Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 190

Thu, 22 Sep 2011

• 1. Re: Evolution, Hashgachah and Tehillah (Lisa Liel)
• 2. random numbers (Eli Turkel)
• 3. talmud torah (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Whoever is maqpid... (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: [Areivim] On Hirsch's 19 Letters and a controversy about the meaning of it's Hebrew... (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] On Hirsch's 19 Letters and a controversy about the meaning of it's Hebrew... (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Re: On Hirsch's 19 Letters and a controversy about the meaning of it's Hebrew... (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: On Hirsch's 19 Letters and a controversy about the meaning of it's Hebrew... (Micha Berger)
• 9. Humanoids Talmud Torah (Meir Rabi)
• 10. Re: Humanoids Talmud Torah (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Evolution, Hashgachah and Tehillah (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: Evolution, Hashgachah and Tehillah (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Humanoids Talmud Torah (Lisa Liel)

On 9/21/2011 9:02 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I got permission to share this Google+ discussion with the chevrah for a
> broader discussion. Please chime in...
>    
Hashem says that if we walk with Him b'keri, He will return keri to us.  
What I understand that to mean is that if we treat the world as though 
it's all happenstance (random), Hashem will withdraw His hashgacha and 
allow the normal course of events to have their way with us.

I've also heard, regarding the express "ein mazal l'Yisrael", that much 
of the world *does* operate randomly (based on the starting values 
defined by Hashem), and that "mazal", or chance, is how the world 
works.  But that we are exempt from that because of Hashem's hashgacha 
pratit.  It's the same issue as keri.

Think of Hashem as a trick pool shooter, kaveyachol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfd0GqjWD-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9aHgsblaoQ

These are examples of how a mere human can do something relatively small 
that has amazingly complex and intentional results.  So imagine how much 
of the world Hashem determined from the get-go even without applying 
constant hashgacha to all the world.  I think this is a little like the 
old question of free will vs predestination.  Hashem could have designed 
the set of genes in Adam to contain all of the genetic variations we see 
in humans today.  Particularly when He also designed the rest of the 
world to be able to give those genes little zetzes with radiation every 
now and then.  From our point of view, it's random.  And since we can't 
quantify Hashem, it's proper to treat it as random in the context of the 
sciences of biology and evolution.  But look at those trick pool shots.  
Some of them look like someone just hit a ball a billion times and only 
kept the film of the times when balls went into the pockets as a 
result.  In other words, it can almost be seen as random as well.  
Except that we can see the pool shooter and what he does, and we can see 
how He set the shot up and got it started.  So we don't conclude that 
it's random.  The nimshal in our case is that while we can't see Hashem 
and what He does and how He set everything up, we as Jews know that He did.

One final note about evolution.  Even if it can be determined that some 
species evolved from other species, there is no scientific basis for the 
idea that *all* species evolved from other species.  That's a fallacy.  
Extrapolating evolution back to a single point origin is equally 
fallacious.  If you eliminate Hashem as a possibility, it may seem to be 
the only reasonable conclusion, but since you can no more disprove 
Hashem's existence than you can prove it, universal evolution and single 
point origin evolution are not actually science, but mere conjecture.

Lisa

<< I'm not sure if it helps anyone think about this differently, but we've
had "random" number generators generating seemingly random numbers for a
long time, yet the numbers are not truly random as they are generated by a
computer following instructions. >>

Technically such numbers are known as pseudo-random numbers. As KT notes
these are produced by an algorithm and so repeatedable (in practice one uses
a different seed so that it doesnt repeat). The sequence is called random
since a statistical study indicates that there is no correlation between the
numbers.


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110921/ae7e63bf/attachment-0001.htm>

<<>>The new book Echoes of Eden by Rabbi Ari Kahn .... that Adam  Harishon
>>co-existed with non-human humanoids. This says Rabbi   Moshe Eisemann, is
the position of the  Ramban.

Who  Cares?
What Difference Does it Make?

Why does anyone bother  with these types of inquiries?
Is it Talmud Torah? >>

The definition of talmud torah is nor clear. The gemara brings a story about
an amora that didnt want to go to a shiur since it was about health
questions. He was told that in that case it is even more important to attend
the shiur.

I heard numerous times from RYBS that someone that learns a sugya that is
100% about a derabban issue nevertheless has fulfilled talmud torah from the
Torah.

Does someone who learns various gemarot about magic or medicines or heqlth
issues fulfill talmud torah? Rambam has a perek about proper foods to eat.
Is that more talmud torah than reading a contemporary medical journal on the
same issue?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110921/92b774a3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue Aug 16 12:59pm EDT, RnTK wrote:
:                    It's like sheidim, if you don't believe in them and
: don't worry about them they have little or no power over you.

To which RMYG added on Tue Aug 16 9:07pm:
: R'n TK is paraphrasing the Gemara in Pesachim (110b towards the top) and
: Rashi there.

There the statement is made about zugos, but since the gemara just stated
that the problem with zugos is that they are prone to interference by
sheidim, it's "6 of one, a half-dozen of the other".

In any case, it seems there is experimental evidence. See
http://www.theatlantic.co
m/life/archive/2011/09/the-dark-side-of-the-placebo-effect-when-intense-bel
ief-kills/245065/
(or <http://bit.ly/orrUsW>):

    The Atlantic Home
    Wednesday, September 21, 2011

    The Dark Side of the Placebo Effect: When Intense Belief Kills
    By Alexis Madrigal
    Sep 14 2011, 11:52 AM ET

    They died in their sleep one by one, thousands of miles from
    home. Their median age was 33. All but one -- 116 of the 117 -- were
    healthy men. Immigrants from southeast Asia, you could count the
    time most had spent on American soil in just months. At the peak of
    the deaths in the early 1980s, the death rate from this mysterious
    problem among the Hmong ethnic group was equivalent to the top five
    natural causes of death for other American men in their age group.

    Something was killing Hmong men in their sleep, and no one could
    figure out what it was. There was no obvious cause of death. None of
    them had been sick, physically. The men weren't clustered all that
    tightly, geographically speaking. They were united by dislocation
    from Laos and a shared culture, but little else. Even House would
    have been stumped.
    ...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:41:47PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote to Areivim:
> The fact is that in letter eighteen of the Nineteen letters,  RSRH has 
> strong criticism for the RAMBAM, because he employed non-Jewish sources.  

I think the problem is more specific than "employing non-Jewish sources".
That would mean that RSRH would have something against using Kant or Schiller
to explain something in the Torah.

It was reconciliation in particular and "entering Judaism from without".
It is one thing to use other knowledge to aid one's understanding of
Torah. It's quite another to take most elements of Aristo's philosophy
as so compelling that it qualifies as sevara, and one's understanding
of the mesorah is fitted into Artisto's terms and framework.

I've also commented here in the past about the Rambam's notion that man's
telos is defined by yedi'ah, and how this idea appears to be more Greek
than mesoretic.

To repeat R Prof YL's quote:
> The following is from Rabbi Dr. Bernard Drachman's English translation
> of the Nineteen letters pages 181 - 184 that is available for download
> from google books at no charge at http://tinyurl.com/3lb83b2

> The age gave birth to a man, (Drachman inserts a footnote that says
> "Maimonides") a mind, who, the product of uncomprehended Judaism and
> Arabic science, was obliged to reconcile the strife which raged in his
> own breast in his own manner, and who, by proclaiming it to the world,
> became the guide of all in whom the same conflict existed. This great
> man, to whom, and to whom alone, we owe the preservation of practical
> Judaism to our time, is responsible, because he sought to reconcile
> Judaism with the difficulties which confronted it from without, instead
> of developing it creatively from within, for all the good and the evil
> which bless and afflict: the heritage of the father. His peculiar mental
> tendency was Arabic-Greek, and his conception of the purpose of life the
> same. He entered into Judaism from without, bringing with him opinions
> of whose truth he had convinced himself from extraneous sources and
> he reconciled. For him, too, self-perfecting through the knowledge of
> truth was the highest aim, the practical he deemed subordinate. For
> him knowledge of God was the end, not the means; hence he devoted his
> intellectual powers to speculations upon the essence of Deity, and sought
> to bind Judaism to the results of his speculative investigations as
> to postulates of science or faith. The Mizvoth became for him merely
> ladders, necessary only to conduct to knowledge or to protect against
> error, this latter often only the temporary and limited error of
> polytheism. Mishpatim became only rules of prudence, Mitzvoth as well;
> Chukkim rules of health, teaching right feeling, defending against the
> transitory errors of the time; Edoth ordinances, designed to promote
> philosophical or other concepts; all this having no foundation in the
> eternal essence of things, not resulting from their eternal demand on
> me, or from my eternal purpose and task, no eternal symbolizing of an
> unchangeable idea, and not inclusive enough to form a basis for the
> totality of the commandments.

> He, the great systematic orderer of the practical results of the
> Talmud, gives expression in the last part of his philosophic work to
> opinions concerning the meaning and purpose of the commandments which,
> taking the very practical results codified by himself as the contents
> of the commandments, are utterly untenable - cast no real light upon
> them, and cannot go hand in hand with them in practice, in life,
> and in science. These are the views which have been inherited up to
> the present day by those who care at all to understand the spirit of
> the Mitzvoth. But since the precepts, as practically fulfilled, stand
> entirely out of connection with these explanations, it was inevitable
> that their ceremonial fulfillment lost its spiritual basis, and became
> despised. You see, instead of taking one's stand within Judaism, and
> asking, "Inasmuch as Judaism makes these demands of me, what opinion of
> the purpose of man must it have?" instead of comprehending each demand
> in its totality according to Bible and Talmud, and then asking, "What is
> the reason and idea of this injunction?" people set up their standpoints
> outside of Judaism, and sought to draw it over to them; they conceived
> a priori opinions as to what the Mitzvoth might be, without disturbing
> themselves as to the real appearance of the Mitzvoth in all its parts.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

At 03:55 PM 9/21/2011, you wrote:
>I think the problem is more specific than "employing non-Jewish sources".
>That would mean that RSRH would have something against using Kant or Schiller
>to explain something in the Torah.

I do not know if RSRH would or would not have something against using 
Kant or Schiller to explain something in the Torah. Can you provide 
an example of where RSRH does this?  I do not recall seeing such a 
thing anywhere, but this does not mean that he did not do this.

RSRH refers many times to science when explaining things, but this to 
me is different than mentioning a specific person and his views on things.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110921/21757728/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I do not know if RSRH would or would not have something against using  
> Kant or Schiller to explain something in the Torah. Can you provide an 
> example of where RSRH does this?  I do not recall seeing such a thing 
> anywhere, but this does not mean that he did not do this.

I was thinking of the reverse -- RSRH using similarity to Torah concepts
to praise Schiller in his memorial speech.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I do not know if RSRH would or would not have something against using  
> Kant or Schiller to explain something in the Torah. Can you provide an 
> example of where RSRH does this?  I do not recall seeing such a thing 
> anywhere, but this does not mean that he did not do this.

I was thinking of the reverse -- RSRH using similarity to Torah concepts
to praise Schiller in his memorial speech.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

   1. I believe we have a duty to accept the words rulings and ideas of the
   Torah as absolute truth.
   2. I think the Gemara you refer to is saying that people will learn with
   enthusiasm those topics that interest them. I don?t think the Mitzvah of TT
   is anything less than an obligation to know the entire Torah, even those
   parts that do not interest me very much or at all.
   3. RaMBaM advises/instructs us to study nature in order to know Gd;
   surely that would be TT.
      1. However, I urge that we take note that RaMBaM does not
      advise/instruct us to learn various Pessukim rhapsodising about nature in
      order to gain this awareness.
      2. Studying such matters is probably within the realm of TT
   4. I don?t understand however, how the speculation about humanoids (and
   other such matters) in any way contributes to a deeper more profound
   understanding of Gd; I doubt it is TT.
   5. I am reminded of a discussion with a young fellow who insisted he had
   had a religious spiritual experience ? he had this remarkable experience at
   a concert of Guns and Roses. Is there any way to evaluate such an
   experience?
   6. There is an enormous difference between those things that can be
   expected to be verified and those matters that are entirely in the domain of
   speculation.
   7. As we mature there is no doubt in my mind that all our perceptions and
   thinking must mature.
   8. Is every single word in the Gemara TT?
      1. The talk about use of the bathroom
      2. Healthy lifestyles?
   9. I have no need to pencil out these pieces in the Gemara, nor all the
   French words in Rashi. I am quite happy with the Abravanel, Hirsch and
    Malbim.
   10. It is important to recognise that there is value to other peripheral
   aspects of Torah that are not TT in themselves but are nevertheless within
   the framework thinking and meaning of a Torah life.
   11. Thus someone may make an ambition of learning knowing and teaching
   the laws of Sukka, the rebellious son, Tumah and Tahara.
      1. We may quibble if making a study of the size of Kezayis is TT, I
      suspect it is not.
      2.
   12. The discussion of verses and MaAmerie Chazal, from my perspective is
   not necesssarily within the realm of Talmud Torah. By way of example, when
   Chazal have a ?game? of suggesting various Pessukim to support various
   commonly held ?street wisdoms? I suspect this is not TT.
   13. Reading the Torah, any verses in the Torah is certainly TT. That
   includes the Passuk Bereshis 6:4 which certainly sounds like it is talking
   about humanoids, or something to that effect.
      1. But I strongly suspect that our speculation about these things and
      the construction of mental and spiritual edifices which support
significant
      religious life perspectives; I am shaken and fear possible negative
      consequences.
      2. I similarly am concerned that these edifices are perceived to be an
      equivalent to Talmud study. As a consequence learning Gemara is no longer
      deemed to be valuable, critical and of core significance.


-- 

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110922/7fa3a2b3/attachment-0001.htm>

 

In a message dated 9/21/2011, meir...@gmail.com writes:

    1.      1.  >> .....As a consequence learning Gemara is no longer  
deemed to be valuable, critical and of core  significance. <<



-- 

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

 
>>>>>
 
 
I will only comment on your last sentence.  In the schools I went to,  
students were strongly discouraged from learning Gemara, and as a result,  I  
have never done so.  (I would not, however, deny that the study of  Gemara is 
of far greater value and core significance than the study of  humanoids.)
 

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




_____________________  





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110921/05832550/attachment-0001.htm>

RJR writes:

>  I'm not sure if it helps anyone think about this differently, but
> we've had "random" number generators generating seemingly random
> numbers for a long time, yet the numbers are not truly random as they
> are generated by a computer following instructions.

Well I was thinking about something a bit different, but in a way along the
same lines.  Somebody posted a reference on Areivim to this kosher light
switch http://www.kosherlightswitch.com/

On reading the FAQ, to the best of my understanding, this is an attempt to
go beyond mere grama by using randomness, allowing for genuine failure at
any given attempt.  On the other hand ultimately the desired result (ie the
turning on or off of electricity) has to be achieved (otherwise the thing
will not work as desired).  That is, from our point of view, we are only
concerned with result, (eg the ultimate turning on or off of the
electricity) and when we daven, I would have thought we almost always ask
for a result, without a particular concern about the pathways to this
result, and therefore, as with this switch, there can be allowance for
genuine randomness in the particular pathway or attempt.

I am also not quite sure why this question is being posed by evolution
davka, I thought that precisely the same issues were raised by the nature of
quantum mechanics - all options are possible, and indeed coexist, but
ultimately only one option is observed.

But getting back to randomness at a more macro level, I wonder if it would
help to use an example, and not such an esoteric one, one that clearly has
the kind of personal impact that RYK is concerned with, and one that is not
found in the distant past.  Take my son, David, for example.  My son, as
many of you know, suffers from a condition called lissencephaly (smooth
brain), which means in practice that although he is 10 years old, he
functions at about the level of a six to nine month baby, has frequent
epileptic seizures etc etc.  The condition is caused, according to modern
science, by a "random" mutation in the LS1 gene.  This means that there is a
small change (in his case a deletion) in the LS1 gene, that cannot be found
in either my husband or myself (this has been confirmed by gene sequencing,
ie with the advances in modern medicine today, this change between our
genetic makeup and his can be "seen").  Now according to the theory of
evolution, this is precisely the kind of random mutation that drives
evolution.  This one happens to be a very destructive form, as, given that
he is incapable of sitting up, not to mention walking, he is just not going
to have children, thereby preventing this mutation from going into the gene
pool (but note, if he were capable of having children, they would have a
fifty percent chance of having this condition).  On the other hand,
beneficial mutations in other children that serve to increase their survival
chances would most likely be passed on.  Thus my son David, as anybody who
sees him in his fully supportive wheelchair can testify, does not win the
race for survival of the fittest (and note certainly would not have reached
the age of 10 years old without the advances of modern medicine -
particularly peg feeding when necessary - this BTW gets us into the
interesting question as to the extent to which modern medicine is in fact
"anti evolutionary" in the sense that it can operate to negate the survival
of the fittest in the classic sense). 

So the question becomes (and this is independent of the theory of evolution
in the classic sense, ie the development of species), how do you relate to
my son David theologically?  Especially if you believe in hashgacha pratis.
My son David is not just a "failure" of the evolutionary system, he is also
a "failure" of the mitzvah system, in the sense that he may be defined as
Jewish, but he will never become chayav in mitzvos, nor even in chinuch,
because the level of daas is just not there and not ever expected to  be
there. Therefore all these ideas about "asher kidishanu b'mitzvotav
vitzivanu" just do not apply to David, who cannot do any of this.   In the
view of the doctor who first diagnosed him, we as parents have been
"spectacularly unlucky" (figures are somewhere in the vicinity of one in
half a million for this condition).  How you relate to my son David
theologically seems to me to be exactly transferable to questions of
evolution - HaShem is only concerned with the yechudei segula, and hence
mistakes like David happen along the way and are left to mazel.  HaShem is
actually determining the placement of children like David into families like
ours, it just appears random from our perspective because ultimately the
statistics work.  Most of the cases out in the olam are due to bad mazel but
some cases they are due to hashgacha pratis and we can't (or often can't)
tell the difference. We need the random existence of children such as David
so that HaShem can create a particular child in a particular circumstance
for whatever reasons He may have without it appearing an open  miracle.
Tephila might have avoided the placement of a child like David into our
family (or the existence of such children altogether).  Miracles might occur
and David might completely confound medical science (despite him showing no
sign of doing so) if enough tephila was applied. 

Once you have found a theological answer to the question of the existence of
my son David, then it seems to me that your answer to the challenge posed by
the question of randomness versus hashgacha and tephila in respect of the
theory of evolution will follow.  And you cannot avoid giving some sort of
theological answer to the reality of the existence of my son David (even the
atheist perspective that the existence of children like David proves the
lack of existence of a benevolent god is a form of answer) even if you never
engage with the "Theory of Evolution".

Regards

Chana

 


Once you have found a theological answer to the question of the existence
of my son David, then it seems to me that your answer to the challenge
posed by the question of randomness versus hashgacha and tephila in respect
of the theory of evolution will follow.  And you cannot avoid giving some
sort of theological answer to the reality of the existence of my son David
(even the atheist perspective that the existence of children like David
proves the lack of existence of a benevolent god is a form of answer) even
if you never engage with the "Theory of Evolution".

Regards

Chana



_______________________________________________
And the meta question (similar to one that really fascinates me - how do 2
rabbis, knowing the entire corpus of torah, come to different conclusions)
is what drives different people to answer this question so differently?
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.

With all due respect, Rabbi, while the words, rulings and ideas of the 
Torah may be absolute truth, there remains a question of how to 
understand them.  If simple pshat seems to contradict the evidence of 
our senses or minds, it behooves us to address that conflict and not 
ignore it.  There was a Christian theologian named Tertullian who 
famously said, "It is absurd; therefore I believe," positing that having 
blind faith in the irrational is a virtue.  Judaism, to the best of my 
understanding, stands in absolute negation to that idea.

You say that you don't understand how speculation about non-Adam 
humanoids contributes to a deeper or more profound understanding of 
Hashem.  I can't argue with that.  Since it does not contribute in that 
way *for you*, it is only sensible that you would find it difficult to 
understand.  Maybe you can "take it on faith" that it does contribute 
(or can contribute) in that way for others.

Hashem created us all with different qualities.  Different mindsets.  
Different ways of understanding the world.  What works for one person 
may not work for another.  In kiruv, there are those who require a soft 
voice to attract them to Judaism.  There are others who require a 
spiritual Shabbat experience.  There are still others who require a 
rigorous stance like that of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.  None of those 
approaches is better or worse in an absolute sense.  They can only be 
right or wrong for the individual.

There are those to whom this sort of speculation is a massive waste of 
time.  But for others, it may be the only way to remain frum.  Labeling 
it as a waste of time across the board is liable to result in Jews going 
off the derekh.  Is this what we want?

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110922/47011330/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 190
***************************************

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..."