Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 067

Monday, December 19 2005

• RE: Plato (was Rambam on reinterpreting ma'aseh breshit)
• Re: Plato (was Rambam on reinterpreting ma'aseh breshit)
• Massechet Atziluth
• FW: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Re: Learning on Nittel Nach
• RE: Length of Maaseh Breshis has no impact on halacha
• Edom=Rome
• Gould
• RE: Plato (was Rambam on reinterpreting ma'aseh breshit)
• Re: Plato (was Rambam on reinterpreting ma'aseh breshit)
• Re: chanukah and independence
• Re: hokhmah ba-goyim

On December 19, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 10:17:00AM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
> :                                               In perek 13, the Rambam
> : ...                               So far so good; this is unapologetic
> : Platonic kadmus. But then the Rambam contradicts himself. He goes on
> : and says as follows: "And they [these philosophers] do not claim that
> : this substance possesses the same level of reality as Hashem but rather
> : He is the cause of its existence and it is, for example, like material
> : in the hands of a craftsman..." This seems to negate the idea of kadmus
> : in Plato's words, especially the "cause of its existence" line in the
> : Rambam. I have never had a satisfactory answer for this question.

> As others tried explaining, we're talking about G-d as necessary and
> sufficient cause, i.e. logically prior, the reason for other things'
> existences. As the reason need not be a physical process, logically
> prior doesn't have to mean chronologically before.

And I already responded that kadmus implies absolute precedence,
logically or otherwise precisely as it is used with the Creator. The
Rambam doesn't say that he is assigning two different interpretations
of kadmus to the Creator and to the hiyuli respectively. There is only
one musag of kadmus and it applies equally to both.

Also, if the Creator is logically an antecedent to the hiyuli, how can
the Rambam classify them as co-dependent?

Also, and from the flip side of the coin, if it is only a logical
priority, why is the Creator considered the cause of the hiyuli's
*existence*?

Also, why is the Creator considered *ontologically* superior to the
*hiyuli*?

Simcha Coffer  

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:30:28PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
: And I already responded that kadmus implies absolute precedence, logically
: or otherwise precisely as it is used with the Creator. The Rambam doesn't
: say that he is assigning two different interpretations of kadmus to the
: Creator and to the hiyuli respectively...

The Rambam doesn't even use the word qadmus. First let's see the Arabic...

But assuming he does use the same word, I presume he means logical
predence for both. Just as he writes about his own shitah in Hil'
Yesodei haTorah 1:5.

: Also, if the Creator is logically an antecedent to the hiyuli, how can the
: Rambam classify them as co-dependent? 

He doesn't say that Plato considers them co-dependent. Created things
are dependent on G-d, and since G-d is sufficient Cause, He would not
exist without them. If touching a flame is sufficient cause for getting
burned, then one can never touch the flame without getting burned. It
doesn't change the fact that the injury is dependent on the touching,
not the other way around. The 2nd half isn't a dependency.

And that's why G-d is ontologically superior, even according to Plato.
We exist because of Him, he doesn't exist because of us.

-mi

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

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> On December 17, 2005, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>> 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.

> R' Yaakov Emden was a daas Yachid until the intellectuals of the
> 19th century arose and frankly, their shittos are highly suspect in
> my eyes. R' Yitzchak d'min Ako also initially thought that the Zohar
> was pseudepigraphic until he personally interviewed the widow of R'
> M de Leon and verified its authenticity. The Zohar was obviously not

You haven't read the account of R' Yitzchak d'min Acco, have you? If you
had, you would know that the widow tells R' Yitzchak point blank that
there was no original manuscript - her husband made it up. It's one of
the primary sources for late authorship of the Zohar. R' Yitzchak seems
not to have believed her, though.

> redacted by RSBY because there are opinions found therein by tanaim that
> post-date his death. However, the sefer in general is a compendium of

There are also drashot such as comparing a beit knesset to an "esh noga",
where a) shin was pronounced 's' in Spain and France, and b) "esnoga"
is Ladino for "shul", contracted from Spanish "sinagoga".

>> 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.

> Your suggestion is not shared by many people. The Gra claims that the

No, of course it's not, since a) not many people care about the Zohar,
as Jews are a pretty tiny minority in this world, and b) of those, few
care about scholarly accuracy - they prefer to deal with the Zohar as
if it were a unitary text.

> earliest kabbalistic work associated with Zohar and kisveey arizal was

"zohar and kisvey arizal" itself is a revealing glimpse of a cavalier
attitude towards literary history. Need I remind you that the Arizal
postdates the Zohar by about 200-250 years?

> actually Safra dtz'niusa and subsequently other components of the Zohar
> unfolded over time as a pirush on the original SD. And BTY, medrasho
> shel R' Nechunya ben hakaana (sefer haBahair) was earlier than Zohar
> and so was Sefer Yeetzira which is even quoted in the Gemara.

Bahir certainly predates 1290, and Sefer Yetzirah is probably Tannaitic,
but note: a) Yetzirah is not "quoted" in the Gemara, merely "referenced";
and b) Yetzirah does not talk about the sefirot as Divine emanations,
as channels through which Divine influence (shefa) flows down to, and
controls, the world. It talks about the sefirot as numbers, or in R'
Aryeh Kaplan's view, as dimensions of a 5-dimensional universe.

Most scholars would agree with you that Sifra ditzeniusa and the Idrot
are earlier than the "guf haZohar", while the Raya Mehemna is later, IIRC.

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

> Don't forget R' Yitchak Eizik Chaver's excellent pirush on this sefer.

That's in the latter reprint.

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

On December 17, 2005, areivim@slatermold.com wrote:
> 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 it's a statement Rabbi Miller would be proud. In fact, Rabbi
Miller authored several publicly distributed books lambasting scientists
in the field of evolution. He obviously felt no compunctions about
sharing his views with others. Anyone who is turned off by statements
like these is not the person I am addressing my comments to anyway. This
type person would never pick up a copy of Rejoice O Youth because he is
too convinced of the infallibility of scientists. Thus, I can't allow
what he thinks of Rabbi Miller to impede progress in this subject.

>>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?

Not in the communication we were having. RMB wanted to demonstrate
billions of years like Schroeder, not tens of thousands. As far as
your 5766 issue, this was treated by my comment re: parent daughter
relationships.

>>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".

It seems you may not have read my post in response to RMB yet. I mentioned
dating methods such as Potassium Argon and invoked the parent daughter
thing to explain them.

>>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.

I also responded to this in my post. I differentiated between certain types
of science that would require treatmewnt depite the arguemet from a mature
world such as fossil evidence, geological evidence, dendrochronology ice
cores etc.

>>A third point is the flood... 

> Surely the Malbim would not have thought that "tremendous heat" could
> cause carbon14 to decay more rapidly...

I was chozer in my response from this point. 

>>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".

And yet they are making such wonderful strides. Can you imagine how
great is our chiyuv?

Simcha Coffer

there's an audio shiur by iirc R' D Feldman available on www.yutorah.edu

kt
joel rich

On December 18, 2005, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Where is it stated that one must believe that the world is less than
> 6000 years old? 

The source is Chumash. You say it every Friday night. What are you
thinking in your mind when you say "yom hashsishi..."? Also, the asseres
haDibros states, ki sheyshes yamim assa Hashem..." Ein mikra yotzey
miday pishuto unless you have a very compelling reason to do so. The
literalists (like myself and Jonathan) believe there is insufficient
evidence to reinterpret the pesukim (there's more to it than that
but I'm presenting one argument). The non-literalists disagree. The
literalists claim there are Chazal and Rishonim backing their shittos
whereas the non-literalists claim that much of what I would refer to as
source material is distorted. There is a ton posted on this issue on
Avodah and besides RMB wants to tone down this subject so if you want
more info I suggest you read the posts. Hafoch ba vahafoch ba dikula
ba. The only way to reach a proper conclusion in this issue is with
tenacity and frankly, I would personally like to hear your take on this
issue. Perhaps a new topic for Daas Torah 2?

Simcha Coffer   

Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
>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.

I've seen a number of "explanations", amongst which was that the Roman
use of argaman led to them being identified as Edom. Argaman = red =
Esav = Edom, what else did you want to know. This does not satisfy me.

I think that the reason is simply that the Romans initially ruled
Judea through the dynasty of Antipater, the father of Herod. Antipater
was Idumean - that is, genuine Biblical Edom. Since Rome ruled via an
Edomite king they became conceptually incorporated within Edom. Edom is
significant in Jewish thought, and Rome wasn't, so it's more meaningful
to talk about Rome as being Edom than it is to talk about it being some
little tribe that absorbed who knows how many other groups before rising
to power.

Alternatively, I can make some sort of historical argument for the link.
The problem is that Rome is in Italy, while Edom was south of Israel.
How do we reconcile these locations? Let's be quite clear that we are not
talking about a literal migration; the Romans were not an ethnic group
as such. This is going to be a search for a conceptual link between Rome
and Edom.

The earliest history of Rome is confusing, as one would expect, but in
their historical mythology there's a link with the Dardanelles, which are
in Turkey: King Tros of Dardania had two sons. One of these sons founded
Ilium (Troy) and the other one was the great-grandfather of Aeneas who
was a hero of the Trojan war. After Troy was lost Aeneas travelled to
Italy and allied with the King Latinus of Latium. He founded a long line
of kings, the daughter of one of which gave birth to twins: Romulus and
Remus. Romulus was the founder of Rome. This connection meant something
to the Romans, who were very big on their glorious connection with Troy.

OK, so we have brought Rome across the Mediterranean and halfway to
Edom. Do we need to bring it any further? Turkey is within spitting
distance of Avraham's birthplace, the ur-iginal home of both Esov/Edom and
Yaakov/Yisroel. The Roman identification with Troy is based on a single
individual. There's no way we can tell whether there was a similar link
between Esov's descendents and the founders of Troy.

jds

> The fossil record shows long periods of equilibrium -- that is, the
> species remain static and do not change at all -- punctuated by sudden
> rapid change, actually by the sudden appearance of a whole new set
> of flora and fauna which appear to have sprung into place suddenly,
> with no gradual or even rapid development at all.

> He has no theory as to how this could happen. Yeah, yeah, sudden
> climate change or an asteroid put pressure on the population, yada yada,
> but this is just a magical "just so" story with no scientific, genetic
> backing at all.

If you read what Gould has written you will see that he is a pretty
Orthodox Darwinist. His theory involves rapid change occuring in small
populations. The rapid change only relative to the long period of stasis
and is on a geological timescale; it still takes thousands of years.
Fossilisation is a rare event and if populations are small few fossils
will be seen in the fossil record. It makes sense that evolution will
occur more rapidly in smaller populations since they will have less
inertia to genetic change. The KT boundary is rathee more than 'yada
yada'. You might not like the theory but don't misrepresent it

Alan Rubin

On December 19, 2005, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 03:30:28PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
>: And I already responded that kadmus implies absolute precedence, logically
>: or otherwise precisely as it is used with the Creator. The Rambam doesn't
>: say that he is assigning two different interpretations of kadmus to the
>: Creator and to the hiyuli respectively...

> The Rambam doesn't even use the word qadmus. First let's see the Arabic...

I'm going to have to assume that Kapach and Ibn Tibbin both knew
Arabic. In Kapach's edition it states (regarding the hiyuli) "chomer
mesuyam matztuy kadmon kikadmus haEloka" which literally translated
means "a specific substance which exists, eternal like the eternity of
the deity".

> But assuming he does use the same word, I presume he means logical
> predence for both. Just as he writes about his own shitah in Hil'
> Yesodei haTorah 1:5.

Your assumption is incorrect. He writes (Kapach edition) "v'einam svurim
she'hu bidargaso yisaleh bimitzius, ela hu sibas mitziyuso" which
translated means "and they (Plato and his followers) do not maintain
that it (the substance) is in the same ontological classification as
the Creator, [may his name be] elevated, rather He is the cause of
its existence"

If he was merely referring to logical precedence, he had no business
stating that the Creator is the cause of the hiyuli's *existence*.

>: Also, if the Creator is logically an antecedent to the hiyuli, how can the
>: Rambam classify them as co-dependent?

> He doesn't say that Plato considers them co-dependent.

I'm sorry but he does. "eino nimtza biladav v'gam hu eino nimtza bil'adav"
which translated means "and it (the substance) does not exist without
Him and He does not exist without it" i.e. co-dependency.

> Created things
> are dependent on G-d, and since G-d is sufficient Cause, He would not
> exist without them.

I don't think the above sentence came out the way you meant it to, right?

> And that's why G-d is ontologically superior, even according to Plato.
> We exist because of Him, he doesn't exist because of us.

I wish the Rambam presented things this way. Unfortunately, as I quoted
above, this issue is full of apparent contradictions in the Rambam
although intuitively I agree that the Rambam indeed maintains your above
sentence in Plato's shita.

Simcha Coffer

The philosophical problem with Plato's position is that he considers
time to be outside the system. If we make time itself an emanation,
there is no one-to-one with the duration of the Source and the duration
of any of His creations.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 07:26:12PM -0500, S & R Coffer wrote:
:> But assuming he does use the same word, I presume he means logical
:> predence for both. Just as he writes about his own shitah in Hil'
:> Yesodei haTorah 1:5.

: Your assumption is incorrect. He writes (Kapach edition) "v'einam svurim
: she'hu bidargaso yisaleh bimitzius, ela hu sibas mitziyuso"...

: If he was merely referring to logical precedence, he had no business
: stating that the Creator is the cause of the hiyuli's *existence*.

Why not? You repeatedly make statements that seem to identify logical
and temporal sequencing, and I can't tell why

:>: Also, if the Creator is logically an antecedent to the hiyuli, how can the
:>: Rambam classify them as co-dependent?
:> He doesn't say that Plato considers them co-dependent.

: I'm sorry but he does. "eino nimtza biladav v'gam hu eino nimtza bil'adav"
: which translated means "and it (the substance) does not exist without
: Him and He does not exist without it" i.e. co-dependency.

As I wrote before:
    "Eino nimtza biladav" -- because Hashem is their necessary cause;
    "Hu eino nimtza bil'adeihem" -- because He is sufficient cause.

Emanation is inherently not co-dependent. Or do you think the Rambam
gave Plato a peshat that is at odds with his famous cave metaphor?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
micha@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

[RnTK:]
> Independence lasted a pathetically short time and pretty soon the Jews
> were under the thumb of Greeks again, and then Romans.   So the real miracle
> was not the military or political victory but the spiritual victory of
> Judaism over Hellenism, an eternal miracle unlike the short-lived victory of
> the Chashmonaim.

First the rabbi was not downplaying the spitiual side. Second it is
the medrash that distinguishes between the first bet hamikdash that was
ohalei shem and the second bet hamikdash which was oholei yeffet

Chanukah Sameach,
Eli Turkel

5 1/2 years ago <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n092.shtml#13>,
Yisrael Dubitsky asked:
>Megilat Eikhah (2:9) says "...malkah ve-sarehah va-goyim ein torah...",
>upon which Eikhah Rabbah comments "... yesh .hokhmah ba-goyim
>ta'amen...yesh Torah ba-goyim al ta'amen" and Devarim Rabbah
>(Nitzavim) says likewise "...she-yesh giborim ba-umot ha-`olam
>ha'aminu, she- yesh `ashirim ba-umot ha-`olam ha'aminu, she-yesh
>Torah ba-goyim al ta'aminu."

>To what extent is this midrash understood normatively? In other words,
>halakhah le-ma`aseh, what are the parameters (and halakhot involved) of
>understanding Torah (text) and Torah- concepts (mesorah?) from a .hakham
>me-`umot ha-`olam? I am, of course, referring to one whose .hokhmah, that
>is, training, education and "specialty" *is* in Torah (read, if you wish:
>academic Jewish studies). Obviously, not just anybody's opinion need be
>considered but if, indeed, .hokhmah va-goyim ta'amen, why *not* accept
>the .hakham's ".hidushim"? There are, after all, many cases (I can think
>of a few) where gedole Yisrael *have* accepted Torah explanations from
>goyim...

Baruch Hashem, I saw that R. Hershel Schachter indirectly
answers this question in last week's TorahWeb devar Torah
<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2005/parsha/rsch_vayishlach.html>:

"But at the same time the religious Jew has his own unique outlook on
life and style of living. The tradition of the Talmud was, based on the
possuk in Eicha (2:9), that although there is much chochma (knowledge
and wisdom) to be gained from the secular world, but 'Torah' (teaching
a way of life and an outlook on the world) can not be picked up from
the other disciplines. These can only be acquired through the revealed
truths of the Torah."

He understands "Torah" to mean a way of life and not insights into
Torah texts. While this is all part of a derashah rather than a pesak,
I don't know that it is out of place to take this seriously considering
that the source of the statement is itself a midrash.

Would RH Schachter jump at the opportunity to hear non-Jewish scholars
teaching Torah? Probably not. But he might not object to a good peshat he
hears that happens to originate in a non-Jewish source (as, for example,
the Abarbanel does often in his commentary to Tanach).

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

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


[ 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         ]