Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 090

Sunday, September 5 2004

• Dictions was reading the ktuba
• Re: Public expression by women
• Re: Age of the Universe and Rav Dessler z"l
• Non-literal explanations of Torah
• Peer reviewed biology journal publishes "Intelligent Design" paper -- controversy
• Re: Literal meanings
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: Pi
• Rosh Hashana: eating/looking at the simanim
• RE: Reliability of Science
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe and Rav Dessler z"l
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: halcha vs agada

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com posted on: Sep 2, 2004:
>I confirmed that
> in Daniel all the plurals I could find were mil'era IOW almaYA is correct.

I noticed that the word sh'mayya in some siddurim is marked mil'ail, and
it occurred to me that they are treating it as its Hebrew equivelant,
shaMAYYim. Any info on the validity on this, and can it relate to the
similar almayya (even though almayya is a simple plural, and not a
doubling as shaMAYYim, yaDAYYim, etc.?

(Starting to sound like Mesorah territory.)

Zvi Lampel 

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 01:35:32PM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: Third, the equation of teaching torah to women with tiflut is one opinion
: in the gmara - and RYBS held that that the rama (and therefore ashkenazim)
: don't pasken by that opinion....

It's a mishnah, Sotah 20a. Ben Azai says a man is obligated to teach his
daughter Torah so as to save her from ever being a sotah. R' Eliezer says
the famous quote about tiflus, and R' Yehoshua makes some derogatory
remarks about women (or at least the women of his culture) which leads
me to conclude he agrees with R' Eliezer.

In the gemara (21b), RE alone is discussed. The gemara concludes "ke'ilu
lamdah", not mamash.

The Rambam Hil T"T 1:13 hoilds like RE. He further defines tiflus as the
result of teraching someone unequipped to understand the matterial. What
she will learn is only tiflus, since the reality of the Torah won't
be grasped. (BTW, the Rambam makes this assessment of rov nashim, not
all.) But with this definition of tiflus, the gemara stressing that it's
only "ke'ilu" eludes me.

The Rashi defines tiflus as immorality. The Rama (YD 246:6) says
devar aveirah.

It is a new view taken that this means they understand RE as specifically
keneged BA. IOW, that they're limiting RE to someone who teaches his
daughter in order to prevent her from getting caught as a sotah.

However, it's possible that the Rama didn't mean the same aveirah as
does Rashi. A more probable issue: it's possible to translate tiflus
as they do without intending imply anything about the scope of the ban.

In general, if the Rama argues with the SA, he wouldn't merely imply
it. And certainly not ambiguously so.

It would surprise me to learn that RYBS said otherwise. Do you have a
source, or is this rumor mill?

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

RYGB wrote:
>My sole objection was to your dismissal of the Torah's account of the
>*order* Sheishes Yemei Bereishis as allegory (l'afukei metzius) on the 
>basis of the fossil record. To that I responded that fuhn a kashya 
>shtarbt men nisht etc.

WADR, this does not seem to be an accurate presentation of your earlier
position. You objected to the very method of allegorization itself,
not just to doing so on the basis of the fossil record. I quote: "But
to allegorize the Torah is unacceptable, as we have stated here time
and again." You then referred to my explanation as "damaging Torah,"
and clarified your original objection to mean that no part of Torah
can be "dismissed as the Torah equivalent of Aesop's fables." Now
you state that my explanation of Rav Dessler does not mean that he is
"dismissing it as the equivalent of Aesop's fables," but rather that he
is describing the metzius on a spiritual rather than a physical plane -
as I myself explained.

In other words, your new position is that while you don't agree that the
scientific evidence provides grounds to adopt my understanding of Rav
Dessler's pshat, there is nothing inherently unacceptable about that
pshat. You first claimed that my explanation was "damaging" the Torah
and "dismissing" part of maase Bereishis "as the Torah equivalent of
Aesop's fables," and now you are saying that my explanation does not do
that. Doesn't this mean that you are withdrawing one of your original
objections and taking back your criticism?

Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin

RYGB clarified his objection to non-literal explanations of Bereishis
by writing that no part of Bereishis can "be dismissed as the Torah
equivalent of Aesop's fables."

I then asked RYGB the following question:
>1. When Abarbanel, Efodi and Rav Kappach explain Rambam's view to be 
>that the events of Gan Eden are allegorical (which you felt to be the 
>wrong interpretation of Rambam), was Rambam accordingly "dismissing it 
>as the equivalent of Aesop's fables"?

To this, RYGB responded:
>Let's start with RSG, whom you cited in an earlier post. It is obvious
>in EvD #3 d.h. v'acharei eileh and #9 d.h. v'achel be'techilah that he
>took the story of GE pretty literally. Moreover, at the very end of #7
>that you cite, RSG explicitly places the Spero school, to which it seems
>that you subscribe, me'chutz la'machaneh...

I don't see how this answers my question, which was about Abarbanel,
Efodi and Rav Kappach's understanding of Rambam, not about RSG.

Furthermore, I don't know why you are pointing out that RSG took Gan Eden
literally. Nobody has claimed otherwise. All I pointed out in my earlier
posting was that RSG does, in certain cases, permit allegorization,
contrary to your blanket statement that it is never acceptable. RSG
only rejects allegorizing techiyas hameisim because it does not fall
into one of his permitted categories - something that is contradicted
by the senses, reason, a contradictory passuk, or mesorah. However RSG
permits allegorization when done for these reasons.

So I would like to put forth my question once again:

1.When Ralbag (new addition), Abarbanel, Efodi and Rav Kappach explain
Rambam's view to be that the events of Gan Eden are allegorical (which
you felt to be the wrong interpretation of Rambam), was Rambam accordingly
"dismissing it as the equivalent of Aesop's fables"?

I would also like to ask a second question. RYGB wrote:
>To the best of my knowledge, you will find no authoritative source
> ... who goes beyond these four approaches and says that a metzius or
> ma'aseh described in a pasuk did not take place or does not occur on *any*
> of these three levels, but is merely some elaborate metaphor.

My question on this is as follows:

2. Aside from the Rambam on Gan Eden, when Rambam writes in Moreh Nevuchim
3:22 that "Iyov is a mashal to explain people's opinions concerning
providence; the explanation and statement of some of our Sages is known,
that Iyov never existed... Those who think that he did exist are not able
to ascertain his era and location... This supports the opinion that he
did not exist..." was Rambam "dismissing it as the equivalent of Aesop's
fables"? Is this not an authoritative source that a ma'aseh described in
a pasuk is "merely some elaborate metaphor"? Or are you distinguishing
between Chumash and Nach, with the latter able to be dismissed as fable?

Please clearly state "yes" or "no" to these questions.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin

The "Scientist" reports that: The publication in a peer-reviewed biology
journal of an article which sounds themes often heard in discussions of
"intelligent design" -- a theory one critic calls "the old creationist
arguments in fancy clothes"-- has drawn criticism from the members of
the society that publishes the journal, and from others...

Richard Sternberg, a staff scientist at the National Center for
Biotechnology Information who was an editor of the Proceedings at the
time, told The Scientist via E-mail that the three peer reviewers of the
paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent
universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university,
one at a major US public university, and another at a major overseas
research institute." ...

Links to the article and rebuttals are at:
<http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04>

RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com:
> and bein einecha might not literally mean between the eyes but when you
> put the tefillin shel rosh on your head it should be between your eyes
> Also see uvishalta v'achalta, sometimes bishul might mean tzliya... 

In a message dated 9/2/2004 10:25:47 AM EDT, hlampel@thejnet.com writes:
> Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, zt"l, makes this point in the introduction to his
> Living Torah.

And I made many similar points in threads re: ayin tachas ayin many
years ago!

Peshat is not always the literal meaning when a metaphor is used.

Remember Senator Zell Miller's peshat about using spitballs in his
interview with Chris matthews " It's a metafer! <sic> Do you know what
a metafer is?" <smile>

Or try translating "a piece of cake" to a Frenchamn by using "un morceau
de gateau" and see if he has a clue as to what you mean! <smile>

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 9/3/2004 3:37:57 PM EDT, [R Daniel Eidensohn]
<yadmoshe@012.net.il> writes:
<snip>
> A person is an apikorus if
> he has heretical thoughts - even though he doesn't tell anyone. However
> just as there are issues such as the debate between Beis Hillel and
> Beis Shammair that were not official paskened for an extended period
> of time - there are issues of hashkofa which are not clearly poskened.
> In contrast agada is typically given to a wide number of interpretations
> which can be viewed as equally valid. Where the multiplicity needs to
> be maintained we don't talk about psak.
 <snip>

While I essentially agree to the above points I wold like to add a
big caveat:

In this week's parsha we say hanistaros Lashem Elokeinu... v'ahniglos
lanu u'veaneinu

I think there is no mitzva to interrogate a person re: their innermost
shittos as long as they are not preaching them.

I was davka reading Graetz's account of the post Shabbetai Zvi withchunt
and the investiatiosn of R. Yonsan Eibeschutz etc. IMHO had RYE refrained
from the suspcious passages in the controversial Kmea {amulet} then it
would have been nobody's business. Unfortunatley this incident created
one of the most acrimonious samples of sin'a between talmidei Chachamim
since the era of Rabbi Akiva.

Let me give you a mashal. Let's say we found the personal diary of a Dagol
from th year 1900 in which he wrote that he considered himself to be
the moshiach. But the matter was never publicized during his lifetime.
Can we condemn him because it later came to light? I say no way.
If we was careful to keep his personal thoughts to himself and made
no demonstrations then it is HKBH's businesss alone to deal with him.
Kein nir'eh li.

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: Daniel Eidensohn
> There are two basic processes 1) commentary and attempt to understand
> a particular view or sugya 2) specification that there is one correct
> way of understanding and that the others are wrong.

> The latter process is my understanding of halacha...
>                                          The Rambam, according to my
> understanding, is clearly paskening in areas of hashkofa - even though
> there is not necessary an activity involved...
> he has heretical thoughts - even though he doesn't tell anyone....

> In sum: psak is any strong statement that position "A" is correct and
> the alternatives are wrong. However there is an additional condition to
> be considered psak - there has to be some consequence of choosing one
> or the other alternative.

how do you [RDE] understand the Rambam's caveat in Peirush haMishna not
to decide certain issues? i think the Meiri did #1 of your 2 choices.
He chose to explain a sugya (or maybe several together) as agreeing with
the premise ain mazal lyisroel. The Meiri seems to believe that this is
the real conclusion of Shas itself. Therefore, the Meiri has no safek
to pasken. Due to the parshanut of the Meiri, the Shas itself does not
really have 2 opinions on this issue. I think that in this case I agree
with RMS that this should NOT be called a psak.

R' Micha Berger asked <<< 2- Who says we're required to use as precise
of an estimate as available? Perhaps precision to the nearest cheileq
is right? >>>

I'd think that the burden of proof is in the other direction: Who says we
can use an estimate which not as precise as we can get? That is to say,
who says we can use an estimate which we know to be *wrong*?

My understanding (well, more of a guess, I must admit) is that our
permission to use estimates comes from "lo nitna Torah l'malachei
hashareis" -- We are only human, and HaShem doesn't demand perfection
from us. But He does demand that we do what humans are capable of, no?

Akiva Miller

Regarding the various foods we eat on Rosh Hashana as a siman for the new
year, such as the apple and the others, I recall once seeing something
about how the original minhag was that they were simply on the table,
and that it was only later that we started eating them.

I have been unable to find sources for the above. Does anyone else know
anything along these lines? (Disclosure: The reason I am looking for this
information is to post it on a Jewish Diabetics group that I belong to;
there are a lot of people there who are looking for alternative ideas.)

Akiva Miller

RDG wrote 
>: From the above comment you see I do not agree here. I meant (d) as further
>: from the original observational evidence than (c) on the grounds that it is
>: categorically removed - beyond all observational tests altogether....

> But that's not what theory is. It's an idea that summarizes 
> the results of a wide range of observations that then 
> consistantly succeeds in providing the means for making 
> interpolations and extrapolations that are successful.

> RDG says he disagrees, but doesn't say how it's divorced from 
> observational test, or why my characterization is flawed.

These theories certainly summarize indirect observations (e.g. certain
gravitational effects) as you state. But they do this by assuming
fundamentally new entities that have never been observed and certainly
not repeatedly so. Homogeniety has never been observed even once, so the
question of repeated observations does not even arise. There is thus a big
gap between the hypothetical entities of these theories and observations.

Dark matter (very different from regular matter) is supposed to account
for almost all the matter in the universe but it has not yet been directly
detected (e.g. by its emitted radiation) as is the case with other matter.
If it does exist it resolves a number of inconsistencies in the big bang
theory, taken together with a host of other assumptions such as the
cosmological principle. Notice that the cosmological principle itself
includes homogeneity (the assumption that the universe is isotropic from
any other galaxy in space).

As I write this, dark matter might suddenly be observed and repeatedly so.
But until then, it is off the scale, i.e. it is in a totally different
category from repeatable/observable data or extrapolations from something
that was observed. A theory based on such non-observable entities
is more vulnerable to future experiments than theories closer to the
observable-repeatable experimental core.

As an additional point on the reliability of current dating theories there
are some very puzzling and stubborn anomalies. As an example, in 2002,
the journal Astronomy & Physics reported (apparently) physically connected
objects in space with vastly different redshifts which the authors term
"the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered
so far", which means that these connected objects supposedly at the same
distance from us have vastly different redshifts. This anomaly was first
reported by Arp in 1971. The report says that the actual anomaly is in
fact much greater than the one originally reported in 1971. Perhaps these
anomalies will be explained in the future, but if not, even Hubble's Law,
a foundation of current big bang theories and the age of the universe,
may be quite vulnerable. [Lףpez-Corredoira, M. and C.M. Gutiיrrez, Two
emission line objects with in the optical filament apparently connecting
the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion. Astronomy & Astrophysics,
2002. 390(L15-18).]

To repeat a previous post, the letter from 33 scientists (in New
Scientist 2004) states that: "The big bang today relies on a growing
number of _hypothetical_ entities, things that we have _never observed_
-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent
examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between
the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang
theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new
_hypothetical_ objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between
theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions
about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory
can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical
inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic
cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be
no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees
away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same
amount of microwave radiation ... ".

I repeat the Brittanica definition: "In the case of scientific theories,
however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed.
Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the
human mind-the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well
as of observation-for they are only suggested by observational information
rather than inductively generalized from it."

It is clear (to me at least) that deep theories (d) as described above
have less credibility than (a), (b) and (c).

RMB wrote
> He [RDG] also dismisses Poppers' position as one everyone in the 
> field knows is false. I took a philosophy of science course 
> in Columbia in 87, and was left with a very different conclusion.

I think RDG means philosophers as opposed to scientists. Many scientists
may not be aware of the criticisms.

See pages 48-50 in Sober, E., Philosophy of biology. Dimensions of
philosophy series. 1993, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. xix, 231.

After discussing 5 problems with Popper, some of them fundamental,
Sober states "Popper's concept of falsifiability is not much help here
[to contrast Evolution vs. Design], so let us set it aside".

My own layman opinion is that Sober's replacement for falsifiabilty is
inadequate as is his discussion of Design. But his concerns regarding
falsifiability appear legitimate.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:36:19PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: >"God created the Heavens and the Earth" is a Spiritual Truth (i.e. God
: >was personally involved in creation) without the need for the narrative
: >to be an exact record of the physical process.

: If it is described as a physical process it is not spiritual.

Why? Is not the physical simply a shadow ne'etzal from the spiritual?



On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 12:24:58PM +0300, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: IN fact, as anyone active in kirum would know, your answer would be more
: problematic, since it doesn't supply *any* answer that a non-frum person
: with basic (high school) scientific knowledge would find acceptable.

: That's why it's important to answer these questions, and not brush them away
: with "Fuhn a kashya shtarbt men nisht."

The following approach has worked (judging from email replies) on scj:

There is a parallel within physics today. Quantum mechanics, the standard
model, has been the most successful theory in history in predicting
experimental results. Meanwhile, general relativity and its concept of
gravity have also been well proven. Each is used in different domains:
QM deals with the very small, relativity with the cosmic scale, the
very massive or the very fast. However when trying to combine the two
to merge gravity into quantum theory one gets infinities that just won't
go away. It doesn't work.

And yet, each theory is so well established than scientists don't question
either. Instead, they expect a resolution is just over the horizon.

Judaism isn't about prehistory, it's about man's purpose in this
world. This conflict is therefore very similar to those scientists
routinely shelf for later.



R' Zev Sero:
> Well, with *our* calendar, Elul *couldn't* be malei, but nor could Rosh
> Hashana be on Friday, so Elul would have been dragged forward, and Sunday
> would have been 24 Elul, not 25. But if we ...             apply the
> simple rule that Rosh Chodesh is on the day of the molad unless it is
> zaken, then since that molad was at VYD, i.e. 8am, RH would have been
> on Friday. And since the previous molad, had there been a world in which
> to have one, would have been on a Wednesday at 7:16pm, Rosh Chodesh Elul
> would have been on a Thursday, making Elul chaser.

After looking over RZS's calendar math, it's clear I was wrong.

What's the impact on the original debate? Not much either way, since it
was not proposed as a ra'ayah muchreches, just an implication.

What it means is that either the people who changed year 0 from the Seider
Olam's position took the year number seriously, and considered the week
of creation to be within our calendar. Implying that time was real --
anthough not necessarily that the week was a week.

Or, they didn't take the number seriously, and just used the implcations
of the reverse enginerring without worrying about history. Which is what
was done much earlier in defining molad tohu.

My position is that the Rambam and RSG do not give carte blanche to
declare something allegory, but rather that they state that there are
parts of TSBK that TSBP says are allegory, and therefore we can accept
them as such.

Therefore, I'm assuming a very light burden of proof to justify
allegorization of Bereishis 1-- there has to be someone who finds
justification for doing so for purely Torah reasons. In contrast, to
insist on literalization would require proving that no such shitah exists.

In fact, I believe that the majority of rishonim support allegorization.
(Although not necessarily in a way that would support accepting scientific
theory.) But that's overkill. I would require someone rule out every
claim of a mesoretic argument for allegorization. It's not, as RZL asks,
about rov.


Some other things I've learned this iteration:

1- RAM and RMMS do not hold the same thing.

RAM dismisses science, as he considers it a matter of theory, and theory
is questionable.

RMMS considers the false age and history of the universe good science, but
of data planted by Hashem.

2- REED and the Maharal hold nearly the same. Fortunately, the discussion
included mar'eh meqomos. (My shul's copy of MmE vol II saw a lot of use
this Shabbos, between myself and three other Avodah regulars.)

Both hold that the history in the chumash is literal -- but
incomprehensible to us. What we have is useful on the allegorical level,
but when it comes to the literal (as REED puts it) we're like blind
people getting a description of sight by comparison to touch, and then
ask questions about those things that seem to contradict.

Saying it's literal but incomprehensible history that has meaning on a
2nd level is functionally the same thing as saying it's a metaphor.

REED holds that time as we understand it, our flow from past to present to
future, is a product of Adam's cheit. That the Ramban actually identifies
the days of creation with the millenia of history -- not metaphorically,
they are actually the same thing. In a way we can't comprehend, our
current millenium of history is on day 6 of ma'aseh bereishis.

An interesting side effect of his shitah is that our concept of time
does not come into play until after gan eden, not with the birth of Adam.

I will iy"H redo my survey once the debate slows down and I feel a more
detailed havanah is no longer in flux.

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

At 04:21 PM 9/4/2004, you wrote:
>RYGB wrote:
>>My sole objection was to your dismissal of the Torah's account of the
>>*order* Sheishes Yemei Bereishis as allegory (l'afukei metzius) on the
>>basis of the fossil record. To that I responded that fuhn a kashya
>>shtarbt men nisht etc.

>WADR, this does not seem to be an accurate presentation of your earlier
>position. You objected to the very method of allegorization itself,
>not just to doing so on the basis of the fossil record. I quote: "But
>to allegorize the Torah is unacceptable, as we have stated here time
>and again." You then referred to my explanation as "damaging Torah,"

It does not require the Torah to be allegorized in order to date it
by billions of years. Neither the Tiferes Yisroel or R' Aryeh Kaplan
allegorized the Torah to come to that conclusion. To change the order
of the Six Days does allegorize (to what end, I have no clue).

>In other words, your new position is that while you don't agree that the
>scientific evidence provides grounds to adopt my understanding of Rav
>Dessler's pshat, there is nothing inherently unacceptable about that
>pshat. You first claimed that my explanation was "damaging" the Torah
>and "dismissing" part of maase Bereishis "as the Torah equivalent of
>Aesop's fables," and now you are saying that my explanation does not do
>that. Doesn't this mean that you are withdrawing one of your original
>objections and taking back your criticism?

No.

YGB

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:15:54PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: In sum: psak is any strong statement that position "A" is correct and
: the alternatives are wrong. However there is an additional condition to
: be considered psak - there has to be some consequence of choosing one
: or the other alternative.

I would have said that a pesaq is a statement that position A is din, and
the others are not. As noted in our eilu va'eilu debates, most
define the role of poseiq as having the power to define what's right --
not determine which is truth and which not.

(By "most", I mean Rashi, the Ramban, Ritva, Maharshal, Maharal, etc...)

Which is why the concept of pesaq ought have no meaning in questions
that lack impact on halakhah lema'aseh. As RDE notes, the Me'iri doesn't
actually use the rules of pesaq. There is strong reason to believe he
was simply using the term loosely, not technically.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Micha Berger wrote:
>On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:15:54PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>: In sum: psak is any strong statement that position "A" is correct and
>: the alternatives are wrong. However there is an additional condition to
>: be considered psak - there has to be some consequence of choosing one
>: or the other alternative.

>I would have said that a pesaq is a statement that position A is din, and
>the others are not. As noted in our eilu va'eilu debates, most
>define the role of poseiq as having the power to define what's right --
>not determine which is truth and which not.

>(By "most", I mean Rashi, the Ramban, Ritva, Maharshal, Maharal, etc...)

You uncharacteristically are not presenting any evidence but are simply 
asserting that you are right and I am wrong.

As as been pointed out in previous reiterations, hashkofa issues do in 
fact involve halacha. Even your side issue of eilu v'eilu -- Rashi and 
Tosfos (Kesubos 57a) mention that in contrast to sevora -- historical 
facts are not eilu v'eilu because they are either right or wrong. They 
do not say that historical or hashkofa issues are not the realm of a 
psak. Could you give any evidence that the above rishonim reject psak 
concerning hashkofa issues which influence one's actions? Rashi clearly 
doesn't nor does Rabbeinu Chananel, Rambam or the Ramban as cited below.

Your assertion that the posek defines what is right not what is true is 
a bit puzzling. A posek takes facts such a dispute in money and 
determines who is the owner, did the person transgress Shabbos etc. He 
also determines and decides between halachic alternatives. I don't see 
any difference between that and deciding whether astrology is relevant 
to a Jew and consequently whether he is violating the halacha by not 
using free will or by relying on horoscopes.

Three additional examples of apparent psak concerning historical fact 
and hashkofa

3) If you look at Rabbeinu Chananel (Sanhedrin 22b) discussing the 
debate in the gemora concerning history. "Mar Zutra or, as some say, Mar 
'Ukba said: Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew 
characters and in the sacred [Hebrew] language; later, in the times of 
Ezra,46 the Torah was given in Ashshurith script47 and Aramaic language. 
[Finally], they selected for Israel48 the Ashshurith script and Hebrew 
language, leaving the Hebrew characters and Aramaic language for the 
hedyototh. Who are meant by the 'hedyototh'? -- R. Hisda answers: The 
Cutheans.49 And what is meant by Hebrew characters? -- R. Hisda said: The 
libuna'ah script.50"

R' Chananel states:" The halacha is not like Mar Ukva... nor is it 
like R' Yossi..."

Another example of an apparent psak concerning hashkofa is whether 
suffering and death are always the result of sin.

2) Shabbos (55a): " R. Ammi said: There is no death without sin,27 and
there is no suffering without iniquity. There is no death without sin,
for it is written, The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall
not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son, the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon
him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, etc.,28 There
is no suffering without iniquity, for it is written, Then will I visit
their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.29An
objection is raised: The ministering angels asked the Holy One, blessed
be He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why didst Thou impose the penalty
of death upon Adam?' Said He to them, I gave him an easy command,
yet he violated it.' 'But Moses and Aaron fulfilled the whole Torah,'
they pursued -- 'yet they died'. 'There is one event to the righteous
and to the wicked; to the good, etc.,1 He replied.2 -- He maintains
as the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said:
Moses and Aaron too died through their sin, for it is said, Because ye
believed not in me[...therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into
the land which I have given them]:3 hence, had ye believed in Me, your
time had not yet come to depart from the world.4 An objection is raised:
Four died through the serpent's machinations,5 viz., Benjamin the son of
Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Caleb
the son of David. Now, all are known by tradition, save Jesse the father
of David, in whose case the Writ gives an explicit intimation. For it is
written, And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa
was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, that went in to
Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.6 Now,
was she the daughter of Nahash? Surely she was the daughter of Jesse,
for it is written, and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail?7 Hence it
must mean, the daughter of one who died through the machinations of the
nahash [serpent].8 Who is [the author of this]? Shall we say, the Tanna
[who taught] about the ministering angels? -- Surely there were Moses and
Aaron too! Hence it must surely be R. Simeon b. Eleazar, which proves
that there is death without sin and suffering without iniquity. Thus
the refutation of R. Ammi is [indeed] a refutation."

This seems to be a classical halachic form with a refutation of the
original assertion and an apparent psak that suffering and death result
without sin. [Of interest is that the majority of rishonim assert [pasken]
that in fact suffering and death are always a result of sin. See Tosfos
(Shabbos 55b).

Ramban(Shaar HaGemul #118) states "The gemora itself rejects [paskens?]
the principle that death must be the result of sin but not the principle
that all suffering is the result of sin. But if you insist that the
gemora is rejecting both principles and thus suffering or death is not
the result of an individual's, we can reply that still it is the result
of sin of previous generations such as the sin of Adam"

Shem Tov(Moreh Nevuchim 3:17): I am astounded with the Rambam's assertion
that most sages believe that everything that happens is strictly according
to justice and his proof from Shabbos (55a): There is no death without
sin and no suffering without transgression. In fact the gemora itself
totally rejects [paskens?] this view! Therefore it is quite obvious that
the view of the sages is the opposite of what the Rambam asserts and
that they in fact believe that death and suffering can occur without
sin. In fact this view that suffering only occurs with sin is a well
known saying and is typically presented in popular sermons to the masses
-- even though the accepted view of the sages is that suffering can happen
without sin. Therefore it is possible that the Rambam is asserting that
this is the accepted view of the sages not because it is true but because
that is what most people mistakenly believe.

3) Rashi (Bereishis 33:4) [quoting the Sifre:" The Rashbi states that
it is halacha that it is well known that Esav hates Yaakov."

I have not seen any evidence contradicting that my assertion that:

"psak is any strong statement that position "A" is correct and the
alternatives are wrong. However there is an additional condition to be
considered psak -- there has to be some consequence of choosing one or
the other alternative."

If you are basically asserting that the term "psak" is typically not
utilized for these issues -- I agree totally. I am only stating that in
reality the process of psak also applies to hashkofa -- whether it is
called that or not.

Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]