Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 071

Tuesday, August 17 2004

• Child Carrying Tallit
• Re: Lice
• Re: Lice
• Re: Age of the Universe and Creation
• Re: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• Re: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• Re: Evolution, Creationism, Lice and Other Mythical Creatures
• Pi
• Metzitzah Be-Peh
• Re: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• RE: Evolution, Creationism, Lice and Other Mythical Creatures
• RE: Evolution, Creationism, Lice and Other Mythical Creatures
• Age of the Universe and Creation

It is quite clear that this was a fairly common practice in Eastern
Europe at one time. The fact that it is discussed by so many Poskim
indicates its prevalence.

A review of opinions with citations stretching over two pages of small
print on this topic can be found in the work "Minchas Shabbos" 82:2,
p. 123. This work by R' Shmuel Hacohen Burstein was first published in
Warsaw around 1900 and has been reprinted several times. Nominally a
commentary on Hilchos Shabbos in the Kitzur Shulchan Aroch, it is really
a compendium of (mainly) Polish Achronim on Dinim of Shabbos.

Elozor Reich

At 06:37 AM 8/16/2004, [RDE] wrote:
>We recently witnessed a major turmoil concerning sheitel - according
>to you it should have been announced that "she'eiris yisra'el lo ya'asu
>avla"? In fact it was said in the name of gedolim that klall yisroel had
>in fact collectively sinned - as a consequence of following the psak
>of gedolim. Thus the above concept is not an absolute rule but merely
>a presumption - which can in fact be wrong. There is a similar dispute
>in the question of whether tzadikim can sin or cause others to sin.
>There is much evidence that a posek - even godol hador can err. This
>has been rehashed many times in this forum.

Dr. Eidensohn conflates psakim in doros acharonim with dina d'gemara. IMHO 
this is a grave error, and there is no basis for such a comparison.

YGB 

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> Dr. Eidensohn conflates psakim in doros acharonim with dina d'gemara. 
> IMHO this is a grave error, and there is no basis for such a comparison.

The above would seem to be an issue that bears further discussion and 
clarification. But I am simply not sure what you mean.  I would greatly 
appreciate your elucidation and expanation as to what your concerns are  
- it would also be especially helpful if you could connect your comments 
to the active exchange that preceded your comments.

Daniel Eidensohn

Zev Sero wrote:
>But for those who are bothered by the apparent contradiction, and want to
>resolve it by saying that only one of the two should be taken literally,
>why choose the rocks over the Bible?

Simple. There are numerous precedents for things in the Bible being
non-literal - ESPECIALLY with Bereishis. But we have no precedent for
things in nature being "non-literal" i.e. fake.

[Email #2. -mi]

R' Michah wrote:
>Pesuqim must be historical unless we had TSBP reason, without the
>scientific challenge, to say otherwise.

Rambam didn't follow this principle - he said that the episode of Bilaam's
donkey, and other episodes, were not historical truth, but rather a
prophetic vision.
Rav Saadia Gaon permits allegorization in several circumstances, one of
which is a conflict from metziyus (i.e. scientific challenge). No mention of
a TSBP license required.

Nosson Slifkin

In  Avodah V13 #70 dated 8/16/04  Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> writes:
>> Why random mutations appeals to them more than an intelligent design is a 
>> question you would have to ask them. [--Somebody]
> .....
> Besides -- who says God can't work via "Random" mutations?

The quotation marks you placed around the word "random" contradict the
very word! Quite an interesting sentence, a self-contradictory sentence.
Martin Gardener wrote whole essays about that subject.

You are trying to argue against ID (Intelligent Design) by claiming that
G-d could have used random mutations. But if He used random mutations,
they weren't random! If He worked via random mutations, then we are back
to intelligent design--unless He had nothing to do with evolution at
all. But then you'd have to drop your quotation marks, as well as your
membership in Avodah.

Perhaps you meant to say that G-d could have made mutations that only
LOOK random, so an atheist can see what he wants to see and a believer
can see what he wants to see. ID by the back door, again.

Or--one possiblity is that by some kind of Divine tzimtzum, He allows
mutations to occur in a genuinely random way--but then HE selects the
mutations He wants to preserve, rather than "survival of the fittest"
being the selection mechanism. That would explain how a pupil could be
preserved for the time a retina arrived or vice versa. This scenario
would not be considered "scientific" either, though, at least not by
scientists. Because there is still a Designer in there.

So, random or "random"?  

[Email #2. -mi]

In  Avodah V13 #70 dated 8/16/04   Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> writes:
> .... The key is 've'en tzayar
> kelokenu' - He is the Perfect Artist, and this world is His masterpiece.
> A good work of art needs a backstory. How did everything get to be as
> it is portrayed at the actual moment depicted? If we had a world that
> appeared on the surface to be 'natural', but when we started digging
> below the surface we didn't find a backstory, the artificiality of the
> world would be apparent. A human artist, having done the surface with
> meticulous care, including mountains and canyons that appear to have
> been eroded over millions of years, glaciers that one would expect to
> have resulted from the climate swings that one would expect from a star
> with variable output, etc, wouldn't bother going below the surface and
> burying the strange fossils one would expect to find there. After all,
> who's going to look? But the Perfect Artist did go to that trouble,
> not only because He knew that we would indeed look, but because if he
> didn't put it there His work would be less than perfect.

I'm not sure I really buy this explanation but I have to admit that it is 
beautiful, poetic--and possibly true.  It certainly bears thinking about.

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

> You are trying to argue against ID (Intelligent Design) 

Not at all (being a firm IDer).

> by claiming that G-d could have used random mutations.  
> But if He used random mutations, they weren't random!  

"Random" to US.

> Or--one possiblity is that by some kind of Divine tzimtzum, He allows 
> mutations to occur in a genuinely random way--but then HE selects the 
> mutations He wants to preserve, rather than "survival of the fittest" being 
> the selection mechanism.  

Or BOTH mechanisms, maybe?

> So, random or "random"?  

"Random", when applied to evolutionary theory, refers to the mechanism
of change. It is NOT the same as mathematical randomness.

Akiva

(Who enjoys dropping crystals into supersaturated solutions... )

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:

> The Torah was not meant as an explanation of how God created the world.

How do you know?

> Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki explains that when the Torah begins with the phrase
> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, he actually
> created the the sun and its luminaries then as well (...in one big
> bang).

This is pshat in 2:1: 'the offspring of the heavens and earth, which were
created on the day that Hashem created the earth and the heavens'.

> But the Pashut Pshat is that he created these luminaries on the
> fourth day: (Genesis 1:16 - paraphrased) "And God made the two great suns,
> the large one for the day and the small one for the night. Then (Genesis
> 1:19): "And it was evening and it was morning... fourth day".

Taking that pasuk in isolation, one would think that was pshat, but then
it would contradict 2:1, so Rashi explains the real pshat.

> Rabbi Yitzchoki knew that it was not likely that the earth was created
> before the sun.

Huh?  Why do you think he would think this unlikely?  Where do you see
any hint that he thought it unlikely, and that this made him translate
it differently?  How is creating the sun and moon on the first day, and
keeping them in storage for three days until the time came to hang them
in the sky, more likely than simply creating them on the fourth day? It
seems rather *less* plausible to me.  If Rashi says that nevertheless
that's what happened, it isn't because of a concern for likeliness, it's
because he can't translate the pesukim that way.

> But according to you, why not? ...The earth was created and then the
> sun during God's creative cycle during the first six days. What
> difference would it make? It is a Pchus in God's Infinite creative
> capacity for Rabbi Yitzchoki to modify the Pashut P'shat, is it not?

No, it's his job to explain the pshat, especially when a naive reading
of one pasuk would mislead one into an understanding that will become
untenable when we get to a pasuk that's inconsistent with it.

> After all God can, K'Heref Ayin, create the entire universe and if He
> wants to create the sun on the fourth day... it's His business, no?
> Who is Rabbi Yitzchoki or any other human being to say differently?

Sure, He could have done it that way, and it would be a whole lot *more*
plausible than the way Rashi says He did it, but - at least as Rashi
sees it - He told us in 2:1 (and in the 'et's in 1:1) that He didn't do
it that way.

Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org> wrote:
>>You can believe what you want, but please answer: Why would Hashem
>>deliberately fool us by writing in the Torah that He created the world
>>in a mature state, in six days, 5000 years ago, while "in reality"
>>He started creating it billions of years ago?

> For the same reason the medrash claims creation started b4 1 Tishrei?
> i.e. according to the medrash, creation began before the counting of time.

Huh?  Who ever claimed, or thought until they found a contrary medrash,
that the creation happened on 1 Tishri, rather than 25 Elul?  And since
when does the counting of time start on 1 Tishri of the year 2?  Our
calendar actually starts nearly a year *before* creation, at Molad
Baharad, also known as Molad Tohu because *it never happened*!

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> wrote:

>>Besides -- who says God can't work via "Random" mutations?

> I used to think that this was a legitimate approach but if you allow for
> total randomness you begin to approach the Aristotalian model of God as
> the "Unmoved Mover"

Only if you view randomness as something that 'just happens'.  Quantum
mechanics may give us a clue to the real meaning of hashgacha pratit:
the big puzzle of QM is how it actually works.  What makes an electron
go one way rather than another?  How is it that 50% of the atoms in a
sample of a radioactive substance will decay within a half-life, while
the other 50% will remain as they were?  I've long thought that the
true explanation may be that that is where we can finally see the Yad
Hashem; that it's Hashem Who decides how each individual quantum event
will resolve, and therefore directly controls every single thing that
happens.  He normally chooses to do this according to predictable rules,
so for every atom He chooses to decay He chooses another not to, but
the choice is still Prati.  And sometimes He breaks that general rule
(perhaps making up for it somewhere else), to achieve a specific result.

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:

> Would
> you sit in a Sukkah that is kosher because it was assumed that pi = 3?

Certainly, just as we rely on the gemara's approximation sqrt(2) = 1.4.
The mishna in Eruvin explicitly gives us permission to use pi = 3, and
all the commentaries on the mishna, who don't have to deal with the
contrary gemara, explicitly acknowledge that the mishna is giving an
approximation, and is telling us to rely on this approximation even
though it is well known to be imprecise.  (The gemara insists that
the mishna means pi=3 exactly, and I have yet to see any explanation
of that.  Tosefot notes the question and simply throws up his hands
and moves on, and others just ignore the question completely.  But the
commentaries on the mishna just ignore the gemara on this.)

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

>>...the Perfect Artist did go to that trouble,
>>not only because He knew that we would indeed look, but because if he
>>didn't put it there His work would be less than perfect.

> Can you explain why dinosaurs had to be part of the Artist's
> painting? Based on your explanation, dinosaur fossils HAD to be put into
> the "painting" by the Perfect Artist because it would not have been the
> masterpiece that it is. What is it about dinosaur fossils that would
> make the world incomplete without them? No one would ever think there
> is something wrong with the world if dinosaurs or their fossils had
> never existed.

Well, it didn't have to be dinosaurs, but it had to be *something*.
How could a planet that is supposed to have come about naturally
have gone millions of years without several extinction events?  So
He had to put *some* sort of fossil record there, to provide a
plausible backstory.  But how majestic is the story that He chose for
this purpose?  Instead of 'getting away' with just trilobites and more
trilobites, He created a whole class of such awe-inspiring creatures
that have fascinated us ever since we came across their 'remains'.
But the world would certainly have screamed 'fake' if there were no
extinct species in the record.

> Your belief in the Pashut Pshat forces you to make assumptions that
> defy all evidence and logical deductions thereof. Why did Rashi need to
> explain that the the Torah's exposition of the sun being created on the
> fourth day was not literal. Do you have a problem with Rashi, too? The
> Perfect Artist can paint the sun on any day He wants. But Rashi felt
> that it was not Mistaver.

No, Rashi felt that it was not pshat.  His explanation is *less* mistaver
than the literal reading, but it's the only one that reconciles 1:1 and
2:1 with the individual parshiyot of each day.

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> Micha Berger wrote:

>>Where are my sources that "she'eiris yisra'el lo ya'asu avla"? That a
>>pesaq gets siyata dishmaya?

> We recently witnessed a major turmoil concerning sheitel - according
> to you it should have been announced that "she'eiris yisra'el lo ya'asu
> avla"? In fact it was said in the name of gedolim that klall yisroel had
> in fact collectively sinned - as a consequence of following the psak
> of gedolim. 

Not a good example, since after the dust settles it seems like we will
find that 'sheeris yisroel' was right all along, and those who raised
doubt about its practise were mistaken.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>                                                            If one
>> accepts Tosfos's view that the value of pi is incorrect in Shas than
>> it follows that halachic conclusions based upon it are also incorrect.

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Umm... Even the ba'alei Tosafos don't call for correcting the conclusions.
> They point out it's an approximation, not an error.

I assume RDE is talking about the Tosefot in Eruvin, where the gemara
is emphatic that pi is exactly 3.000000, with no approximation at all.
And tosefos asks the obvious question: we know this just isn't so.
And doesn't give an answer. But it also doesn't say that therefore
the gemara's conclusion should be thrown out. The lesson I take from
that tosefos is that the author had a very strong question, one that
seems unanswerable, and yet he didn't shut the gemara, or decide that
it was wrong; instead he was able to just decide that he wasn't going
to understand this sugya, and go on to the next one.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 21:48:41 -0400 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Wrote To Areivim:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>:> But how could any bit of news change one's

>: Have you seen any defense of metziztah bapeh that rationally defends it as
>: part of the mitzah of milah?

>If you hold that metzitzah is not a post-beris bloodletting but rather
>as integral to the beris as milah and peri'ah, then yes, it makes sense
>to question the permissability of changing a detail of the ritual.

>I believe this is Hungarisher pesaq.

Here is a useful summary of sources:

 From Parshat Vayera Vol.11 No.8
Date of issue: 17 Cheshvan 5762  -- November 3, 2001

Modern Brit Milah Issues - Part One
by Rabbi Howard Jachter

The Jewish people have been observing the Mitzva of Brit Milah for
approximately 3700 years. Nevertheless, Poskim have been forced to grapple
with many new challenges posed by newly discovered medical and technical
knowledge. In the following weeks we will discuss five of these issues;
performing Brit Milah on a jaundiced baby, the Metzitza controversy,
using anesthetics at a Brit, using new implements such as shields and
clamps at a Brit, and performing Milah on Shabbat for boys conceived by
artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization.
			      .        .         .

The Metzitza Controversy
A similar dilemma has emerged in modern times regarding Metzitza, the
squeezing of the blood after the Brit. Chazal (Shabbat 133b and Shulchan
Aruch 264:3) regard Metzitza as a medical necessity. Some Acharonim
(Ketzot Hachoshen 382 and Chochmat Adam 149:14) believe that Chazal
require Metzitza only due to health considerations. Other Acharonim
(Teshuvot Maharam Schick Y.D. 338 and Teshuvot Avnei Neizer Y.D. 338)
insist that Metzitza constitutes an integral component of the Milah
process and is not merely a health concern. The Avnei Neizer emphasizes
the significance of Metzitza from the perspective of the Kabbalah. The
Acharonim also debate whether Metzitza must be performed orally (Teshuvot
Binyan Tzion 1:24) or may be done manually (Chatam Sofer cited in Rav
Pirutinsky's Sefer Habrit pp.216-217). A summary of this debate appears
in Sdei Chemed 8:Kuntress Hametzitza.

On the other hand, modern science believes that Metzitza is not a medical
necessity and is dangerous if performed orally. Health concerns regarding
Metzitza have increased greatly since AIDS has become a relevant issue.

Three approaches to this dilemma appear in the nineteenth and twentieth
century responsa literature. Teshuvot Avnei Neizer adopts a particularly
strong stand and requires the performance of Metzitza orally despite
the danger. He applies the Gemara's (Pesachim 8a) assertion that, "No
harm will befall those involved in a Mitzva," in this context. Indeed,
Chassidim have vigorously abided by this ruling even since AIDS became
a serious concern. This author witnessed a Satmar Mohel perform Metzitza
Bepeh at a Brit in 1990.

On the other hand, the aforementioned Chatam Sofer writes that the
Halacha does not demand that the Metzitza be performed orally. He writes
that Metzitza is done orally only because of Kabbalistic concerns. The
Chatam Sofer writes that we should overlook Kabbalistic considerations,
when performing Metzitza orally poses a health concern. Similarly,
Rav Hershel Schachter (Nefesh Harav 243) writes that Rav Yosef Dov
Soloveitchik reports that his father Rav Moshe Soloveitchik would not
permit a Mohel to perform Metzitza Bepeh. It is reported that Rav Moshe
Feinstein also adopts the Chatam Sofer's approach. Some Mohelim follow
this approach in their practices.

Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor (cited in the aforementioned Sdei Chemed)
and Rav Zvi Pesach Frank (Teshuvot Har Zvi Y.D. 214) adopt a compromise
approach. These authorities permit performing Metzitza orally by using
a glass tube. Rav Zvi Pesach, though, cautions that this technique
is not simple and requires training to perform properly. On the other
hand, the Avnei Neizer objects to using a glass tube. He notes that the
Rambam (Hilchot Milah 2:2) and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 264:3) write that
Metzitza must extract the blood from the "furthest places." The Avnei
Neizer contends that this cannot be accomplished when using a glass
tube. Nevertheless, many Mohelim perform Metzitza using a glass tube
because of health concerns. Indeed, Dr. Abraham (Nishmat Avraham 4:123)
reports that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach permits performing Metzitza with
a glass to avoid concern for AIDS.

Conclusion
Regarding the jaundice and Metzitza issues we find different approaches in
the various Torah communities. Some do not take modern medical concerns
and insights into account, while others incorporate modern medical
concerns without compromising the Halacha. . . .
			      .        .        .

My additional comments:

IIRC, the metzitzah bepeh controversy appears in the context of
unscrupulous attacks by Reform adherents upon brit milah in general and it
is discussed in: Jacob Katz, ha-Halakhah be-metsar : mikhsholim 'al derekh
ha-ortodo·ksyah be-hitha·vutah Hotsa'at sefarim 'a. sh. Y.L. Magnes,
ha-Universi·tah ha-'Ivrit, c1992.

We can understand how the cause of metzitzah pe-peh evokes a vestigial
suspicion as to motives and an inappropriate defensive reaction; however
given what is most important, the issue of proven sakanah and also the
danger lurking in the background of antisemitic or self-hating opponents
of milah; one would hope that metzitzah pe-peh would have become rare
among non-chasidim and that chasidim would insist on compulsory antibody
testing of mohelim. This article by Dr. Gesundheit et al. should I hope
be the cause of a quiet change by any still harbouring doubts as to the
reality of the problem and its ready solution.

KT
Eliyahu

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> You are trying to argue against ID (Intelligent Design) by claiming that
> G-d could have used random mutations. But if He used random mutations,
> they weren't random! If He worked via random mutations, then we are back
> to intelligent design--unless He had nothing to do with evolution at
> all. 

I think what RAA meant is what I alluded to in a previous post, although
this is not what I personally believe. The way in which God could have
actively created a universe wherein randomness was the driving force
in evolution is by creating the laws of nature. BANG! Once created,
evolution can then occur randomly.

HM

> Well, it didn't have to be dinosaurs, but it had to be *something*.

No, it didn't. Scientists of the last century were not sitting around
wondering why they hadn't found evidence of mass extinctions -- the idea
hadn't entered their minds.

In a "perfectly designed" system you wouldn't have "mass extinctions" --
certainly not ones caused by something as "random" as asteroids hitting
the earth.

> How could a planet that is supposed to have come about naturally
> have gone millions of years without several extinction events?

Up until this century the IDEA of "mass extinctions" would have been
considered impossible on theological grounds -- How could God create a
system where such a thing takes place...

> He had to put *some* sort of fossil record there, to provide a
> plausible backstory.  But how majestic is the story that He chose for
> this purpose?  Instead of 'getting away' with just trilobites and more
> trilobites, He created a whole class of such awe-inspiring creatures

I'd prefer hobbits, dwarves and elves...

Akiva

--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

From Rabbi Akiva Atwood:
> Up until this century the IDEA of "mass extinctions" would 
> have been considered impossible on theological grounds -- How 
> could God create a system where such a thing takes place...

I find your statement rather puzzling as I thought the material below
was well-known on Avodah:

"... [the scientist Cuvier writes that of 78 species of creatures
which are found in the bowel of the earth , 48 no longer exists in our
modern world world ... They have found fosilised remains of iguanodon
... Megalosaurus ... From all this it is clear that the teaching of the
kabbalists, hundreds of years old, that the world has been destroyed
and renewed ..."

[Tiferes Yisroel, 5602 (1842), in Derush Ohr Hachayim, referring to
worlds created and destroyed before Adam HaRishon]

The Tiferes Yisroel is here referring to a famous Midrash about G-d
creating and destroying worlds. R. Yitzchak of Akko, who lived at the
time of the rediscovery of the Zohar (approx. 13th century) , arrived
at an age for the universe of 15 billion years based on this Midrash
and other sources. Many Rishonim refer to the concept of the Sabbatical
cycles including R. Bechaye, the Recanti and the Kuzari. The author
of Vayekhel Moshe wrote that "we can see the greatness of the Ari"
zt"l since he disputed the concept of the Sabbatical cycles held by his
predecessors. Accordingly, the Midrash is talking about spiritual worlds.

However, clearly the Tiferes Yisroel (and perhaps his predecessors)
felt that mass extinctions are consilient with Maaseh Beraishis. I have
heard that the doctrine of Sabbatical cycles was so well established and
publicized in earlier times, that the Abarbanel rejected the efforts of
some to treat it as Sod [hidden teaching of the Torah] that should be
kept under wraps.

Interestingly the Tiferes Yisroel explains that the "tohu" on day one is
when the the primeval worlds were destroyed and on which the current world
was built (see also BR1:5). The Torah skips over these primeval worlds
"which do not concern us at all in our current existence". Except of
course, for the debris -- the fossil remains left behind as a visible
reminder. Rabbi Dovid Brown z"l in Mosdos Haaretz argues that those
worlds were destroyed because the 974 generations that inhabited
those worlds (Chagiga 13b) refused to accept the Torah (see Zohar
Beraishis 25A). In a similar manner, would it not have been for Noach
(who learnt Torah; Rashi), the Flood would have destroyed our world (for
the topsoil to a depth of one foot was washed away) and returned it to
"toho u-bohu". Ultimately, the Klal Yisroel said Naaseh Venishma at Har
Sinai thus securing this world for Hashem.

Of course, the Tiferes Yisroel should not (chas veshalom :-) be suspected
of promoting Darwinian Evolution. The Derush Ohr Hachayim was published
in approximately 1842 well before "Origin of the Species" which first
appeared in 1859. Cuvier stressed the lack of evidence for the change
of species contra Darwin, and of course the fossil record in no way
supports Darwinism.

The Tiferes Yisroel rightly felt that all of creation proclaims the
glory and wisdom of G-d.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

<hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
>> You can believe what you want, but please answer: Why would Hashem
>> deliberately fool us by writing in the Torah that He created the world
>> in a mature state, in six days, 5000 years ago, while "in reality"
>> He started creating it billions of years ago?

RHM replied:
> The Torah was not meant as an explanation of how God created the world. He
> told us WHAT He did, Not HOW he did it,...

It tells usa how He did it to some extent, which could use exlanation to
expand upon it and fill in details. But not to contradict it. And the
Torah tells us WHEN He did it, which is the issue under discussion. It
tells us He did it in six days, about 5,000 years ago.

RHM:
> ...and used terminology that we could
> understand ...at many different levels: Lashon Bnei Adam. 

What would be hard to understand about "In the Beginning, G-d created
the earth over a very long time," or "...over billions of years," or
over a period of six epochs?" Do you think people who can deal with the
original human lifespans of upwards of 900 years could not deal with this?

RHM:
> Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki explains that...  he actually
> created the the sun and its luminaries then as well ...

Rashi is citing a medrash, not subjecting the Torah to his own theories,
and, as others have pointed out, is dealing with conforming otherwise
conflicting p'sukim.

[Email #2. -mi]

RNS, zoorabbi@zootorah.com posted on Aug 14, 2004:
> Now here comes the puzzle. Rav Miller... generally engages in extensive
> arguments that scientists are wrong, scientists are evil, scientists
> cannot be trusted, their material is flawed, etc. And yet, in some cases
> (I think stars was one of them), he concedes that the science is correct,
> but argues that Hashem made it look that way so that the world would
> look old.

> Well, which is it? If Hashem made the world look billions of years old,
> then all the science is correct, and there's no need to disprove it!

I'm sincerely happy that you've decided to re-read Rav Miller's
sefarim, presumably Rejoice O Youth (which lays the groundwork of his
presentation), and Awake My Glory, and Sing You Righteous (which latter
two provide documentation), with an open mind. There is no puzzle as to
his approach and impeccable logic. It's common to argue: "Your facts are
wrong, but even were they correct, they're mostly irrelevant to the point
you're trying to make." ("What of the various measuring methods, by which
they claim to know that certain objects are of great age? Besides being
extremely unreliable, as they now admit, these methods of measurement
are usually irrelevant" (R.O.Y. p.23).

The dating "proofs" used by evolutionists are faulty, based on unwarranted
and prejudiced assumptions, circular reasoning (Rav Miller documents
cases of creatures evolutionists claim to have existed aeons apart, to be
found together in fossil records; of cases where the vertical sequences
of the fossils found in one location were found in the opposite sequence
in another location, and quotes from mainstream evolutionists admitting
that their constructs are ridiculous, but that they maintain them out of
faith, because the only alternative is special Creation--which, of course,
is heresy to them) and are usually irrelevant in regard to contesting what
the Torah says about how long the world has existed. The latter applies to
indications of age which are factual, i.e.., we can see here and now (such
as the speed of light, or the rings of trees), and which can be proven.

However, the fact is that Evolutionists have a bias to their faith which
causes them to interpret data to favor their religion, manipulate facts
to fit their mind set, and create hoaxes to support it. Those who subject
themselves to their propaganda are often infected with, I mean affected
by, this mind set as well.

Underlying the acceptance of the fact that scientists possess these
shortcomings is the realization that they are not the pristine, objective,
agenda-free searchers for truth that they are portrayed as. Some are
even evil, which is just to say they they are no less human than other
members of the human race.

Consider the following:
"The common assumption, of course, is that the scientific evidence
regarding fossils is basically reliable and need not be seriously
questioned by laymen. In other words, our job is to deal with these
facts--not to cast doubt upon their veracity. Other than those who
reject out of hand the scientific enterprise, one naturally assumes
that the fossil evidence and its interpretation have been presented by
serious scientists who were objective in their pursuit of knowledge and
who used accepted standards of scientific rigor. In actual fact, as we
shall see, scientists have a dismal record when it comes to interpreting
hominid fossils. Blunder after blunder has been made in the course of
"scientific work." Moreover, these absurd interpretations of hominid
fossils were not published by third-rate worker, but rather, by world
famous scientists. Indeed, it is precisely because of the unquestioned
authority of these scientists that it often required decades to
correct their errors.! It has become clear in recent years that the
reason for this shoddy work is that the evolutionists in question were
often motivated by subjective considerations such as national pride,
professional jealousy and preconceived notions."

No, this is not a quote from one of Rav Miller's sefarim. It is an
excerpt from an article by the famous Professor Aviezer (Jewish Action,
Winter 5758/1997, Vol. 58, No. 2, p. 61).

It was especially necessary for Rav Miller to point out the subjective
nature of the scientist in the 1950-1960's, when "Science" and
"Scientists" were in the popular mind held on a pedestal as the supreme
bearers of Truth and Objectivity--so that everything from redefining
morality to the value of a brand of toothpaste, was sealed by the
proclamation, "Scients say!" If scientists proclaimed something to be
true--even something as outrageously insane as the thought that the
organic and non-organic world, with all its obvious demonstrations
of being the result of plan and purpose, was the result of undirected
accidents--then the masses fell into line and blindly accepted it. (I
think the current fat vs. carb controversy has served to awaken the
populace to the fact that "science" cannot even prove one way or another
regarding something as here and now as the reactions our bodies have to
food--not to mention having the answer to how the world came into being
through examining old rocks and their remains.) Rav Miller reminded his
listeners and readers that they should not let themselves fall under
the spell, and not their seichel be bamboozled. Case in point:

RNS:
> All you need to do is go to any of the numerous locations where tens
> of thousands of dinosaurs' fossils have been retrieved (there are many
> such places in the US). See if you can find, in those locations, the
> fossils of dogs, cats, humans, or any modern creatures... or, in Israel,
> go down to the Ramon crater, and look at all the fossils embedded in
> the rock. There are thousands of ammonites -- extinct marine creatures
> -- but no modern aquatic life-forms. This is clear evidence that there
> were different eras of life in earth's history, and dinosaurs did not
> live in the same era as these creatures.

When one uses Torah and mesorah as his starting point, and internalizes
it, his mind will not have the knee-jerk reaction (if minds can react
like knee-joints) of those who were indoctrinated with the evolution mind
set that immediately jumps to the mythical macroevolution process as
"the" explanation of whatever phenomena they find. Thus, they will not
instantaneously conclude, upon seeing resemblances between the bodies of
whales and other mammals, that one is a descendant of the other, any more
than one would conclude that my father-in-law's Cadillac is a descendent
of my Honda Civic--despite the many resemblances they have to each other).

Nor would (alleged) findings of fossil remains of only one kind
of creature in a certain locality constitute a compelling reason to
imagine that no other creatures existed elsewhere at the time. (Are cat
and dog remains found in elephant graveyards? If you were a cat, would
you be hanging around a dinosaur?) The existence of creature-remains in
different places than those of other creature-remains tells you at most
about the areas where they lived and/or died; but zilch about the "eras."

Are then these kinds of "proofs" from body resemblances and localized
fossils really so compelling as to force one to abandon the clear and
repeated declarations of the Torah that Hashem created, formed and
perfected the Universe in six days?

Zvi Lampel

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


[ 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         ]