Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 157

Wednesday, March 15 2006

• Toras Purim 5766: Purim and Carmel
• Amalek
• Re: Simple Mishloach Manos
• mechiyat amalek
• Re: Megilla reading
• Feeding trapped mice
• machine matzohs: Reasons for...
• Gonorrhea and zav
• jewish identification
• Re: Simple Mishloach Manos
• RE: Simple Mishloach Manos
• RE: jewish identification
• RE: machine matzohs: Reasons for...
• Purim and Carmel Cont'd
• Re: Amalek
• Re: Simple Mishloach Manos
• RE: Chazal, science, and halacha

[Take 2. -mi]

Purim and Carmel

So Haman was vanquished by the Korban HaOmer (Esther Rabbah 10:4).
Concerning which it states (Vayikra 2:14): Carmel.

Carmel and Amalek appear in many juxtapositions:

   1. Right after the war against Amalek, Shaul goes to Carmel (Shmuel
      I 15:12).
   2. Avigail from Carmel figures prominently in Dovid's Amalekite wars
      (ibid. 27:3,30:5).
   3. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 13:3) has both Amalek and Carmel as
      Gei'us Adam.
   4. The Shem MiShmuel (Vayikra-Zachor 5670) makes a connection,
      but it does not seem to cover the many more connections we have
      seen and will see.
   5. An amazing Tikunei Zohar (134b) has the tree (the Ilan HaKadosh),
      rooted in the Ein Sof, its head as "Carmel," completely green,
      as an esrog -- and Esther was "green" [Megillah 13a] from there!
   6. The Midrash (Eichah Rabbah, Hakdamah 4:4) links the sin of Adam,
      that alludes to Haman ["Hamin ha'eitz" -- Chullin 139b), to the
      sin of Eretz HaCarmel.
   7. In several places in the Megillah (Esther 4:11, 5:4, 8:5, 8:11,
      9:13) of critical importance we have Sofei Teivos "Carmel."
   8. Esther identifies Haman (Esther 7:7) as Ish Tzar -- Tzar is Carmel
      in gematria.

It says it Seforim that Amalek is the aspect and gematria of Safek
(see Mavo L'Chochmas Ha"Kabbalah I 4:4) -- but a special kind of safek,
the one in which one finds an even balance between two sides, a kind of
mizug, a blend, of tov v'ra, good and evil. This was the cheit of Carmel
(Melachim 1 18:21).

This bechinah of Amalek is such from the beginning: A ta'aroves, mixture,
of tov v'ra, ohr v'choshech mishtamshim b'irbuviah: Esav's head is
buried in the Me'aras HaMachpelah because, says the Arizal, there was
kedushah in it (that's how he explains ki tzayid b'piv -- it was a "real"
deception, because his mouth was holy). Elifaz comes to kill Ya'akov Avinu
to fulfill the "mitzvah" of Kibbud Av -- but is persuaded to "forgo" the
deed. Timna comes to be davek in Avrohom Avinu -- yet ends up satisfied
with an Elifaz! Haman himself wanted to hang Mordechai on a 50 amah tree,
yet he aspired to the 50^th gate of Binah (see Ohr Chadash p. 174 and
Pri Tzaddik, Purim #2). And that is the Chazir of Esav, who extends his
split hooves and asserts he is tahor (see Machashavos Charutz #14). And
Ein tocho k'baro is in gematria Ish tzar v'oyev Haman.

The Avodah of Purim is the avodah of bringing everything back to its
source -- in the greenery of the tree, via Hadassah, back to the Ein
Sof. And to know Hashem hu ha'Elokim. And thus, Carmel means that the
cushion -- the car -- is malei -- filled -- not hollow -- because Hashem
is within.

V'yesh l'ha'arich.

AFP!
YGB

"See Taz 685:2 near the end, is mashma that the oleh should be moitze
everyone in the brochos. So there is your brocho."

Good answer; but you better have an oleh who is a yodea sefer.

> He also mentioned the 4 degrees of listening, that RSZA taught him: ...
> 3. He's following word for word, turning the pages correctly, but not
>  concentrating on the story. Yotze be'dieved.
> 4. He's concentrating on the plot - living the megillah: Fulfilled
> the mitzva as it was intended.
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8


In former times it was quite common, and even today not uncommon, that
many people -- especially the women -- did not understand the words of
the Megilla. They were/are yotzei by following along anyway.

If here and there you come across a word that if you thought about it you
would have to admit you don't know what word is -- you're still yotzei.
Or are you?

"Chur karpas utecheles" come to mind. What is "chur"? Indeed, what
is karpas? All the other things mentioned seem to be luxurious things
like purple fabric and gold etc but carpas? Celery? Hanging from
the chandeliers? And achuz bechavlei vutz? Tied with ropes of --
what in the world is butz anyway?
And what about the partamim and the achasdarpanim and the pachos (that
one must be something like "pasha" in India?) and the achashteranim who
are sons of the ramachim?

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

Over the last 2 weeks I was in 2 shuls in which the rabbi tried to explain
mechiyat amalek. One essentially re-explained it as Amalek stands for
imagination (dimyon) and how it can be used for good or bad. The other
rabbi showed that at times one is required to be un-merciful with stories
how letting someone go eventually came back to haunt.

Neither one explained the requirement laharog taf ve-nashim and in the
story of Shaul even to kill the animals.

--
Eli Turkel

> Megilla reading:
> Besides for a long list of common errors, he discussed at length what
> is preferable: Saying the 10 sons of Homon in 1 breath, or actually
> reading them word-for-word inside.
> 
> Keeping in mind that the latter would require *reading* the "Es"
> belonging to the son in question (across a huge blank-space) the issue
> is non-trivial (and the options nearly mutually exclusive).

Sorry, I don't understand the problem. That's what pointers (or fingers)
are for, isn't it? Maybe I've got unusually capacious lungs, but I've
never had a problem reading all 10 sons, with trop, mitoch haksav, in
one breath. Especially since, after catching a quick breath and reading
"benei haman", I usually have at least a minute in which to return to
normal breathing.

But something else has suddenly occured to me. RSBA recently cited
several sources deprecating the custom of the audience reading the 10
sons for themselves (and other sources defending it). If it really
is a minhag shtut, how did it arise. Thinking about the mechanics of
how I read them, I realised that when I pause for the audience to read
them I am taking deep breaths to prepare for my own reading; perhaps
the minhag started when the reader paused to breathe deeply, and the
audience thought he must be pausing for them to read the next passuk,
as he had already done three times, so they did.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Using a spring-doored box, we caught a mouse 2 nights ago. However,
I didn't get around to disposing of it until last night.

Did I have a responsibility to feed it before I sat down to eat while
he was under my control?

 - Danny

From: "Akiva Atwood" <>
> To the best of my knowledge, very little is published to explain the
> reasons for those who preferred machine matzohsthe published literature
> is mostly about whether it is asur (Rav Shomo Kluger, Sho'el umeisheiv,
> Maharsham, R Yeshoshua Kutno, Avnei Nezer, Divrei Chayim etc.) and
> whether it qualifies as lishmah (Achiezer, Chesed L'Avroham, etc.).
> Do you know -- and more particularly have you seen published -- the
> reasons for those who preferred machine matzoh to hand?

I can't say that I have seen anything published on this.
But I do recall hearing from the late Nitra Rav zt'l that Rav Shimon Sofer
- the Erlau Rav, actually assered hand matzos in his kehilla. The NR added
that there were a few Sanzer einiklech who lived there [descendents of
the Divrei Chaim - who had famously 'assered' machine-matzos]. They went
to the Rav and told him that they are prepared to follow his ruling -
on condition that he takes upon himself any 'kepeide' of their zeide -
that may come of it.

The ER told them, in that case, they should take 6 well-done/burnt
hand-matzos for the sedarim - and eat potatoes the rest of YT.

It is also known that Rav Pinchas Epstein zt'l the Raavad of the Edah
Charedis used only machine-matzos.
It is said that he once visited the TA hand-matzoh bakery and was 
impressed with their systems and chumros.
He commented that it is almost as kosher as machine matzos..

Maybe your LOR can ask today's ER [grandson of RSS] for more info.

SBA 

Doing a bit of internet searching, it seems that many say that the disease
that a zav has is gonorrhea (see, e.g.,
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/metzora/nitzan.html) while some say that
it is not
(http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha/vayikra/26-61shemini.doc).  Can
someone provide an analysis of the issues involved?

Thanks.
Moshe

It is interesting in the Megilla that Haman did not Mordecai was
Jewish until told so. Esther was queen for 4 years before revealing to
Achashverosh that she was jewsih. Obviously Jews were not dostinguished
externally from the general culture

--
Eli Turkel

DS:
> He also mentioned the 4 degrees of listening, that RSZA taught him:
> ....3. He's following word for word, turning the pages correctly, but not
> concentrating on the story. Yotze be'dieved.
> 4. He's concentrating on the plot - living the megillah: Fulfilled the
> mitzva as it was intended.

RTK:
> In former times it was quite common, and even today not uncommon, that many
> people -- especially the women -- did not understand the words of the
> Megilla.  They were/are yotzei by following along anyway.

Of course! But there's economy class Yotze and business class Yotze.

> If here and there you come across a word that if you thought about it you
> would have to admit you don't know what word is -- you're still yotzei.  Or
> are you?

Interesting question. I guess the more meforshim you learnt about each
obscure word, the better you are being yotze.

 - Danny

> "Chur karpas utecheles" come to mind. What is "chur"? Indeed, what
> is karpas? All the other things mentioned seem to be luxurious things
> like purple fabric and gold etc but carpas? Celery? Hanging from
> the chandeliers? And achuz bechavlei vutz? Tied with ropes of --
> what in the world is butz anyway?
> And what about the partamim and the achasdarpanim and the pachos (that
> one must be something like "pasha" in India?) and the achashteranim who
> are sons of the ramachim?

What happened to good ole Rashi? He answers practically all of your
questions.

Chur karpas and ticheles are coloured fabrics. Chur is Aramaic and karpas
is taken from the language of Kadar (Ibn Ezra).

According to Ibn Ezra, butz is flax, or more properly, linen.
Rashi explains that these colourful materials were adorned with threads
of butz and argaman.

Partimim are overseers in Persian (Rashi)

Achashtiranim are a species of camel which travel very quickly (Rashi).
Obviously then, ramachim must also be a species of camel. Perhaps ramachim
were cross-bred with another species of camel and the resultant progeny
is referred to as achastiranim. (I wonder if RNS knows anything about
this). According to Ibn Ezra, ramachim means horses and achashtiranim
means mules.

Now, when it comes to achashdarpinim and pachos, compare the targum
with the targum of partimim and you will discover that they basically
mean the same thing. Achashdarpinei hamelech were the kings personal
overseers whereas the pachos were assigned to the various medinos
(v'hapachos asher al medina umedina)

I hope I was helpful.

A freilichin Purim!
Simcha Coffer

On March 13, 2006 Eli Turkel wrote:
> It is interesting in the Megilla that Haman did not Mordecai was
> Jewish until told so. Esther was queen for 4 years before revealing to
> Achashverosh that she was jewsih. Obviously Jews were not dostinguished
> externally from the general culture

This is, IMO, not correct. Haman said, "yeshno am echad mufuzar umiforad
bein ha'amim", we were a single nation liberally scattered throughout the
nations without any national cohesiveness and yet it was well known that
"daseyhem shonos mikol am". There can be no greater statement about the
nature of klal Yisrael then that. Haman was the last person who would
want to praise our nation. If he said that, you know it was true. The
reason Haman was unaware of Eshter's nationality is because Mordechai
planned it that way. If what you are saying is true about Mordechai,
I'm sure it was planned too.

Simcha Coffer

On March 13, 2006, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, very little is published to explain the
> reasons for those who preferred machine matzohsthe published literature
> is mostly about whether it is asur (Rav Shomo Kluger, Sho'el umeisheiv,
> Maharsham, R Yeshoshua Kutno, Avnei Nezer, Divrei Chayim etc.) and
> whether it qualifies as lishmah (Achiezer, Chesed L'Avroham, etc.).
> Do you know -- and more particularly have you seen published -- the
> reasons for those who preferred machine matzoh to hand?

Because the lisha is not done by hand and therefore there is less chashash
of chimutz. According to those who adhere to the chumra of eating only
machine matzos, the heat from one's hands contributes towards accelerating
the process of chimutz.

Simcha Coffer 

Should have used this too!

Charvona according to many opinions is Eliyahu HaNavi - which is why
zachur l'tov is mentioned by both (Yalkut Shimoni, Esther #1059; Ibn Ezra
[!!] Esther 7:9; Ohr Chadash, Maharal p. 194).

see my brother's video shiur on this at:
Mhttp://www.ravbechhofertorah.com/vid-choice.htm>

AFP,
YGB

Responding to the comment that
> If you made a b'rocho first, you already
> will have fulfilled remembering.

R' Arie Folger asked
> Then why not make the Berakhah the fulfilment,
> a la kiddush for Shabbat and 'Hag?

There's a big difference between these cases. The obligation of Kiddush
is simply to declare the holiness of the day in any manner. So Chazal
framed it in a bracha to be said on a cup of wine, etc etc.

RAF's suggestion is to make some sort of lengthy bracha which would
include a mention of Amalek. But Zachor (according to many, at least)
has to be said from a Sefer Torah, and I cannot imagine how that would
be included in the text of that bracha.

On the other hand, a similar question has been asked: Why we do not make a
birkas hamitzvah at the Seder, on the mitzvah of Sippur Yetzias Mitzrayim?

One answer is that we were already yotzay the Sippur when we said "zecher
liYetzias Mitzrayim" in Kiddush. (This answer is given on pg 26 of the
"Maayana Shel Torah" hagada, and might also be on pg 253 of The Book Of
Our Heritage vol 2.) According to this, Chazal could very well have made
a Birkas Hamitzvah on Zachor (even though it might have constituted a
fulfilment of Zachor) to be followed by the laining.

On the other hand, there are ways to say that we're *not* yotzay Sippur
Y"M with kiddush, in which case we need other answers to the Seder
question, but it is understandable why there's no bracha on Zachor.

Akiva Miller

> Achashtiranim are a species of camel which travel very quickly (Rashi).
> Obviously then, ramachim must also be a species of camel. Perhaps ramachim
> were cross-bred with another species of camel and the resultant progeny
> is referred to as achastiranim. (I wonder if RNS knows anything about
> this). According to Ibn Ezra, ramachim means horses and achashtiranim
> means mules.

That's more than Ravina knew! I think it's (Megillah 18a) -- "Atu anan
haAchashtiranim b'nei haRamachim mi yadinan??" And peirush rashi on that
does not explain that we have to know the words :)

On March 7, 2006, Shalom Kohn wrote:
> R' Simcha Coffer wrote:
>>I am merely suggesting that if we come across an aggadic saying which
>>employs scientific elements in its presentation that are ostensibly at
>>odds with reality, it can be chocked up to metaphor.

> If seemingly problematic aggadic statements can be cast as metaphor
> when they seem difficult, what is the basis for not concluding that
> (a) aggadic statements are meant as metaphor even if not seemingly
> problematic at the moment, so that we are no longer wedded to the
> literal correctness of any aggadic statement, but should treat it as
> metaphor generally;

The basis is a proper understanding of the system Chazal used in aggada. I
can supply you with some leads. The Rambam in pirush hamishnayos
states that if Chazal use a metaphor that is obviously outlandish,
it is obviously not meant literally. Although the Rambam's approach is
very much nikabel al ha'daas, it could possibly be problematic because
what is obvious to one may not be obvious to another and thus I tend to
quote the Ramchal in ma'amar al haHagaddos.

Ramchal states that there are two types of aggados; ethical and spiritual.
The ethical type, like those found in pirkey avos, are always literal.
However, the spiritual ones are not necessarily literal. Often-times
Chazal couched profound concepts in superficial raiment. Maharsha has the
same approach. Sometimes, states the Maharsha, the entire ma'amar Chazal
is entirely non-literal except for one small point they were trying to
illustrate. (I haven't seen this Maharsha in a while however, if memory
serves, it is in Berachos regarding the story of two people named Sasson
and Simcha...Maharsha says that the entire story is ludicrous and is
only retold in the gemmara to illustrate a point, IIRC)

Ramchal goes on to say that one must possess a key to unlock the true
meaning of these spiritual memros. Thus, IMO, one must adopt a Rebbi
in aggadita and cannot just simply allegorize at will. The first place
I look when studying aggadita is the Maharsha and Maharal who were the
princes of aggadita. I also look at the Rishonim and then I branch out to
some other acharonim such as the Gra. I also peruse kabbalistic seforim
and Chassidishe ones such as Tanya, Sfas emes and R' Tzadok. Ultimately,
after all my research, I end up in the same place; Rav Dessler. IMO, Rav
Dessler was the greatest explicator of aggadita in the past 100 years. His
talmidim stated that after hearing him speak on aggadita, it was simply
impossible to listen to anyone else. Well, there you have it...my take
on aggadita. My bottom line is that I would not presume to allegorize
any ma'amar Chazal unless I was absolutely certain that it was merely
a simile (such as a bird that laid an egg and crushed sixty cities).

> (b) even where chazal expressed scientific reasons
> for halachic conclusions -- e.g., the viability of fetuses -- we can treat
> their comments as either (i) an explanation whose apparent inconsistency
> with current understandings does not change the halacha;

This is Rav Dessler's approach as recoded by his talmid R' Aryeh Carmel,
as opposed to the derech of the Akeidas Yitzchok and others.

> or (ii) can be
> modified based on a concept of nishthaneh ha-tevah, applied thoughtfully.

The derech of countless rishonim as you well know.

> In that connection, a comment by R. Eli Turkel (I think) about violating
> shabbat to save what chazal determined would be a non-viable fetus was
> well taken. I would not want to say that we change halacha in regard to
> science, but rather that given the advances of medical science, immature
> fetuses can now survive, so chazal's takana to violate shabbat only for
> fetuses of a viable maturity requires saving the fetus if it can now live.

I don't remember RET saying that but I think your explanation is beautiful.

> (In other words, the halacha declares the rule given a particular umdina,
> so it is the umdina which changes and not the halacha.) To me, as a
> doctrinal matter, this is a very different proposition than the notion
> that insects used to generate spontaneously but no longer do so, etc.
> On that subject, I would conclude that if chazal concluded killing
> gnats on shabbat was not netilat neshama, that is halacha which remains
> applicable notwithstanding change in scientific understanding.

Rav Dessler concurs with you v'lav meetameich. He claims that Chazal were
not necessarily condoning the spontaneous generation aspect of it; rather
they were using current scientific paradigms to illustrate their point.
Ramchal states the same in ma'amar al haHagggados.

> R. Coffer also wrote:
>> As far as your claim that post-talmudical Rabbis have made statements
>> to support an old universe, I do not believe your contention to be true.

> Actually, my point was the reverse, that the post-Talmudical rabbis
> generally did not support the old universe theory,

If this is so, I challenge you to illustrate your position. I can advance
no less than ten sources, beginning from Chazal and down through the
Geonim and Rishonim, who all take MB literally, as in six 24 hour periods,
and begin counting the age of the universe from Adam's birth on the sixth
day. I'll wait for your response. Before you do, I strongly suggest you
read RZL's post of Sep. 9, 2004. It's an eye-opener (I sound like a broken
record but RZL is giving me 10% commission fees for promoting him...)

> but rather than their
> statements in that regard -- prior to the expansion of archeological and
> other evidence -- can be treated with the same allegorical brush as the
> statements of chazal which, per R. Coffer, "are ostensibly at odds with
> reality" and should therefore not be taken literally.

Rishonim are referred to as gidoley haPashtanim (see Nefesh haChaim in
the beginning). Unless a Rishon tells you that he may be indulging in
metaphor, he means what he says and says what he means.

> R. Coffer further wrote:
>> As a chosid of R' Avigdor Miller, I was taught to be aware of Hashem's
>> presence by observation and investigation (Bechina) into the 100's of
>> billions of phenomena that cover the earth. . . . What the Schroeder/
>> Aviezer/Slifkin approach does is to entirely destroy this construct.  Once
>> you say that evolution is responsible for the unfolding of life on earth,
>> although you may claim that Hashem is behind it, you have effectively
>> deconstructed the argument from design. . . . It is only if one sees an
>> omnipotent Creator who created the universe in a six day rapid succession
>> that the design argument has any meaning.

> Ay, there's the rub. If one's faith is dependant on a six day creation,
> obviously there is no room for accommodating any different construct.

Who mentioned dependency? Recognizing the presence of the Creator, which,
by the way, is the ultimate tachlis of our Torah uMitzvos as understood by
the Ramban, is only *one* of the ways of being aware of his presence. The
other two are a study of Torah and a study of history (i.e. the hanhagas
Hashem in the beriah). Nevertheless, a study of the beriah is the most
direct, and by far the most prolific, method of internalizing the presence
of the Creator (Chovos haLevavos). If one trains himself to be aware of
the Creator from the beriah, he is surrounded by a veritable cornucopia
of evidence on all sides. He/she can thus transform the olam (he'elem)
into a place of giluy, a revelation of Hashem's presence. On the other
hand, if one subscribes to the idea that the evolutionary paradigm is
equally valid as a means of describing the unfolding of the beriah,
one has effectively eliminated this method as a means of awareness. Any
design inference is a mere *imputation* by the observer because the
materialist can just as well claim that it is random, that the universe
displays no indication of design whatsoever.

> However, there is ample room to see Hashem's majesty and miracles even in
> a process of guided evolution, if indeed one seeks to rely on the argument
> by design.

I'm sorry but I do not see how this is possible. Even if you would
subscribe to the idea that there are gaps in the evolutionary chronology
which would have to be filled by a Creator, you would still be faced with
an equal amount of problems. Firstly, you are at odds with the commonly
accepted "academic" version of geochronology. Scientists understand the
theory such that it entirely eliminates the necessity of intervention
by an outside "force". What allows you to accept one aspect of their
theory whilst rejecting the other?

Second of all, who's to say that the gaps will not ultimately be filled?
This is Richard Dawkins' approach when it comes to subjects such as
origins. Why can it not be adopted in general? (*My* obvious response
to this argument would be that there is no real evidence to support the
evolutionary chronology)

Third of all (and as far as I'm concerned, the most important issue),
you have still eliminated, for the most part, the facility of "awareness
of a Creator" from an observation of the beriah. There is an inestimable
difference between a beriah which bespeaks the presence of a Creator in
all of its aspects as opposed to a beriah which is essentially silent
other than once every 1 or 2 million years or more (S.J. Gould pegs
evolutionary variety at this length of time and sometimes much longer).

Fourth of all (and we can argue on this), why would Hashem take millions
of years to accomplish something that He could just as easily have done
in a shorter period? This is not my kasha. The Mishna asks "vi'halo
b'ma'amar echad yachol li'hee'ba'rios". In other words, Hashem obviously
had a purpose for creation. The Mishna wants to know why he had to drag
it out over ten ma'amaros which took 6 days? Why not create everything
instantly? This kasha is compounded immeasurably if one holds that the
beriah unfolded slowly over 13.7 billion years. (The Mishna's answer
does not work for your paradigm.)

I have several more arguments against guided evolution but I will leave
it at this for now.

> But in truth, even the argument by design is but a hypothesis,
> and the scientific explanation of an evolutionary world emanating from
> a godless Big Bank is an alternative, equally plausible hypothesis.
> At the end of the day, emunah needs to be based on more than a choice
> among debatable hypotheses.

I couldn't agree more. But as you know, I don't feel that the conclusion
of design from an unbiased observation of creation is debateable. It is
as clear as the nose on your face and is the fundamental method by which
our father Avraham came to a conclusion of a Creator (see Medrash Rabba
beginning of parshas Lech Licha).

> In connection with these issues, I am reminded of the apikores who told
> the chasid, "I don't believe in G-d." Incredulous, the chasid responded,
> "How can you say that, the chumash clearly says 'Berishis barah elo-kim.'"
> With a smile, the apikores responded, "I've afraid you don't understand;
> I'm an apikores. I don't accept the chumash." "Oy, vey," said the
> chasid, "Don't accept the chumash! Ok, but Rashi says...."

Amusing and simultaneously telling. I hate to take a sharp turn to the
right amidst an 'academic' discussion but the bottom line is that the
Chasid is correct. If we don't accept Chumsh, or (I am adding) Chazal
and mesorah, what are we basing our beliefs on? I would like to believe
that my mind can dissect every element of creation and present it in
perfectly rational scientific terms. Unfortunately, Chumash tells us
that MB did not occur within the parameters of physicality which I am
accustomed to. Consequently, I am bound to the idea that whatever the
Chumash tells me is correct unless mesorah reinterprets it. Science
(or someone employing its methods) has no right to reinterpret creation
because it utilizes principles which did not necessarily apply during the
'Creative Process'.

> Saying we need to posit a six day creation without evolution in order to
> support faith seems to me to have it completely backwards, WADR. If we
> have faith, we can accept the six day creation, illogical or unscientific
> as that might otherwise seem, or not -- but our faith remains. Hashamaim
> mesaprim kevod k'eil umaasei yadav magid harakiah (among other things)
> is an experiential reality, irrespective of science might explain
> the same phenomena.

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Hashamaim misaprim" is
precisely about science. It is precisely about our observation of
a wonderful universe which simply could not have evolved by chance,
a universe which bespeaks infinite wisdom and kindliness in all of
it manifestations. Just because origins based science (as opposed to
operational science, a discipline which includes testable hypotheses
as part of its credo) chooses to eliminate the Creator from the
equation doesn't mean that 'Science' contradicts the Torah's account
of MB. "Hashamaim misaprim" is not "irrespective of science", it *is*
science. Origins based science is 'scientism', akin to subscribing to a
mindless religion which produces no verification of its fundamentals. (I
know I sound like a fanatical creationist but who cares...truth is truth)

> Ultimately, emunah is an overwhelming feeling and
> self-definition that transcends the notion that upon evaluation of the
> competing rational arguments, G-d wins by a split decision.

If you are a navi. Or if you possess ruach haKodesh. For the rest of us
plebes, concrete evidence serves to reinforce our emunah.

> Finally, R. Coffer noted about those who don't accept any allegorical
> explanations:
>> they are aware that Chazal were spiritual giants whose every word
>> was weighed, whose every utterance was a pure expression of profound
>> wisdom . . . To them it is inconceivable that Chazal would make so many
>> scientific statements that would subsequently turn out to be unreflective
>> of reality. What do they do when they are faced with a contradiction they
>> cannot resolve? They merely shrug and say "tzarich iyun gadol vaHashem
>> yair einay" much like R' Akiva Eiger frequently does in his pirushim
>> on Shas.

> At a certain point, R' Akiva Eiger (and others) would recognize when the
> multiplicity of questions required him to offer a different peshat in
> the gemara and re-examine his original premises. Nor would he refrain
> from asking his questions and demanding explanations. "Tzarich iyun
> gadol vaHashem yair einay" needs to be said after strenous effort and
> as a last resort, and not with a shrug at this first sign of a problem.

Agreed. I'm not sure what lead you to believe that I meant anything
different. If you were mislead by my term "shrug" I meant to say that
he shrugs off the temptation of considering that Chazal were wrong.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]