Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 092

Saturday, March 12 2005

• Re: Relationship of Science to Torah
• Sephardi psak on pe'at nochrit
• Age of the Universe
• The Teffilos of HaShem
• RE: The Teffilos of HaShem
• sheitels
• Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• Re: Re: Age of the Universe and guided evolution
• Chessed Yomi
• Re: The Teffilos of HaShem
• Age of the Universe
• Din Torah on Aliyot
• R. Noson Kamenetsky at YU last night
• More on Templeton/Townes/Reason/Revelation From WSJ
• Re: Relationship of Science to Torah

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:41:07PM -0500, RYGB wrote:
:>: Our mesorah does not allow for (a) but allows for (b).

:> This comes dangerously close to a declaration that those who disagree
:> with you have an untenable position...

: I was asked for my opinion. Others may certainly disagree. I do not regards 
: a person who holds Adam evolved to be a kofer, just a to'eh.

But you didn't answer "I believe", you answered "Our mesorah does
not allow".

I'm not just trying to nit-pick. I'm trying to trill down to your notion
of plurality in mesorah. Is an idea that is supportable by mesorah that
is a ta'us (albeit not kefirah) part of the plurality? How do the two
ideas -- ones we've seen you post on in the past individually -- interact?

-mi

RMS wrote on Areivim:
>I find the whole sheitel issue a bit puzzling. Despite my chassidische
>preferences, I don't understand why human hair sheitels are considered
>tznius, when some (many?) are nicer than the real hair underneath. My
>understanding is that sefardim don't just not wear them, but they hold it
>is not acceptable.

The sephardi remark is not entirely true. AIUI, though ROY assurs
sheitels, that is not a psak held by all sephardim. For example, the
Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Toronto is my father-in-law's first cousin and
from Morroco, not Iraq (like ROY). His wife wears a sheitel. My first
cousin by marriage recently married the daughter of a Sephardi Rosh
Kollel in Yerushalayim and is also the great (great?) granddaughter of
the Baba Sali (her maiden name is Abuchatzera). Both she and her mother
wear sheitlach. So not ALL sephardim hold sheitlach are assur, and some
actually wear them!

It could be that it is a Moroccan-Iraqi mahloket, anyone have any sources?

 -Russell

> Heaven and Earth, Tohu Va-Vohu, Light And Darkness, Ruach And Mayyim,
>  Middass Yom And Middas Layla.

Pure and beautiful drush: the paired dualities are selected to signify
the word r (ruach) a(or) sh(shomayim) y(yom) t(tohu).=reishit.
shamayim, tohu, or, ruach, yom
likewise the first letters of the prexistent things mentioned in some
midrashim spell bereshit.

It's problematic to see here a serious scientific position rather than
a poetic summary (an artistic rendering) of the first day packed into
the first word of the Torah.

Zvi Basser
basserh@post.queensu.ca

The Tefilos of HaShem is merely anthropomorphic and poetic. As Joel
stated, it is imitatio dei-similar to HaShem resting on the seventh day.
HaShem didn't have to rest, anymore than pray. As an adjunct to this,
it may be interesting to note that there is a Christian Book entitled
"When God Prays" by Skip Heitzig. Its theology is quite contrary to
Judaism and I would not be surprised if the idea was taken from the
gemara and its meaning totally distorted. This is obviously not the
first time for something like this to be misinterpreted.

Richard Wolberg

RHM wrote:
> Today's Daf talks about the Teffilos of HaShem. That is to say just as
> we humans pray so does God. This appears to be theological nonsense....
> I would like to offer the following....God does pray. It has to do with
> Bechira Chafshis....God wants us to take the "right" path which is why
> He gave us His Torah. And this is His Teffilah. His wanting us to do
> Mitzvos is tantamount to prayer.

LAD (and I haven't been able to look at any mefarshim yet), this is simple 
pshat in Devarim 5:26.

David Hoffman

I have been puzzled about the role of sheitels for hair covering. In
sefardic circles they are often considered assur. Early Ashkenazic poskim
permitted them, but they were referring to animal hair sheitels.

I am wondering about human hair sheitels:

1. Why are they permitted by Ashkenazim? This ties in with the reason
for hair covering. I thought it was erva. It might also be related to
what people are doing, and the difference in assuring something that
isn't commonly done, and something that has become common practice.

2. Why are they considered tznius? R Aryeh Stein replied in Areivim
that i was because it is a 100% hair covering. Still, considering that
among the chareidim and chassidim sheitels are the preferred method,
and most are not only human hair, but many are nicer than the hair
underneath. Wouldn't snoods be more tznius, when worn to cover all
(or awfully close to 100%) the hair?

There are also hoshkofic issues with people spending thousands of dollars
on a sheitel, and to be fair, one could say the same thing about many
shtreimels.

OK. Fire away. There's a bunch of fronts here: halachic, hashkofic,
and cultural.

I'd also like especially to hear from the women. I know how my wife feels
(she won't give up the sheitel, though I'd prefer it), but I don't know
about other ladies (though I really should ask my sister-in-law who
teaches at the YU Boys High School).

Kol Tuv!
mendel

At 09:52 PM 3/8/2005, [R Zvi Lampel] wrote:
> >This discussion began with the issue of whether our mesorah allows for (a)
> >evolution and/or (b) the age of the universe as asserted by current
> >science, whose conclusions are, after all, interwined with, and whose

> Our mesorah does not allow for (a) but allows for (b).

Why doesn't mesorah allow for (a)? What sources prohibit guided evolution?

R' Kook, for one, had no problem allowing it.

Akiva

At 01:36 AM 3/10/2005, [RAA] wrote:
>> Our mesorah does not allow for (a) but allows for (b).

>Why doesn't mesorah allow for (a)? What sources prohibit guided evolution?

>R' Kook, for one, had no problem allowing it.

I was not aware that Rav Kook explicitly endorsed evolution. Please let
me know where he did so.

RZL asked whether our mesorah allows for "evolution... as asserted by
current science." I assume that means that all human beings - including
Adam haRishon - evolved. I believe this is not allowed for by our mesorah.

YGB 

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 07:34:26AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I was not aware that Rav Kook explicitly endorsed evolution. Please let
: me know where he did so.
: 
: RZL asked whether our mesorah allows for "evolution... as asserted by
: current science." I assume that means that all human beings - including
: Adam haRishon - evolved. I believe this is not allowed for by our mesorah.

See RGS's blog Hirhurim "Banned IV - Evolution"
<http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/01/banned-iv-evolution.html>. I don't
think R' Kook discussed the evolution of Adam, but RGS cited RMKasher
(Torah Sheleimah Bereishis 738) and RYHenkin (Chibah Yeseirah Ber' 1:26,
in the back of Benei Banim vol 2), as well as a rumor of a reference
in Ma'ayan Beish haShoei'vah (RSSchwab) that RGS couldn't find. There's
also an RSRH quote about evolution in general.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

R. Shalom Kohn, (skohn@Sidley.com) posted on: Mar 9, 2005
> In response to R. Lampel's challenge for a statement of my position...

and ygb@aishdas.org posted on: Mar 9, 2005:> 
> At 09:52 PM 3/8/2005, [R Zvi Lampel] wrote:
>> This discussion began with the issue of whether our mesorah allows for (a) 
>> evolution and/or (b) the age of the universe as asserted by current 
>> science, whose conclusions are, after all, interwined with, and whose 
>> conclusions use as evidence, alleged physical evidence of an evolving 
>> development of the heavenly bodies, of the earth and of its inhabitants, 
>> including man, over those billions of years. The sources mentioned above 
>> (even if one were to accept their meaning to be as suggested by the above 
>> posters) do not support such an allowance, and indeed speak against it.
...
> Our mesorah does not allow for (a) but allows for (b).

That wasn't the question. And the way I loaded my question,--viz. "[b],
the age of the universe as asserted by current science, whose conclusions
are, after all, interwined with...billions of years"--one cannot allow
for (b)without allowing for (a)("whether our mesorah allows for (a)
evolution").

My question was whether you agreed with my assessment that /The sources
mentioned above/ speak against both.

The sources, cited by  R. Shalom L. Kohn, were:
> "a gemara that the Torah was created 974 generations 
> before the Creation, based on the d'rash of "Davar Tziva Le-Elef Dor," 
> and another that HKBH looked into the Torah to create the world. To the 
> extent that RSC's conclusions on age of the universe is dependant on 
> his above statement that 'Nothing, including the purely spiritual, 
> existed before ... Day One'"

Perhaps YGB feels that the premise I loaded into the question is
incorrect. Not that anyone has to answer my questions at all, or explain
those answers (i.e., beyond replying "you are incorrect,"--perhaps both
posters feel this detail is unimportant, and just wanted to cut to the
chase--I'd understand) but an answer to the question I asked was what
I was hoping for.

Zvi Lampel

> The recent Daf Yomi Siyum has emphasized Torah study. However, as we
> all know, the world rests on three things - Torah, Avodah and Gemilas
> Chasodim. Why not have a world-wide Chesed Yomi?

Part of the mission of my friends' organization, Simcha Deliveries 
(<http://www.simchadeliveries.org>) is a chesed yomi program.

 -Russell

davidhof@bankisrael.gov.il wrote:
>RHM wrote:
>>Today's Daf talks about the Teffilos of HaShem. That is to say just as
>>we humans pray so does God. This appears to be theological nonsense....
>>I would like to offer the following....God does pray. It has to do with
>>Bechira Chafshis....God wants us to take the "right" path which is why
>>He gave us His Torah. And this is His Teffilah. His wanting us to do
>>Mitzvos is tantamount to prayer.

>LAD (and I haven't been able to look at any mefarshim yet), this is simple 
>pshat in Devarim 5:26.

This is discussed in Kabbalah. The Maharal discusses this in the fourth 
section of Baer HaGolah.

Daniel Eidensohn

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 "Kohn, Shalom" skohn@Sidley.com wrote:
> R. Simcha Coffer wrote:
>>  From this we see two things. 1) Nothing, including the purely spiritual,
>> existed before the Torah's account of Day One, and 2) Day One, in addition
>> to documenting the spiritual components of the beriah, is also literally a
> > physical day as evidenced from the creation of "midas yom valayla".

> Actually, there is a gemara that the Torah was created 974 generations
> before the Creation, based on the d'rash of "Davar Tziva Le-Elef Dor,"
> and another that HKBH looked into the Torah to create the world. To the
> extent that RSC's conclusions on age of the universe is dependant on
> his above statement that "Nothing, including the purely spiritual,
> existed before ... Day One" (although I don't necessary think it is),
> they may bear re-examination.

Actually, the Gemara does not say that the Torah was created 974
generations before the Creation. The Gemara (Chagigah) states that 974
*generations* were *supposed* to be created before the beriah in order
to satisfy the pasuk of "davar tziva" which is understood to mean that
ideally, mankind should have lived for a thousand generations before
being fit to receive the Torah. However, Hashem saw that the world would
not be able to exist so long without the Torah so he "jumped the gun"
and gave it after only 26 generations.

What you are referring to is a medrash (numerous places in MR) which
states that the Torah was kadma to the Beriah 2000 years.

Rabbeinu Bachya (end of pasuk gimmel in Bereishis 1) and others state
that the kedimas Torah is not in literal "time" years so there is no
proof from that medrash that there was any time before creation.

As far as Hashem looking into the Torah and creating the world, the same
idea applies. That is, Hahem's creation of the spiritual is encompassed
in the first two pesukim of Bereishis and happened beyond the corporeal
limitations of time. It didn't take Hashem 15 billion years to look in
the Torah and decide just how he wanted to create the universe. It took
no time, as Hashem is beyond the limitations of time.

Anytime you see Chazal discussing something in terms of kedima to berias
haolam, it (kedima) refers to the importance of the subject item in
relation to berias haolam in general, in context of it (the subject item)
being a spiritual source for the "subsequent" unfolding of the physical
beriah. Thus we find that gehinom was created before the beriah, tishuva
was created before the beriah, the Keesay Hakavod was created before
the beriah etc.

In light of these explanations, I believe that a young universe is
perfectly compatible with the above medrashim.

Simcha Coffer  

Obviously, the person getting the "chazak" aliyah is the last one to be
called up to the Torah that Shabbat (other than the maftir), except for
Simchat Torah, and one other rare case, which happens on average only
once every 25 years. Which is....?

Right. This Shabbat, a 3-Torah Shabbat, after we say "chazak", someone
else gets an aliyah in the second sefer Torah, from which we read the
kria for Rosh Chodesh.

Interestingly, R. Zevin in Moadim B'Halachah (p. 190) writes that
this situation was the subject of a din-Torah before R. Meir Simcha
of Dvinsk, the Ohr Sameach, in 5643, which was indeed a year like this
one (a leap year in which Pesach is on Sunday). On Simchat Torah that
year someone bought the right to be called up to the Torah on all the
aliyot of "chazak", and someone else bought the right to the next to the
last aliyah every week. Everything was fine until Parshat Pkudei Rosh
Chodesh Adar appeared, when these two types of aliyot are one and the
same aliyah. R. Meir Simcha came to the firm conclusion, after bringing
some surprising raayot, that the "chazak" aliyah belongs to the one who
bought "chazak", and the aliyah before that belongs to the one who bought
the next to the last aliyah. See Ohr Sameach Tefilla 13:20.

Saul Mashbaum

If anyone is interested in reading one observer's notes from Rabbi Noson
Kamenetsky's shiur/lecture at YU last night, I posted my notes online:
<http://www.thebronsteins.com/archives/000393.html>

Overall, the lecture was a lot of fun to listen to,and was
thought-provoking.

G'Shabbes, G'Choidesh,
Avraham Bronstein
avraham@thebronsteins.com
http://www.thebronsteins.com

Email me if you want the entire article
KT
Joel
 
Our Special Universe
By CHARLES H. TOWNES [The inventor of the LASER. -mi]
March 11, 2005; Page A10

What is the purpose or meaning of life? Or of our universe? These are
questions which should concern us all.

As a scientist, I have been primarily trying to understand our world --
the universe, including humans -- what it is and how it works. As a
religiously oriented person, I also try to understand the purpose of
our universe and human life, a primary concern of religion. Of course,
if the universe has a purpose, then its structure, and how it works,
must reflect this purpose. This obvious relation brings science and
religion together, and I believe the two are much closer and more similar
in nature than is usually recognized.<snip>

A well-established scientist and philosopher was once asked to define
the "scientific method." Oh, he said, it is "to work like the devil to
find the answer, with no holds barred." I believe the same can be said
of religion. We use all of our human resources to understand either one --
instincts, intuition, logic, evidence (experiences or observation),
postulates or faith, and even revelations.

S & R Coffer wrote:
> Chazal speak about Maaseh Bereishis (MB) in many places and nowhere
> is there even an intimation that the six days are anything other than
> six regular days. For instance, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah documents
> a machlokes between R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua regarding the month
> of creation. The shakla vitarya goes on for close to two blatt and in
> addition to MB, several other episodes are introduced into the machlokes
> such as leydas and meesas Avos, pekidas Sarah, Rachel and Chanah,
> Yetzias Yoseph, Yetzias Mitzraim etc. ...

I find this a very interesting example to pick.  You will note that the 
halacha actually comes out that the world was created in Nisan.  But 
clearly our nusach ha'tefilah goes according to the view that the world 
was created in Tishrei (well, Elul, technically).  So I would say that 
this is a clear indication that what is being discussed is not a literal 
historical description.  If we were speaking historically, how could we 
hold like one position in one inyan (ma'aser), and the other position in 
another inyan (tefilah)?  History can only admit one possible version.

> Really? Says who? Certainly not the Rishonim. If you are referring to the
> Tiferes Yisrael, you cannot bring a raayah from him or from anyone for
> that matter that was influenced by the modern day scientific dogma.

You realize how circular this is.  By this arguement, no one who 
disagrees with you can possibly be cited.  Clearly, no one who has never 
heard of modern science can possibly have an opinion on how to reconcile 
scientific findings and traditional sources.  Also, you also know 
"modern day scientific dogma."  How come you haven't been influenced? 
If those who agree with you are capable of maintaining objectivity, how 
do you know that those who disagree can't also maintain objectivity?

> (If
> you ask me, I believe the TY would have been chozer from his shita had
> he been alive today although I have no proof)

Well, I'll assume you're not advancing this as an arguement.  I recall 
one Reform individual who asserted that where the Rambam alive today he 
would hold like the Reform.  My response: maybe that's true (although I 
don't think so), but if it was then I would disagree with him, too.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>		1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical		The University of Arizona
   Engineering				Tucson, AZ  85711

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


[ 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         ]