Avodah Mailing List

Volume 34: Number 91

Wed, 10 Aug 2016

• 1. Re: how do you teach emuna? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 2. Re: How to teach emuna (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: intelligent design (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 4. Re: How to teach emuna (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 5. Re: How to teach emuna (H Lampel)
• 6. Re: How to teach emuna (Marty Bluke)
• 7. Re: intelligent design (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: How to teach emuna (Zev Sero)
• 9. tzeit hakochavim (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: intelligent design (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 11. Re: How to teach emuna (Efraim Yawitz)
• 12. Re: intelligent design (Harry Maryles)

Is Avodah a kiruv forum or a high level Torah discussion group? I was 
not addressing how one approaches a questioner. I was making a statement 
for internal consumption.

KT,

YGB


On 8/8/2016 9:50 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of thinking that R' Benovitz was talking 
> about. When you make absolute statements like "there are no cogent 
> arguments against intelligent design" it can easily have the reverse 
> effect and turn people off. Imagine the following. Someone comes to 
> you and asks how does Judaism deal with evolution etc. and you answer 
> intelligent design and explain it. He asked a question you answered 
> it, great. He may accept your answer he may not, but at least he will 
> see that you addressed his question in a reasonable manner and gave 
> him an answer. However, if you take that extra step of adding on an 
> absolute statement like "there are no cogent arguments against 
> intelligent design", it will probably backfire. 5 minutes after your 
> conversation he will google "arguments against intelligent design" and 
> he will see that there are over 2.5 million results. Just from that 
> alone he may conclude that since you stated definitively that there 
> are no cogent arguments against it and google provides 2.5 million 
> results that you are wrong and not trustworthy. Even if he actually 
> reads some of the results, he will probably find arguments that at 
> least at first glance seem like cogent arguments and will again 
> conclude that you are not trustworthy and are deceiving him and that 
> Judaism has no real answers. So your absolute statement which you used 
> to show how strongly you believe in something will turn out to be 
> cause of his not believing you.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160809/6d9c6f61/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:11:14PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: What makes you think that these ovdei AZ weren't also ovdei Hashem?  What
: makes you think they weren't boki beshas (or its then equivalent)?  These
: were *not* untraditional Jews.  They were active Jews who also worshipped
: AZ, because they had a strong yetzer hara to do so.

You mean like the guy who consecrated a potsherd to Havayah "and his
consort, Asheirah", found among the material the Waqf bulldozed off
Har haBayis? He may have worshipped a god named Y-HV-H, but to talk
about him as a source of remembering matan Torah is a stretch.

:> In Yoshiahu's day, the number of people who knew enough Torah to even
:> recognize one when they found one was small enough to qualify as a cabal.

: How do you know this?

It took Barukh to recognize it.

:> In Ezra's day, the masses had to relearn the the alphabet.

: Where is this written?

Sanhedrin 21b-22a. Shabbos 104a. Shakehechum vechazar veyasdum. Unless
you hold like Mar Zutra/Uqva and R Yossi who says this was the first use
of Ashuris for sta"m. (But both R' Sherira Gaon and R Hai Gaon reject R
Yossi's position. And the third position, aside from being listed last,
has the most names attached; pashut peshat is that it's the masqanah.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

To not accept intelligent design is absurd. I am reasonably intelligent 
and cannot wrap my head around anyone rational denying it.

It is, indeed, neither the same thing as Creationism and nor evidence of 
the authenticity of Judaism.

But the latter flows from it in a rational progression.

KT,
YGB

On 8/9/2016 5:52 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:

> from http://www.intell
> igentdesign.org/whatisid.php  > > some of the arguments of
> intelligent design include > > > 
Irreducible complexity > Fine-tuned Universe > > anthropic principle > > 
Hence, I don't understand RYGB comments There are no cogent arguments > 
against intelligent design properly understood > > Hence, most 
scientists don't accept intelligent design, those that do > say it 
doesn't prove that the is a creator and it certainly has > nothing to do 
with Torah mi-Sinai and mitzvot > > While these arguments are good for 
some baale teshuva it is not the > basis of Judaism > > -- Eli Turkel > 
 > > _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list 
 > Avo...@lists.aishdas.org > 
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160809/59fbac0e/attachment-0001.htm>

Check out Pat Heil's blog. There are dozens of posts on topics just like 
this. A random place to start is:

http://pajheil.blogspot.com/2016/06/fact-checking-torah-wrapping-
up-digs.html

I consider Pat a talmida of mine, since she has learned Yerushalmi with 
my recordings. :-)

KT,

YGB


On 8/9/2016 5:27 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:11:14PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : What makes you think that these ovdei AZ weren't also ovdei Hashem?  What
> : makes you think they weren't boki beshas (or its then equivalent)?  These
> : were *not* untraditional Jews.  They were active Jews who also worshipped
> : AZ, because they had a strong yetzer hara to do so.
>
> You mean like the guy who consecrated a potsherd to Havayah "and his
> consort, Asheirah", found among the material the Waqf bulldozed off
> Har haBayis? He may have worshipped a god named Y-HV-H, but to talk
> about him as a source of remembering matan Torah is a stretch.
>
> :> In Yoshiahu's day, the number of people who knew enough Torah to even
> :> recognize one when they found one was small enough to qualify as a cabal.
>
> : How do you know this?
>
> It took Barukh to recognize it.
>
> :> In Ezra's day, the masses had to relearn the the alphabet.
>
> : Where is this written?
>
> Sanhedrin 21b-22a. Shabbos 104a. Shakehechum vechazar veyasdum. Unless
> you hold like Mar Zutra/Uqva and R Yossi who says this was the first use
> of Ashuris for sta"m. (But both R' Sherira Gaon and R Hai Gaon reject R
> Yossi's position. And the third position, aside from being listed last,
> has the most names attached; pashut peshat is that it's the masqanah.
>
> -Micha
>

> From: Zev Sero via Avodah
> What makes you think that these ovdei AZ weren't also ovdei Hashem? ...These
> were*not*  untraditional Jews.  They were active Jews who also worshipped
> AZ, because they had a strong yetzer hara to do so.
And the Doros HaRishonim, Tekufas HaMikreh, brings proof texts from 
Tanach for this in the eras of the Shoftim and Melachim. And I've come 
across additional ones. For one, Eliyahu's challenge to Bnei Yisroel to 
obey either the Baal or Hashem, and not both, as they had been doing. 
And the thousands of prophets whom Achav assassinated were not a small 
portion of Bnei Yisroel who worshiped Hashem exclusively. And their 
preachings, while they were alive, to the Bnei Yisroel and Melachim to 
keep Torahs Moshe properly at the very least kept the mesorah from Moshe 
Rabbeynu on their minds. And were King David's tehillim expressing his 
love for Torah and mitzvos unknown to the following Jewish kings and 
their subjects in both Yehudah and Israel?

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160809/a8e6a7a4/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero asked:
"What makes you think that these ovdei AZ weren't also ovdei Hashem?  What
makes you think they weren't boki beshas (or its then equivalent)?  These
were *not* untraditional Jews.  They were active Jews who also worshipped
AZ, because they had a strong yetzer hara to do so."

The Ramban that I quoted states explicitly that the majority of Jews
completely forgot Torah and Mitzvos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160810/72877260/attachment-0001.htm>

<<To not accept intelligent design is absurd. I am reasonably intelligent
and cannot wrap my head around anyone rational denying it. >>

and the philosophers and scientists on the other side say the identical
thing.
One complaint against ID is that it can't be tested and so is speculation.
Obviously neither side will convince the other.
see eg
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_y
ou_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html

Brings me to inyane d-yoma

Yirrmayahu haNavi prophesizes that Nevuchadnezzar and his son/grandson will
rule over Judea.  Chananiah announces that
within 2 years G-d will destroy the Babylonian empire.

I would imagine that Chananih looked like a very pious individual. How was
a Jew at that time to decide between the two opposing
sides? Today with hindsight we know that Yirmiyahu was the true prophet and
Chananiah was the navi sheker.
However, at the time both sides seem to be legitimate

>
>
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160810/421f947e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/08/16 03:37, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R' Zev Sero asked:

>> "What makes you think that these ovdei AZ weren't also ovdei Hashem?  What
>> makes you think they weren't boki beshas (or its then equivalent)?  These
>> were *not* untraditional Jews.  They were active Jews who also worshipped
>> AZ, because they had a strong yetzer hara to do so."
  
> The Ramban that I quoted states explicitly that the majority of Jews
> completely forgot Torah and Mitzvos.

He refers to Yerov'am, not Yoshiyahu.   I don't know his source that this
happened in Yerov'am's time, especially since the gemara tells us that
even by Ach'av's time they were still keeping kosher, and the names of
Ach'av's sons show that they still worshipped Hashem -- he didn't call them
Achazbaal and Baalram, but at any rate it has no connection to what was
happening in Yehudah, where they had and attended the BHMK even while they
were serving AZ in Gei Ben Hinnom.


-- 
Zev Sero               Meaningless combinations of words do not acquire
z...@sero.name          meaning merely by appending them to the two other
                        words `God can'.  Nonsense remains nonsense, even
                        when we talk it about God.   -- C S Lewis

We all know the controversy between GRa/Geonim/Bal  Hatanya and Rabbenu
Tam/etc over
when is tzeit hakochavim and more specifically when shabbat is over.
There are some communities that always choose to go le-chumra

It would seem to me that it is hard to be machmir this coming motzei
shabbat. The later one claims that shabbat ends the later that one cannot
remove his/her shabbat shoes.
For example ROY paskens that 20 minutes after sunset (but not earlier)  one
should remove leather shoes. For someone that holds like RT that is still
shabbat and there is zilzul shabbat.
However if one waits 60 minutes after sunset to remove ones shoes then one
is wearing leather shoes on tisha be-av according to the Gra shitah.

A similar problem exists on motzei shabbat that is chanukah.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160810/719c0bc9/attachment-0001.htm>

I don't believe the philosophers and scientists. A child can understand 
Intelligent Design. A child cannot - unless he believes in magic - 
understand how inanimate quarks proceed to become complex living creatures.

The article to which you link is a classic "take it on faith from me 
because I'm smart and you're not" position paper.

Evolution in the sense of abiogenesis cannot be tested either. Unless 
you count the discredited Miller-Ury experiment.

I find the analogy to Yirmiyahu and Chananyah offensive, but that's just 
a tactic...

KT,

YGB


On 8/10/2016 7:43 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<To not accept intelligent design is absurd. I am reasonably 
> intelligent and cannot wrap my head around anyone rational denying it. >>
>
> and the philosophers and scientists on the other side say the 
> identical thing.
> One complaint against ID is that it can't be tested and so is speculation.
> Obviously neither side will convince the other.
> see eg 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integr
> ity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html
>
> Brings me to inyane d-yoma
>
> Yirrmayahu haNavi prophesizes that Nevuchadnezzar and his son/grandson 
> will rule over Judea.  Chananiah announces that
> within 2 years G-d will destroy the Babylonian empire.
>
> I would imagine that Chananih looked like a very pious individual. How 
> was a Jew at that time to decide between the two opposing
> sides? Today with hindsight we know that Yirmiyahu was the true 
> prophet and Chananiah was the navi sheker.
> However, at the time both sides seem to be legitimate
>
>
>
> -- 
> Eli Turkel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160810/58134ad3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:25 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> In Yoshiahu's day, the number of people who knew enough Torah to even
> recognize one when they found one was small enough to qualify as a cabal.
>
> I don't think that is the traditional pshat.


> In Ezra's day, the masses had to relearn the the alphabet.
>

So what?  That is exceeding common today among people who do not deny in
any way that their ancestors were Torah-observant.

In short, do you really believe that Yoshiahu and Ezra were convincing
people about the origin of the Jewish people, i.e., the masses said to him
"Come on, everyone knows that we Israelites are just the descendants of
a bunch of local tribes and you made up this business about being slaves in
Egypt"?  If so, what did convince them?  If that's what you think, then I
guess the whole thing really is a scam.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20160810/092bda49/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 8:15 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>> To not accept intelligent design is absurd. I am reasonably intelligent
>> and cannot wrap my head around anyone rational denying it.

> and the philosophers and scientists on the other side say the identical
> thing. One complaint against ID is that it can't be tested and so is
> speculation.Obviously neither side will convince the other. see

I am always amazed at the claim by atheists and skeptics that there is
no need for a Creator. How did the universe and nature get here? Well,
they say it was always there. What about the highly unlikely eventuality
of world full of complex creatures with complex organs? The odds of that
happening randomly are beyond astronomical! They answer that L'Maaseh,
it did happen. The fact is that no matter how unlikely it was, despite
the fact the that the chance that this would happen is but one of an
almost infinite number of possibilities... it was still possible. V'Ho
Rayah -- it did.

The idea of matter being infinite (always having existed) is just as
impossible to understand as the idea of an infinite Creator that is beyond
scientific detection in the physical world -- and believe that by using
random natural selection they hae obviated the need to believe in Him.

They will then challenge that idea by asking 'Who created God?' ad
infinitum, thus believing they have refuted the 'first cause'
premise. They somehow do not understand the concept of 'First cause'. By
definition, the 'creation buck' stops there! The Creator' needs no
creator because He has always existed. difficult to understand but no
less difficult than saying the universe has always existed.

There is no intellectual satisfaction (at least for me) in believing in
the idea that matter has always existed over believing that it did not,
but was 'put there' by a Creator.

How we got from the 'Big Bang' of creation that happened about 15 billion
years ago to the point where we have a variety of biological species --
then becomes a matter of detail that does not contradict God's 'hand'
in it. This is where evolution and science comes in.

Scientific inquiry and study can perhaps determine 'what' happened --
and when it happened along evolutionary time. But it cannot determine
'how' it happened.

To say it was random natural selection no matter how unlikely -- is just
a guess based on the desire to eliminate any metaphysical explanation
of existence.

Intelligent design is far more likely scenario and therefore -- for
me -- a far more acceptable notion. It does not contradict science
or Torah. Just because we can't conclusively prove the existence of a
Spiritual Being doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

Just my quick 2 cents (...based in part on philosophy courses I took
with Dr. Eliezer Berkovits way back when I was a student at HTC).

HM


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



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


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


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

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)