Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 129

Sunday, March 16 2003

• Re: Who can create a mosquito?
• Re: REED and spirituality
• Re: Question on today's haftorah
• Re: Who can create a mosquito?
• Re: Who can create a mosquito?
• Toras Purim, Yirah
• Re: Question on today's haftorah
• Re: Timcheh and Lo Tishkach
• Re: Emuna/Bitachon - serenity or dialectic tension?
• Dancing at the Kotel
• Re: Who is a posek?
• Re: B'birkat refua shelema/something on Mishlei
• Re: Who's afraid of dinosuars?
• Re: Deliberate planting of false evidence?
• Deception and teva (was: evolution)

In a message dated 3/14/2003 8:28:53 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> If by "species" you mean two groups that are morphologically different
> and can't interbreed, or even by a number of different definitions, there
> are examples at <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>.
> Even once you weed out the intentional breeding of new species.

> In particular, look at 5.3 - 5.9. They give examples of speciation of
> the standard evolution experiment subjects (fruitflies, houseflies,
> beetles) and of parasites due to changes in host population

Can you point more specifcally to which studeis show an UNFORCED mutation
of species. It seems from I could see it was forced in the lab

Anyway NONE of these studies point to how historically evolution occured,
only that they COULD have occured. And I'll repeat my point, please show
a creature in the proces of mutation from one specie to another. Show me
dogs that are even mutating to wolves becasuse they are left in the wild.
Or donkeys becoming horses. OR primates taking on human characteristics.

Point?! If Darwin were correct we should be seeing all kind s of specices
in a random across the board status of going fro mspecies A to species
B. Even if you can find that in Shkatzim and Remassim, I doubt you will
find that in anything above that.

Darwin's point makes aabout as muc hssense as seeing ONLY new-born
infants and fully adult humans and nothing in be-tween and postiing
that that thye magically morphed overnight in such a way that there
is no perceptive continuum between point A and point B. "nuff said.
While I am indeed in way over my head with all of this technical material
on biology, it is merely so much sophistry.

Show me an animal in a identifiable transition phase, and then I will
withdraw my point

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

At 01:22 PM 3/14/03 -0500, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>> I dunno. I get the impression from Michtav Me'Eliyahu that REED
>> believed that ideally man should withdraw from this olam ha'sheker
>> (which is really a mirage) and concentrate just on spiritual matters,
>> which (I get the impression) REED viewed as more straightforward.
>
>This is exactly the difference between RYBS and REED ( interaction vs
>withdrawl from the world)

Where exactly are the MME's that have been cited in this discussion?

Kol Tuv,
YGB

In Avodah V10 #128, GDubin asked:
> Why did Shemuel tell Agag "ka'asher shikla nashim charbecha..."? Why
> did he need to give a reason and not just kill him because of the mitzva
> of mechiyas Amalek? And particularly to explain it to Agag?

Sounds like an echo of Sisera's activities and what Sisera's mother's
reaction would be to his death.

Did Shmuel know that he was too late in eliminating Amalaik? If he
didn't, I would have expected some sort of celebration (if not something
approaching shiras D'vora) despite Shaul HaMelech's mess-up.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah V10 #127, MBerger responded to RWolpoe:
>> B) OTOH I can see no evidence that species A mutates into species A+ 
>> etc.

> This is the third time I'm replying to this claim (B).

> If by "species" you mean two groups that are morphologically different
> and can't interbreed, or even by a number of different definitions, there
> are examples at <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html>.
> Even once you weed out the intentional breeding of new species.

> In particular, look at 5.3 - 5.9. They give examples of speciation of
> the standard evolution experiment subjects (fruitflies, houseflies,
> beetles) and of parasites due to changes in host population.

> I reiterate my advice that one read up on the position before rejecting
> it with obsolescent arguments.

Why not use the "if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck,
it's a duck" definition (a/k/a/ B'raishis 2:19)? /Now/ can you point
to any evidence of one species turning into another? Thanks.

Sincerely,
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:39:44PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
:> In particular, look at 5.3 - 5.9. They give examples of speciation of
:> the standard evolution experiment subjects (fruitflies, houseflies,
:> beetles) and of parasites due to changes in host population

: Can you point more specifcally to which studeis show an UNFORCED mutation
: of species. It seems from I could see it was forced in the lab

That's called proving something by experiment. Speciation in the wild
is a rare event. You have to artificially force a change of niche if
you want to see it on demand.

In 5.3.5 fruit flies were separated geographically by a maze, and
penalized for being one color over another. And sure enough, the two
populations ended up looking differently and being unable to produce
offspring with eachother. Took only 25 generations, which is relevent
to the theory of punctuated equilibria (see below). See also 5.3.6 and
5.4.2. In 5.5 they talk about speciation of parasites due to changes
in host populations. Again, even though the change in population was
artificial, it demonstates evolution as a process.

Also I should point out that somehow my argument position forced me to
sound like a supported of talk.origins.org. I am not. Because I believe
for TSBP reasons that ma'aseh bereishis is actually yotzei miydei peshuto,
the whole subject is an academic one in my eyes, and I'm not overly
concerned one way or the other. Rather, I'm advocating people read up
further on a position before arguing against it. To my mind, that's more
important than looking up sympathetic sites. The latter is only important
if your own inability to come up with a refutation starts bothering you.
(It's like looking at the back of an Encylopedia Brown book before trying
to figure out the mystery yourself.)

In that light, I suggest also looking at their other related faqs,
not only faq-speciation.html. They also have a page aimed at supporting
macroevolution (which I don't think is as convincing, but is worth a look)
and the existance of transitional forms.

While I find the results of this debate merely of academic interest,
the manner of the debate is not. If we argue against scientists from
a position of ignorance, we reinforce negative stereotyptes about our
community, and we convince them that Torah only makes sense to people who
are undereducated in what Torah offers, to people who are r"l ignorant
in general and fundamentalists predisposed to believe.

: Anyway NONE of these studies point to how historically evolution occured,
: only that they COULD have occured. And I'll repeat my point, please show
: a creature in the proces of mutation from one specie to another....

Can't. It's only in comparison to what exists today or what went extinct
that we define something as a "midpoint".

The initial state is that we have a fossil of A and one of species Z,
and none in the middle. And those who do not believe that evolution
accounts for Z's existance point to the missing link. Then someone digs
up an example of species M, which shows a transition from A to Z. Ah,
the skeptics cry, but what about the missing links between A and M and
between M and Z? And when Q is found, the argument repeats, now on a
finer scale (M to Q and Q to Z). And so on until the difference is so
small the skeptics deny the notion that Y and Z are different species.

: dogs that are even mutating to wolves becasuse they are left in the wild.

Dingos?

: Point?! If Darwin were correct we should be seeing all kind s of specices
: in a random across the board status of going fro mspecies A to species
: B. Even if you can find that in Shkatzim and Remassim, I doubt you will
: find that in anything above that.

Darwin was not correct. Current evolutionary theory isn't Darwin's because
even those who believe evolution was the means for the origin of the species
are not happy with the paucity (not lack!) of evidence of transitions.

The fossile record shows a path from relatively steady state to another,
not a constant transition. The latter would make the whole thing a
spectrum, with no way to put up "borders" and say ,that was an Xt while
that was a Y".. The fossil record isn't gradual.

What you're discussing is a reason why "punctuated equilibrium" is the
predominant theory. In it, species tend to be very static, and then
when something eliminates their niche, they go through a *relatively*
rapid evolution to a new form -- or go extinct.

: Show me an animal in a identifiable transition phase, and then I will
: withdraw my point

<http://www.talkorigins.com/faqs/faq-transitional.html> has numerous
examples. It also gives a reason why gaps occur.

RMPoppers wrote:
> Why not use the "if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck,
> it's a duck" definition (a/k/a/ B'raishis 2:19)? /Now/ can you point
> to any evidence of one species turning into another? Thanks.

Bereishis 2:19 may or may not be part of the ma'aseh bereishis under
discussion. Let's presume not for the moment. (RMP wrote me privately,
so I know enough about his position to assume he's working with that
assumption.)

By 2:19, Adam exists, and he is brought the animals to give them
names. This would occur whether "vayeitzer H' E' min ho'adamah" means
directly formed from the adamah in a lema'alah min hateva way, or whether
the tzurah was given slowly via evolvution. Whatever species we have
come to know and love (and have names for) would already be around
either way.

As for the usual meaning of the "duck test" (which I can't tell if RMP
intended or not), the examples I cited are about things that no longer
look the same AND no longer interbreed. This is a tighter criterion,
adding a 2nd requirement WRT ability to mate. But minimally we can answer:
they don't look/quack like fruit flies, or corn (5.2.1) or lab rat worms
(5.7.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

 From the Soncino translation (one emendation by me; I included X:14
because X:15 begins with "hada hu d'ksiv"). The Medrash loses something
in translation, of course - it is the last two Esther Rabbas.

YGB

Midrash Rabbah - Esther X:14

14. R. Hiyya the elder and R. Simeon b. Halafta were once walking through
the valley of Arbel when they saw the dawn come up. Said R. Hiyya the
elder to R. Simeon b. Halafta: Like this is the greatness of Israel; it
commences almost imperceptibly, but becomes continually more and more
powerful. What is the proof? Though I sat in darkness, the Lord is a
light unto me (Micah VII, 8). So at first, Mordecai sat in the king's gate
(Est. II, 21); then, Mordecai returned to the king's gate (ib. VI, 12);
then, Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king (ib. VIII, 15);
and finally, The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honour (ib. 16).

Midrash Rabbah - Esther X:15

15. It is written, Say unto God: Now tremendous is Thy work (Ps. LXVI, 3).
How terrible ["norah" - i.e., awesome - YGB] are Thy wonders, for the
slain slay their slayers and the executed execute their executioners, and
those drowned in the sea drown those that drowned them. ' Thus, Through
the greatness of Thy power shall Thine enemies dwindle away before Thee
(ib.). You will find that all the beneficent qualities of the Holy One,
blessed be He, are in abundant and overflowing measure. His goodness is
in abundance; His kindness is in abundance; His mercy is in abundance;
His righteousness is in abundance; His faithfulness is in abundance; His
redemption is in abundance; His blessing is in abundance; His praise is
in abundance; His peace is in abundance. His goodness is in abundance,
as it is written, O how abundant is Thy goodness, which Thou hast laid
up for them that fear Thee (ib. XXXI, 20). His kindness is in abundance,
as it says, [God is] abundant in goodness and truth (Ex. XXXIV, 6). His
mercy is in abundance, as it says, Abundant are Thy compassions, O Lord
(Ps. CXIX, 156). His righteousness is abundant, as it says, [He is God
of] judgment, and abundant in righteousness (Job XXXVII, 23). abundant
in faithfulness, as it says, They are new every morning; abundant is
Thy faithfulness (Lam. III, 23). His redemption is abundant, as it says,
O Israel, hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is mercy, and with
Him is plenteous redemption (Ps. CXXX, 7). His blessing is abundant, as
it says, I will pour you out a blessing that there shall be more than
sufficiency (Mal. nl, lo). What is meant by ' That there shall be more
than sufficiency' [lit. 'until there shall not be sufficiency']? Until
your lips shall be worn out1 with saying 'sufficient'. His praise is
abundant, as it says, A God dreaded in the great2 council of the holy
ones, and feared of all them that are round about Him (Ps. LXXXIX, 8);
and it is also written, How manifold are Thy works, O Lord! In wisdom hast
Thou made them all; the earth is full of Thy creatures (ib. CIV, 24). His
peace is in abundance, as it says, And all thy children shall be taught
of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children (Isa. LIV,
13); read not banayik (thy children) but bonayik (thy builders).3 Peace
be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren
and companions' sakes, I will now say: Peace be within thee (Ps. CXXII,
7 f.). For the sake of the house of the Lord our God I will seek thy
good (ib. 9). And see thy children's children. Peace be upon Israel
(ib. CXXVIII, 6). Great peace have they that love Thy laws; and there
is no stumbling-block for them (ib. CXIX, 165). The Lord will give
strength unto His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace (ib.
XXIX, 11).

(1) A play on the words bli (not) and yiblu (shall wear out).
(2) The word translated 'abundant' in the other passages.
(3) I.e. scholars who by disseminating the knowledge of Judaism build it up.

> In Avodah V10 #128, GDubin asked: 
>> Why did Shemuel tell Agag "ka'asher shikla nashim charbecha..."? Why
>> did he need to give a reason and not just kill him because of the mitzva
>> of mechiyas Amalek? And particularly to explain it to Agag?

> Sounds like an echo of Sisera's activities and what Sisera's mother's
> reaction would be to his death.

Please elaborate;  I don't know how you're answering the question.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:46:56AM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: In Avodah 10:122, R' Carl Sherer wrote <<< Why not learn it as "timcheh"
: but until you're m'kayem "timcheh," "lo tishkach." That strikes me as
: pshat in the pasuk. >>>

: That fits the words nicely, but the corollary would be that once
: "timcheh" has been accompliched, then "lo tishkach" will no longer apply.

One second: has timcheh happened already?

According to pretty much everyone but RCBrisker, Eliyahu haNavi will
locate Sancheirev's other victims, the 10 shevatim. Will he identify
Amaleiq, or is their current anonymity their destruction?

: That's quite a chidush, and I think it should be held with some delicacy
: unless a source can be cited that this chiyuv d'oraisa will (or may)
: become batel at some point in the future.

Well, there are already statements in the Zohar about mitzvos not applying
in yemos hamashiach. Or the statement in the medrash (on Mishlei 9:2,
see Rambam Hil Megillah 2:18) about the yamim tovim in the chumash being
nisbatelim, with only Purim remaing.

This one is simpler. We're not saying the mitzvah is beteilah. Rather,
no opportunity will arise. It would join ben sorer umoreh.

...
: Rashi (Dvarim 25:19) writes that "timcheh es zecher Amalek" refers to
: people or things which were part of, or had belonged to Amalek. Something
: which you can touch and say "This was Amalek's" - that, says Rashi, is a
: "zecher". My favorite translation, therefore, is "souvenir". (Or, if that
: sounds too pretentious, try "reminder". But never "remembrance", which
: is an act of remembering, or "memory", which is the mental recording.)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 11:08:38AM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote <<< This is the Gra's chiluq between "zecher" and
: "zeicher" -- not that his talmidim agree about which he said meant which.
: According to RCVilozhiner's version, "zeicher" means "a reminder /
: memorial", "zecher" means "memory". >>>

: I hope this does not sound disrespectful, but does anyone know got this
: idea from?

The Gra, as I wrote, goes with "reminder". He bases it on a zekher
vs zeikher distinction, but regardless of the diqduq point, his
taitch here follows the Rashi, as you present it in the first post.

I assume therefore your question is "only the diqduq one:
: For example, did he see a manuscript where the zayin had a segol? No one
: has ever shown me a "zecher" anywhere in any Tanach, although "gefen"
: abounds, and I suppose there are many other "segol-segol" words as well.

Zecher and zeicher also comes up in Ashrei, with mesoros pointing
in both directions.

: Was the Gra suggesting this change as his own chidush based on his
: understanding of the language, or was he citing variants which existed
: prior to his time?

I don't know what you mean by "citing variants". He stated a qlal in
diqduq. If there is no other source, it's his chiddush. But he's
not proposing a change, he's suggesting that Rashi implies one or
the other. (For all we know, the Gra commented on why it's "zecher"
and not "zeicher", giving the "reminder" idea as the reason.)

The MB speaks about the need to repeat "zekher" and "zeikher". Was
there such a concept before the Gra asserted they meant different
things, and then his talmidim argued over which means what?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:15:28AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: >Jewish spirituality isn't about getting that calm and quiet. It's about
: >providing the right context for persuing the struggles of life. About
: >the tension of dialectic and the spiritual growth it spurs.

: >Is there any frum derekh that does /not/ espouse this view? Perhaps not
: >with the focus of dialectic tension, but the basic notion?
: 
: From the following quotes I see a clear dichotomy between the quietistic
: attitude of the rishonim and most of Chazal verus the conduct of the major
: figures in Tanach...

RYBS speaks of the dialectic between encounter and retreat. He therefore
presents a form of "quietism" as part of the struggle he advocates! I
would therefore suggest quietism vs struggle isn't the right paradigm
with which to view this problem.

RYBS then speaks, not in these words, of halachah as a tool for navigating
this dialectic in a productive and growthful manner. Eis milkhamah
ve'eis shalom.

I see your long list of sources as proof that both sides of this dialectic
are well in mesorah. That's not to say that supporting one means denying
the other. And the picture is more two-sided than you present.

You don't mention Ya'aqov's struggle to acheive quiet "be'eretz megurei
aviv, be'eretz Kena'an". Just as it's almost in his grasp, Yosef is
torn from him ("tarof toraf" not being total sheqer, in this sense).
He does eventually get it -- in its time.

Or you cite Avraham arguing for Sedom, Amorah et al as a case of struggle,
but not the quiet with which he responds to the aqeidah.

Or any of the later sources who make the point that standing still is
falling behind, thereby advocating struggle.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

Rav Moshe Sternbuch in Mo'adim Uzmanim, chelek 5, siman 350 ("kotel
hama'arvi"), footnote 2 (appearing at the end of the siman, beginning
at the bottom of page 222) writes the following (my translation,
please forgive me for any unintentional errors but it is better than
transliterating the whole thinng):

(I am picking it up in the middle of the last paragraph in the second
column on page 222. The first two columns of the footnote up to this
point discuss how Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin Z"tl would never visit the
kotel even though he lived very close to it, out of fear that he would
faint from being so close to the holy wall, so for him it was pikuach
nefesh not to go. But now times have changed...):

"...And in his time when they went to erect and fix the coutryard of
the kotel area (as they have done today), Rav Yosef Chaim Zunenfeld Z"tl
shouted that it was not their desire to do this, because it is similar to
the Gemara in Megilah (28a) that batei kenesiot in their ruined states -
we leave them so that grass should arise in them and we do not uproot
(the grass) because of agmat nefesh so that we should be more sorrowful,
ayen sham, and kol sheken in this place (the kotel) that if it is in ruin
we are more sorrowful, and the Gedolei haDorot Z"tl have already pointed
out that one needs to act there as if their dead relative is mamash
in front of them (meito mutal lefanav), and one must increase there
in sorrow (in order) to join in the sorrow of the shechinah hakedoshah
that is there in sorrow, and kol sheken that IT IS FORBIDDEN TO DANCE
in the place that the shechinah is mamash across from it in sorrow and
is crying and wailing...and kol sheken bizemaneinu b'avonoteinu harabim
that most of beit Yisrael have strayed from his path, Yitbarach Shemo
(YS), and the peritzim enter into heichal Elokeinu YS and mamash into
it, is this not a sorrow without measure, and how is it possible to be
joyful in the time when the churban is mamash across from our eyes."

"And I point all of this out for in later years (b'zman ha'acharon) it is
common to see chasidim and benei yeshivot in mamash hundreds and thousands
singing and dancing with hilula and simcha in the courtyard of the kotel
hama'arvi every Shabbat, and even sometimes during the week, v'leaniyut
da'ati there it is as if ones dead relative is in front of him (meito
mutal lefanav), for it is mamash ajacent to the destroyed and desolate
temple, and therefore the avodah of simcha there is not in its placed
and will not be accepted (lo yeiratzeh), and the ikar is to stand there
silent and to pout out ones heart in b'tefilot vetachanunim l'Elokeinu
YS...and it seems that even for the sake of a mitzva 'bal yeiraeh ubal
yimatzeh simcha shira verikud hayom bemakom kadosh venorah kazeh'..."

Rav Sternbuch makes his point very clearly (and gives psak) that it is
assur to dance at the kotel and that it is inappropriate to show any
joy there. Immediately afterwards he notes how hundreds and thousands
are dancing and singing at the kotel every week. My question is: how
are we to reconcile these two apparently contradictory shitot regarding
appropriate modes of behavior at the kotel? Since there are so many people
who consistently show joy and dance at the kotel, presumably there is
legitimate halachic grounds for doing so...does anyone know of anything
specific addressing this issue (especially from the position that it is
appropriate and permissible to dance, sing and show joy at the kotel)?

Yaakov Ellis

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 08:39:15PM +0200, R' Dovid S Lipsett wrote:
: I already brought the CI who says the MB has a din of sanhedrin..

As RRW noted, this can't be literal. But the basic point stands.

: To sum it up The MB is for the hamon am who hasno rebbe or minhagim
: which now a days is basically everyone.

If this were true, it would depress me. However, I think most people on
this list have/had a rebbe who'd they follow any statement of, AND is
aware of his family minhag on most inyanim.

(As I wrote to the chevrah repeatedly, for things which I don't have
per-item guidelines of this sort, I follow my rebbe's advice of first
looking in the Aruch haShulchan.)

Ba'alei teshuvah, who don't know family minhag, are MORE likely to have
that kind of rebbe.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:17:06PM -0500, R' Shalom Carmy wrote:
: "Make yourself scarce in your friend's house; lest he become weary of you
: and hate you" (Mishlei 25:17). The Gemara (Hagiga 7a) applies this warning
: to the person who frequents the Bet haMikdash, offering many sacrifices.

In the original: "Hoqar raglekha mibeis Rei'ekha..."

Along these lines, the Sefas Emes on Purim (toward the begining) takes
"ve'ahavta leRei'akha kamokha" reders to bein adam laMoqom -- as I
wrote, with a capital R.

The pasuq continues, "pen yishba'akha usnei'kha". This is IMHO an obvious
parallel to the previous pasuq. 25:16 warns not to consume too much
devash, "pen tishbo'enu vaqeiso". The Gra points out that "devash" is
rashei teivos for "dei'ah, binah, seichel", and takes the earlier pasuq
to be a warning against trying for the harder things that one isn't up to.

This yeilds an interesting qavanah to saying "ein adam yakhol la'amod
lifnei reichah" in Pitum haQetores. But back to the point.

Could it be that here too, the one who visits the BhM too often with
too many qorbanos is one who is trying for a closeness (qereivus)
that simply isn't there yet? Or worse, trying for a chitzonius that
doesn't match the distance in his penimius?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:04:40PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Einteinian relitivity - AIUI- can explain how 5 days from one perspective
: ca n actually take billions of years from another perspective, because
: time - lik e space - is relative to your perspective.

It doesn't resolve sequence issues.

I would suggest instead R' Eliezer Ehrenpreis's position.

Since physics and time were themselves created during this period,
do the notions have any real meaning?

How does one measure time if pendulums don't swing at a constant rate,
the speed of light not only varies from instant to instant, but two
photons at the same instant need not be going the same speed, geological
processes are running at random rates, as are astronomical orbits --
etc... and sometimes even one is going "backward" relative to another?

REE also proposes embracing Dirac's idea that the speed of light in a
vacuum (c) is deminishing asymptotically. This means that it is slowing
down, but the rate at which it's slowing down is also slowing down. So
that it's settling near, but never quite reaching, some final value. He
shows how this would mean that quantum uncertainty (whose fundamental
unit, h-bar, is a function of c) would have dominated during the 6
days. It would also explain why refraction didn't produce the rainbow
until Noach's day.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 09:05:04AM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Such deliberate falsification of evidence on the part of the Creator is
: what I reject; I find the notion that He did such a thing distasteful,
: and consider those who offer this suggestion to be totally mistaken.
: Deliberate falsification of evidence is not at all the same as Hashgacha
: Pratis working behind the scenes through natural means, which of course
: is not distasteful at all, but a reasonable understanding of how G-d
: provides for us.

The problem I have with this reasoning is two-fold:

1- It presumes we know why HQBH would do something, and therefore could
reject the possibility that He did so because we ruled out every possible
divine motivation.

2- As a methodoloy, it's too powerful.

The same could be said of those who accept evolution because of the
scientific argument.

What then in terms of emes vesheqer debate, stops one from using a
parallel argument to ch"v deny the historicity of yetzi'as Mitzrayim
or (as has been done here) the mabul or dor hahaflagah?

What do you do with the lack of evidence for these events, and
the presence of evidence of cultures older than the mabul? Is the
idea that they were planted distateful?

Or would you question the interpretation of the evidence?

In cases where the alternative is unthinkable, because it undermines
the basis of our life, we're willing to table the scientific evidence
and believe it's incomplete. If that method is valid, then apply it
across the board to cases where you don't /need/ to as severly.

Either one believes that one can question the scientific community's
conclusions, or one doesn't.

The weights of the respective scientific arguments aren't really
relevent. First, because we're not informed enough to compare the
two. Second, because the dividing line being used to choose response
isn't the weight of the argument, but whether or not one's foundations
are being shaken.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:03:56PM -0500, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> Granted that the evidence for evolution is there, and it seems distasteful 
:> that Hashem would deliberately plant evidence to deceive us.  But the 
:> evidence is also there that we earn our paychecks (at least the secular 
:> world takes this as a given), whereas we all know the parnasa is from 
:> Hashem.  Why shouldn't this latter "deception" be distasteful as well?

: Indeed it is; which is why I dislike your formulation (and that of Rav
: Dessler)--it does seem illogical that Hashem would deliberately deceive us.
: Rather, the view that I support (based on Rambam, Ramban and others) is that
: there is an interplay between our hishtadlus and Hashem's hashgacha--"im
: Hashem lo yivneh ir, shav omlu bonav bo"--the world & nature are real, and
: man harnesses nature, but w/o Hashem's guidance, success will not come.

I don't think the Rambam and REED are that far appart on this point.

The Rambam says that hashgachah peratis is proportional to one's yedi'ah.
REED, by saying that you need hishtadlus to fill that gap, is saying
it's proportional to one's bitachon.

Yes, the Rambam says that teva is an actual beryah. REED says it's a
set of rules HQBH follows for hester panim purposed. But the lema'aseh
difference is minimal. In both cases, teva denotes a predictable framework
of cause and effect, something that's difficult to be meyasheiv with
hashgachah.

How does REED's shitah require any more deception than the Rambam's?
In both cases, the need to work is proportional to some kind of spiritual
lack, and success or failure only seems to rely entirely on that work.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

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


[ 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         ]