Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 268

Fri, 25 Jul 2008

• 1. Re: vsalachta (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: what G-d can't do (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: what G-d can't do (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: money and halakhah (Micha Berger)
• 5. how to learn Torah (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: money and halakhah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: how to learn Torah (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: what G-d can't do (Micha Berger)
• 9. length of the aron (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: length of the aron (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: what G-d can't do (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 12. Re: what G-d can't do (Yitzhak Grossman)

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 07:01:35PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: I have a theory, based on the standard kavanot in the sheimot, that the YKVK 
: sheimot denote the long term, while ADNY and E-LOHIM denote immediacy.

Except that Havayah, aside from connoting lema'alah min hazeman (yihyeh,
hove, hayah) and Cause of existence, is also middas haRachamim. Motherhood,
being in the rechem of rachamim, is about as immediate as you can get.

Adnus implies Someone Whose law we should follow, connoting individuality
(the qamatz yud suffix) of the follower and moral law. E-lokim is the
master of all kochos, not just one follower, and includes His mastery
of natural law. (And therefore I'm not sure about its immediacy.)

Adnus must be similar in intent to Havayah, a more approachable version,
since that would explain why we read sheim Havayah as though Adnus was
written. Havayah is compassionate because He Causes us, because he is
so much greater than us. Adnus is close enough for us to serve; not be
overwhelmed and passive recipients. So WRT to that chiluq on grounds of
immediacy, which is the only one necessary to answer the opening question
of "yeileih na Ad-nai beqirbeinu", I would agree.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
micha@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:37:45PM -0400, Stuart Feldhamer wrote:
: Why must it be impossible? Perhaps G-d can change the past, but won't.

Change the past? What does that mean?

WADR to the authors of Back to the Future, the concept is wobbly.

Change is defined by the world having one state and then at another
point in time, a different state. There is a before and after; before,
he was broke, now he is wealthy. The change happened across time/ For
that matter, you can't change the future. You can only make the future
different than expected.

The only way the past could change is if there were a meta-time in which
the meta-old past can be meta-before the meta-new past. In which case,
the past that is also in the meta-past can't be changed, and that's the
only kind of past we're really talking about.

To put it another way:
You can't change the past because it has no future to have another
version in. You can't change the future because it had no past version
to get changed.

A third phrasing, since this topic is inherently hard to imagine: Change
is the state of an object compared across two points in time. You can't
change an object as it is in one point in time, that's not what "change"
means. What would make one version the old one, and the other version
the new one? It's not like they're at different times... You don't mean
to talk about an object simultaneously in two conflicting states but
if you are reffering to a point of time in the past, you are saying
"simultaneously".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:37:45PM -0400, Stuart Feldhamer wrote:
: Why must it be impossible? Perhaps G-d can change the past, but won't.

Change the past? What does that mean?

WADR to the authors of Back to the Future, the concept is wobbly.

Change is defined by the world having one state and then at another
point in time, a different state. There is a before and after; before,
he was broke, now he is wealthy. The change happened across time/ For
that matter, you can't change the future. You can only make the future
different than expected.

The only way the past could change is if there were a meta-time in which
the meta-old past can be meta-before the meta-new past. In which case,
the past that is also in the meta-past can't be changed, and that's the
only kind of past we're really talking about.

To put it another way:
You can't change the past because it has no future to have another
version in. You can't change the future because it had no past version
to get changed.

A third phrasing, since this topic is inherently hard to imagine: Change
is the state of an object compared across two points in time. You can't
change an object as it is in one point in time, that's not what "change"
means. What would make one version the old one, and the other version
the new one? It's not like they're at different times... You don't mean
to talk about an object simultaneously in two conflicting states but
if you are reffering to a point of time in the past, you are saying
"simultaneously".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
micha@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 01:46:43PM +0300, Marty Bluke wrote:
: I am not so sure. In any case the contemporary seforim such as the
: Bris Yehuda, etc. (take any modern halacha sefer on hilchos Ribis
: written in the last 30 years) all cite these sources (AHS, Chasam
: Sofer, etc.) with respect to money nowadays( which is fiat money), so
: they clearly hold that those opinions apply to fiat money as well.

Thanks, I didn't know the age of some of these sefarim.

Which tells me two things:

1- We hold that fiat money is kesef

2- Whatever sevara we have for gold-backed dollars is the same sevara as
for fiat money. It's not working as a shetar representing baalus of the
gold. (Otherwise, how could teshuvos about gold-backed money be usable
as meqoros?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

From RYBS published in lights 1976

"What does kabalas ol malchus shamayim require of the lomeid
hatorah,person who studies Torah? First, we must pursue the truth,
nothing else but the truth; however, the truth in talmud torah can
only be achieved through singular halachic Torah thinking, and Torah
understanding. The truth is attained from within, in accord with the
methodology given to Moses and passed on from generation to
generation. The truth can be discovered only by joining the ranks of
the chachmei hamesorah [11]. Itis ridiculous to say "I have discovered
something of which the Rashba didn't know, the Ktzos didn't know, the
Vilna Gaon had no knowledge, Ihave discovered an approach to the
interpretation of Torah which iscompletely new." One must join the
ranks of the chachmei hamesorah --chazal, rishonim, gedolei achronim
-- and must not try to rationalize from without the chukei hatorah
[12] and must not judge the chukei mishpatim[13] in terms of the
secular system of things. Such an attempt, be it historicism, be it
psychologism, be it utilitarianism, undermines the very foundations of
torah umesorah, and it leads eventually to the most tragic
consequences of assimilationism and nihilism, no matter how good the
original intentions."

While I don't like to disagree with my rebbe I find this hard to
accept. One nice example is the explanation of Prof. Aumann (recent
nobel prize winner)
on the gemara in Ketuvot originally based on game theory (though
simplified). The explanations of most rishonim is very forced while
his seems
very natural. There are other cases where rishonim explain a gemara
based on incorrect biology or physics while the gemara itself
presents no difficulties. I wouldn't use the phrase that "I know
something that the Rashba didnt know" but modern knowledge can
sometimes explain
phrases that were unclear to rishonim or subject to machlokes. One
example is the phrase "stimas hagolel" which has several explanations
in rishonim. Anyone who has been to the caves in sanhedria can see
that it refers to rolling a stone to close the entry to the burial
cave.
other examples include explanations of gemarot that contradict the
geography of Israel which wasn't always known to rishonim in Europe.

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Marty Bluke wrote:
> In any case the contemporary seforim such as the Bris
> Yehuda, etc. (take any modern halacha sefer on hilchos
> Ribis written in the last 30 years) all cite these
> sources (AHS, Chasam Sofer, etc.) with respect to money
> nowadays( which is fiat money), so they clearly hold
> that those opinions apply to fiat money as well.

I wrote it before and again: What is "money" for one halacha is not necessarily "money" for another halacha. Each situation must be looked at on its own.

It seems obvious to me that fiat money is subject to Hilchos Ribis, because
it is expected that the $20 bill I give you next week will be a different
one than the $20 bill you gave me last week.

Maaser Sheni, OTOH, can't be redeemed with just any sort of kesef, because of what is learned from "v'tzarta" in Devarim 14:25.

And other halachos - eg, kiddushin - don't really need money at all, as shaveh kesef will suffice.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Track employee hours, payroll, schedules and more!  Click here for more information.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mE3CslReuI8BtDfOOVAMOq9c6J9JCo6khr4etSnWx9q9fXk/

While I don't like to disagree with my rebbe I find this hard to accept.
One nice example is the explanation of Prof. Aumann (recent nobel prize
winner) on the gemara in Ketuvot originally based on game theory (though
simplified). The explanations of most rishonim is very forced while his
seems very natural. There are other cases where rishonim explain a
gemara based on incorrect biology or physics while the gemara itself
presents no difficulties. I wouldn't use the phrase that "I know
something that the Rashba didnt know" but modern knowledge can sometimes
explain phrases that were unclear to rishonim or subject to machlokes.
One example is the phrase "stimas hagolel" which has several
explanations in rishonim. Anyone who has been to the caves in sanhedria
can see that it refers to rolling a stone to close the entry to the
burial cave.
other examples include explanations of gemarot that contradict the
geography of Israel which wasn't always known to rishonim in Europe.

--
Eli Turkel
=======================================================================

My general take on this was either

1. R'YBS was saying that only chachmei hamesora can use these tools
lmaaseh because only they have the authority to truly innovate (iirc I
certainly heard the second half in a shiur from him) - e.g. I can
speculate that R' M Shapiro was right about the Rambam being wrong on
something but I can't act on it. Or

2. (I think less likely)  hkb"h gave the chachmei hamesora some "ruach
hakodesh" so even if they were wrong on a fact etc., they (their
outcome) are right (even if later c"M misunderstood them, the later ones
are still right)

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 03:32:24PM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
:  "On Divine Omnipotence and its Limitations", Hakirah Volume 2,
: : available from: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%202%20Grossman.pdf

: as mentioned in the article all rishonim seem to agree that G-d can't do
: things against logic or basic physics laws.
: He separately mentions that Ramchal disagrees.

Well, RYG could speak for himself, but...

He gives three categories: logic, math/geometry, and philosophy/
theology. Natural laws, while considered at the time part of philosophy,
are generally considered contingent by rishonim, except *perhaps*
according to the Ralbag. The question of whether the Ralbag believed in
violations of nature has been debated here in the past.

(My take on the Maharal was originally that he was attacking the Ralbag
for not believing they were possible. Then it was showed to me that
the Maharal's objection was on something far less extreme. However,
the Ralbag's take in hashgachah is that it's limited to insuring people
know specific things at specific times, which is far too small to include
nissim geluyim.

: Are there other achronim that say that G-d can (if he wishes) violate logic or
: basic laws of physics (eg change events in the past)

As I already wrote, I don't know what "change" means when the starting
state and ending state are assigned to the same point in time. And as
above, discussions of nissim geluyim -- qeriyas Yam Suf for example --
clearly violate laws of nature (or at least posit exceptions to the
rules created into the system).

But in terms of things where I agree most rishonim declared impossible
even for the Omnipotent Deity, I do not know if the Ramchal is alone.

Rav Tzadoq writes in Resisei Lailah 17:
    Whenever a new thing about the Torah is found by a wise person,
    simultaneously arises its opposite... When it comes to the realm
    of po'al (action), it can't be that two [contradictory] things are
    true simultaneously. In the realm of machshavah (thought) on the
    other hand, it is impossible for a person to think about one thing
    without considering the opposite.
However, he's contrasting talmud Torah, where paradox is inevitable,
with pesaq halakhah. Human action, not Hashem's. So I don't know how
literally to take his "can't".

The Mussarists who bought into Kant's idea that we only know the
phenomenological universe (the world as experienced) and not what's "out
there" are entirely outside of this discussion. Kant argues his point
based on the existence of antinomies, things that would be paradoxes if
the world under discussion didn't involve human perception, and people's
ability to conceive of paradox. That includes REED, who discusses a
person's ability to switch universes based on what he looks for in them,
and the Alter of Slabodka (also cited by RAEK) who speak about "bishvili
nivra ha'olam" in terms of Hashem creating a separate universe for each
person, that only overlap because people cooperate.

My problem with the Ramchal's position is that if he truly believed that
Hashem could defy logic, how did he write Derekh Hashem, Da'as Tevunos,
or Qela"ch Sha'arei Chokhmah? Why would the Ramchal bother trying to
reason about theology?

When RYG and I recently discussed on-list that essay in Hakira,
I mentioned that today we would have to adapt that statement about
geometry. Euclid's geometry was shown to be just one example of a
consistent geometry and there are even others that exist that (after
Einstein) are meaningful to physicists. So perhaps if the Rambam were
aware of Reimann and Lobaschevskian spaces, he would have said it was
impossible for Hashem to do something that didn't work in any geometry.

Similarly, there are now alternatives to Aristotle's and Boole's logic,
and they are used in fuzzy logic in modern control systems (possibly in
your thermostat), in Quantum Mechanics, and elsewhere. Even statistics
can be considered an alternative to Aristotilian logic. So perhaps the
Rambam would have to similarly broaden his statement to include all
possible logics.

In which case, he wouldn't be that far from the Ramchal. In fact, that
mjight be what the Ramchal meant, recast in modern terms. The Ramchal
called logic a beri'ah, and thus Hashem isn't subject to it. In modern
terms: Since the fact that the world of po'al (at least above the quantum
scale) is boolean is itself a feature of how the universe was created,
Hashem could choose to let things operate by other logics at whim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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

There's an essay in _Encounter: Essays on Torah and Modern Life_ (published
by AOJS) that makes precisely this observation, that the anomalous
dimensional effects of exceptionally high levels of kedusha manifested in
halachos throughout Shas appear to be strangely analogous to the effects of
exceptionally high velocities described by the special theory of relativity>>

It was only when one measured the aron in kodesh hakaodashim that it seemd
to have no length. Obviously when the leviim carries it the desert it
had a length.
Similarly when the kohen gadol came in on yom kippur and threw the blood
he saw a regular aron and the blood landed in front (in the middle?)
of the length
of the aron. When the phlishtim captured the aron it doesn't seem they noticed
anything unusual about the aron until it effected outside activities.

So whatever the gemara means it does not mean that the aron had no length
which in fact is given explicitly in the gemara.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Eli Turkel wrote:

> It was only when one measured the aron in kodesh hakaodashim that it
> seemd to have no length.

Of course it had a length.  The Torah gives that length.  And of course
it had that length in the KhK just as it did outside it.  And yet it
didn't take up space in the room.  From the wall to the aron was 10 amot,
the aron itself was 2.5 amot, from the opposite edge of the aron to the
other wall was 10 amot, and yet from wall to wall was only 20 amot.
Barring some complex Einsteinian explanation, this was a breach not just
of some arbitrary law of nature, but of logic itself.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> as mentioned in the article all rishonim seem to agree
> that G-d can't do things against logic or basic physics laws.

I always thought that G-d's violation of "basic physics laws" was the very *definition* of a nes nigleh.

Doing things against logic --- I'm not sure what is meant by this.

Surely He cannot make a five-sided triangle, nor a rock so heavy that He
cannot lift it. (See footnote later.) But my understanding of these
examples is not that Hashem is incapable of making such a thing; rather the
thing is undefined and incapable of existing.

Changing the past: I see no reason why He cannot do this. In fact, it is
quite possible that He has actually done it, and we are simply unaware of
it (either because we lived through the changes, or because or memories
were correspondingly modified). Or maybe we ARE aware of the changes.
Consider the many stories where we are told that Hashem "planned" on one
course of events, and then "changed His mind", kavyachol -- Leah marrying
Esav is just one example -- Perhaps in one universe it really did go one
way, and then He changed it all for our universe. Who knows?

Akiva Miller
whose lifelong fascination with science fiction has often been of good
service in helping to create metaphors with which I can fool myself into
thinking I have an inkling into Hashem's ways

FOOTNOTE:

Upon reviewing this post, I remembered once making the comment that not
only Hashem CAN make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it, but that He
actually DID so once. Specifically, when He gave us the Torah. My source
for this is the Hakdama to the Igros Moshe, fourth paragraph, beginning
"Uvazeh".

Here is some of what Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote there, and boy is it ever relevant to this thread! (The emphasis, and what is inside the parentheses, are mine.)

"... Hashem made the letters of the Torah into kings. Each chacham will
work, and compare one thing to another, and pasken the halacha according to
how he understands the letters of the Torah. When there will be a
machlokes, they'll act according to the understanding of the majority of
Chachmei HaTorah, despite the possibility that they did not understand it
correctly, and did not (interpret) Hashem's intention right. For HaKadosh
Baruch Hu gave the Torah to Yisrael, that they should act according to how
they understand (both) the writing and that which was given orally at
Sinai, as they understand it.

"Furthermore: Hashem Yisborach WILL NOT explain or decide the laws of the
Torah, because LO BASHAMAYIM HEE. Rather, He agreed IN ADVANCE to whatever
the Chachmei HaTorah would understand and explain. It turns out that the
letters of the Torah are kings, because we act according to how the Torah
sounds to the Chachmei HaTorah, even though that might not be what Hashem
meant..."

.

____________________________________________________________
Are you safe? Click for quotes on a home security system. 
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3ni3criCsoDnWzSehYf9fiKlFLAOcmVZMyxEDzGGcow00YnY/

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:26:58 -0400
Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Eli Turkel wrote:
> 
> > as mentioned in the article all rishonim seem to agree that G-d can't do
> > things against logic or basic physics laws.
> 
> How do they deal with "mekom ha'aron einah min hamidah"?  That's an open
> breach of the laws of ordinary topology; is there some fancy Einsteinian
> formula that can explain this without resorting to "Hashem is not bound
> by anything"?

Ralbag often explains away, and occasionally even rejects outright,
statements of Hazal that he considers to contradict True Philosophy.
See, e.g., Breishis [biur milos ha'parshah] 1:29 and Bamidbar 22:21.  I
plan to discuss this in depth in a paper for Hakirah.

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 268
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."