Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 080

Thursday, August 26 2004

• Public expression by women
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: What is musar
• Re: Age of the Universe
• big bang
• Re: big bang
• Age of the Universe
• Age of the Universe, Evolution (Historical Perspective)
• Flaws in "Deep Theories"
• Re: Public expression by women
• nusach of kaddish
• Re: Public expression by women
• Re: Reliability of Science
• Age of the Universe
• Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe

My analysis of the the halakhic arguments given by RHS was intended to
move a discussion away from the personal into a serious examination
of sources. I still welcome differing perspectives on the important
question of how halakha responds to social change in society. However
the reactions that have appeared so far have consisted in calling all
the women who are searching for appropriate ways within halakha to
use their increased Jewish and secular knowledge for religious growth
as "radical feminists." Lumping together a wide variety of women and
a number of different suggestions fits the world of political talk
programs but not halakhic discourse. The attempt to claim that this is
an accurate reflection of the Rav's attitude is totally inconsistent
with the approach that the Rav took to issues.

Yosef Blau

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 02:14:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: What about our calendar, then, which is from the creation of the world,
: not of Adam, and which in fact starts from "molad tohu", which never
: existed?

Our calendar simply says that Adam was born in year 1, rather than
declaring Tishrei 1 to be year 1. It still says nothing about what came
before Adam, and whether time as we know it existed yet -- never mind
how much time.

Molad tohu could very well be fictional. If one would take it as proof
of anything, it would be proof that someone thought the moon existed a
literal year before Adam got a soul. It would be proof of non-literalism.

Or perhaps the name is proof of dual creation -- that there was time
during the period of tohu, before the yetzirah as we know it.

However, as RZS writes, we simply use it as a starting point. The Torah
tells us the original molad from which we counted our calendar -- the
molad right before yetzi'as mitzrayim. Molad tohu was just a number
produced by working backwards.

It is not a disproof to RZS's position of literalness, not mine of
incomprehensibility.


On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:37:11AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: RMB says "the Ramban inserts time between Bereishis 1:1 and yom 
: rishon...could have been 15 billion years."

: The Ramban doesn't actually SAY "It could have been 15 billion years"--but I 
: agree, it could have.   Or it could have been one minute, in which processes
: that normally would take 15 billion years were incredibly speeded up....

He says they're two distinct steps, with tohu vavohu, choshech, tehom
etc... in between. This is in contrast to those who take Bereishis 1:1
as a summary of the rest of the pereq.

The Ramban doesn't say whether the time in between was a moment or 15
billion years. Or even that there were natural processes in between --
speeded up or not. Or, for that matter, that the concept of time had
meaning, that processes, if they occured would run at the same speed as
they do today, at the same relative speed to eachother, or even at the
same speed relative to adjacent moments of a single process. Time is a
beryah, we don't know how well defined it was at this point. No a
priori statement about how far apart beri'ah and yetzirah were is
possible.

The Ramban's talmid happens to insert 15.8 billion years in between based
on ma'amarei chazal. (Not a priori.) He does not deliteralize the word
"yom" to mean anything other than 24 hours. Rather, he gives a pre-yom
rishon history. There is no reason to assume the talmid is being choleiq
on his rebbe rather than the usual default assumption that he was further
developing his rebbe's shitah. The two are quite consistant.


On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 11:08:42AM +0300, Efraim Yawitz wrote:
: Here is what bothers me about this and similar threads...
:                                    I always get the feeling that these
: kind of non-literal answers (which for some reason are often presented as
: being a great new discovery, even though they've been bouncing around in
: the Jewish and Christian worlds for almost 200 years) are useful only to
: people who anyway have a rather strong desire to believe in the Torah, but
: need some sort of way to assuage their fears of being nutty
: fundamentalists....

This is why I bedavka make the argument that the notion of a universe
that is younger than six millenia was MORE common amongst ba'alei mesorah
before science challenged any particular age over any other than it is
now. (In contrast to RHM's apparant position of the Torah having room
to accomodate scientific knowledge as needed.)

...
: The whole discussion seems to be taking place with the assumption that
: there are only two possibilities, literalness or non-literalness and
: ignores kefira as some sort of excluded middle.  I'm afraid the real
: detailed answers will only be found by people who realize that we're
: fighting here with live ammunition, and the non-religious world as well as
: our own children (and our own yetzer ha-ra) don't necessarily accept that
: assumption and see the idea that the Torah is a primitive myth with its
: share of redeeming and enlightened ideas..

Frankly the real gap between ourselves, C, and other popular forms of
kefirah is not prehistory, but history.

: On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Micha Berger wrote:
:> Not so. The Big Bang is a theory about yeish mei'ayin. 

:  From what I've read in secular sources, they just say "we can't know about
: before the Big Bang by definition."

However, there is a moment in which nothing exists. If you put my sentence
back in context, I was denying the assertion that the universe began
with the explosion of a primeval atom, which presumably was just always
"there". There was no "primeval atom" or anything else.

: > As I said,
: > the "science is wrong" seifer is not a good place to learn what it
: > is science teaches.

: I assume that you're referring to Rav Avigdor Miller, ztz"l, and although
: he doesn't need my defense, I will say, after reading his books more than
: once and hearing many of his tapes, this is an unfair characterization.  

I meant much of the genre, but yes, including that particular
discussion of RAM's. RAM simply wasn't a scientist, and yet felt
he knew enough to critique it. Frankly, he isn't even consistant in
how he uses the terms "hypothesis" and "theory".

But I didn't name names because I didn't mean it to be about any
one person. There are many books on the shelves written by people who
upshlugged such oversimplified strawmen.

:                                              I've heard from more than one
: kiruv professional that today's "baalei t'shuva" are not interested in
: these issues.  The way I interpret that is that the people who are
: interested aren't becoming baalei t'shuva.

First, many ba'alei teshuvah reach this point after someone taught them
that being frum involves shutting off all critical thought. But that
sad observation aside...

In my experience on scj(m), someone seeking is usually happy knowing the
ground is fertile, and doesn't need an answer before putting the question
down for later. As I wrote above, the mabul, the migdal, the number of
Jews who entered Kena'an, are all more pressing issues because for them
-- in particular the lattermost -- there is no "fertile ground". Whether
or not he believes there was a ma'amad Har Sinai will change someone's
fealty to halakhah. This is all a sideshow.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: <Mlevinmd@aol.com>
>:  I have generally found Mussar to be depressing
>: rather than uplifting.

> This is a common misconception because of it being so often tought
> by uninspired rote drillers of limited understanding and even less
> poetical imagination.

I have a friend who once asked R Dov Katz's son (whose name, by some
coincidence, was also Rabbi Katz) why there were so many more Hassidim
than mussarniks. Rabbi Katz replied that he thought there were about
the same numbers. He added that there were a lot more failed Hassidim
then failed mussarniks because it's a lot more fun to be a failed Hassid.

David Riceman

R' Zvi Lampel wrote <<< Even the "Big Bang" theory maintains that the
universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom, which presumably
was just always "there." >>>

R' Harry Maryles responded <<< No. The Big Bang Theory holds that it is
Yesh MeAyin, just like you and I do. >>>

My understanding is that the Big Bang Theory has itself evolved. It began
as RZL explained, but current thinkers says that originally there really
was absolutely nothing, and then (as RHM said), as an act of Spontaneous
Generation (hah! howzat for mixing threads!) the original primeval matter
appeared -- together with an equal amount of primeval *anti*matter to
preserve the Law of Conservation of Stuff in the Universe.

Akiva Miller

>> (Even the "Big Bang"
>> theory maintains that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval
>> atom, which presumably was just always "there.")

> No. The Big Bang Theory holds that it is Yesh MeAyin, just like you and
> I do.

Actually the big bang started from a mathematical singularity and so
nothing would be known about yesh me-ayin. Strictly speaking the world
with the present laws of physics are valid only a nanosecond (or actually
smaller like a picosecond) after the big bang.

Some of the latest theories try and eliminate the big bang and claim
that it can from a previous universe. However, this only one of several
theories.

Eli Turkel

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 08:51:20PM +0300, eli turkel wrote:
:> No. The Big Bang Theory holds that it is Yesh MeAyin, just like you and
:> I do.

: Actually the big bang started from a mathematical singularity and so
: nothing would be known about yesh me-ayin. Strictly speaking the world
: with the present laws of physics are valid only a nanosecond (or actually
: smaller like a picosecond) after the big bang.

The singularity is the mathematically meaningless 0/0 for mass/volume
for the initial matter-energy density of the universe. The two zeros
are the ayin to which I refered (in a post essentially identical to
RHM's).

-mi

From: T613K@aol.com
> Now something else to note--after we already have heaven, earth and
> water--"Vayomer Elokim, yehi ohr, vayehi ohr (1:3)" and now THIS--drum
> roll, please--"VAYIKRA ELOKIM LA'OHR YOM (1:5)!"

> By definition, YOM = LIGHT!

The Gemara in Pesachim (2a) explains the pasuk as meaning "and Hashem
called the ohr (Rashi: that creation that gives light that He created
from "Hod maateh Levusho" which I cannot translate) and *appointed*
it to work in the daytime. So, this Gemara apparently disagrees with

<<Before the creation of light, we do not even have such a thing as a
"day"!>>

and says that day existed, and then light was created and appointed to
serve Hashem during the day.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Hello. I wanted to congratulate everyone on the Avodah list for trying
to tackle these tough issues honestly, whichever position one ends
up with. I was raised traditional Conservative w/ a deep love for
paleontology + evolutionary theory, esp. through the documentaries of
David Attenborough. When becoming frum, rabbanim who heaped scorn on
evolutionary biologists without engaging the issue in depth made it
difficult for me to come to terms with Torah-Science reconciliation.
However, at this point I'm pretty much OK w/the idea that there is some
ultimate reconciliation possible. Partially because of my background,
I like R' Slifkin's ideas immensely (& I recommend his book to all,
including literalists, for a nice discussion of the issues).

I am currently doing my Master's Thesis on Edward Hitchcock, 19th century
evangelical American clergyman and first-rate paleontologist.

Hitchcock got into a debate with Moses Stuart, probably the best
philologist of Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. in the United States, in 1836.

Hitchcock argued that the true meaning of Bereishit could only be
determined through science, and posited a gap of indefinite length
between the initial beriyah and the six days, which he was fine with
literally. This gap contained all of geological time.

Stuart argued that the Torah could only be understood through philology of
Hebrew...understanding what Yom and Vav as a prefix would have meant to
ancient Israelites. He argued that yom meant literal day, there was no
gap, but also that it was useless to try to force modern science into
a text not meant to teach it. He was in part a literalist, but also
commendably wary of reconciliations which were too glib.

John H. Giltner has a good article on this:
"Genesis and geology: the Stuart-Silliman-Hitchcock debate."
Journal of Religious Thought vol 23 Issue 1 (1967) p 3-?

-----------------
So why am I bringing up this old debate between 2 goyim?

Because a) I find it amusing how the debate is reminiscent (l'havdil)
of Avodah, w/ Hitchcock and Stuart arguing over the meaning of a vav

"V'.....tohu va vohu"

Hitchcock: "Afterwards the earth was without form and void"
Stuart: "And the earth was w/o form and void"
Stuart remarks that it is futile to make a vav serve as many functions
as Hitchcock claims it should [!]

b) Debates like ours have been going on since the beginning of the
19th century [BTW: Both Stuart and Hitchcock opposed evolution] and the
listmembers are unlikely to convince each other. I greatly admired R'
Ephraim's post, with the caveat that this WAS a huge issue for me as I
was being Mekarev....

I have learned too much about geology, paleontology, and evolutionary
biology to dismiss it out of hand, but my research in the history
and philosophy of science has shown me the contingent and socially
constructed nature of much science, such as to make me wary of too hasty
reconciliations. I reiterate that I admire and advocate the dissemination
of R' Slifkin's book as the best current frum take on the subject.

Finally, I must ask a question I asked a while ago. In conversation with
Rabbanim on this subject, two Modern Orthodox Rabbanim, talmidim of R'
Lichtenstein shlit"a, and one distinguished Litvish/Yeshivish Rav with a
keen appreciation for science have told me that between Bereishit 1:1 and
Avraham, the Torah writes in _LASHON KITZUR_, and it is impossible to get
a sense of the physical reality of what happened from the pshat alone.
After Avraham, the pashut pshat is overall reliable for physical metziut.

My question is, WHAT IS THE MAKOR FOR THIS VIEW? These three Rabbanim
are deeply learned, so I assume they have a source, but I don't know
what it is.

Keep debating in honesty and respect, and I have faith that in the end,
we will understand the emes.

Kol Tuv, Ariel Segal

I have not read Penrose's new book but the review below of his work is
rife with "theories" involving unobservable and perhaps even empirically
undetectable entities such as inflation theories, string theory, twistor
theory, multiverses ...

These types of theories are examples of what I have been calling "deep
theories", and apparently Penrose has "interesting and provocative things
to say about the _flaws_ in current models in cosmology".

In Penrose's categorization of scientific theories we have:
	SUPERB
	USEFUL
	TENTATIVE
	(MISGUIDED theories of everything :-)

In 1989, he placed the big bang theory in the USEFUL category (he writes
that the now defunct Ptolemaic theory was also in this category).

Einstein's theory of general relativity is in the SUPERB category. This
is interesting because big bang theory is built on top of GR.

===Review===

"The one thing you would miss, though, is the one thing that the
publishers of The Road to Reality seem desperate to hide. The book
is presented as if it offers "the" road to reality, the final "theory
of everything" that has been widely hyped in recent years. But after
more than a thousand pages of exposition, Penrose says that: "I do not
believe that we have yet found the true 'road to reality'." Indeed,
the book should have been called The Roads to Reality.

What the publishers have desperately, but misguidedly, avoided pointing
out is that Penrose is something of a maverick in scientific terms,
as well as in his faith in the brainpower and willingness for hard
intellectual effort of the reading public. He does not agree with
his peers who think that a final theory lies just around the corner,
and he has interesting and provocative things to say about the flaws
in current models in cosmology (the idea that the early universe went
through a phase of rapid expansion called inflation) and string theory
(the idea that fundamental "particles" are made of tiny extended objects
called strings, wrapped around in multi-dimensional space).

The subtext is that Penrose has his own axe to grind: the Penrose vision
of the universe, based on an idea known as twistor theory. But that does
not detract from the significance of his sideways look at things that
all too many people believe to be "proven" triumphs.

This message is particularly important, of course, for the particle
theorists and cosmologists themselves. But there is no reason at all
why the committed general reader should be excluded from listening in
on the debate.

...

But then, as an academic he has already been handsomely rewarded, as
he acknowledges, by the National Science Foundation, the Leverhulme
Foundation, Gresham College, London, and the Center for Gravitational
Physics and Geometry at Penn State University (apart from his day job at
Oxford University). This was clearly money well spent, even if it does
not result in an international bestseller. Science needs more people
like Penrose, willing and able to point out the flaws in fashionable
models from a position of authority, and to signpost alternative roads
to follow."

===

Review of the "The Road to Reality" (2004, by Roger Penrose),
by Dr John Gribbin who is a Visiting Fellow in Astronomy at the
University of Sussex, and author of 'Deep Simplicity' (Allen Lane),
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/story.jsp?story=545981

y.blau@att.net wrote:
> calling all
> the women who are searching for appropriate ways within halakha to
> use their increased Jewish and secular knowledge for religious growth
> as "radical feminists." Lumping together a wide variety of women and
> a number of different suggestions fits the world of political talk
> programs but not halakhic discourse. 

I have used the term "radical feminists" in the past. 

But I want to make it clear, if I haven't yet, that I do not apply this
term in any way to any woman who sincerely searches for ways in which to
enhance their service to God. However, in the case of those women who seek
to utilize traditionally male modalities AS THE SOLE MEANS of doing so,
even if in technically hahalchic ways I have suggested that even though
their motivations seem sincere, I never-the-less question the source of
those motivations and wonder whether the feminist spirit of the times is
the primary source (whether overtly or subliminally) behind that desire.

If the only means that are utilized are are those such as: WTGs,
or wearing Talis and Teffilin, or doing a public Kriyas HaTorah, or
reading the Kesubah under the Chupah, or as defacto assistant rabbis
(rabbinic interns) I humbly suggest that the motivation stems not from
a sincere desire to increase one's Avodas HaShem but instead comes from
a perspective that sees the traditional role of women in Judaism as one
of repression by male dominated society.

To those women who are sincere and do everything they can to increase
their Avodas Hashem and inadvertently also want to incorporate what
has traditionally been the exclusive domain of men, I would ask them to
examine the source of their need to worship God in that traditional male
ways. I do not mean to impugn a single woman but rather exhort everyone
to examine their real motivations.

HM

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> I'm trying to do some homework on why there seems to be a difference
> in the nusach of kaddish drabbanan and other kaddeishim (brachamav,)
> as well as whether to add v'ara and tovim. I've found different nuschaot
> in general of kaddish but not that would explain why drabanan would be
> different nor why to prefer (or not) the additions.

I assume that you mean in nusach Ashkenaz, since AIUI nusach Sefard has
all kaddishim with berachamav and tovim. I surmised that, at least in
the case of Artscroll, and possibly other editions prior thereto, the
nusach for Ashkenaz for kaddish derabanan was copied from nusach Sefard.

I am not sure why this should be more true for kaddish derabanan than
other kaddishim (possibly due to its length; raya ledavar that the really
long kaddish, for a siyum, has, even in the Vilna shas of all places
IIRC, veyatzmach purkanei. Interestingly enough, it was Artscroll who
changed that!)

Be that as it may, I accused <g> Rabbi Scherman of doing just that
(i.e. copying from NS to NA and while he denied it, he was IMNSHO very
unconvincing.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 08/25/2004 7:03:15 AM EDT, y.blau@att.net writes:
> However
> the reactions that have appeared so far have consisted in calling all
> the women who are searching for appropriate ways within halakha to
> use their increased Jewish and secular knowledge for religious growth
> as "radical feminists."

I've always assumed that the "antis" were aware that there are some (#?)
appropriately acting and intentioned women who want to open certain
venues of avodat hashem that have been traditionally closed to them. I've
always assumed the "antis" answer would be they must suffer because of
the ill intentions of the majority(or sizable minority) that want to be
"poretz geder" for improper reasons.

Comments?

KT
Joel Rich

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 01:13:40AM -0400, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: Rather, GT was called a "theory" by workers in the field (not a
: "hypothesis"). It was considered "well-established" (see below). And,
: in a "revolution", this well accepted "theory" (some even called it a
: "paradigm") was overturned for the new paradigm of plate tectonics.

I think you're blurring an essential distinction.

Science "proves" a theory inductively. Each time the event (repeat,
interpolation or extrapolation <g>) occurs as predicted by the theory,
confidence in the theory increases. However, there could always be an
exception to the rule hiding around the next corner which forces the
selection of a new prediction rule.

I've cited Karl Popper on this list before. He notes that while this
induction can never give a real proof of a theory, it does successfully
prove the falsity of rejected theories. In the negative sense, science
can produce results as certain as our trust in our senses.

In dealing with science and Torah questions, therefore, the philosophical
dilamma is not when the Torah implies something that seems to have been
scientifically "proven", but rather, when it implies something that
experiment has explicitly ruled out.

In those cases, arguments about the shakiness of science are irrelevent.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

Mon, 23 Aug 2004, [in response to Zvi Lampel's
>: (Even the "Big Bang"
>: theory maintains that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval
>: atom, which presumably was just always "there.")]

R.Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Not so. The Big Bang is a theory about yeish mei'ayin. As I said,
> the "science is wrong" seifer is not a good place to learn what it
> is science teaches.

The makor for my tangential remark about the Big Bang theory beginning
with the explosion of a primeval atom was not come from a seifer, but
from: <http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/acadmy/universe/b-bang.html>

Here's the entire quote:

In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaמtre was the first to propose that
the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal
came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to
a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble
found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaמtre's theory. He found
that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with
speeds proportional to their distance.

I don't know if RMB hold of this makor or not. Maybe I misunderstood
it. I have no shitta of my own on this, but just out of curiousity, I
submitted a sh’ayla to Scientific American (I’m not sure if RMB holds of
this makor or not, either) as to whether Big Bang started from nothing
or something, and if it’s a machlokess, who poskens which way. (Well,
not in those words.)

I'll post the result, bli nedder, but I hope this does not become an
Avodah discussion.

Zvi Lampel

> The whole discussion seems to be taking place with the assumption that
> there are only two possibilities, literalness or non-literalness and
> ignores kefira as some sort of excluded middle. I'm afraid the real
> detailed answers will only be found by people who realize that we're
> fighting here with live ammunition, and the non-religious world as
> well as our own children (and our own yetzer ha-ra) don't necessarily
> accept that assumption and see the idea that the Torah is a primitive
> myth with its share of redeeming and enlightened ideas (chas ve-shalom)
> as a much more logically compelling approach than any of the non-literal
> interpretations that have been offered so far. (A concise way of stating
> my position would be to say that although I say chas-ve-shalom in the
> previous sentence, I don't think that just saying chas-ve-shalom is
> enough to solve the problem.)

You are on the ball with this excellently expressed post and I agree that
taken in isolation our approach is sometimes less than desirable. However,
it becomes more defensible once you reverse the argumetn and ask the
deniers about problems with their view of life. They have many, many
questions that they cannot answer or even begin to answer. There is a
great deal of evidence that they do not even begin to consider.

What about the denial of the spiritual, existence of conscience, wonders
of human history, and unassailable sense of the DIvine that most people
instnctively possess. It is no different than understanding a pasuk;
there are several good explanation and each one suffers from advantages
and disadvantages. A fideist might say that final unassailable proof is
not possible because it would take away freedom of choice.

At the end we must appeal to the meta-rational, where religion had anyway
always resided.

M. levin

I had written:
> By definition, YOM = LIGHT!
> Before the creation of light, we do not even have such a thing as a
> "day"!

In a private communication, someone wrote the following to me:
> I believe you are conflating (to use a word I've only seen on Areivim)
> the two meanings of "yom."   Hashem called the ohr "day" in the sense of
> daylight, not "day" in the sense of a 24-hour period.  It was "day," not
> "a day."

Additionally, RGD wrote:  
>>>The Gemara in Pesachim (2a) explains the pasuk as meaning "and Hashem
called the ohr...and *appointed* it to work in the daytime. So, this
Gemara apparently...says that day existed, and then light was created
and appointed to serve Hashem during the day.<<<

Now that two learned members have made mincemeat of my argument, I will
go back to Areivim, where I belong. Meatloaf and potatoes for dinner,
what else can you do with mincemeat?

Although I WILL say this: What was a "day" at the beginning of
Bereishis? It could have been 15 billion years. It could have been a
24-hour period in which events that normally would take 15 billion years
were fantastically speeded up. Those two possibilities are functionally
equivalent.

We now know a day as the time it takes for the earth to rotate once on
its axis. Before there was an earth, and in the absence of any observer
to measure time, or any light or sun, or any unit of measure--how can
time be measured during the First Day?

A human observer can only measure time by extrapolating backwards from
what he observes once he is on the scene. That extrapolation makes the
universe appear very old indeed, but we know that extrapolating backwards
to a time BEFORE there was an earth or a sun--or a universe--gives
meaningless results.

We are left with the conundrum that the universe was either created in
medias res, with an apparent "backstory" as R' Zev Sero so nicely put it,
or that the universe is in fact very old. We don't know which statement
is true, and to me, there is no difference between the two scenarios.
To others, there IS a difference.

This subject is now exhausted, IMO. Certainly I am.

  KVCT
 -Toby Katz

R Harry Maryles wrote:
> These are not RMB's assertions. These are conclusions of Chazal in
> the Sefer Yetzirah as spoken of by Rabbi Kaplan... and Rabbi Isaac of
> Acco.

While RHM defends my position at first, he later diverges from it greatly.

>> One might even wonder why Ramban thought it necessary to explicate this,
>> as any unbiased, un-agenda possessed reader of Scripture would naturally
>> assume these two points to be so--viz., that a day means a day, and that
>> there is not an aeons-long history to be inserted between the first and
>> second posuk--from a straightforward reading of the text.

> Not really. The Ramban simply did not have the facts in evidence we
> have today. He insistence on literalism may have just been countering a
> philosophical view that held of Epicurian expalnations of existence. It
> is quite possivble that Nachmanidies would have looked to the same sources
> as Rabbi Kaplan had he contained the facts in eveidence we have today.

If it weren't yet another repetition, I'd vociferously argue against the
position that new aggadic positions can be made in response to anything
outside of mesorah. Only deductions from Torah are Torah.

RYmA's position is significant because it shows that non-literalness has
Torah justification. That one isn't whittling or redefining Torah to fit
his scientific understanding. That one's isn't falling into the pagan
"god of the gaps" mentality (as I called it earlier).

Which is also why two creation theories are significant, the medrashim
about generations or even worlds before ma'aseh bereishis, the Maharal's
assertion that neither prophecy nor chochmah are adequate tools for
this task, etc...


On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:53:36AM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
:> Not so. The Big Bang is a theory about yeish mei'ayin. As I said,
:> the "science is wrong" seifer is not a good place to learn what it
:> is science teaches.

: The makor for my tangential remark about the Big Bang theory beginning
: with the explosion of a primeval atom was not come from a seifer, but
: from: <http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/acadmy/universe/b-bang.html>

My apologies for the poor guesswork. However, the characterization of
it being both obsolete (in 1927 most of the QM behind the current theory
didn't exist yet) and oversimplified still stands.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

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


[ 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         ]