Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 047

Tuesday, December 6 2005

• Re: Fw: Being exposed to minus
• Re: TIDE
• RE: What is being done about the increasing number of guilty frum people in prison
• A of the U, again
• RE: TIDE and TuM
• RE: RSRH on Eisav's chinuch
• RE: TIDE
• midvar sheker tirchak
• Re: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• Fossil Fuels
• Re: Being exposed to minus
• RE: Being exposed to minus
• RE: TIDE and TuM
• RE: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• RE: RSRH on Eisav's chinuch
• Re: RSRH on Eisav's chinuch
• Just curious...
• RE: Rabbinical comments on R. Slifkin's Science of Torah
• Re: Age of the Universe (and Rabbi Miller Shlit"a re Bell's theorem and EPR)

On the question of whether or not we are allowed to speak the name of a
modern avodah zara, R' SBA cited and asked: <<< Shmos 23: "veshem elohim
acherim lo sazkiru lo yishoma al picho" I understand that that refers
to a meisis. But would it also be a reason as an issur to mention the
name of an AZ? And don't we freely say Baal Pe'or? >>>

R' Yitzchok Zirkind answered <<< AZ that's mentioned in the Torah is
Muttar. >>>

and R' Simcha Coffer answered <<< That's because the halacha is that
any AZ that is written in the Tanach is permissible to say and any AZ
that is not written in Tanach is assur to say as per your pasuk above. >>>

I see a gigantic difference between these these two answers: RSC alerts us to the fact that there are some AZs whose names appear in Navi which had not appeared in Chumash. Some examples appear in Melachim 2, 17:30-31. Surely these names were not merely written by the Navi, but have also been spoken by Jews in the process of learning those pesukim over the centuries. But these names are *not* ones which had appeared in Chumash, and so should have been assur to pronounce!

So, if it is clear that people in the days of the neviim pronounced the names of the local idols, then (1) why shouldn't we be able to do so? and (2) how do we understand the pasuk brought by RSBA?

Akiva Miller

In  Avodah V16 #45 dated 12/4/2005 REMT writes:
>> And why would TuM presume to institute such an  innovation,
>> that we should utilize gentile culture, if it was not an  ideal for the
>> past 3000 years? [--somebody]

> It's not  TuM's innovation. Isn't that what "yafy'fuso shel Yefes b'oholei
> Shem"  means?

Yes!  Exactly!  

But I wouldn't call that TuM, I would call it TIDE. The difference is
that TuM sees more value in secular culture for its own sake, while
"yafy'fuso shel Yefes b'oholei Shem" implies that secular culture is of
value only insofar as it is subordinated to and used for Torah.

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

> Shmuel (the amora) said that it's OK to mislead an Akum in certain
> circumstances.

Please supply citation and halachik application

KT
Joel Rich

On Areivim there was an assumption made by one or more people that the
Gedolei Torah who issued letters last week were paskening (perhaps that
verb is inaccurate - substitute your own) that the universe is only 5766
years old k'peshuto.

This is not correct.

For the most part, the Gedolim did not address the issue.

The one who did, Rabbi Miller, rejected RNS's mahalach that metaphorizes 
most of the first few perakim in Tanach. We have been down that road 
before, v'ein kan mekomo. But in the few words in which he does address 
the issue, he clearly and explicitly places himself in the Schroeder 
camp - to wit, that the time of the Sheishes Yemei Bereishis is not our 
time. While I still find that the TY's approach is medaber al libi 
yoser, that is a minor difference.

For those whose browsers can read Hebrew, here are the relevant lines:
אולם אח"כ ראיתי מש"כ אודות ששת
ימי בראשית והם דברי מינות וכפירה, מלבד שהם דברי בורות ולא הבין כלל
שכל חקי הטבע שאנו רואים עכשיו נקבעו בגמר ששת הימים כשעשה
הקב"ה שביתה של יום השבת ואמר לעולמו די, אבל מהות הזמן וחקי הטבע
בששת ימי בראשית אין להם שום דוגמא למה שאנו רואים עכשיו.


KT,
YGB

Simcha Coffer wrote:
>Like what? And why would TuM presume to institute such an
>innovation, that we should utilize gentile culture, if it was not
>an ideal for the past 3000 years?

This is just factually incorrect. Dr. David Berger has an excellent
article in the book Judaism's Encounter With Other Cultures in which
he demonstrates with great care and ample evidence the different
approaches to this subject throughout the High Middle Ages.

>There's a lot more renewal and enjoyment in living a life of
>Yiddishkeit than anything the goyim could possibly have to offer.

Yet, Jewish culture has adopted many different aspects of gentile
culture throughout the ages. Like it or not, the outside world seeps
into our world no matter how we try to stop it. That applies to every
single frum environment, whether Chassidic enclaves or Kollel
communities. Denying it is simply closing your eyes.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
Gil@YasharBooks.com

Simcha Coffer wrote:
>I heard recently from one of Rav Aharon Kotler's talmidim that his rebbi
>had a kabbala that it is assur to criticize the Avos on any point that
>Chazal were not critical of. Apparently RSRH didn't feel that way...

Neither did the Ramban, the Netziv or many others. Not that I'm a fan
of criticizng the Avos.

Gil Student,          Yashar Books

>>Where do you get that DE here means parnasah?
>Every single mifaresh on that mishna. Perhaps you should look
>up sources before responding.

Just one explanation that is available online, from R. Elchanan
Wasserman's Kovetz Shiurim:
See http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-85.htm
Question 3, Answer (a)

Gil Student,          Yashar Books

[From Areivim:]
> As I recall, midvar sheker tirchok is d'oraisa....

Ibn Ezra points out that this is pasuk warning dayanim to be honest(see
also shevous 31a, where it is interpreted as such). Merely lying with
no financial gain involved is not neccessarily assur.
                                                    MikeW

Micha Berger wrote:
>While that's true of the recent round of letters, that is not at all
>what's said in the original. The original ban used the words "melei'ei
>kefirah", "meenus", "kechol sifrei minim", "divrei kefirah uminus",
>etc.... R' Moshe Shapiro: "sifrei minim heim" and "avodah zarah". R'
>Shternbuch's letter is entirely about ma'aseh bereishis. And then the
>back-and-forth with R' Elyashiv too was about whether R' Hirsch's and the
>Tif'eres Yisra'el's approaches to creationism are still withinn the pale.

>In short, there is very strong reason for the reader to extract the
>"wrong conclusions".

Just wanted to post some background information regarding the latest 
round of letters.

As R' Micha Berger writes - the original condemnations of R' Slifkin
have been for various reasons. One group acknowledges that legitimate
authorities were quoted by R' Slifkin - but that these views have
been invalidated by the consensus of contemporary gedolim. This group
focused on the issue of the age of the universe and the general issues of
conflicts between Torah & Science. This is similar to the view expressed
in the Chasam Sofer that a consensus can invalidate previously legitimate
views. Similar R' Tzadok says that because of the revelation of Kabbala
the views of the Rishonim regarding Hashgocha protis and Yichud HaShem -
now have the status of kefirah. Another group insisted that R' Slifkin's
attitude of requiring the Torah to justify itself in the face of Science
was impudent and disrespectful. Some even felt that such an attitude
constituted kefira. Others felt that his kefira was that he stated that
chazal could err in scientific knowledge. Another group argued that
while the views of R' Slikfin were o.k. for kiruv - they were out of
place in the yeshiva world. Problem was that kiruv hashkofa has become
accepted in the yeshivos and therefore it is necessary to uproot it -
even at the expense of destroying a generation - in order to return the
next generation to the correct faith. In addition some assert that R'
Slifkin is a righteous Jew who has sincerely erred and thus is not a
kofer while others assert he is in fact a kofer.

The present upheaval involves two basic factors. 1) Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky
shlita has been the most significant support for R' Slifkin up until
now. Rav Shmuel is not only a universally recognized godol but is
also universally recognized as a mensch. He and his son wrote glowing
haskomos to R' Slifkin's books. Furthermore he prevented attacks on
R' Slifkin in the English press - including R' Aaron Feldman's shlita
article which was to have been published in the Jewish Observer. He also
asserted that - contrary to the other Godolim - that there is fact no
clear mesora that the universe is 6000 years old and that one is not a
kofer for asserting an age greater than 6000. However he was not happy
with the tone of some of R' Slifkin's writings - though he did not
feel that justified banning the books. 2) The reversal in his position
apparently has occurred because of two essays written by R' Slifkin - a)
one concerning the Jumping Elephant which asserts that contrary to the
understanding of Tosafos - elephants can not jump.This is relevant to
the halacha of kinyan. b) an article discussing pesik reisha where he
cited the case of Mike the Chicken who continued living after his head
was cut off. In this article R' Slifkin asserted that pesik reisha does
not have to be 100% of the time but just the vast majority of times. He
later retracted the article and apologized for not researching carefully
enough to learn that Mike the Chicken in fact retained some brain stem.

These two essays have apparently persuaded Rav Kaminetsky shlita and Rav
Perlow shlita ( who was also somewhat of a supporter of R' Slifkin)
as well as R' Aaron Schecter shlita that R' Slifkin was obsessed
with showing the weakness of rabbinic authorities and that this was
intolerable. Therefore their previous support and/or refusal to associate
with the ban had to change. Hence the letters - even though they have
not yet publicly explained why they wrote these letters.

Ironically these two articles were discussed with another godol -
who is not one of R' Slifkin's supporters - and he asserted that R'
Slifkin's analysis was entirely kosher in both essays. He stated that
it appeared that the above mentioned Godolim have been uncomfortable
for a while with having to defend R' Slifkin - in the face of the vast
majority of contemporary authorities - and that this was simply the
straw that broke the camel's back.

We thus have the problem of an ehrliche talmid chachom - R' Slifkin -
who has been lauded for years for his success in kiruv being attacked
for different reasons by different groups. Much of the attacks have not
conformed with halachic guidelines. The attacks are being done by the
godolim who define contemporary yiddishkeit. Even more problematic is that
there is a significant element of the English speaking Chareidi world who
do not understand either the reason for the attacks or the methods being
used. All the above has led to a debacle in which rabbinic authority is
being ridiculed both for what it says and how it says it . It has also
become a spectator sport in which the secular press - and the Jewish blogs
- have had a field day talking about the medieval ultra-orthodox Jews who
are afraid of Science. There seems to be no obvious resolution because
the issues involved transcend the writings and person of R' Slifkin.

Daniel Eidensohn

On 12/4/05, Gil Student <gil.student@gmail.com> wrote [to Areivim -mi]:
> The answer that can be given is simply that God created those fossil
> fuels in an "adult" form, i.e. millions of years "old" on their first
> day of existence.

When Hashem created the world, he didn't create it instantly. Just
like an explosion happens very quickly, but still takes time, so too,
the creation of the world. In the process of creation, things that
scientists have decided had to take a lot of time, could have happened
much more quickly. It wouldn't be an artificial creation that things
were made to look old, it would be a necessary part of the process.

Kol Tuv,
Ezra

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 03:41 +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> So, if it is clear that people in the days of the neviim pronounced
> the names of the local idols, then (1) why shouldn't we be able to do
> so? and (2) how do we understand the pasuk brought by RSBA?

perhaps the same train of thought I gave into learning about AZ, that
there's a difference between "religious" usage and other usage.

On December 4, 2005 Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> We find the term Yeshu mentioned in the rishonim. The Gra poskens that a
> person who became an AZ and died - it is permissible to mention his name.

This halacha predates the Gra. The Yereim haShalem (R' Eliezer Mimitz)
Siman 245 claims that the only time there is an issur to speak the name
of an AZ is if the name itself inherently bespeaks elohus. However,
a regular human name does not aquire the chalos din AZ although some
(or even billions) of people end up worshipping the person attached
to that name. See hagahos maymanyios on Rambam Hil. AZ 5:10 for a full
length discussion on this issue. Also, the Chavos Yair 1, Hassagos 11-12
says the same as the Gra. My comment above was not meant as a psak on
speaking Yoshko's name which I personally happen not to be nizhar on as
often as I should (when I do kiruv, I sometimes say "Jesus" if I think
my words will be more effective). I was referring to the names of idols.

[Email #2. -mi]

On December 4, 2005, Akiva Miller wrote:
> I see a gigantic difference between these these two answers: RSC alerts
> us to the fact that there are some AZs whose names appear in Navi
> which had not appeared in Chumash. Some examples appear in Melachim 2,
> 17:30-31. Surely these names were not merely written by the Navi, but
> have also been spoken by Jews in the process of learning those pesukim
> over the centuries. But these names are *not* ones which had appeared
> in Chumash, and so should have been assur to pronounce!

Before I answer, allow me to support my "psak" with an open halacha. The
Rambam in Hilchos AZ perek 5 halacha 11 states: "v'chol AZ hakisuva bikisvei
hakodesh mutar lihazkir shimah" and he goes on to give examples of some AZ
in nach (as opposed to Tanach)

> So, if it is clear that people in the days of the neviim pronounced the
> names of the local idols, then (1) why shouldn't we be able to do so? and
> (2) how do we understand the pasuk brought by RSBA?

Perhaps the answer is that at the time these AZ initially appeared, it was
takka assur to speak their names but once they entered the canon they became
mutar. That would answer your question above "Surely these names were not
merely written by the Navi, but have also been spoken by Jews in the process
of learning those pesukim over the centuries."

Simcha Coffer

On December 5, 2005, Gil Student wrote:
> Simcha Coffer wrote:
>>Like what? And why would TuM presume to institute such an
>>innovation, that we should utilize gentile culture, if it was not
>>an ideal for the past 3000 years?

> This is just factually incorrect. Dr. David Berger has an excellent
> article in the book Judaism's Encounter With Other Cultures in which
> he demonstrates with great care and ample evidence the different
> approaches to this subject throughout the High Middle Ages.

WADR, you don't expect me to back down from my position because you claim
there is some article out there that disagrees with my point of view.
Perhaps you would like to quote some of the examples Dr. Berger, who happens
to be an excellent historian, provides, and we can debate the spin he puts
on things from there.

> >There's a lot more renewal and enjoyment in living a life of
> >Yiddishkeit than anything the goyim could possibly have to offer.

> Yet, Jewish culture has adopted many different aspects of gentile
> culture throughout the ages. Like it or not, the outside world seeps
> into our world no matter how we try to stop it. That applies to every
> single frum environment, whether Chassidic enclaves or Kollel
> communities. Denying it is simply closing your eyes.

Nobody is denying anything. But it's as you say, gentile culture *seeped*
in; it wasn't allowed in and certainly wasn't encouraged. 

Simcha Coffer

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Sounds very compelling. Therefore, allow me to restate. *I* personally
> think that the kefira and minus issue is not nearly as problematic as
> the undermining of the authority of Chazal.

I think you're right. I don't think one undermines the authority of
Chazal by saying they might have been wrong in matters of science. To say
that they knew the science of their day and paskined accordingly does not
change the validity of their Psak, in my opinion. The Halacha still stands
because in Halacha they had authority. But eventhough I have difficulties
with this part of the ban too, I could sooner accept their infallibilty in
scientific matters (as hard as that might be... e.g. a kind of mouse that
is half earth and half animal...) than I can the other part of the ban.

It is fairly clear from the original words of various signers that to
believe that the universe is more than 6000 years old is Kfira. IIRC one
of the signers said something to the effect that RNS's books say that
"The world is millions of years old. This is nonsense and should not be
read or owned by anyone and certainly not to be believed." It's hard to
read anything other than that such beliefs are deemed K'firah. This is
the part of the ban that gives me and every Kiruv worker tremendous grief.

HM

On December 5, 2005, Gil Student wrote:
> Simcha Coffer wrote:
>>I heard recently from one of Rav Aharon Kotler's talmidim that his rebbi
>>had a kabbala that it is assur to criticize the Avos on any point that
>>Chazal were not critical of. Apparently RSRH didn't feel that way...
 
> Neither did the Ramban, the Netziv or many others. Not that I'm a fan
> of criticizng the Avos.

I only know of two times the Ramban criticized the Avos without invoking
Chazal. Once was by Avraham when he went down to mitzraim and once was
by Sarah when she banished hagar from her house. Regarding the first,
Shevel says that the Ramban got it from a Zohar and Rav Dessler says
that it is actually a Medrash Shochar Tov. Regarding Sarah, I didn't
research it but perhaps there is a source out there somewhere for this
Ramban. I don't think this one example is sufficient enough to state
that the Ramban would disagree with R' Aharon's principle.

Simcha Coffer

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 03:32:05PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: This is how the Torah is written. It makes me wonder if after all,
: after thousands of years of Esav sonei leYakov -- will there come a
: time when Esav's plea will be answered for good?

At the time when the dignity of the moon will be restored
to be equal to that of the sun, so that the two will rule in
partnership. See Chullin 60b and the Maharsha ad loc, or at least
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/pinchas.pdf>.

-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

> Similar R' Tzadok says that because of the revelation of Kabbala
> the views of the Rishonim regarding Hashgocha protis and Yichud HaShem -
> now have the status of kefirah.

where does Reb Tzadok say this?

YGB

On December 4, 2005, Harry Maryles wrote:
> It is fairly clear from the original words of various signers that to
> believe that the universe is more than 6000 years old is Kfira. IIRC one
> of the signers said something to the effect that RNS's books say that
> "The world is millions of years old. This is nonsense and should not be
> read or owned by anyone and certainly not to be believed." It's hard to
> read anything other than that such beliefs are deemed K'firah. This is
> the part of the ban that gives me and every Kiruv worker tremendous grief.

Well, it shouldn't. I personally reject the demonizing of RNS on
a personal level but this particular shita of his is exceptionally
egregious. If you are indeed a kiruv worker, it is most important for
a person like you to understand the facts and teach them correctly and
in this case, RNS got it entirely wrong. IMO, it is definitely assur,
if not bordering on the profession of kefira, to teach a baal tshuva, or
any Jew for that matter, that the physical depiction of MB as described
in the Torah never happened as RNS teaches in his book.

Simcha Coffer

On Behalf Of Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer Sent: Monday,
December 05, 2005 8:30 AM:
> The one who did, Rabbi Miller, rejected RNS's mahalach that 
> metaphorizes most of the first few perakim in Tanach. We have 
> been down that road before, v'ein kan mekomo. But in the few 
> words in which he does address the issue, he clearly and 
> explicitly places himself in the Schroeder camp - to wit, 
> that the time of the Sheishes Yemei Bereishis is not our 
> time. While I still find that the TY's approach is medaber al 
> libi yoser, that is a minor difference.

I spoke to Rabbi Miller Shlit"a this morning and he said that, according
to our mesora, Dr. Schroeder's approach to time during the 6 days of
creation is also wrong!

It is true that, unlike the approach of R. Slifkin, at least Dr. Schroeder
and Prof. Aviezer take the genesis account as a "historical fact". But
their acceptance of billions of years of regular days and nights on
planet earth as amoebas evolve into ape-like hominids and hominids into
man, is totally unacceptable. After all, the Talmud Sanhedrin that Rabbi
Miller quotes describes how Adam was created in 12 hours from the dust of
the earth without any genetic precursors (Adam and Chava had no hominid
parents c"v).

 From my own point of view, I understand the tremendous desire that
these scientists to shoe-horn Torah into big bang cosmology leading to
complex life. The problem is that it does not work, not just from the
Torah point of view, but even from the science point of view as well.

See <http://toriah.org/science/big-bang/big-bang.pdf> where I argue in
detail that big bang cosmology (like all other dating methods for the
universe) is not only speculative but suspect. Why hang your hat on a
house of cards?

In addition, although I am an unqualified layman, it is clear to me
that Dr. Schroeder's attempt to use the cosmic background radiation as
the genesis clock is flawed science (I would be happy to explain this
in detail should this be a point of interest and would be interested in
feedback from physicists to see if my concerns are valid).

With respect to Bell's theorem, Rabbi Miller approvingly quoted the
following paragraph (I think it is from The Emperor's New Mind, by Roger
Penrose, Oxford University Press, 1990 page 385).

===
Roger Penrose Quantum Magic and Quantum Mystery

I have made no bones of the fact that I believe that the resolution
of the puzzles of quantum theory must lie in our finding an improved
theory. Though this is perhaps not the conventional view, it is not an
altogether unconventional one. (Many of quantum theory's originators were
also of such a mind. I have referred to Einstein's views. Schrodinger
(1935), de Broglie !:(1956), and Dirac (1939) also regarded the theory as
provisional.) But even if one believes that the theory is somehow to be
modified, the constraints on how one might do this are enormous. Perhaps
some kind of 'hidden variable' viewpoint will eventually turn out to
be acceptable. But the non-locality that is exhibited by the EPR type
experiments severely challenges any 'realistic' description of the world
that can comfortably occur within an ordinary space-time - a space-time
of the particular type that has been given to us to accord with the
principles of relativity - so I believe that a much more RADICAL CHANGE
is needed. [emphasis not in the original]

===

Penrose restates and even strengthens the need for radical change in
"The Road to Reality" (2004).

The science historian Robert Nadeu and physicist Menas Kafatos wrote in
their 1999 book "Non-local Universe" that "many regard [the discovery
of nonlocality] as the most momentous in the history of science"!

Quite obviously, the new theories that will be needed to resolve all
these anomalies and paradoxes may point us in an altogether different
direction than the current speculations over origins.

Just a little maaseh Rav. When Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe"
came out in 1999, I was one of the eager early purchasers (it was a
disappointing read in the end). When I offered my copy to Rabbi Miller
he told me that he had already read it, so that pretty much deflated my
amateur excursions into string theory :-)

With best regards
Jonathan Ostroff

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


[ 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         ]