Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 055

Friday, January 7 2005

• Mishpatim Sequence
• RE: Torah and Science
• RE: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• standing for kaddish
• Re: standing for kaddish
• brewing tea on Shabbos
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping
• Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• RE: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping

A ha'a'ra on Parashas Mishpatim:

Several commentators have attempted to find a logic behind the
sequence of subjects covered in parashas Mishpatim. It seems at first
to be a haphazard collection of laws, starting with the laws of eved
ivri, then the legal consequences of murder, and then at one point
(21:28ff.) dealing with the consequences of damage caused by one's ox,
followed by (ibid. 33ff.) those caused by one's open pit, and then
(ibid. 35ff.) jumping back again to those caused by one's ox.

I would like to suggest the following explanation: Starting with the laws
regarding murder, one should focus not on the perpertrator of the crime,
but the object affected. One will then realize that a simple order is
indeed being followed: The cases are going from the most grave ways of
depriving another's life to the less grave, in the categories of damage
done to (a) man, (b) animal, (c) vegetation, and (d) inanimate objects.

Thus, in the cases mentioned above, after speaking of

(a) murder of a man, wounding one's parents, kidnapping, mortally wounding
a man and eved, inadvertant killing, and handicapping an eved, it speaks
of killing of a man through one's ox, and then,

(b) killing of someone's ox through one's open pit, then killing someone's
ox by his own ox, theft of one's animal, and then

(c) damage to someone's field, and then

(d) theft of someone's money or other inanimate possessions.

It then follows with the responsibilties of different kinds of shomrim.

(Of course, as the Talmud explains, the subjects and objects named are
meant as examples standing for all things posessing the same essential
properties [e.g., the "open pit" stands for any stationary "pitfall"
through which the victim gets damaged by approaching it--such as a
bannana peel], as opposed to being approached by it.)

As for why the parasha begins with the laws of avadim, I suggest that
it begins with the one circumstance where the Torah decrees that one
/should/ cause a wound to another, namely by piercing his ear, and then
goes on with other laws relating to eved-ownership (which itself is a
form of legal deprivation of someone's free life).

If I'm not mistaken, the popular view is that the "man animal,
vegetable, mineral" (or ba'al chai medaber, ba'al chai, chai and do'mame)
classification was coined by the Greek philosophers. (Isaak Heinemann in
the introduction to his abridged translation of The Kuzari ["Three Jewish
Philosophers," Antheneum, NY, 1969, p.14] attributes the distinction
between plant, animal and human to the pupils of Hippocrates and Galen,
although I would like to know the specific source.) However, it is clear
that Scripture already used this classification method.

Zvi Lampel

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
>> starlight was brought by RNS in his book as simple and virtually
>> incontrovertible proof for an old universe. Having subjected it to the
>> Credibility Ladder in detail on Avodah, it has so far come up short.

[RHM]
> The only thing that has come up short is your inabilty to answer my
> question to you about the speed of light and an exploding star 1 mllion
> light years away. You explanation that the speed of light accelerates as
> you go back further in time would then mean that light would have had to
> travel the distance of 1 million years (based on the speed constant of
> 186,000 miles per second) in a time frame of 5765 years plus one split
> second to account for the additional 994,235 light years. A split second
> is just a wee bit too fast for light of that star to accelerate and travel
> all those miles. Is this what you believe? 

I don't understand your question at all and it does not seem to correctly
address the detailed SN1987A data presented by RYZ.

So far RYZ has admitted that his original step-down model was biased. I
provided four corrected equations for him to confirm that all the details
work. If you have any concerns with the corrected RYZ model please state
which equation is flawed. See also there for references to cosmologists
(e.g. Barrow at Cambridge and Magueijo at Imperial) who are looking at
light speeds many orders of magnitude faster than you mention.

KT ... JSO

> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 07:31:19PM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
> : There are many many Chazals and meforshim that state *explicitly* that
> : each day of creation was a regular day of a single night followed by a
> : single period of daylight ("vayehi erev vayehi boker"). These sources
> : even refer to the hours of the creation days, e.g. Adam HaRishon created
> : "afar min ha-adamah" on "yom hashishi" in less than 24 hours just under
> : 6000 years ago: ..
> : A single explicit quote would be fine.

[RMB]
> I refer to again to RYmA, the Maharal, REED's take on the Ramban, the
> Tif'eres Yisrael's meqoros, or any of the posts already written.
> ... I do not foresee posting again to this thread. It's not going
> anywhere...

Reb. Micha:

I share much of your frustration with this discussion, some responses
not being to the point (I do not refer here to your responses).

I asked for one explicit quote from classical meforshim or Chazal and
I still do not see one. I have dealt in my own posts with most of the
mekoros you mention and none of them are explicit and my interpretations
differ from yours. Hence the need for an explicit and unambiguous source.

KT ... JSO

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 12:31:21AM -0500, Jonathan Ostroff wrote:
: I asked for one explicit quote from classical meforshim or Chazal and
: I still do not see one. I have dealt in my own posts with most of the
: mekoros you mention and none of them are explicit and my interpretations
: differ from yours. Hence the need for an explicit and unambiguous source.

As we already gave mar'eh meqomos in the Ramban, the Maharal, the TY
and REED, and parts of RYmA was quoted, all of which well enough to have
had discussions of their positions, what's the point?

REED explicitly and unamiguously understands the Ramban to speak speaking
of 6 literal days that are also something else. RYmA explicitly and
unamibuously believed that many of the nivra'im come from a time well
before (even if we can argue RAK's 15billion) those 6 days. As does the
TY. And the Maharal quite explicitly and unambiugously says that we can't
understand the history from the peshuto shel miqra (or the science, but
that's not what you asked for) because we can't understand the history
at all!

Less explicitly, but still enough to shake your position that it could
only be literal: The second Rashi says that there is no muqdam ume'uchar
in bereishis pereq 1, that obviously 1:2 had to happen after or during
day 2. And for that matter, day 4 is not about creation but placement, in
which case --you need to prove that the other 5 days were about creationT.

As I said, what's the point? So that you can again give an interpretation
I feel is disloyal to the words of the rishon or acharon? Or so that you
can again give me the presentation of a gemara that sounds to me only
proves your point because of words you're placing between the lines --
and therefore you feel my explanation is disloyal?

I instead chose to end the cycle rather than restart it from step one, as
you're requesting.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Without going into the practical halakhic aspects, I can't think of
a reason why even the person who says kaddish should have to stand to
say it. Kaddish is not a prayer that talks to G-d but rather talks to
the community. References to G-d are in third person and second person
forms in the kaddish refer to the people (bechayechon...).

Since the reciter of the kaddish is standing before the community, and
not before G-d, there is no real reason for taking three steps backwards
after the recital of the kaddish and I think that there is a teshuva of
R. Ovadiah Yosef who says that it is only necessary to do so when saying
a tiskabal kaddish, because the three steps backwards are considered
part of the preceding shemone esre.

Nevertheless, the kaddish has taken on a number of the halachot which
originally applied to the amidah, granting the reciter the status of one
who stands before G-d. The history of this development, to the best of
my knowledge, has not been studied yet.

Joseph Tabory

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:54:33AM +0200, Joseph Tabory wrote:
: Without going into the practical halakhic aspects, I can't think of
: a reason why even the person who says kaddish should have to stand to
: say it...

Qaddish is a davar shebiqdushah, which is why it requires a minyan.
We always stand for a davar shebiqdushah.

Barukhu is a good example. The Chazan is speaking to the kehillah, asking
them to bless the Blessed One. Then everyone does. Much like Qaddish.

-mi

R' Hershel Botnick wrote to Areivim:
> The reason for
> this is because I always make tea essence on Erev Shabbos but I was
> recently a guest by a friend who brews tea in a Keli Sheni on Shabbos
> !! I explained to him that in my opinion teas has the status of Kalei
> Bishul and even a Keli Sheni may be prohibited if not at least precooked.

I'm reading his "may be" in that last line to be an acknowledgement of
the machloqes.

See the following about how tea is made from a FAQ by Celstial Seasonings
(a tea manufacturer in the US) <http://tinyurl.com/6zycc>:
> In specific, White Tea is minimally processed--the leaves are only lightly
> steamed or, sometimes, just dried. In Green Tea, the leaves are steamed
> and/or pan fired, then they are rolled and dried. Leaves for Oolong
> Tea are partially oxidized (more than Green Tea, less than Black Tea),
> then dried. Black Tea is fully oxidized. This processing--all from the
> leaves of the same plant--is what gives tea types their differences in
> names and flavors.

Except for white or green tea, tea leaves are already cooked. Green
tea is usually already cooked, although sometimes you instead have the
question of whether there is bishul achar tzeli.

(White tea is a gormet item. I don't know how "lightly" "lightly steamed"
is to know whether the tea cooks.)

In either case, avoiding even irui keli sheini by first putting the
boiling water into the keli shelishi and then the bag should be mutar
lekhol hadei'os, no?

It would seem that the point of sense then is to eliminate yet another
pro-bishul factor, even though it wouldn't be necessary me'ikkar hadin
in a keli shelishi. But if one makes tea sense and the sense is not left
on the blech (something that is quite common amongst homes I've visited)
or otherwise kept about yad soledes bo, the one definitely has problems
of bishul bedavar lach to avoid.

So, I've been in homes where the sense was nowhere near yad soledes,
and I asked if they could instead bring me a tea bag as it would pose
fewer bishul beshabas issues!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> There are a number of sources which seem to indicate that one must
> seriously attempt to find a sin worthy of the punishment - instead of
> just assuming that G-d is just....

I do not see this from the sources you site.

...
> *Berachos(5a): *When a person sees that he suffers from misfortune, he
> should examine his deeds to repent...

That's taking a lesson. Using the tragedy as a motivation to change, not
assuming a causal sechar-va'enosh connection.

...
> *Ramban(Shaar HaGemul #120 chapter 6):* In conclusion a person should
> believe that all mishaps and calamities are the consequence of sin
> and transgression. He should repent on those sins that he knows about
> and those that he has forgotten about...

As opposed to identifying a given sin. So, in what you give as his first
sentence, the Rambam requires "just assuming G-d is just". And in the 2nd,
yefashpeish bema'asav without any discussion of causality.

As he continues:
> The answer to this question is that this assertion that
> we should simply believe that G-d's actions are righteous - without
> trying to understand how - is the view of fools that despise wisdom. We
> in fact greatly benefit by learning the various explanations because
> this is wisdom which helps us become wise men.

There is no one explanation. Thus "the various explanations". Yet only
fools don't grapple with the problem. A rebbe-chaveir, R' [Dayan] Jack
Love learns this lesson from the machloqes in chazal about identifying the
aveirah of Nadav and Avihu. Chazal couldn't find a satisfying answer,
which is why they come up with no less than 7 opinions! Similarly,
I may add on my own, the machloqesin about the aveirah that lead to
churban bayis.

We're grappling with the problem, not expecting to resolve it.

> *Rambam(Moreh Nevuchim 2:48): *It is very clear that everything that
> happens must have something that caused it....."

> *Kuzari (5:20): *Since all that exists must exist either because of a
> direct decree of Gג€‘d or by means of intermediate factors and it is
> possible that they are all directly decreed by Gג€‘d ג€“ the masses
> prefer to attribute all causes directly to Gג€‘d because this is more
> certain and strengthens faith.
>
> *Kuzari (5:20): ג€¦ *The Prime Will is manifest when the Divine Presence
> is amongst the Jews. However after the destruction of the Temple
> it became doubtful - except in the hearts of those who have faith -
> whether specific events were the result of the direct command of Gג€‘d
> or the Heavenly spheres or were accidents. There is no definitive way
> to resolve this issue. Nonetheless it is best to attribute everything
> that happens to Gג€‘d,...

This is about H' as First Cause. Nothing about theodicy except identifying
that it must be an issue even in human-caused tragedies. Although the
Kuzari isn't as sure, and invokes a sibling to Pascal's Wager to say
it's better to simply assume that everything is from G-d.

Your other citations are in line with how I explained the Ramban. One
does general teshuvah, not try the absurdity of matching a given sin
or explanation.

On Areivim, RJR posted the following URL
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/sichot65/14-65RAL-tsunami.htm>.
Unsurprisingly, RAL's approach matches that of his father in law,
RYBS. Here's a teaser, you really need to see the full thing:
> After the Tsunami
> Based on a sicha by Harav Aharon Lichtenstein
> Adapted by Shaul Barth with Reuven Ziegler
> Translated by Kaeren Fish with Naftali Balanson
...
> But beyond prayer and supplication, we must ask ourselves whether there
> is something that can and should be said about this situation. Here the
> discussion assumes a different nature. Some people concern themselves
> with the question of why it happened, voicing opinions on why the tragedy
> occurred specifically in that place and that time. These same people,
> in different circumstances, also explain why infants and young children
> die. Apparently, they consider themselves experts in the ways of Divine
> Providence.

> We must distance ourselves completely from such shallow and false
> answers. Those are questions for Chazal -- who spoke in terms of some
> kind of general correlation, rather than with reference to a directly
> retributive causal nexus -- to deal with, not people like us. The message
> that arises in the wake of the events of the twentieth century is that
> we have no business poking our noses into the "why;" in the context of
> such questions, what is required of us is absolute humility. We have
> no business explaining, or pretending to explain, things that cannot
> be explained. We must remember Chazal's teaching concerning Bilam, who
> thought that he understood God's supreme wisdom. The Gemara derides him:
> "This person, who claimed to know God's mind -- could he not understand
> his donkey's mind?" This pretentiousness -- moral, philosophical and
> religious pretentiousness -- we totally reject.

> If we want to try and sort the wheat from the chaff, the chaff is
> relatively easy to discern. We are reminded of Yehuda's words to Yosef:
> "What shall we say to my lord; what shall we speak, how shall we justify
> ourselves?" There is nothing to say.

> Yet this raises a question. Despite his protestations, Yehuda does speak:
> "Yehuda came near to him, and said...." The initial response is that
> there is nothing to say, but ultimately there is a need for a meaningful
> statement. What is the nature of such a statement?
...
> What is appropriate, then, is a dual sense of shock. In terms of faith,
> there is the shock of humility, the message that prevents us from speaking
> nonsense. On the human level, we stand in shock faced with this collective
> suffering, as we struggle to address it and bring it down the individual
> level with which we can identify.
...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
>>                    More on the fact that the classical commentaries all
>> assume that days are days in another post.

[RMB]
> >...Clearly further discussion on this point won't get us anywhere.

Dear Reb Micha (who I hold is a real tzaddik),

And here I thought I'd be hearing how impressed you were by my citation of
Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon (re: navi shekker) vis a vis RMS's thoughts! Guess
I should have left out that line about "all classical commentaries"
(I meant talmudic, gaonic and rishonic). Perhaps you'd settle for "the
preponderance of classical commentaries"?

As far as whose heartbeats and pulses to use regarding passage of time,
I'd say obviously Adam's, whose life otherwise would have been even
longer than 1000 years (even disregarding those he "donated" to Dovid
HaMelech--if that Midrash is to be taken literally) if the sixth day
was a couple of Adam-heartbeat-aeons long. Although at post-Creation,
I guess one can switch over to saying that whenever Torah and Chazal
said "years," they really meant months. (I'm sure the scientists who
insist that evolution and aeon-long universe are facts, would on similar
grounds insist that the lifetimes of the people from Adam to Moses could
not have been as long as the Torah says.)

Sorry, I'm egging you on. My objection to the redefinition of the six
days of Creation should be taken in context of the attempt to use this
as a way to "reconcile" the theory of the "aeons-long" evolution of
earth and its inhabitants to what the mesorah tells us. The two issues
are inextricably intertwined. And it doesn't work. On the other hand, to
simply say that the Creation process took place in the sequence and the
manner the mesorah tells us, but the "six days" were not measurable by our
standards--I can live with that, although uncomfortably. Likewise, to say
that the "tohu va'vo'hu" period was aeons long--before the production of
us animals and humans is perhaps feasable, although the Talmud says that
"tohu va'vo'hu" were part of, not outside of, the first day, upon which
Hashem created the "middass hayom." But again, in any case, this has no
resemblance to the evolutionary version of how we came into being.

In any case, if no one is interested in a compendium of sources showing
that the common understanding of talmudic, gaonic, and rishonic sources
that the six days were six Adam-heartbeat days, (which I won't be able
to get to until a number of days--read weeks, months, or whatever)
I'll cooperate on closing this discussion.

Let's get on to less controversial subjects. Like maybe the dynamics
of Machlokess!

Zvi Lampel

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:51:27PM -0500, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: And here I thought I'd be hearing how impressed you were by my citation of
: Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon (re: navi shekker) vis a vis RMS's thoughts! Guess
: I should have left out that line about "all classical commentaries"
: (I meant talmudic, gaonic and rishonic). Perhaps you'd settle for "the
: preponderance of classical commentaries"?

I am not even sure it's the preponderance. As far as I can tell, the
preponderance of sources don't address the question altogether.

As for your quote from RSG, it doesn't rule out the other definition of
the word "yom". Yes, there's a lefi tumo, but if RSG didn't even consider
the question directly, it's hard to say that he is taking a position.

But even if it were the preponderance, there is no chiyuv to follow rov
in inyanei aggadita.

: As far as whose heartbeats and pulses to use regarding passage of time,
: I'd say obviously Adam's...

Adam wasn't around yet. How do you know how many of his heartbeats to
map to any event? My point (or really my understanding of RDEE's point)
is that we use the laws of physics to map events to eachother and define
time. As those laws weren't in place yet, all bets are off. Time is
undefinable without events occuring and changes happening at meaningful
rates in comparison to eachother.

...
: I guess one can switch over to saying that whenever Torah and Chazal
: said "years," they really meant months....

If you can find a baal mesorah who proposes that as a solution to a
mesoretic problem, yes. (As "shanah" can also mean "time of", that would
be a more plausible teirutz than months.)

However, unlike ma'aseh bereishis which even the mishnah tells us is
esoteric, and baalei mesorah explored an older creation before it would
help reconcile the Torah to contemporary theory, seifer toledos Adam
has no such mesoretic background. Which is why I place a line between
ma'aseh bereishis and the mabul. This question would be for those of
the chevrah who utilize a different line. (Which reminds me, I owe RSM
a reply on that topic.)

...
: Sorry, I'm egging you on. My objection to the redefinition of the six
: days of Creation should be taken in context of the attempt to use this
: as a way to "reconcile" the theory of the "aeons-long" evolution of
: earth and its inhabitants to what the mesorah tells us....

And my objection is to your insistance that mesorah says somethign about
which it doesn't give a single right answer.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
micha@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Addendum:

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
> And here I thought I'd be hearing how impressed you were by my citation of
> Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon (re: navi shekker) vis a vis RMS's thoughts!...

(I believe I said something to that effect to you as we were entering
shul for minchah Fri or Shabbos. But I've though about it since.)

A third objection to my previous on this citation: We know from how RSG
wrote his opinion on ha'atakah (gilgul) that RSG writing as being sure
of something doesn't mean it's the only opinion in the mesorah.

Add that to the two points on this that I just posted.

-mi

[RHM]
>> light years away. You explanation that the speed of light accelerates as
>> you go back further in time would then mean that light would have had to
>> travel the distance of 1 million years (based on the speed constant of
>> 186,000 miles per second) in a time frame of 5765 years plus one split
>> second to account for the additional 994,235 light years. A split second
>> is just a wee bit too fast for light of that star to accelerate and travel
>> all those miles. Is this what you believe? 

Jonathan Ostroff <jonathan@yorku.ca> wrote:
> I don't understand your question at all and it does not seem to correctly
> address the detailed SN1987A data presented by RYZ.

> So far RYZ has admitted that his original step-down model was biased. I
> provided four corrected equations for him to confirm that all the details
> work. If you have any concerns with the corrected RYZ model please state
> which equation is flawed. See also there for references to cosmologists
> (e.g. Barrow at Cambridge and Magueijo at Imperial) who are looking at
> light speeds many orders of magnitude faster than you mention.

I am not going to claim any expertice in the mathematical or scientific
models that you quote. I am not a scientist. But your explanation in
general terms seems to me to be an unlikely one. Perhaps you do not
understand me... or perhaps I do not undesratnd you. At any rate you
have not answered my question in terms that would satisfy me. So, I'll
try again.

You are asserting or implying that the light of an exploding star that
is one million light years away (using the constant) only took a split
second plus 5765 years. The light speed during the last 5765 year time
span,is constant at 186,000/second. Is there any scientist that would
argue with that? In order for your explanation to work, the acceleration
of light speed would have to be so great that the million mile distance it
takes light to travel using the traditional speed constant would have to
traverse at a rate of almost 1 million light years per second plus 5765
years... or something like that. At which point do you start accelrating
light speed to get the light from exploding star to to traveling the
million light year trek in about 5765 years? According to your version
the star exploded 5765 years ago and traveled 1 million light years in
that period of time. This makes sense to you?

HM

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:47:15AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
:                  In order for your explanation to work, the acceleration
: of light speed would have to be so great that the million mile distance it
: takes light to travel using the traditional speed constant would have to
: traverse at a rate of almost 1 million light years per second plus 5765
: years... or something like that. At which point do you start accelrating
: light speed to get the light from exploding star to to traveling the
: million light year trek in about 5765 years? According to your version
: the star exploded 5765 years ago and traveled 1 million light years in
: that period of time. This makes sense to you?

There is a point of discontiuity. It's not acceleration, it's a moment,
the final moment of ma'aseh bereishis, when G-d turned on the current
laws of physics. The reasonableness of acceleration is not an issue,
as that would presume the current laws of nature to be reasonable against.

Alternatively, RDEE's model as opposed to RJSO's, the speed has been
decreasing asymptotically. So for the past 5765+ years it has been near
the final value, so close to the asymptote to not change in any measurable
way. However, before then the decay was large and continuous. This
wouldn't be a "plus one second", but could be a "plus 2+ days". See
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Asymptote.html> for an entry in a math
dictionary. See how in the diagrams the line falls from infinity to
nearly the current value in a short time and then levels off?

I have relativistic problems with RJSO's position. It goes back to
defining time. Light has no rest mass, therefore it moves at a speed of 1.
A light-year IS a year. They are the same intervals on two different
axis. It's like rotating a ruler 90deg -- it still measures inches. So,
the speed of light is a definition of time, not just motion. So, when
you say that light used to be faster, do you mean it used to have mass?

Alternatively, the discontinuity is not in the speed of light, but the
speed of everything else. Light seemed to slow down because everything
but light speeded up consistantly.

This gets you back to talking about alpha, the ratio of c to "everything
else" rather than c. But in which case, uncertainty, not law domniates,
there is no consistantly, and in fact no two measurements would produce
the same result. No "days" by any definition.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 11:47:15AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
>:                  In order for your explanation to work, the acceleration
>: of light speed would have to be so great that the million mile distance it
>: takes light to travel using the traditional speed constant would have to
>: traverse at a rate of almost 1 million light years per second plus 5765
>: years... or something like that. At which point do you start accelrating
>: light speed to get the light from exploding star to to traveling the
>: million light year trek in about 5765 years? According to your version
>: the star exploded 5765 years ago and traveled 1 million light years in
>: that period of time. This makes sense to you?

> There is a point of discontiuity. It's not acceleration, it's a moment,
> the final moment of ma'aseh bereishis, when G-d turned on the current
> laws of physics. The reasonableness of acceleration is not an issue,
> as that would presume the current laws of nature to be reasonable against.

IIRC, RJSO's explanation of speed of light is that there is an increase
by orders of magnitude greater speed than the speed constant everyone
is familiar as you go back further in time. In this way he alters the
formula for determining the age of the universe because the speed of
light now beocmes a variable rather than a constant which equals rate
of 186,00 miles per second. Using that figure, a star that exploded
1 million light years away means that the distance of that star is
186,000 X 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 X 1,000,000 miles away. In order for the
light of that explosion to travle that distance to reach earth therefore
takes one million years. Acccording to RJSO, the time is reduced becuase
thespeed of light increases at some point as we get closer to the moment
of creation. What I have difficulty with is accelarting the speed of
light by orders of magnitude that would get that light to travel that
distance in a mere 5765 years.

The rest of ytour post I don't undersdtand.

HM

Micha Berger wrote:
>R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>There are a number of sources which seem to indicate that one must
>>seriously attempt to find a sin worthy of the punishment - instead of
>>just assuming that G-d is just....

>I do not see this from the sources you site.
>...

>>*Berachos(5a): *When a person sees that he suffers from misfortune, he
>>should examine his deeds to repent...

>That's taking a lesson. Using the tragedy as a motivation to change, not
>assuming a causal sechar-va'enosh connection.

I guess I don't understand your distinction between looking for a causal
relationship and taking a lesson. The sources I quoted assert that one
must look for a cause. The cause is not to be arbitrary but in fact must
fit the suffering. The above gemora states, if the suggested cause is
not adequate than one should continue searching for a realistic cause.
This seems clearly at odds with the view that the misfortune is merely
a sign to repent. The Ramban in fact says that taking the short cut of
simply assuming that the suffering is just - this is the view of the
fools that despise wisdom. Thus while there is no certainty that the
assumed causal relationship is correct - ideally one is to put effort
into finding the cause. The fact that there can be multiple causes -
as we see in the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash - does not mean that
Chazal didn't seriously think that their reasons were causal factors.
They apparently were only diasagreeing what the prime cause was.
They didn't merely take a lesson. Furthermore I don't see a source
justifying your viewpoint.

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


[ 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         ]