Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 107

Monday, March 1 2004

• Got A Minute?
• Re: Necessity of G-d's Existence
• G-d's existence
• Re: Rambam and the Creation of the World
• Yom HaShishi in Kiddush
• Re: zemer yom shabbaton en lishkoach
• Hakhel - Salada
• Re: Necessity of G-d's Existence
• Re: G-d's existence
• RE: G-d's existence
• Re: Necessity of G-d's Existence
• Re: who is a posek
• Re: eye surgery on shabbos
• Re: semicha vs pesika
• Re: who is a posek
• RE: Kashrus of eggs from Leghorn chickens
• Pidyon Haben
• megillah in Jerusalem
• RDL on Purim

The recent Hakhel Bulletin said:
<<< ... ... we see how precious, halacha l'maasah, one minute of a
person's life is. What can be accomplished in a minute? The first parsha
of S'hma, the six zichiros, Birchas HaTorah, to name just a few great
mitzvos. The next time somebody asks you, "Got a minute?" or "Can I take
a minute of your time?" perhaps your answer should be "I'm not so sure,"
for there are truly so many great things that one can accomplish in the
"few minutes" that others may simply throw away. >>>

Yes, I agree that there are many great things that one can accomplish in
just a few minutes. Doing a chessed for a fellow Jew is among them. So
why should my response be "I'm not so sure"?

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 2/26/2004 4:38:48 PM EST, gil@aishdas.org writes:
> I'll admit that I could have misread it. But in what way was he following
> the "medieval Jewish philosophers"? The Rambam in Hilchos Yesodei ha-Torah
> only seems to say that the universe could not exist without G-d but not
> that G-d must inherently exist.

Please see the Abarbnel in his Rosh Amanah Perek 7, who explains the
Rambam to remove the question of the BH"G and R' Chisdoee, that while
belief in HKB"H's existence is not included in the Mitzvah of Ha'monas
E-lokus, rather the mitzvah is is that this G-d who's existence is known,
is the most complete of all Metzius that it is a Mchuyov Hametzius, and
see the Tzemach Tzedek in his Sefer Derech Mitzvosecha Mitzvas Hamonas
E-lokus, who says that even this level does not require Emunah and the
Shleimus haMetzius has a deeper meaning according to Kabala.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

> IIRC the Ramchal says that G-d's existence and necessity can be
> proved. There is now an updated argument for the Cosmological proof 
> that does not  need the principle of sufficient reason. The conclusion 
> of the  argument is  that His necessity is the best explanation for 
> our contingent  existence.  Hawkings and the like have done a 
> particularly poor job of trying to  wiggle out of this one.

Can you please explain this in more detail.
My understanding of modern physics is that they claim that it is all
"coincidence". i.e. there is nothing special that man exists rather
than other material or even nothing. Modern string theory even tries
to explain that the big bang was an outcome of physical laws and will
recur in the future.

The debate about the anthropic principle boild down to whether one 
considers humans to be important. If one considers them unique then 
the anthropic principle shows that something strange is happening in 
that many coincidences are needed to create this world.
On the other hand if one insists that there is nothing special about 
humans and that human creativity is a mere fluke then what we see is 
simply the outcome of many possibilities - after all something had to 
happen.
Its like throwing the dice a thousand times and then claiming that the 
a priori chance of whatever happened is so small that it was a 
miracle. If the outcome was the same digit 1000 times we convince 
ourselves that that is unusual and so something special happened. 
However, mathematically that outcome is no more unusual then any other 
outcome.

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 2/27/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>RMB has written several times that he believes that the rambam does not
>believe that one would ever have to reinterprete mesora, and that the only
>theoretical case he brings is the of ma'ase breshit - where chazal already
>speak of the fact that ma'ase breshit can not be understood as pshat.

>I think (as in previous discussions) that RMB's understanding of the
>rambam is unique, and misunderstands the text - where the rambam, rather
>than arguing the incontrovertibility of our neviim, argues that they are
>superior to tales of philosophy, not true philosophy. Neither of us can
>convince the other.

In addition to the issue of accepting the view of science against the
mesora, there is the issue of modifying our understanding or using
science to decide between alternatives in the mesora. Which is what
Kuzari(1:67) shows.

Another example is the question of whether the rainbow was first
created after the mabul or whether it was part of the original creation.
Interestingly it is the Ramban who opts for the view of science and the
Ibn Ezra who resists it.

Ramban(Bereishis 9:12): [[R' Chavel's translation]]We must perforce
believe the words of the Greek [philosophers who maintain] that the
rainbow is a natural result of the heat of the sun falling upon damp
air for even in a vessel containing water which stands in the sun there
is the appearance of the rainbow. When contemplating the language of
Scripture we will understand that it is so, for He said, I have set My
bow in the cloud, 215 [the use of tbe past tense indicating that He had
already set it so from the beginning and it is not a new creation]. He
did not say. "I set in the cloud," even as He said, This is the sign
of the covenant which I make. Moreover, the word kashti (My bow) - [in
the possessive form] - indicates that He possessed the bow previously.
Therefore, we shall explain the verse thus: "The rainbow which I have
set in the clouds from the day of creation will be from this day on a
sign of covenant between Me and you; whenever I will remember that there
is a covenant of peace between and you."

Ibn Ezra(Bereishis 9:13-14): [[Rejects the view of R' Saadiya Gaon that
the rainbow was part of the original creation. He does acknowledge the
possiblity of reconciling with the Greeks by saying that the sun became
stronger after the flood and it was equivalnet to making the rainbow a
new phenomenon.

Radak(Bereishis 9:13): [[

Pesachim(54a): [[rainbow created erev Shabbos

Chasam Sofer (O. H. 1:16) "The Ramban has already stated that the
obligation to believe agada and medrashim only applies to those found in
the Babylonian and Yerushalmi Talmud. There is no obligation to believe
other other collections of medrashim. "

So in this dispute - 1) Which is the position of Mesora? Pesachim (54a),
R' Saadiya Gaon, Ibn Ezra, or the Greeks? 2) Why does the Ramban say
"we are forced to believe the words of the Greeks"?

Another example is where the Chasam Sofer decides between the anatomical
views of Rashi and Tosfos because of modern science.

It is apparent from the above that the term mesora is used in several
ways. 1) That which is clearly from Sinai and there is no dispute
about it. This is the way the Rashba and others understand the issue of
treifa and science. 2) Issues which are apparently disputed by chazal -
commonsense and/or science can help shape how to understand these views.
The understanding of these issues can change over time. 3) interpretations
which are ancient and from respected authorities but which new evidence or
new consensus has developed and thus are rejected or ignored. Chasam Sofer
(Beitzah 5a). The Netziv also understands this in regards to Halacha
L'Moshe itself - that sometimes it refers to something not from Sinai
but it has become to be viewed as such.

Daniel Eidensohn

[R Yitzchok Zlochower:]
> I don't know what "most" of the poskim have to say about where to start
> the shabbat kiddush. I do know that va'yehi erev is not the start of the
> pasuk. It is merely the start of the second phrase (after the etnachta)
> Look it up. I have therefore become accustomed to starting kiddush with
> "Va'ya'ar Elokim et kal asher asah..." (despite Rabbe Meir's derash).
> Whether one agrees with my position or not, the above error illustrates
> another ma'amar of Chazal about "Devorim shebiktav i ata resho'i l'omron
> ba'al peh".

Has anybody pointed out that this issue is the subject of a Teshuvah by
the Chasam Sofer (Orach Chayom no. 10) ?

ELozor Reich

>In the diwan, stanzas 3 and 4 were completely different from the routinely 
>published one. (although still adhered to the acrostic).

The ones normally said/printed were inserted to replace the ones written
by RYHL "mi-penei darkhei shalom" according to Baer. Who wrote them and
when is apparently uncertain but ka-nir'eh they were already included in a
1545 zemirot book (residing now in the British Library so I can't check).
This is NOT similar to the Deror yikra verses which, as I said before,
represent an independent piyyut of Dunash (although "Edom aker" may have
the same connotation as "derokh ba-na`al oyevim ve-tsarim"). The verses
(nos. 3-4) familiar to us from Yom shabbaton were not written by RYHL.

Uvi-tefilah she-lo nishkah yom shabbaton,
Yisrael Dubitsky

The issue of Hakhel that just came out had a reference to one brand
of packaged salad, that under pressure from the producer reduced the
frequency of inspection. No name of the supervision agency or brand of
salad was given.

If someone knows these facts, does not one have the responsiblity, in
accordance with Lifnei Iver, to make sure that people know which brand
has the problem, so they can refrain from using it.

Would it not also be a problem of avak Motzei shem Ram on all of the
other hashgacha agencies, that could be suspected as a result of the
general method used.

Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com

Micha wrote:
>I should add that the Rambam's proof for G-d in the
>Moreh shows that since contingent beings must have
>a cause (something that made the contingency true),
>the Uncaused First Cause is necessarily necessary
>(non-contingent)...

If I understand this correctly - and that is a big IF - this implies
that since the universe exists therefore G-d must exist. It does not
say that if G-d's existence is inherently necessary. If the universe
did not exist then G-d would not have to exist.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> The debate about the anthropic principle boiled down to whether one
> considers humans to be important. If one considers them unique then
> the anthropic principle shows that something strange is happening in 
> that many coincidences are needed to create this world.
> On the other hand if one insists that there is nothing special about 
> humans and that human creativity is a mere fluke then what we see is 
> simply the outcome of many possibilities - after all something had to 
> happen.

To expand on this last point from my own perspective...

I believe this question to be to be unresolvable. The theological
perspective is that the probablitiy of Man ultimately evolving from an
initial Big Bang is so astronomical that it is a viritual impossiblity
for it to be merely a random coincidence.

The scientific perspective does not address theological issues at all
and only deals with observable data and conclusions drawn from that
data. They look at the fact that "Man" is "here" then seek evidence and
try to deduce what is the most likely scenario for the existence of man.

Science by its nature uses a minimalist approach in explaining the course
of the existence of the physical universe and the evolution of man and
will not concede to any external discussion about a Creator without any
evidence of it. All they will concede to is the evidence at hand or to
be discovered and the conclusions to be drawn by that evidence. This is
how evolutionary theories came into being, to explain existence based
on data collected.

God is not in the equation because there is no concrete scientific
evidence of Him. The astronomical improbabilty is explained as: "Af
Al Pi Kein"... eventhough the probability is so infinitely remote of a
series of events randomly taking place cosmologically ending up with Man,
never-the-less, since it is possible... it must have happened. Scientists
will say that random events DO ultimately happen SOME way ...and something
had to happen and ...THIS... is what happened. V'Ha Rayah, we're here.

Those who are believers in a Creator yet concede to scientific data and
the many conclusions that are drawn from such data simply eliminate the
random aspects of theories like evolution (pointing to the astronomical
unlikelihood as one of the major problems) yet concede that evolution
may in fact have taken place IN SOME FORM, but that it was guided by God.

HM

>> IIRC the Ramchal says that G-d's existence and necessity can be
>> proved. There is now an updated argument for the Cosmological proof 
>> that does not  need the principle of sufficient reason. The conclusion 
>> of the  argument is  that His necessity is the best explanation for 
>> our contingent  existence.  Hawking and the like have done a 
>> particularly poor job of trying to  wiggle out of this one.

> Can you please explain this in more detail.
> My understanding of modern physics is that they claim that it is all
> "coincidence". i.e. there is nothing special that man exists rather
> than other material or even nothing. Modern string theory even tries
> to explain that the big bang was an outcome of physical laws and will
> recur in the future.

At first glance, the "big bang" theory would seem to indicate that the
universe is contingent, having started at some singularity at which
all the laws of nature break down. The "best explanation" and in fact
the only explanation (if one exists) for this state of affairs is that
there must exist some kind of transcendent, i.e. a necessary, Being who
is the source of all this contingency.

Hawking argues in a Brief History (p133-136) that there is no need to
appeal to G-d as Hawking replaces the singularity (creation ex nihilo)
with a universe that is "completely self-contained and not affected by
anything outside itself" (p136). The laws of nature govern the universe
at all times, and the universe exists tenselessly (in a mathematically
"imaginary" and non-real time frame).

Even the atheist philosopher Quentin Smith calls Hawkings presentation
"probably the worst atheistic argument in the history of western thought"
(p132, Theism, atheism and big bang cosmology, Oxford univ. press,
1993). Quentin then attempts to save atheism and Hawking with his own
interpretation of Hawking's scientific works.

However, a problem still remains. Even if you can get around the
singularity as Hawking, Smith and others attempt to do, there does not
appear to be any compelling reason to believe our universe (or multiverse)
is necessary.

Hence the updated version of the Cosmological argument still holds, and
we conclude that the best explanation (in fact the only explanation with
the requisite explanatory power) is that our universe has its source in
a necessary Being.

The Ramban states that R. Yitzchak in the Midrash Raba, Saadya Gaon and
the Rambam all translate Ekyeh asher Ekyeh as stating that G-d is eternal
and the only necessarily existing Being, and that Moshe was commanded to
show this by "by rational proofs" which will eradicate the doctrine of
the eternity of matter (and the eternity of scientific laws?) from them
(see R. Chevel). This is the answer Moshe must give to the question of
"what is His name?". The Ramban himself has a different peshat.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 02:04:03PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
: If I understand this correctly - and that is a big IF - this implies
: that since the universe exists therefore G-d must exist. It does not
: say that if G-d's existence is inherently necessary. If the universe
: did not exist then G-d would not have to exist.

Here's how I understand it.

The Rambam is saying that the existance of the universe, which is
a contingent existance, proves there must be a First Cause, which
therefore necessarily exists. (Because if G-d's existance weren't
necessary, it would require a cause -- and therefore not be first.)

So, the proof requires knowing the universe exists, but the thing
being proved does not.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Richard Bach

See my summary of R' Aharon Lichtenstein's view at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n132.shtml#05>

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

In a message dated 02/27/2004 1:32:33 PM EST, zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
<< The story about R' Chaim Soloveitchik and his feverish young grandson
(the Rav) is well-known, but bears repeating. R' Chaim told his son,
R' Velvel, to bring the shabbat candles closer to the bed so that the
doctor would have more light. He was then asked by a guest as to why
he was being lenient on milechet shabbat (gram kibui). He answered, "
I am not being meikil on milechet shabbat, I am being machmir on safek
pikuach nefesh". >>

To be exact - as brought down in The Rav - it was a nonJewish doctor who
was examiig R'YBS and R' Chaim asked whether it would help to turn the
lamp up. The doctor said it wouldn't be a bad idea . R' Chaim told R'
Moshe to turn it up, R' Moshe intuitively exclaimed "it's the Sabbath,
ask the doctor if he really needs more light"

R'YBS remembers his grandfather got angry and told r" SimchaSelig (the
dayan of Brisk) that his son was an ignoramous.,he did not understand
that the Sabbath plays no role when there is danger to life. The Brisker
Dayan then immediately turned the lamp up!

In a footnote R' Rakeffet notes that R'YBS didn't know why R' Chaim
didn't turn the light up himself.

Shabbat Shalom
Joel Rich

PS My guess to R'YBS's question is a mitziut answer - but I always got
yelled at in Yeshiva for suggesting mitziut answers:-)

On 27 Feb 2004 at 18:11, Micha Berger wrote:
> we've had
> numerous discussions about what is pesaq/pesak/psak: how binding is
> it, how it works theologically, the historical processes of halachah,
> and even threads along the lines of what you're asking.

I also recall that during one of the discussions on the yoatzot Rav
Henkin gave a definition of what was considered psak - something that
was dwelled upon at length in the yoatzot program in order to ensure
that what the yoatzot are doing is NOT psak.

 - Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> The problem with this answer is that who is a posek changes
>> with the generations.

> Why is that a problem?

I guess just in my psychology. I think of a "posek" in absolute terms.
He is a person who has knowledge and courage to stake out new territory
and his opinions are taken seriously.
I have no problem with the "discovery" of a posek from previous
generations who was no recognized.
However, when a recognized posek falls into disfavor it strikes more as
the latest fashion whether to be machmir or mekil rather than something
objective.

-- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 2/29/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

> I heard that there might perhaps be a question about the kashrus of
> eggs from Leghorn chickens. Apparently leghorns have two and two toes
> rather than the normal three and one, and hence the question is whether
> that makes the Leghorn a min tamei. Apparently a large part of current
> production is from the Leghorn.

> How did Leghorns (apparently from Leghorn, Italy) originate? Was there
> any genetic engineering?

An update for those of you who have written to ask me for more details. 

I heard from an OU mashgiach that the OU is of the opinion that there is
no concern. White Leghorns are uncomfortable in the 2-2 formation and are
therefore not a "doreis". The Badatz (Eida Hachereidis) investigated this
problem a few years ago and found the same thing, and Rabbi Brandsdorfer
Shlita, a Dayan at the Badatz has confirmed that the ruling still stands.

Thus according to the OU the Leghorn is 100% kosher.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

 From an Areivim discussion:

From: simchag@att.net
<<i made a pidyan haben for my b'chor, and 2 of my children made one for
THEIRs.

the minhag, as is excepted in my circles, is to be podeh in the
afternoon...except for Friday when it's done in the morning.
when a pidyan haben falls out on a shabbos OR a Yom Tov... then it's
done on Motzei...
there is a 'diyun' in SA in the Shach that i mentioned, when to make the
pidyan when a pidyan haben falls out on a taanis...from what i know,
the minhag is to do it motzei taanis...both the pidyun AND the seudah. >>

Anyone know why pidyon haben is the exception to the rule of zerizim
makdimim?

Gershon 
(who made one pidyon haben, and whose bechor made a pidyon for HIS bechor,
on the same day of the year-first day chol hamoed Sukkos!)(but whose
latest grandson is a bechor ben levi).

gershon.dubin@juno.com

If people from outside of Jerusalem go to a hotel for Parshat Zachor
then it would seem that they all have to hear the megillah in a minyan in
the hotel on motzei shabbat (assuming they return home later that night).
Can someone from Jerusalem read the megillah for them since he is not
a mechuyav?

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/1/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

<http://www.riets.edu/riets/iData/torah_riets/torah_rietsvPosProc.asp?tID=5>
(32min).

Rav Dovid Lifshitz on the subject of milchemes Amaleiq, milchemes
ha'emes vehasheqer, a necessary precondition for binyan Bh"M. Yehoshua
fought Amaleiq, Yehoshua brought us into EY. Kesov zos zikaron baseifer,
vesim be'aznei Yehoshua. The battle of Torah against Isms -- when Moshe's
hands were raised, mish'abedim es libam laAvihem shebashamayim.

This then becomes the connection between Purim and Yom haKippurim. Sur
meira, va'asei tov. In order to do good, you need to be aware of the ra
and actively avoid it. Yom haKippurim -- fleeing from the ra. Purim --
we stand for safra over sayaf; bitul hara, there is no ra.

And this is the meaning of the gemara that after bi'as hamashiach,
only Purim will remain.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

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


[ 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         ]