Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 064

Monday, December 19 2005

• chanukah and independence
• Re: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Re: Moshiach Waiting
• Re: Length of ma'aseh bereishis
• Admin: Annual schnur letter
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Gould
• Edom=Rome
• shogeg vs on-nes
• Re: Massechet Atziluth
• RE: Being exposed to minus
• Logic difference between Shem and Yefes
• Re: Looking for a comment by the Torah T'mima
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha

Heard a shiur today that the essence of Chanukah is the renewal
of the worship in the Temple under an independent Jewish monarchy.
Without repeating an hour shiur some of the main points were

Yoma 21b
5 things were missing in the second Temple - Aron/Cherubim, fire,
schechinah, ruach hakodesh and Urin VeTumim

Rashi on Chaggai 4:6 "od achat me-at" Chagai is saying that the Persian
rule will end and be replaced by the Greeks and G-d will then do miracles
for the Chashmonai and then people will realize that the Schechinah
resides in this house

Yoma 9b - Resh Lakish says that there was no Schechinah in the
second Temple because the Babylonians didn't return in the days of
Ezra. R. Yochanan disagrees that the reason was that it was not considered
the Temple of Shem but Yefet, i.e. the Jews were controlled by the Greeks
story in Maccabees about fire coming from Heaven to light the alter.

In summary in the first several hundred years of the second Temple
there was no Schechinah because they were ruled by the Persians and
the Greeks. After the revolt of the Maccabees the Schechinah returned
because there was a Jewish government. This return was symbolized by the
fire coming down from Heaven. This fire is remembered by our lighting
candles. Even the miracle of the oil served to symbolize the return of
the Schechinah. This answers the question that the oil could have been
brough in Tumah and also the question of Maharal why this miracle was
celebrated more than other miracles in the Temple. This also answers why
Rambam mentions that the Malchut returned to the Jews in hilchot Chanukah.

--
Eli Turkel

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> "The world just looks old" and "the world is old" is a
> distinction without a difference, but if it allows people to hang on to a
> literal sheshes yemei Bereishis while also reading the daily paper without
> cognitive dissonance, then "perfect faked history" is a useful theory.

> Certainly it's no worse than Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium"
> which is a fancy way of saying that the actual fossil evidence supports
> creation rather than evolution. It's a phrase that allows atheists
> to look at the strong evidence for design and still maintain their
> equanimity, and thus it serves for atheists the same purpose that
> "perfect faked history" serves for believers.

That the world looks old is of necessity based on a masoretic
perspective. If one relies on the mainstream Mesorah only approach, which
is narrowly defined by RSC and those with his Hashkafos which discards all
"contrary to the mainstream" Rishonim backed explanations of evidence
af an ancient universe, than the only way one is permitted to look at
those "proofs" is to simply wipe them away as wrong interpretations of
perceptions .

Punctuated equilibrium which is supported by the evolutionary component
of "sudden mutations" that Darwin introduced us to, is a rational
attempt... a Svarah... to deal with new scientific data that contradicts
a formerly held theory based on earlier, incomplete data. Gould was an
atheist. But that doesn't matter. He looked at the fossil record and
determined that because of the gaps between changes in the species,
evolution could not have been gradual as was originally postulated by
Darwin and was probably wrong.

As I have been saying all along. Science if nothing else is not
sacred. The minute something comes along to disprove a scientifically
previously determined "fact", it is disacrded.

Personally I like that approach as it is more intellectually honest.
As long as there are Rishonim that back up an ancient universe. I would
rather treat scientific data that way than to simply say that every new
scientific discovery or theory that supports an aged universe is not
consistent with mainstream Haskafa and wrong.

HM

Pardon my self-reference, but see here on this subject:
<http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2004/06/waiting-for-mashiah.html>

Avodah V16 #62 dated 12/16/2005 RMB writes:
>> then  "perfect faked history" is a useful theory. [--old TK]

> I do not understand the position altogether. There is no ontological
> difference (barring rounding error in the numbers) between the statement
> "Hashem created the world 13 billion years ago" and "Hashem created the
> world less than 6 thousand years ago, but a universe that had already
> gone through 13 billion years." [--RMB]

I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing. This is one of those times
when sarcasm doesn't translate onto the big screen.

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

Yes, it's that time of year again folks, the end of the tax year for
nearly all of us. So, while you're thinking about raking in those tax
deductions, kindly think of AishDas and in particular, the hana'ah you
get from aishdas.org.

I don't ask for minimum or recommended donations. But, if you're so
motivated and can afford it, write me -- or check Areivim -- for details
about how and where to send a check.

Gut Voch!
-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

On December 18, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Of course I do. What else does it mean? Chazal say this will be the
>: final day of mishpat when everyone will be judged again. It means a
>: specific and appointed day in history. What makes you think it means
>: anything different?

> Because I'm talking about "yom Hashem", not "yom haDin".

But Chazal say they are synonymous. That's why the day is characterized
as gadol v'nora. It is not referring to the whole duration of acharis
hayamim.

Simcha Coffer

Simcha Coffer wrote:
>The truth is, I myself would have been highly suspicious of
>anyone dismissing the findings of science. B"H I had the benefit of being
>associated with Rav Avigdor Miller who demonstrated clearly and lucidly the
>inaccuracies of scientists in the fields of origins. 

You should be very careful when saying things like this. It's a statement
by implication about R' Miller's knowledge, and someone might come to
think poorly of him as a result.

>I think by now most dating laboratories will
>tell you that the Carbon dating method cannot be accurate to any greater
>degree than 20,000 years with a very small + - ratio. 

Longer than that, but surely the point is that it can accurately measure
dates greater than 5766 years?

>Thus, anyone telling
>you that they've dated fossils in the millions of years with this method is
>telling you bubba masos.

I agree. I don't understand why you think this is controversial. Age
ranges in the millions of years would be measured by e.g. uranium-lead
dating. But as I say, you want to defend 5766 years, not "something less
than millions of years".

>There is another issue that Rav Avigdor Miller brings up. The dating methods
>all assume certain parent-daughter ratios for their calculations but they
>have no proof that these ratios existed at the beginning of time. Just as
>Hashem created a fully mature world with advanced biological processes
>already in place, he may very well have created elements with partial ratios
>of various isotopes for whatever reason. Thus, you cannot prove an ancient
>universe using these methods.

Of course. In fact this logic dismisses every conceivable scientific
and historical argument. It says that no amount of study of the world
can let us know anything, because everything may have been created in
a particular form. It's such a powerful argument that I don't know why
you try to address the scientific side at all.

>A third point is the flood. The Malbim states that in addition to the
>enormous pressure that existed from the inundation of the earth, there was
>also tremendous heat. He uses this to demonstrate the inaccuracies of
>geological dating but in addition, it can easily be used to understand how
>parent-daughter ratios are entirely inaccurate. 

Surely the Malbim would not have thought that "tremendous heat" could
cause carbon14 to decay more rapidly. I don't think anyone would even
contemplate that, say, a buried tree trunk with no signs of heat damage
had been exposed to such heat. Furthermore, the point is that you
are defending a literal age of 5766 years. Do you suggest that carbon
dating is so inaccurate that it cannot distinguish between 50,000 and
5,000 years?

>The Christians are big on
>this and do an admirable job proving what affects the flood would have on
>dating methods.

Christians are not obliged to be an "am chachom v'navon".

jds

On December 16, 2005, Harry Maryles wrote:
> That the world looks old is of necessity based on a masoretic
> perspective. If one relies on the mainstream Mesorah only approach, which
> is narrowly defined by RSC and those with his Hashkafos which discards all
> "contrary to the mainstream" Rishonim backed explanations of evidence
> af an ancient universe, than the only way one is permitted to look at
> those "proofs" is to simply wipe them away as wrong interpretations of
> perceptions .

You know, I'm getting really tired of people claiming that Rishonim
provide evidence of an ancient universe. They don't! I hereby challenge
you to supply me with Rishonim that maintain that the universe is
ancient. If you win, I will donate $500 to a tzedaka in Chicago of
your choice. If I win, you must donate $250 to a tzedaka in Toronto
of my choice. That's two to one odds! Agreed? You need only find the
minimum implied in your term Rishonim (2, although you won't even find
one). If you do not feel up to this challenge, the least you can do is
stop misquoting Rishonim. (BTY, RYdmA as RAK understands him is out. Your
source must be unambiguous.)

> Punctuated equilibrium which is supported by the evolutionary component
> of "sudden mutations" that Darwin introduced us to, is a rational
> attempt... a Svarah... to deal with new scientific data that contradicts
> a formerly held theory based on earlier, incomplete data. Gould was an
> atheist. But that doesn't matter. He looked at the fossil record and
> determined that because of the gaps between changes in the species,
> evolution could not have been gradual as was originally postulated by
> Darwin and was probably wrong.

> As I have been saying all along. Science if nothing else is not
> sacred. The minute something comes along to disprove a scientifically
> previously determined "fact", it is disacrded.

But you've just proved the opposite! If Gould understood that the lack
of fossil evidence was indicative of creation, why did he hold on to
the theory with all his might? In fact, the opponents of Gould (Dawkins
and his bedfellows) understood precisely the implication of Gould's
conclusions and decried his theories as destroying evolution. Yet Gould
went on to propose a theory that was even more insane then the first.

The truth is, most evolutionists will NOT admit to you that evolution
was not gradual. Mainstream Neo-Darwinism is built on gradual descent
with modification via selection. This hasn't changed for 65 years now
and it's not going to any time soon. They will never relinquish their
theories until they have found another paradigm, another closed system
within which to perpetuate their dogmatic approach to the origins of life
science. So far, this one serves them fine. You know what I say? Kishem
she'ein mamash b'zeh, kach ein mamash b'zeh....

Don't forget our wager...

[Email #2. -mi]

On December 15, 2005, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> In  Avodah V16 #60 dated 12/15/2005 [R' Simcha Coffer]:
>> I ran a search in Tanach and the word yamim appears 292 times. There
>> are two connotations: 1) Days 2) Seas...
...
>     Karev yom, karev yom asher hu lo yom velo layla
>     Karev yom, karev yom asher hu lo yom velo layla
...

Why do women always think they're better than men?

The song doesn't appear in tanach although it does refer to a pasuk in
tanach. However, the pasuk is also referring to a regular day there so
no points scored for the songstress.

> BTW is there not a difference of opinion as to whether the world
> was created in Tishrei or in Nisan? So leaving aside the dispute
> about the length of a day, there would seem to be a Chazalic dispute
> about how long exactly it has been since Maaseh Bereishis -- give or
> take six months. Our calendar is um not the product of an absolutely
> uninterrupted masores going all the way back 5766 years it would seem.

Good kasha. You were michavin to a long sugya in Rosh Hashana with all
kinds of complicated kiddush hachodesh calculations. I don't mind going
through the whole sugya on Avodah including the inyan of baharad but I
believe it's already been discussed. If I see that the thread picks up,
I'll post bl'n. BTY, if you want to hold that the universe is 5766 years
and six months, I will personally absolve you from kefira. Deal? (I have
an in with the" Gedolim")

Simcha Coffer

> Certainly it's no worse than Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium"
> which is a fancy way of saying that the actual fossil evidence supports
> creation rather than evolution. It's a phrase that allows atheists to look
> at the strong evidence for design and still maintain their equanimity,
> and thus it serves for atheists the same purpose that "perfect faked
> history" serves for believers.

Gould's theory is a scientific satement and not an excuse for G-d.
As far as I know Gould himself does not believe in religion. In fact
"punctuated equilibrium" has no direct connection to design. What the
theory advocates is that evolution (over billions of years) worked
in jumps rather than smoothly and randomly. Thus, the dinosaurs were
replaced by mammals not because of some random changes in genes but
because of some external event like a meteor or a volvano or earthquake
etc. Of course one could imput these occurences to a outside creator
but that is not part of the theory.

kol tuv
--
Eli Turkel

at the end of parshat vayislach Rashi identifies Magdiel as Rome. Hence,
Rome is a physical descendant of Esav. However, Esau is semitic while
the Romans would be a Yeffite (sp?) people.

Does anyone know the origin of the identification of Edom with Rome?
Later commentaries go further and identify Edom with Xtiantity. This
would clearly be a cultural or behavior association and not a ethnic or
biological connection.

--
Eli Turkel

2 related questions on the definition of shogeg

1. A person eats meat based on a very reliable hasgacha and then finds
out it is definitely treif. Does he need to bring a korban chatat? (I
am aware of the gemarot in Horayot please give more detailed source)

2. Someone marries an agunah that believes her husband died and later
the first husband shows up.
If she got the permission of the bet din she still needs to leave the
second husband and she has lived in sin be-shogeg.
Without asking bet din it still seems to be shogeg.
If so what did Chazal accomplish with their gezera - i.e. difference
does it make if she asks bet din or not?

A similar question seems to exist with many other gezerot. It is good
advice but if it turns out wrong relying on the heter of chazal does
not seem to remove the level of shogeg (or does it?)

kol tuv
--
Eli Turkel

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> On December 12, 2005, David Riceman wrote:
>> Does anyone know the date and place of composition?

> The title page in my copy (I have the one with the perush of R' Yitzchok
> Eizik Chaver, a talmid of a talmid of the Gra) says "Maseches Atzilus -
> v'hu brahysa b'chochmas hakabala l'chachamim kadmonim bizman Dovid
> haMelech a"h"

Pseudepigraphy is rampant in the Middle Ages. E.g, assigning the Zohar to
Rashb"i. Regardless of an ancient core, the total book cannot be earlier
than the late 1200s - v. Emden, Mitpachat Sefarim, and lehavdil Scholem.

At any rate, the Masechet Atzilut seems widely attributed to Jacob the
Nazir of Lunel, early 12th century in Provence.

It is apparently the earliest work to lay out the basic structure of
what is officially called Kabbalah - the 10 sefirot qua channels of
Divine emnations, and four worlds in which the sefirot operate. Yes,
all other Jewish mysticism except for Maimonidean (Heichalot, Merkavah,
Maaseh Bereshit, Hasidut Ashkenaz, letter/number mysticism au Yetzirah)
have been lumped under Kabbalah, but the real structure that led to the
Zohar and Ari's systems stemmed from this short work.

It can be found in Eisenstein's Otzar Hamidrashim, and was recently
reprinted, with some commentaries, with R' Meir Poppers' Ilan Hagodol.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On December 16, 2005, Akiva Miller wrote:

> It is difficult for me to view Nach in that light, to see it as something
> which had any sort of reality for that generation. But I suppose it
> must have been so, for we do see that it is not only an exception to
> this d'Oraisa (that avodah zaras named in Nach are an exception to the
> d'Oraisa against uttering the name of an avodah zara), but Nach is itself
> an exception to the d'Oraisa against publishing Torah Sheb'al Peh.

Don't think of it in terms of nach which didn't exist yet. Think of it in
terms of what nach represents which is the spoken word of Hasem to a navi
with an understanding by the navi, or future neveim, that Hashem wants those
particular words to be written down just like Toras Moshe. At the time,
there was actually no hochacha that there was ever going to be a nach.
Chazal say that if klal Yisrael hadn't sinned, they would only have had
Chamisha Chumshey Torah and Yehoshua. What Hashem was telling Moshe was that
in the future, if He would ever communicate with another navi and command
him to write down the nevua lidoros, it would have the same din as Toras
Moshe. Hashem communicated with millions of neveim. Our nation was
incredibly great. But very few were zocheh to have their nevuos immortalized
for all eternity. Any nevua that did have this zechus adopted the same din
as Toras Moshe regarding the AZ thing. 

> Can anyone offer a third example to this category? Is there any other
> case where Nach has such a strong relevance to a halacha d'Oraisa?

The details of kinyan sudar (chalipin) are learned from sefer Rus.

Simcha Cofffer

A question an infrequent calendar poster to these forums asked me last
night: Has anyone compared the logical axioms of Torah logic to those
of normative Western logic? For example, in Western logic, the following
is an axiom (or law):

A is true implies NOT(A) is false, and A is false implies NOT(A) is true.
Meaning, both A and NOT(A) cannot be true at the same time.

According to some shittas (RTK mentioned a shitta where the following
is not true), Torah logic does not contain that axiom. As an aside,
neither does Quantum Mechanics.

The laws of logic can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_logic

Is there a way to decide which apply and which don't apply to Torah
logic? Do we have others (HKBH said so --> true)? Do we have special
names for some of them (KvC, hekesh)?

I wrote:
> The Be'er Hagola on SA at one point, in addition to pointing out the
> source of the SA, makes a rather long comment. When the SA says one may
> not deceive or cheat a non-Jew, the Be'er Hagola elaborates, explaining
> how fundamental and important this prohibition is. The TT quotes this BH,
> and notes that this comment is remarkable in light of the BH's personal
> history. The BH lived at a time when the Jews were cruelly persecuted
> by non-Jews, and the BH suffered bitterly on a personal level from this
> persecution. The fact that the BH made the comment he did shows his
> extraordinary nobility of character. Where does the TT make this comment?

I found it. It's on Vayikra 25:14, TT ot 83. The BH is on ChM 348:1.

Saul Mashbaum

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On December 16, 2005, Harry Maryles wrote:
>> That the world looks old is of necessity based on a masoretic
>> perspective. If one relies on the mainstream Mesorah only approach, which
>> is narrowly defined by RSC and those with his Hashkafos which discards all
>> "contrary to the mainstream" Rishonim backed explanations of evidence
>> af an ancient universe, than the only way one is permitted to look at
>> those "proofs" is to simply wipe them away as wrong interpretations of
>> perceptions .

> You know, I'm getting really tired of people claiming that Rishonim
> provide evidence of an ancient universe. They don't!

I didn't say that. I said that evidence that we have TODAY.
Interpreting Rishonim like RYdmA as RAK understands him ...ALLOW...
us to evalute such evindence without simply discarding it as automatically
wrong. Furthermore, the Rishonim did not have the techniques we use today
to determine age so they didn't have to deal with it. Gedolei Hachronim
like the Tifferes Yisroel on the other hand DID encounter such evidence in
his day and therefore most definitely treated such data with the respect
it deserves. In fact he used such data to enhance his Emunas HaShem.

>> Punctuated equilibrium which is supported by the evolutionary component
>> of "sudden mutations" that Darwin introduced us to, is a rational
>> attempt... a Svarah... to deal with new scientific data that contradicts
>> a formerly held theory...

> But you've just proved the opposite! If Gould understood that the lack
> of fossil evidence was indicative of creation, why did he hold on to
> the theory with all his might? 

I never said that Gould accepted Creation. He was an avowed atheist.
I said he had a Kasha on Darwin and came up with his own Teretz.

HM

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


[ 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         ]