turn up my reply? For that matter, why couldn't you
similarly find RYGB and my posts of lists of meforashim?

In general, you're working under a major disadvantage. This discussion
started last Elul. It was about to die down a couple of months ago,
but then the inyan reemerged in current events. You're now attempting
what is the third round of the same subject. Not only don't most of the
posters on the subject want to repeat themselves, I'm reluctant to even
expend the effort to dig up my old posts -- it's a bit of a needle in
a haystack problem and a bit of not really wanting to deal with your
reply and getting to the same point a third time.

You therefore can't jump to the assumption that RYGB's shetiqah is
hoda'ah, since those of us who were here for the conversation from the
begining already saw he had an answer to your question of:
: As far as RYGB goes, I had a lengthy backchannel debate with him
: regarding this issue in which he agreed that his sole unambiguous source
: for a billion year world/universe was Rabbeinu Bachya in Bereishis. He
: brought the debate to Avodah and I responded with a long post outlining
: why RB could not be used as a ra'ayah. (Please see "The A of U" at the
: following site:)
: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n076.shtml>

For another example, your comment to RZSero:
:On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:14:47 -0500 Zev Sero <zev@sero.name wrote
:> "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:>> 7) Since the beriah is Hashem's creation, it is illogical that he would
:>> have created a beriah that looks like it was bidavka not created by a
:>> Designer chs'v.

:> Not illogical.  "Ve'ein tzayar keilokeinu"; He is the Supreme Artist,
:> and this world is His masterpiece.  Artists make things appear to be
:> other than they are all the time;

: You are taking the Gemara entirely out of context...

But RZS isn't referring to the gemara, he's giving a thumbnail reference
to a point he already made. The argument is more one of sevarah,
understanding Hashem's motivation by using the model of an artists,
than a ra'ayah from the gemara. (Personally I think the argument is
circular, but that's a different issue.)

...
: Chazal speak about Maaseh Bereishis (MB) in many places and nowhere
: is there even an intimation that the six days are anything other than
: six regular days....

Nor is there an intimation that they are 6 regular days, either.

Chazal don't speak about time until Adam, whether it's counting the event
of the hours from his beri'ah to Shabbos, or whether ma'aseh bereishis
is in Nissan or in Tishrei -- note that whether it's in Elul is NOT the
discussion, but rather Tishrei, the end of beri'ah. This was my original
reply to RZL's citation of Sanhedrin 38, as well.

Look at how everyone from the Rambam to the Ari to the Maharasha tell you
to treat the stories in aggadita. Chazal are concerned with being good
Jews, not history. If they are silent on whether something is historical,
one can't simply assume they mean that it is.

But they aren't silent, and your "nowhere" is untrue. But that gets us
back to the Maharal and "ein doreshin". To explain where we diverge on
the Maharal, I need to point your attention to the gap between "doreshin"
and peshat. To go to your 7 objections:
: First of all, the Maharal does not write that. He says that MB cannot
: be comprehended in Nevuah however with Chochmah, it can.

You realize that this would place science on stronger footing than
reading the Torah literally?

: Second, he is referring not to the physical reality of MB. Rather he
: is referring to how creation came about b'poel from a prior state of
: non-existence.

He doesn't make this chaqirah, you do in order not to have him as a
raayah against you. The closest he comes to this is using yeish mei'ayin
as a ra'ayah that MB is totally unlike current experience. Not that "ein
doreshin" only applies to the word "bara" in Ber' 1:1!

: Third, obviously MB can be somewhat expressed, even in Nevuah. Otherwise,
: what is Bereeishis 1 doing in the Torah? ...

Why is any of Ber' in the Torah? We find two reasons: 1- To prove H'
has the authority to give us EY, and 2- to give us examples from eisanim
to emulate. We need to know there was a beri'ah for the medrash quoted
in the first Rashi to work. But not how the beri'ah occured. Torah as
a whole is not about history.

: Fourth, the Maharal cannot argue with the Gemara. The Gemara says that
: you do not darshin MB to two people but to one its o.k.

: Fifth, the Maharal explains this very Gemara to mean that there are
: different levels of hevdel min ha'adam...

: Sixth, there are countless Chazal and medrashim that interpret the pesukim
: that relate to MB. Are you saying that according to the Maharal they were
: all in hot pursuit of a wild goose chase as MB cannot be understood at
: all on any level?

: Seventh, the Maharal himself deals with Maseh Bereishis in countless
: places and offers many valuable perushim on these pesukim. I'm sure he
: would not have violated his own principles.

Issues 3-7 all revolve around derashah. Not taking peshuto shel miqra
as history. The Maharal says we can't understand the history.

This is a critical distinction that your posts don't make. There are three
distinct opinions:
1- "Yom" means era, non-physical, or is totally incomprehensible.
2- All of ma'aseh bereishis is incomprehensible.
3- That much occured between the yeish mei'ayin of Ber' 1:1 and the
   6 days.

When I say the majority of meqoros run against literally, I mean that
between the three combined. In reality, this is a misspeech, #3 is a
literal peshat in the pasuq. 1:1 speaks of yeish mei'ayin, 1:2 speaks
of creation from aretz, tohu, vavohu, choshech, and tehom.

RYGB, OTOH, believes that #3 alone is clearly the dominant shitah,
and cited meqoros to back up that claim.

#1 could support evolution. So could #3. We're not claiming that chazal
believed in evolution, but rather that they didn't believe anything on
the subject one way or the other.

Neither compels evolution. The TY doesn't support evolution, rather
he gives his own theory (shemitos) for explaining the fossil record.

Personally, I believe #2, and bring REED and the Maharal as meqoros. I am
not supporting the scientific account, but saying that it's man's best
attempt to bring order to something incomprehensible. It and the literal
read of the Torah are usable partial truths, each part good for its own
domain (predicting physical results vs how to be a good person and Jew).
But the whole picture is beyond us.

BTW, this is of a peice with the Maharal on eilu va'eilu -- he writes that
every shitah is merely a "best we can do" to capture an incomprehensible
Divine Truth, Divrei E-lokim Chaim.

To stick to #2 for a while, I'll skip ahead in your post:
:> Rav Dessler questions the measurability of time before the eitz hadaas

: We've been through this before. Nowhere does Rav Dessler question the
: linear measurability of time...

Since our "being through it before", I gave a paragraph by
paragraph summary of the maamar, and where he says it. But that's
irrelevent. RACarmel's paper was cited (with URL) since -- your
understanding of REED is not that of the meivi la'or.

Now, to get to #3 (dual creation):
This is the shitah of the Ramban according to RYmA. In addition to REED
then questioning whether the second creation's time can be understood by
humans who didn't experience it.

It's also the shitah of the TY and RYGB, which as we wrote above,
do not compel believe in the big bang through evolution.

Jumping back:
:> Now we're at "countless maamarei chazal"? We can't even find one we'll
:> all agree upon. There is no proof that any member of chazal thought that
:> time during the six days (until Adam or the eitz hadaas) resembles time
:> as we know it,

:>: Rashi and Ramban have been cited before and are easily found in MIkraos
:>: Gedolos...

:> Rav Dessler destroyed your ability to use the Ramban as a raayah.

: With all due respect, indeed reverence and awe, to Rav Dessler whom
: I consider one of my Rabbeim Muvhakim in hashkafah, he cannot destroy
: anyone's ability to understand the Ramban. The Ramban states openly that
: the six days of creation were literal....

:> Nor is he, Rashi, or Rabbinu Chananel members of chazal.

: What's up with the Rishonim bashing? ...

What bashing? (In general, you're taking a very combative stance. You have
an entire rebuttal to something RZSero wrote which is actually in support
of the literalist view, but you seem not to notice that. You even ask him
"Where in the Torah did Hashem reveal to us that he guided the process
of evolution over billions of years?" on a post where he explains why
scientific evidence of evolution would be falsified.)

I asked you to provide proof that chazal understood Ber' 1 as literal
history. You didn't quote chazal, you quoted three rishonim, and of the
three, only the Ramban looks to me like it should be a ra'ayah but REED
understanding him differently. Therefore, the ra'ayah (not the Ramban)
is destroyed. Thus, I didn't see a raayah nor chazal's position.

BTW, your objection to the REED's shitah would make sense if he were
asserting that yom means a different time span. However, he writes that
yom means something other than time-as-we-know-it. It can therefore be
6 literal days in addition to being something else. Even though that
makes no sense to those of us who see the universe "through a hole in a
peice of paper."

...
: I never mentioned Intelligent Design. The subject is guided evolution.
: William Dembski, one of the primary exponents of the Intelligent Design
: Theory best expresses the incompatibility of "theistic (i.e. Divinely
: guided) evolution".

Dembski doesn't want to be lumped together with people who use the word
"evolution", however, most sources describe the labels as synonymous.
See <http://www.talkdesign.org> a subsite of talkorigins.org.

: I am flabbergasted. Are you saying that all through the generations
: a billion year universe was the standard way of viewing berias haolam
: by our nation? Do you mean to tell me that if we asked Yeshaya hanavi,
: or Ezra Hasofer, or Rebbi Akiva, or Rava and Abaye, or Rav Saadya Gaon,
: or Rav Yehuda Halevi or the Gra how old the world was, they would have
: answered in the billions of years!? Obviously not, as none of them were
: influenced by the atheistic shekarim of the evolutionists, unlike the
: Jews of the past 175 years....

A strong need for macha'ah. What a sever condomnation of RSRH, RAYKook,
the Torah Sheleimah, RACarmel, RAKaplan, R' Breur and numerous others. (See
RGS's posts.) But then you are "sure that most FFB (as opposed to those
who were mikurav by Aish that, I understand, promotes Gerald Schroeder's
approach) shlomey emunei yisroel believe in a young world. We are
definitely not a miyut."

I'm glad you're so sure. Are you sure you don't simply have contact
with a preskewed population? (Or are you cyclically defining "shelomei
emuneah?) I suggest reading the relevent section of Challenge,
editted by RACarmel (there's that name again!) and R' Cyrile Domb.
There are other meqoros and shitos out there.

:> and much proof
:> that many of them believed in a long duration between Bereishis 1:1 and
:> 1:2. 

: If by "duration" you mean time, you do not have even one source in Chazal
: to prove this. Not even one!

See Bereishis Rabba 1:9. Rabban Gamliel ends up with a beri'ah yeish
mei'ayin before aretz, tohu, vohu, choshech, and tehom. This is a straight
naive read of the medrash, not just aliba deTY. Then there's the other
ra'ayos brought by RYGB's list of meqoros. (Or do you believe that qabalah
post-dates chazal?)

...
: In addition, even if you would hold like the Tiferes Yisroel, you would
: only gain a 26000 year old world, not billions of years.

No, it would give you 20000 years of tohu vavohu AFTER the most recent
previous world.

...
:> Lehefech! With the same results, it shows MORE artistry to reach them
:> through self-imposed restrictions than without. Think, not only did He
:> make man, but he did so by putting all the pieces in place biollions of
:> years before such that He knew they'd all fall out correctly, with no
:> intervention that violates the system.

: Seems compelling at first but unfortunately, you are begging the question.
: You see, once you project inconceivable amounts of time to the evolution
: of the world, you no longer have any proof that the inconceivable (i.e.
: material, unguided evolution) didn't actually occur....

Only if you think there is enough time to explain away the artistry. That
somehow time can explain how the ratio of strength of gravity to
electromagnetism was just perfect to create stable starts, that weak and
strong forces were just so for those stars to produce the more complicated
elements from which our bodies are composed, a planet to form, etc...

Otherwise, give me Bach over Beethoven any day. (See
<http://tinyurl.com/6l6wa> about Bach, halakhah, and the beauty of
creating within a framework of rules.)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 03:50:25PM -0500, RYGB wrote:
:> This discussion began with the issue of whether our mesorah allows for (a) 
:> evolution and/or (b) the age of the universe as asserted by current 
:> science, whose conclusions are, after all, interwined with, and whose 
:> conclusions use as evidence, alleged physical evidence of an evolving 
:> development of the heavenly bodies, of the earth and of its inhabitants, 
:> including man, over those billions of years. The sources mentioned above 
:> (even if one were to accept their meaning to be as suggested by the above 
:> posters) do not support such an allowance, and indeed speak against it.

RYGB replied:
: Our mesorah does not allow for (a) but allows for (b).

This comes dangerously close to a declaration that those who disagree
with you have an untenable position (as per last month's discussion of
the inadvisability of using that word). RSRH's or RAYKook's (et al,
as per the abovementioned list) position must be viewed as tenable,
even if you disagree.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

The Chasam Sofer (Toras Moshe -- Purim), the Yismach Moshe on the Megillah
on passukim in Perek 9 as well as in the Chavruta to Megilla quoting a
sefer called Shar Bat Rabim on the Megillah all quote a sefer She'erit
Yi'sra'el that the large Tav and Ches in the Megillah refer to the fact
that the punishments that were supposed to be during the times of Purim
for the various aveiras were postponed until TACH v'Tat 1648.

What/Which sefer She'erit Yi'sra'el is this?

HG Schild
hgschild@yahoo.com

At 03:24 PM 3/9/2005, [Micha] wrote:
>: Our mesorah does not allow for (a) but allows for (b).

>This comes dangerously close to a declaration that those who disagree
>with you have an untenable position (as per last month's discussion of
>the inadvisability of using that word). RSRH's or RAYKook's (et al,
>as per the abovementioned list) position must be viewed as tenable,
>even if you disagree.

I was asked for my opinion. Others may certainly disagree. I do not regards 
a person who holds Adam evolved to be a kofer, just a to'eh.

YGB

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


[ 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         ]