VinTage FrumTeens (aka "The Mod Squad"): TORAH and SCIENCE

Showing posts with label TORAH and SCIENCE. Show all posts

3.07.2007

TORAH and SCIENCE-----age of the world 2

MODERATOR Posted - 11 September 2005 9:11

Regarding answering scientists and those who have blind faith in them about the age of the world, first, just like the flaw in their "vestigial organ" logic, the entire concept of measuring the age of the world the way the scientists do is based on the assumption that the world was not created by a Creator. But if you say that the world was created the way the Torah tells us it was, that is, a full-blown world, complete with stars visible in the sky, full-grown trees and animals (and a human), a totally, fully developed and mature world, then their logic falls apart.

Because when the world was created, it already had an age. In other words, when Adam for instance was created, he was an adult, even though he was one day old; there were fully grown trees; the sun's light already reached the earth; an entire world existed, full-blown and OLD. How old was the world at the moment it was created? I don’t know -- it doesn’t say.

But we do know that it didn’t start from scratch. And so lets say a "scientist" would chop down a tree 1 week after it was created and find maybe 50 rings inside - would that prove that the tree was 50 years old? To the scientists it would, and the "tree ring" concept is used as one of their "proofs" that the world is over 6,000 years old. But the truth is it proves no such thing, because when the tree was created it was created as an adult, 50 year old tree.

So even if dating would be accurate, it still doesn’t prove that the world was not created 6,000 years ago - because when it was created, it already could have been thousands or millions of quadrillions of years old.

That is the first thing to understand when dealing with the "true believers" of science. But even if they will come up with something that cannot be explained by the above, there is a Torah principle that you must know that has been used long before any of today's scientists or their grandparents were born, that tells us that although the world was in fact created 6,000 years ago, we know that it possesses all and every characteristic of a world that is much, much older. The Torah actually expects scientific measurements of the age of the universe to return an age of much, much more than 6,000 years. And we have known this for centuries.

Says the Divrei Chaim (Chanukah p.45 col. 4),

“The scientists found a star whose orbit takes 36,000 years, yet the world is only 6,000 years old, as is stated in Avodah Zorah (9a) – so did He create [this star] for nothing? So the scientists ask... However, I found in a sefer of a great man, who was of the holy ones in the days of the Arizal and perhaps even much earlier than that, who brings this question and answers: It is known that the universe was once in its most perfect state, but Adam corrupted it and caused a weakness in all of creation. And therefore, at the time of creation, if not for the sin of Adam our father, the movement (orbits) would have been fast; but now, because of the flaw caused by the Sin, the orbit has to wait 36,000 years. A similar idea is expressed by the Yaaros Dvash.”

The Divrei Chaim does not tell us the location of the Yaaros Dvash. But the Divrei Yoel (Simchas Torah p.613) identifies it as being in 2 places: Vol. I, Drush 1 and Drush 15. There, it quotes a Medrash (Rabbah 10:4) that before the Sin of Adam the Mazalos operated much more rapidly. After the Sin, the Mazalos operated much slower and longer. With this Medrash, he explains the fact that we pasken that both the opinion that the world was created in Nisan, and the opinion that the world was created in Tishri, are true. Says the Yaaros Dvash: because the Mazalos operated much more rapidly before the Sin, between the time the Mazalos were created on the 4th day, and the time Adam was created, on the 6th day, the Mazalos had already run their course from Nisan to Tishri.

So there you have it - the world was created only 6,000 years ago as it says in the Gemora, but according to Chazal’s statement about the pre-chet rapidity of the Mazalos, we would a measure of history to have transpired during the 6 days of creation that would currently take much, much longer than 6,000 years.

So of course the scientists are going to think the world is much older than 6,000 years. We expected they would “discover” that, long before these scientists were ever born. All the scientists are doing, if indeed their dating methods are accurate, is picking up the billions of years worth of events that transpired before the sin of Adam. But we know that all took a few days.
The mistake in their system is that they are not measuring the amount of time itself that occurred. They are identifying various events that already happened and are saying:

1) We measured the amount of time it would take this event to occur

2) And this event has already occurred

3) Therefore, the amount of time it would take to make it occur has already elapsed.

The flaw on that logic is that they only measured how much time it would take if those events would happen NOW, in the post-chet world.

But since those events took place before the Chet, they took much less time, and so the occurrence of those events does not indicate the elapse of nearly as much time as the scientists think.

If they would find a way to measure time itself, meaning the amount of moments that transpired during the course of history, they would come up with 6,000 years.

Oxymoron Posted - 27 December 2005 19:08

This is all semantics, whether the world is 10 billion years old or 6,000. To say that Hashem sped up the development of the universe during Creation or to say that Hashem created an "old" world is not any different than saying that we have no idea how long the Sheshes Yimei Bereishis lasted, because -hey!- There was no solar system yet.

Why should we presume that the amount of time between one "Vayehi Erev" and the next was the amount of time it takes for the earth to rotate 360 degrees? The planet might not have even been in orbit yet!

MODERATOR Posted - 27 December 2005 20:30

I don’t know what you’re saying - please explain why the following things are identical in meaning and only semantically expressed in differing ways:

(a) Hashem created the world in 6 literal days. When He created the world, it was a full-blown world.

(b) Hashem created the world in 6 literal days. During most of those days, that is, until Adam sinned, the world was much more energized than it was afterwards.

They are not the same at all.

Regarding what you are saying about the first 3 days being coincidently the same length of time that it takes the earth to rotate, you are confusing the cause and the effect. It's not that a day is a day because that’s how long it takes the earth to revolve; rather, the earth takes that long to revolve because Hashem said the light should last only during the "day".

When Hashem created the world, there was a period of time that was "day" and a period of time that was "night". Then, on the fourth day, Hashem said that the sun should be employed during the time period called "day" and the stars during the time period called "night". The length of the day and night were not tailored to fit the path of the planets; the path of the planets were tailored to fit the length of day and night. And clearly, that is 24 hours. There is no indication that ever was any different.

What are you saying happened -- that the first 3 days were billions of years, and the next 3 days - after the planets were created - were only 24 hours? Why would anyone want to say such a strange thing? Why would the creation of planets and stars change the length of "yom"? How could anyone read that into what the Torah says? And why would someone want to?

The idea that without planets there is no 24 hour day and night was first understood to be an issue by Clarence Darrow, a 19th-century lawyer, during the Scopes "Monkey" trial. Here's a link and a transcript:

http://home.infostations.net/srm/athart1.htm

CLARENCE DARROW QUESTIONS WILLIAM Bryan: "Mr. Bryan, do you believe that everything in the bible should be literally interpreted?"
BRYAN: "Yes..Absolutely."

DARROW: Do you claim that everything in the Bible should be literally interpreted?

BRYAN: I believe everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there. Some of the Bible is given illustratively; for instance, "Ye are the salt of the earth." I would not insist that man was actually salt, or that he had flesh of salt, but it is used in the sense of salt as saving God's people. ....

DARROW: "Do you believe that the sun was literally made on the fourth day?"

BRYAN: "Of course, yes."

DARROW: "Well then, according to the bible story they had an evening and a morning the first three days without the sun."

DARROW: Do you think the earth was made in six days?

BRYAN: Not six days of twenty-four hours.

DARROW: Doesn't it say so?

BRYAN: No, sir.

DARROW: Does the statement "The morning and the evening were the first day" and "The morning and the evening were the second day" mean anything to you?

BRYAN: I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four hour day.

DARROW: You do not?

BRYAN: No.

DARROW: Then when the Bible said, for instance, "And God called the firmament heaven, and the evening and the morning were the second day," that does not necessarily mean twenty-four hours?

BRYAN: I do not think it necessarily does.

DARROW: Do you think it does or does not?

BRYAN: I know a great many think so.

DARROW: What do you think?

BRYAN: I do not think it does.

DARROW: You think these were not literal days?

BRYAN: I do not think they were 24-hour days.

DARROW: What do you think about it?

BRYAN: That is my opinion -- I do not know that my opinion is better on that subject than those who think it does.

DARROW: You do not think that?

BRYAN: No. But I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in six hundred million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.

DARROW: Do you think those were literal days?

BRYAN: My impression is they were periods, but I would not attempt to argue as against anybody who wanted to believe in literal days.

DARROW: Have you any idea of the length of the periods?

BRYAN: No I don't.

DARROW: Do you think the sun was made on the fourth day?

BRYAN: Yes.

DARROW: And they had evening and morning without the sun?

BRYAN: I am simply saying it is a period.

DARROW: They had evening and morning for four periods without the sun, do you think?

BRYAN: I believe in creation as there told, and if I am not able to explain it, I will accept it.

But these Christians were not Lamdanim and they did not think that Hashem fit the movement of the planets to match the day and not vice versa.

Your question, therefore, is like asking: Before clocks were invented, why would we believe that a day was 24 hours? How would the days know to end exactly when the clocks would say they do -- clocks weren’t even invented yet!

At the beginning of Kovetz Shiruim on Pesachim, Reb Elchonon brings up a question:

Tzais Hakochavim (the time when the new day begins) is defined as when the stars come out. But does this mean that the emergence of the stars cause the status of Tzais HaKochavim, or that the stars do not cause Tzais HaKochavim, but merely are a sign that the new day has arrived - like a giant clock, which certainly does not cause midnight, but merely chimes when midnight has arrived?

His conclusion: The stars are merely signs of the next day, but do not cause the next day. His proof: The stars were created on the 4th day, but it says "vayehi erev vayehi voker" on the first 3 days as well. To wit: Stars measure the days, they do not make them.

Oxymoron Posted - 28 December 2005 21:48

Regarding what you are saying about the first 3 days being coincidently the same length of time that it takes the earth to rotate, you are confusing the cause and the effect. Its not that a day is a day because that’s how long it takes the earth to revolve; rather, the earth takes that long to revolve because Hashem said the light should last only during the "day".

What are you saying happened -- that the first 3 days were billions of years, and the next 3 days - after the planets were created - were only 24 hours?

Rav Moderator,

I respect that your approach is viable. But what makes it necessarily the only approach? I'm interested to know who you're quoting.

I understand that "yom" is a Hebrew word, and that Lashon Hakodesh predates Bereishis, and that therefore it would be a dangerous proposition to suggest that the definition is relative depending on whether it refers to a "Yom" during creation or after.

But how do we really define "yom"?

According to Halacha, the time span of twenty-four hours is irrelevant. It's from one "erev" to the following "erev." Using Shaos Zmanios, a "day" during the spring equinox is markedly longer than a day during the fall equinox. They're both considered one "yom," although they're not the same time because of astronomy.

I would never suggest that Hashem decided to change His standard of what is a "yom," but that the "erev" which marks the endpoints of the "yom" weren't the same, just as they aren't the same every day of the year nowadays.

MODERATOR Posted - 28 December 2005 22:12

The world "yom" has 2 different meanings –

(a) daytime, as in Yomam Valylah - in which case you are correct, that the Yom" is longer in the summer than the winter, using shaos zemanios; and

(b) A day - an entire day, i.e. the sum total of the daytime and nighttime, as in "vayehi erev vayehi voker yom sheni". That "yom" is always 24 hours, no matter what the season, shaos zemanios notwithstanding.

And so there is no reason to believe that the length of the days changed on the 4th day from what they were on the first 3.

Please note that among the Meforshim that I quoted, who address the issue of natural phenomena that need more than 6,000 years to happen - the Yaaros Devash, Divrei Chaim, Divrei Yoel, and the unnamed Godol in "in the days of the Arizal and perhaps even earlier" - none of them saw fit to accept that the tens of thousands of years needed for that star to fulfill its orbit actually occurred. Although that answer was sitting there "on a silver platter" for them, it was not an option.

And, because of what they say, there is no reason to even want it to be an option. You gain nothing.

As the Gemora says the world is 6,000 years old.

Oxymoron Posted - 29 December 2005 7:05

Sorry. What I meant to say about the "yom" being longer around the spring equinox than it is by the autumnal equinox-- I was referring to the time from one nightfall to the next, one "day+night." And it's not always the same 24 hours.

You see, in the spring, when the days are getting longer, the sunset one day will be about three minutes later than it was the previous day, and in very beginning of fall, it'll be about three minutes earlier than it was the previous day. That means that the length of a full "yom," from one erev to the next, is not a set-in-stone amount of time; it can differ by six minutes during the year. It's determined by astronomy. This means that although the term "yom" always means the same thing, the parameters that determine its definition, i.e. from the coming of one ever to the next, are changeable.

That's all I was trying to say before. [Side-note: If you thought I was trying to say that the time from sunrise to sunset changes throughout the year, then the vernal and autumnal equinoxes that I mentioned wouldn't have made such good examples. They have halachic hours of exactly the same length, I believe. :-)]

MODERATOR Posted - 29 December 2005 8:39

First, your answer will not help you. Because much of what these scientists claim is ancient - such as animal fossils - was created after the first 3 days, when the sun and stars were already defining day and night.

(For the record, though, it is not decided that a "day" is measured from Erev to Erev. "Erev" means when the sun starts to set (the word comes from "l'hisarev", meaning to mix together. During "erev", the light and darkness start to mix). Until Tzais Hakochavim, it is questionable if the next "Yom" has arrived.)

Second, the fact that days are not always exactly 24 hours does not impact on what I said above, that G-d created the orbit of the luminaries to signal the passing of what was already established to be the amount of time in a "day". If the length of a day varies then so be it -- those variations existed even before the luminaries were created. The pre-sun-and-moon light and darkness functioned with the same precision and variations as the sun and stars were destined to function with starting on the fourth day. Remember: The path of the sun and stars are not the cause of the length of the day - they are an effect thereof. Hashem wanted the luminaries to be "signs" - like "clocks" - to herald the arrival of day and night.

So when Hashem created the plants, He created earth with the precise shape, precise tilt in its axis and the precise ellipse its "orbit" so that the length of each day of the year will be properly reflected by the shkiyah.

taon Posted - 29 December 2005 11:01

Rashi on Beraishis Perek Bais Passuk Gimmel. "The work which was to be done on Shabbos Hashem doubled and did it on Erev Shabbos."

mo Posted - 29 December 2005 16:17

Oxy,

You probably mean Summer and Winter _Solstice_? On the Spring and Fall Equinox a day is exactly 12 hours in every place.

MODERATOR Posted - 29 December 2005 17:52

I'm interested to know who you're quoting.

Not quoting anyone. It's peshuto shel mikrah.

taon,

That Rashi doesn’t prove that the world was speeded up. All it means is that Hashem did double the work that day - but it doesn’t mean that the grass grew faster or the stars flew faster than usual.

Oxymoron Posted - 29 December 2005 21:10

Hey Mo,

I guess I wasn't so clear, b/c the Moderator also thought I was talking about the length of daylight. I was talking about the length of the actual complete day, which halachicly is a bit less than 24 hours on the Autumnal equinox and is a little bit more than 24 hours on the Vernal equinox. At the solstices, the halachic length of the entire day is 24 hours precisely.

MODERATOR Posted - 06 April 2006 9:09

In any case Rashi states explicitly that the day of Vayehi Erev Vayehi Voker Yom echad was 24 hours. And it’s actually clear from the Gemora as well.

MODERATOR Posted - 07 April 2006 10:41

And Rishonim state explicitly that the fact that there was no sun or moon does not present a problem regarding the hours of the day, since

(a) as I mentioned above, you can have a length of a day without the luminaries, and

(b) the sun and stars were actually created on the first day but merely put in place on the fourth.

In any case, the fact that there was no sun or starts during the first three days does not indicate in the slightest that the days were anything other than 24 hours days.

plm Posted - 07 March 2007 13:47

So is it against the halacha to believe the world is billions of years old or just a mistake?

MODERATOR Posted - 07 March 2007 13:52

It's against the Halachah. In fact, Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita paskened (not surprisingly) that if a non-Jew wants to convert, and he is 100% committed to accepting Torah and Mitzvos, but he believes the world is billions of years old, it is prohibited to convert him, and if you did convert him, the conversion is possibly invalid altogether ("yitachen d'afilu dieved lo mahani, vtzarich iyun").

11.28.2006

TORAH & SCIENCE-----r saadiah and allegory

MODERATOR Posted - 24 July 2006 13:57

I understand why the Rambam and his son's statements don’t apply to science and torah issue today but what about Rav Sadia Gaon, he said you can allegorize pesukim is science says its not true so why cant we allegorize Bereishis

========================================
Rav Sadiah never said such a thing. That's a distortion of his position. See it inside. What Rav Sadiah did say has no bearing on any of the issues we are discussing.

Rav Sadiah did not say all methods of direct and indirect proofs are sufficient to reinterpret the Torah. And surely he did not say scientific evidence is reason.

Neither Rav Saadiah or anybody else ever said such a thing. Your senses are what you can feel and taste and touch such that it becomes impossible for it not to be so.

Scientific evidence is not that. There is a margin of error in these things that has been proven time and time again in the past.

Especially since there are other explanations, such as the "world was created old" idea that explains things just fine.

Never mind that more often than not, the "proofs" start with the assumption that the world was NOT created by a creator.

Take, as an example, the “proof” to evolution of "vestigial" organs found in animals.

This proof is based on the assumption that the scientists already have uncovered sufficient knowledge of science such that if they cannot find a reason for an organ, the reason does not exist.

Not only has this assumption not been proven, it has been disproved in the past. Whale fins (and other organs) were once upon a time served up as evidence of vestigial limbs by scientists only later to discover that they indeed did not realize that they have in fact an important purpose.

That is a far, far, far cry from the touch-and-taste first-hand sensory intuitive proof that Rav Saadiah mentioned.

So Rav Saadiah’s statement clearly does not apply here. On the contrary - from the narrow scope of Rav Sadiah's flexibility, it indicates clearly that anything outside of the scope of black and white logic and intuition can not be used to reinterpret a Posuk.

In addition, Rav Saadiah never said that your senses are the only factor involved in assessing the acceptability of your interpretation.

Rav Saadiah was a rishon, and he was talking about interpreting the Torah in an acceptable, reasonable manner, using all the yegiah and ameilus that one uses to interpret any difficult passage.

He is saying that your senses can be invoked to determine correct pshat in the Torah but he did not say that satisfying your senses is the only requirement for an acceptable pshat.

Rav Saadiah did not say that you can interpret the Torah - allegorically or literally - in a way that contradicts our Torah shebal peh, Mesorah, or the Halachah, for instance, just because you cannot think of a pshat that agrees with the Mesorah.

So even if theoretically something in the Torah would go against our senses, we would have to interpret the Torah according to the halachic and Hashkafic due process. If we are unable to think of a pshat that squares with torah shebal peh, then we simply do not know the pshat. Not a big deal.

There are a lot of difficult passages in the Torah. And as Rav Chaim Brisker said: "It is better to remain with a good question than to give a bad answer."

So even if someone had seen Hashem create the world with the mammals first and fish later, which is what he would have to do to meet Rav Saadiah’s criteria, he would still not be entitled to answer by saying the Torah “doesn’t really mean it.” He would have to say "I don’t know what the Torah means here."

Plus, if you notice, Rav Saadiah said not only that you may reinterpret a posuk if it contradicts simple logic and intuition, which is not justification for reinterpreting the Torah here, Rav Sadiah also says that license to reinterpret comes if the posuk seems to contradict rabbinic tradition.

So avoiding an absolute logical and intuitive impossibility is one reason to reinterpret, but contradicting rabbinic tradition is another.

So even if you have a posuk that meets Rav Sadiah’s criterion of being against basic logic and sensory facts, by reinterpreting it in a way that contradicts rabbinic tradition you have not followed Rav Sadiah. All you have done is traded one impossibility for another, which is not what Rav Saadiah is allowing.

To fulfill Rav Sadiah, you’d have to reinterpret the posuk in a way that squares with Rabbinic tradition. If you cant, then you simply must say "I don’t know."

To take scientific evidence and theories – which is NOT within the scope of Rav Saadiah's criteria –and reinterpreted pesukim to make them contradict Rabbinic tradition, is not only outside of the scope of what Rav Sadiah said was permitted, but, according to Rav Sadiah’s statement, it is making things much worse than they were before.

TORAH & SCIENCE-----evolution 2

Oxymoron Posted - 27 December 2005 19:08

Darwin believed in G-d. Check "Origin of the Species."

Not to say that a pure neo-Darwinian approach is not foolish, but the idea that genetic mutations can be perpetuated if they are beneficial to the survival of the population, and thereby changes can occur (and Hashem guides them) isn't so preposterous. And many Meforshim hold that the Sheshes Yimei Bereishis weren't 24 hour days anyway, so the time-window is irrelevant.

Yes, I know that evolution has been discussed on the forums before, but I think that the idea that evolutionary theories MUST be mutually exclusive to a belief in G-d is at least possibly questionable.

MODERATOR Posted - 27 December 2005 19:53

"Many Meforshim" are who hold the days of creation were not 24 hour days? Nope. That’s simply not so. Please tell me who these many Meforshim are. (And please don’t quote me misrepresented statements of Meforshim that "al pi penimiyus hadevorim" days mean things other than time periods. These statements are not meant to preclude the simple pshat of days being days, but are rather intended to add an additional meaning to the Posuk besides the peshuto shel mikrah).

The Gemora in Avodah Zorah, of course, says the world is 6,000 years old.

And you are also not providing any evidence at all of any evolution. Why in the world should anyone believe it? Except for the fact that the atheists have to (What Darwin believed or didn’t believe was irrelevant. Of course you can believe in G-d and also believe in evolution. But if you do believe in G-d you have no logical reason to believe in evolution.)

And you also still haven’t explained how species survived before the evolutionary process completed.

TORAH & SCIENCE-----science nature and torah

MODERATOR Posted - 31 July 2005 14:41

Torah is to the natural world what a blueprint is to its edifice, or what DNA is to an organism. Histakel B'Oraysa Ubara Alma - Hashem looked into the Torah, and created the world as a reflection of it.

This happened because the very reason - the only reason - the world was created in the first place was as a tool to fulfill the Torah.

(see http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=73&forum_id=13&topic_title=Part+I%3A+The+Creation+of+the+Universe%3A+Why%3F&forum_title=Basic+Judaism&M=0&S=1 ).

How can you fulfill the Mitzvah of Pri Etz Hadar without an Esrog tree? How can you fulfill the Mitzvah of Kibud Av Va'em if you don’t have parents? How can you make Kiddush Friday night without such things as night, or wine, or words?

Those are easy examples. But Hashem does nothing without a reason, and creates nothing without a reason. And if Hashem created it, it has one reason and one reason only: to facilitate the fulfillment of the Torah. Because without that reason, the world had no reason to exist.

So everything in the world - every little detail, every little subatomic particle, every little spec of space dust - is here to somehow facilitate the fulfillment of the Torah. Just as every part of a car is to facilitate the comfortable and efficient transportation of humans from one place to another, so too every part of the world is to facilitate the transportation of humans to Gan Eden by way of Kiyum HaTorah.

But a difference between a car and the Torah is, whereas there may have been several possible version of how to make a car, and several possible alternatives to the actual car that was created that would have facilitated juts s well the goal of transporting people form on place to another- different types of cars, trucks, planes, bicycles, etc - there was only ONE possible way to facilitate the goal of getting people into Gan Eden, and that was by creating this particular world. No other world, not even in the slightest detail, would have done the job.

Just as the Torah is infinitely precise in its details, so does the natural world reflect the infinite precision of the Torah. When Hashem created an Esrog, which shaken in the proper manner, would connect the shaker's soul to Hashem Himself in the particular way that the specific Mitzvah of velkachtem lachem pri etz hadar does, He created the Esrog, the joints and limbs of the person shaking it, the water and soil and sunlight and gasses that the Esrog consolidates, the mind and body of the person shaking the esrog, the circumstances surrounding the buying of the esrog - its value, its purchase price, the precise difficulty involved in obtaining it, --- every single factor that comprises the act of the mitzvah, its nisyonos, and its ramifications -- were created with infinite precision, down to the sub atomic level in order to best produce the desired effect.

Because the world itself - the entire universe - is designed to be the place where, when Moshiach comes, the spiritual energy that was emitted upon the performance of the Mitzvos, combined with Hashem's revelation of His Oneness, matures into the spiritual environment Olam Habah, which is en eternal connection between the Mitzvah-doers and Hashem Himself, the entire world, every molecule and sub atomic element it consists of, every single segment of time and space itself, every sub-sub-sub atomic component of every single square micro-inch of the entire universe, was created in a way that it will fulfill its spiritual purpose - of intimately connecting humans to Hashem through its being used by humans to be turned into a connection between the human body-and-soul, and Hashem.

That was the only single solitary idea that Hashem had in mind when creating the world. That was the only single solitary reason the world was made. And just as Hashem is one, and the Torah is one, and could not e any other way, the world, in order to fulfill its purpose as becoming the connection to Hashem was created in the only way it could have been, using the Torah as its blueprint, as its DNA. And that mean not only the physical shell of the world, but every single nuance of every single sub-atomic detail of the world, was created using the Torah as its blueprint. The Torah and nothing else is what the world reflects, on an infinitely sublime level.

This is why the Rambam states (Yesodei HaTorah 2:2) that the natural world contains "wisdom that has no measure and no end". Because juts as the Torah has infinite wisdom, so does the world, which is a reflection of it.

The calculations and details that went into this world are bottomless. And its nature reflects the nature of the Torah itself; is details reflect the details of the Torah, in the same way that the details of the organism reflect the details of the DNA molecule.

To be continued.

MODERATOR Posted - 31 July 2005 16:57

So far we know that nature and Torah relate in that the Torah actually dictates what goes on in nature - histakel b'oraisa ubarah almah - just as the blueprint of a building decides how the building will be built, the Torah, in the same sense, decided how nature works. And just as the DNA controls the structure and makeup of the organism, so too it is the Torah the controls the structure and makeup of the world. There is not a single spec of the natural universe that is not ruled and determined by the Torah. As Rabbeinu Bachyai writes in the Introduction to Chumash, all wisdom and science in existence is contained in the Torah.

And the opposite is true as well - the Avos knew and fulfilled the entire Torah even though it had not yet been revealed by Hashem. Avrohom Avinu made and donned a pair of Tefillin. Now there are maybe 10 or so Halachos L'Moshe Misinai involved in making a pair of tefillin. How did Avrohom Avinu know how to make a pair of Tefillin?

The answer is that Hashem looked into the Torah and based on it, deciphered nature; Avrohom reperformed that process the other way: He looked into the Tevah, the natural universe, and deciphered the principles upon which it was based, the reasons why it was created in precisely the way it was, and, with precision accuracy, the details of that Torah which is reflected in nature. He looked, for instance, at his own body, and he deciphered from his 248 limbs and his 365 sinews, the 248 Mitzvos aseh and the 365 mitzvos lo saaseh. He deciphered the Torah by studying its reflection - the universe - the same way a skilled architect can decipher the blueprint of a building by studying the building.

So he made a pair of Tefillin.

Nature is created by, from, and as a reflection of Torah. Nature follows Torah law, not vice-versa. And although nature, on the surface, follows surface-level physical laws, on a deeper level, on the deepest, deepest level of science, all of nature, all of the universe, follows a system of laws that are designed to facilitate the purpose of Creation, namely, its eventual maturation, nurtured by the study of Torah and performance of Mitzvos by the Jewish nation, into a spiritual entity known as Olam Habah.

In a nutshell, those Laws of Nature are simply a reflection of the Laws of the Torah itself. When the physical universe, which is a reflection of Torah, is nurtured by the Torah-acts of the Am Segulah, it becomes a vessel for the connection of the souls and bodies of the Am Segulah to the Creator of the Torah.

That is the cosmology of the world in a nutshell.

to be continued...

MODERATOR Posted - 11 September 2005 8:42

So the natural world and the Torah are inexorably connected. The Torah is the blueprint of the natural world, and the natural world is a reflection of the Torah. Avrohom, Avinu, or someone on his level, could look into nature and discover how to make a pair of Tefillin; and Chazal were able to look into the Torah and discover things about nature. [Rabeinu Bachyai, Ramban].

But there is a reason that the natural world was tied to the deepest levels of the Torah. G-d could have made a world whose blueprint was physical laws or some other system of rules. Why did Hashem chose the Torah as the blueprint of creation?

The answer is because the purpose of creation is one and one only – to be our Olam Habah. When Moshiach comes, the world will be transformed into, literally, heaven on earth. This transformation is done by us, by doing Torah and Mitzvos, we slowly “sanctify” the world – including, of course, our own selves, first and foremost! - , bringing it to a point that it can accept and process the spiritual energy to which it will be exposed when Moshiach comes, which will transform it into Gan Eden.

So every Mitzvah we do “feeds’ not only our own physical bodies, giving them their spiritual nutrition that they need to be able to rise from death at Techiyas Hameisim and live in the spiritually charged Olam Habah, but our Mitzvos also “feed” the very universe, , transforming it into the spiritually charged world that is ready to become Olam Habah.

That is the entire purpose of the natural world. Nothing more and nothing less. Its purpose is to reach its potential through our Torah and Mitzvos. Clearly, then, the blueprint of the world, the way the world is structured on the most sublime and deep levels, depends on what it says in the Torah.

It’s like if you make a car to transport human beings – the basis for the car’s creation is going to be the human transportee. Your car will have pedals because the driver has feet down below; it will have a mirror because the driver has eyes up above; it will have seats that are shaped a certain way, a trunk that opens with a key that can be conveniently carried around by the human transportee, etc. So too the natural world was built with only one thing in mind: how will it transport the human race into Olam Habah.

And so, juts as if you don’t know what a human being is, you will never understand the details of the car design, and if you don’t understand Torah, you will never understand the natural world.

And that is how Avrohom Avinu made a pair of Tefillin by looking into the natural world with the eyes and understanding of the Avos, and saw how the world needs Tefillin in order to fulfill its purpose, and how exactly those Tefillin need to be made. By seeing the sleeve, you can understand the shape pf the arm, and by seeing an arm you can understand the design of the sleeve.

That is the relationship between Torah and the natural world.

That is why scientific knowledge can be derived the Torah. The Gemora in Bechoros 8a derives from a Posuk in Bereishis the fact that a snake‘s development stage is longer than the rest of the animal kingdom. This is cited by the Ramban (Toras Hashem Temima p.159 in Chavel edition) as but one example of how Chazal knew facts of science from the pesukim in the Torah that describe Brias HaOlam. He cites more.

Rabbeinu Bachyai writes in the Introduction to Chumash that all wisdom and science in existence is contained in Torah. Some scientific facts were known through rabbinic tradition. The Rashba cites a rabbinic tradition from Sinai that a treifah cannot live more than 12 months. (Rav Yonason Eyebushitz (kreisi Upleisi 40) writes that such traditions are not to be disregarded even if found to be against “all the laws of heaven and earth”, since they are part of Torah shebal peh.)

see also my post of Posted - 04 November 2002 14:04, at
http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=2028&forum_id=25&Topic_Title=To+what+extent+is+belief+in+ALL+midrashim+mandator&forum_title=Asking+Questions

mo Posted - 13 September 2005 21:37

** Specifically, how does Judaism react to the Theory of Evolution? Not too nervously. Why is not Judaism seriously perturbed over evolution's postulate, which directly disputes one of Judaism's basic teachings, the creation of man by God? Why is not Judaism militant and vocal in opposition to Darwinism as are Bible-belt fundamentalists?

While not all of Judaism's commentators are in strict agreement, a respectable segment of our sages does not view evolutionary workings within an evolutionary process as necessarily incompatible with or hostile to Judaism. They point out that the purpose of creation is to enable man to rise through successively higher levels of accomplishments and morality to the ultimate level of human perfection. Indeed, the account of Genesis is a model of transition from matter to vegetable, then to animal and finally to human. but, these sages caution, the point that must always be kept foremost in one's mind is that Judaism views these stages as the products of divine ordering and purpose, not of chance.**

What can you say on that, Reb MODERATOR? Is it kosher book to keep in Jewish houses and libraries?

VaYoel Moshe Posted - 19 September 2005 10:23

BS"D
this topic is great and much-needed. thanks so much R' Moderator for addressing this issue!!!

MODERATOR Posted - 02 October 2005 7:26

Mo,

What you are quoting in the name of that book is both untrue and against the Torah. What the author wrote is not just an inaccuracy or an error. You should not read such books.

mo Posted - 27 December 2005 3:51

**What you are quoting in the name of that book is both untrue and against the Torah. What the author wrote is not just an inaccuracy or an error. You should not read such books.**

So what to do to remove such books from libraries? This is one of many others of this kind even in some yeshiva libraries, too?

MODERATOR Posted - 27 December 2005 4:43

That Hashem first made man from dirt and then blew into him a Neshama is not in question. But to say that the Torah can agree with the theory of evolution is another matter entirely. The theory of evolution - and the word itself, which means slow change, the opposite of "revolution," which means sudden change - requires many generations of gradual development, and man was already functioning on the day he was created.

But perhaps even more importantly, the only reason anyone would want to say that humans evolved from monkeys is the lack of any better way to explain the existence of humans, as well as monkeys and other species of life. There is no scientific evidence that humans evolved from monkeys - there is not even any evidence that things evolve altogether. No evolutionist has ever seen or brought any evidence that even a single new organ has ever appeared through evolution, never mind a new species.

And the evidence against evolution is so obviously compelling - the dependence on the completeness of biological systems for the survival of the organism has evolutionists nailed to the wall. (The first male member of the species had to already have available counterpart with a fully functional female reproductive system, and vice versa, else the species would not have had a chance to survive long enough to develop into anything; the first chicken egg had to be just thick enough to contain the newborn during the incubation period, but thin enough to allow it to break free.

The reason the evolutionists created and still cling to that theory is because they have no better way to explain how we got here. If the world is accident, then evolution is the best they can come up with, even though it is unreasonable; if the world was created, then it is simply unreasonable.

So for example, "evidence" such as "vestigial" organs is only evidence if you assume that the world is an accident. But if Hashem created the world and (c"v) "guided" evolution, it would mean that He sloppily provided humans with useless organs that He neglected to "guide" through the evolutionary process. And if you will give G-d enough credit that these organs actually do have a purpose that we do not know of, then the vestigial-organ evidence is down the tubes to begin with.

The whole idea makes no sense.

I know there are those who like to talk this way in a Kiruv situation when encountering the naive or unsophisticated who will not think outside the box they were placed in by trendy pseudo-science and will not open their minds to more logical, yet unfashionable thinking. People say such things in order to save the souls of the closed minded. But as an actual possibility, this idea does not qualify.

As far as what to do about the books, you should approach the rabbi who is in charge of that library, or a rabbi who the person in charge follows, and show it to him.

11.19.2006

TORAH & SCIENCE-----spontaneous generation

ecilevy Posted - 01 December 2005 15:19

How do we explain the instances that we see in the Gemora that contradicted established facts, like when it says that lice are spontaneously generated?

It is documented that was the belief in those days, but now we can see that it is not true.

Chazal based halachos on this fact but now that it is mistaken shouldn’t we change the Halachah? (I am not trying to say Kefirah, I'm just asking)

MODERATOR Posted - 14 December 2005 8:26

When Chazal discuss life, or what constitutes animal mineral or vegetable, they are using the Torah’s definitions, not the scientists’. And the Torah’s definitions of all of the above depend not on physical characteristics but spiritual ones. An inanimate object has a Nefesh Hadomem – the “spirit” (which is a better translation than “soul”) of an inanimate object; plant life has a Nefesh HaTzomeches; animal life, a Nefesh HaBehamis, and a human being, a Neshomah.

The definition of life that is used throughout Torah is spiritual, not physical. The Halachic cut-off date for an embryo being considered not yet life regarding certain Halachos is 39 days. On day 40, that changes. Biologically, there is no way to identify the exact date of “life”. This is a spiritual, Neshama-based, assessment, because the definition of life depends on spiritual, Nefesh-based criteria, not scientific ones.

If I were to create an android – a robot made out of human tissue – that is “programmed” to have human characteristics – to cry when hurt; to laugh when told a joke; to smile and display all chemical and physical signs of happiness when confronted by a desirable event (i.e., events that are programmed to be “desirable”) to eat and drink and burn the food as fuel; to portray in every scientifically way possible human characteristics – such a Golem, no matter what biological signs or functions it displayed, would not be a human being because it has no Neshamah; it would not even be considered “alive”.

Perhaps a clone is in that category, a non-living humanoid constructed through biological matter and those biological factors that enable human functionality, copied from a real human being the way one copies a computer program, but without the spiritual components of a live creature, the Nefesh and Neshama. I don’t know whether, when you clone something, the spiritual components get cloned as well, but if they don’t, then I imagine a human clone would be considered not a human being but rather an organic robot, a humanoid, with no “life” of its own. Even if the scientists cannot tell the difference.

Should a human not have a Neshama or a Nefesh, he is not a human, but an organic construct; should someone create an organic machine that mimics plant life in every biological way possible, it may still be considered a Domem, if it lacks the spiritual Nefesh HaTzomeches.

So when Chazal say that lice do not reproduce but rather spring from sweat and dirt, they mean that lice do not impart into their eggs the same life-force that animals do, that their eggs have a Nefesh HaDomem, or partially a Nefesh HaDomem, and Halachicly their status is not that of eggs.

The fact that scientists will tell you lice eggs are the same, biologically, as any other eggs, means nothing here. They see a Mommy louse, a Tatty louse, and a baby louse, but that’s just the way this construct was programmed to function. Plants also “reproduce” – the pollination process involves moving a seed (the pollen) to another "organ" (the stigma) which causes reproduction - so we have a Daddy plant, a Mommy plant, and a baby plant -- but plants aren’t animals. And plant “eggs” aren’t eggs. And Chazal had a tradition that neither are lice eggs, Halachicly, because the way lice are reproduced -- with a Mommy louse and a Daddy louse -- does not involve the result in the creation of an egg that enables an animal Nefesh the way other eggs do.

The Gemora, no matter what explanation you are going to have of it, says that dirt can produce lice. The scientists point out that it is an egg that produces lice. That’s not a big deal, because I am saying that those eggs are halachicly not eggs, but dirt themselves. Because the difference between an “egg” and a biologically identical domem is something only Chazal could know, based on their knowledge of the Nefesh.

ruvein Posted - 15 January 2006 16:02

Isn't it more likely Chazal just thought that lice really were physically born from dirt, just like the scientists of their day did?

MODERATOR Posted - 15 January 2006 16:13

No. Chazal got their information from the Torah / by Mesorah, not from scientists.

Please see my post of Posted - 04 November 2002 14:04 at

http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=2028&forum_id=25&Topic_Title=To+what+extent+is+belief+in+ALL+midrashim+mandator&forum_title=Asking+Questions

ruvein Posted - 25 January 2006 8:04

What evidence is there that "Chazal got their information from the Torah / by Mesorah, not from scientists?"

First, on the specific topic of spontaneous generation, you state in the post of 04 November 2002 14:04 at

http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=2028&forum_id=25&Topic_Title=To+what+extent+is+belief+in+ALL+midrashim+mandator&forum_title=Asking+Questions

that

"There are others (Rav Dessler, if memory serves) who write that when the sages explain a Halachah based on a scientific fact (such as the heter to kill lice on shabbos), they do not mean to say that the Halachah depends on this fact. Rather, the Halachah is based on deeper, hidden reasons, and they merely “clothed” their reasoning in the scientific fact. They did not even mean to commit themselves to the truth of that fact per se. So if the fact is proven wrong, the halachah stays the same."

Clearly, Rav Dessler had his doubts about whether spontaneous generation actually occurs, and he didn't even think Chazal were necessarily saying that it does. I question, therefore, why you assert so categorically that spontaneous generation is, indeed, a scientific reality.

But more fundamentally, on the issue of Chazal's scientific knowledge, you quote, in the above-cited post, that the Rambam "says that in the days of Neviim and Chazal, the science of astronomy was “incomplete”." It is known that the Rambam's son, R. Avraham, and many other great rebbeim throughout history, including Rav Hirsch and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, agreed that Chazal's knowledge of science was not all derived from the Torah, and thus was not all necessarily correct. Obviously, they saw no evidence indicating that Chazal knew science perfectly, or that they had derived all of their science from the Torah. Where is the evidence?

MODERATOR Posted - 04 February 2006 20:06

Please read my post again. I am not saying spontaneous generation happens. And neither did Chazal. Lice come from eggs, but whether those eggs are considered like plain animal eggs or dirt depends on their spiritual components, not their biological ones. A human without Nefesh-Neshama is not alive, even if he could walk and talk, and mimic totally all biological symptoms of humanity, and so too eggs without a Nefesh are only unliving robots, albeit organic ones, programmed to sprout forth lice.

The same way Chazal say a fertilized human egg, i.e. an embryo, is unliving water regarding certain Halachos up until the 40th day of development, and that is because of its lack of Neshama, not its lack of any biological factors, so too they said lice eggs are unliving dust because of their lack of a Nefesh.

The criteria for life is spiritual, not biological. It’s the Nefesh and Neshama that always determine life, not biology. If Chazal had a Kabalah that lice eggs are not living, that statement is meant to be consistent with the Halachic definition of life all over. It is a statement about the Nefesh of the eggs, not the biology.

You can have any number of explanations for what Chazal said about the lice, but this is simple and consistent with the classic responses to the science/lice issue – those of Rav Breil and the Maharal – who say that when there is a contradiction between Chazal and the current scientific belief, Chazal are correct because whereas the scientists only know what they know through external, observable factors, Chazal knew what they knew through the essence of the item, which is discernable through Torah/Ruach HaKodesh, which is not limited to “observable” phenomena. What I said in my post is a perfect example the scientists' limitations to observable phenomena, as opposed to Chazal’s understanding of the essence of a thing. We all understand that an organic Golem without a Neshama or Nefesh would not be considered truly living, even if the scientists could not discern any difference between it and a live person. So too if Chazal said that they knew that lice eggs are not living, then the fact that the scientists cannot see that is not a problem. It is due to the limited scope of scientific observation, which does not extend to the determining factor here, namely, the Nefesh.

As far as your statements about alleged shitos that say Chazal’s science was not part of Torah, please see the "Rambam and Rabeinu Avrohom" forum. I will address them there.

As far as where it says Chazal's science is from the Torah, please see the forum you referenced. I quoted there the Ramban (quoting the Gemora about snakes) and Rabeinu Bachya. The earliest source I know for this, however, is the Medrash Tehillim 19. It quotes Shmuel as saying he is an expert in the streets of Nehardea as much as he is an expert in the 'streets' of the heavens. the Medrash asks how Shmuel knew all of that, and it answers he knew it all through the Torah. It then quotes a R, Hoshea as saying there is "space" between the upper waters and the firmament, and the Medrash asks how R, Hoshea could know this unless he traveled to space. It answers, he knew it from the Torah.

The Maharal, too, states that all science is included in Torah, as Chazal says "hafoch bah hafoch bah d'kulah bah". (Chidushei Agados Menachos 64b)

The Chosid Yaavatz (Ohr Hachaim) says that chazal knew science form a Mesorah that goes back all the way to the Neviim, who knew it from Hashem, without any effort at all.

Similar statements are found in the Gra, Chida, Chazon Ish, and many many more sources.

But particularly interesting is a statement on this topic in the Aruch Hashulchan (EH 13). Quote:

"I am telling you a big rule - Chazal, besides their holiness and wisdom in the Torah, were also greater scholars in the natural sciences those savants("mischakmim") who would argue against their pure words. And someone who disagrees with them testifies about himself that he does not believe in Torah she bal peh, even though he would be embarrassed to admit it outright."

tipo Posted - 05 February 2006 11:46

Mod, its ironic that your simple easily understood explanation uses science to explain Chazal, because without science we would not be able to conceive so easily of clones, robots, or "organic constructs".

Because we live in a modern scientific society you’re explanation is very easy to understand. Instead of using science to say Chazal were wrong, you’re using very modern day science ideas to explain that chazal were 100% right.

MODERATOR Posted - 05 February 2006 11:59

That is true - science helps us understand things, sometimes including Chazal, but you have to know how to do it the right way. I am going to address this in the "Does science and nature relate to Torah" forum.

11.13.2006

TORAH & SCIENCE-----rambam rabeinu avrohom

The Rambam held that the science in Chazal was "incomplete". Why cant we just simplify matters and say that Chazal didn't know the facts about lice?

MODERATOR Posted - 21 December 2005 10:45

First: We don’t pasken like that Rabeinu Avrohom. The poskim do not accept it, and therefore, even if it is authentic (which is not at all clear – see below), it is no more usable than a halachicly unaccepted opinion of Bais Shammai for instance – 100% Torah Misiani, but we are not allowed to follow it.

I discussed this a number of years ago on the site, but regarding the Rambam, (same issue though). Here’s an excerpt:

The Rama in Toras HaOlah quotes the Rambam who says that in the days of Neviim and Chazal, the science of astronomy was “incomplete”.

The Rama strongly argues, stating clearly that we assume rabbinic science to be infallible, and ancient rabbinic knowledge of astronomy complete.

The Maharal (B’er Hagola 6) writes that when the sages mentioned a scientific fact, they derived it from their knowledge of the Torah and Hashem, Who is the Cause of all science. He says that science is inferior to Torah even where it comes to scientific knowledge, because scientists base their opinions on what they see, which is a finite and imperfect method of investigation, as opposed to knowledge of science through Torah, which is the root and cause for all facts in the world.

The fact that science in Chazal was gathered from “higher sources” was used by Rav Yehuda Breil ZTL, Rebbi of the author of encyclopedia Pachad Yitzchok, to refute his student’s suggestion that we reconsider Chazal’s leniency of killing lice on Shabbos because lice are spontaneously generated.

The Pachad Yitzchok (topic: “zaide”) suggested to his Rebbi that now that science has refuted the possibility of spontaneous generation, we should not be lenient in allowing the killing of lice on Shabbos.

But Rav Breil did not accept the suggestion. Stating an idea similar to that of the Maharal, that Chazal’s knowledge is based on the reality, not mere scientific observation, it is certain that the rabbinic science is more accurate than the science of the scientists, and even if currently it appears one way, the rabbinic view will eventually be proved correct.

He mentions that in the disagreement between the sages and the scientists regarding whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa, the sages conceded to the scientists, but centuries later, it was proved that the Torah sages were right all along

(Moderator’s note: See Shitah Mekubetzes that the sages never conceded that the gentiles were right; they merely “lost the argument”. They knew from tradition that they were right; they just could not defend the correct position). .

(For the record, if memory serves, the Pachad Yitzchok never actually took that position in actual practice – I seem to remember that he prefaces his remarks with lulei demistapinah (“if I wouldn’t be scared, this is what I would say”),

meaning that he thought it was a good idea, but he was not certain enough about it for him to actually take it on as his position. So he presented it to his Rebbi for feedback.

His Rebbi basically told him that he was right for being scared to say it because it is 100% wrong.)

Subsequent to that post, Volume 10 of Yabia Omer was published, which points this out as well. In YD:24 he discusses a certain Rabbi Shamah who was teaching the opinion of Rabbeinu Avrohom in a Sefardic Yeshiva in Brooklyn.

Rav Ovadiah writes that it is wrong to do so, because we do not pasken like that Rabeinu Avrohom. He quotes the Ramah, the Shitah Mekubetzes, and Rav Breil that I mentioned (as well as others, kdarko).

After he explains how Chazal and are correct in what they say, both in Halachah and Agada, even if the scientists claim differently, and that in those places where science seems to contradict Chazal – he gives 2 examples:

spontaneous generation of lice and the earth being the center of the solar system – Chazal are correct, afterwords he writes: “And I am not unaware of what Rabeinu Avrohon ben Harambam wrote, that was printed at the beginning of the Ain Yaakov . . . but nevertheless, we [hold] that we [abide] only by Chazal, as per the Achronim that I have quoted.

And indeed we see that the doctors and scientists of today, their mouths are full of laughter as they mock the scientists and doctors of previous generations.

And there is no doubt that the scientists of the next generation after us will similarly laugh at the scientists and the doctors of our generation, and refute their opinions, and so why should we rely on their opinions over those of Chazal?”

More about the opinion of the Rambam (and Rabeinu Avrohom): Some people wrongly assume that since the Rambam is “more acceptable” to people whose Hashkofos are not very developed, such as in Kiruv situations, it is desirable to teach this Rambam to such people in order to “answer” their questions about scientists contradicting Chazal. This is wrong on many levels:

1) You cant teach someone that something against the Halachah is correct, even if you cant think of a better answer to his question;

2) This is not only a spin on the Halachah, but an unnecessary one as well. There are many other answers available that are Halachicly correct. Instead of using bad but easy answers, work harder and learn the right ones.

3) The Rambam’s answer is fraught with difficulties, which, obviously, like all difficult Rambams, have excellent answers, but until we find them, we are misunderstanding something – very possibly the Rambam itself.

If we are going to accept the idea that scientists actually do understand natural science in a realistic manner, and that Chazal would have agreed with the scientists had they known the scientific evidence they know today, we will have difficulty understanding things such as the Halachah in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Kesuvos, which says that a girl’s besulim, which develop at age three, appear and disappear in accordance with the psakim of Bais Din regarding whether to accept witnesses who testify that her third birthday had arrived (i.e. because of their sighting of the new moon).

The girl’s biology, the Yerushalmi says, follows the Halachah. This is not only against today’s scientific understanding, but obviously against the scientific understanding in the days of Chazal. Yet we see that Chazal made statements regarding natural phenomena with both full awareness and utter disregard for the fact that any scientist would laugh.

The Rambam’s statement is not going to help us here, and whatever explanation you will use for this Yerushalmi – such as something in the direction of Rav Breil’s words, that Chazal had an extra-scientific awareness of reality that the scientists cannot access – will also explain the other discrepancies between Chazal and scientists, such as lice. So if you use the Rambam’s answer in a Kiruv situation, it may work but only if the person asking the question is sufficiently ignorant about what Chazal say about besulim and other such statements that cannot be reconciled based on the Rambam. If he knows that, using the Rambam to answer his questions only makes things more complicated, not less.

4) Also important to note, is that the Rambam’s statement is in Moreh Mevuchim, not Mishneh Torah, which means that the answer he wrote was not necessarily exclusive of other answers.

The Rambam may well have recognized the plausibility of the approach of the Poskim, that Chazal are simply right in a way that the scientists are not aware of, yet he did not record that in his sefer. This is because whereas normally, we would say when a Rishon answers a question one way, he by doing so implicitly rejects other possible answers, with the More Nevuchim this is not the case.

This is because the Moreh Nevuchim was written specifically for, well, Nevuchim, and so the Rambam chose to use answers to questions that would be most most understandable and productive for Nevuchim, even if they are not always the best answer objectively, nor the most halachicly accepted one.

Similarly, the Poskim write that Rashi’s commentary on Tanach was not meant l’halachah, but rather to give the most straightforward explanation of the posuk. But poshut pshat is not always the actual Halachah. In a similar way the Rambam wrote Moreh Nevuchim as the most understandable pshat for confused people, even if there are other, more complex pshatim that he would pasken like, if given a halachic question.

Of course, both pshatim are legitimate, but

(a) the Rambam never meant to say that other pshatim are wrong,

(b) he never meant to say that other peshatim are not preferable objectively, and

He merely meant to say that this pshat is more understandable to nevochim, who are perhaps incapable of understanding or accepting the better pshat.

Second: It is not at all clear that this statement in the Maamar al Drashos CHazal, as printed in the Ain Yaakov, was ever written by Rabbeinu Avrohom to begin with.

In the JTS collection in New York (2324.1), there is a different version of the Ksav Yad, in which it says after one paragraph, ad kan leshon HaRav (Avraham). The rest was written by someone called Eliezer Eilenburg, a kabbalist who followed R. Avraham Abulafia's teachings. The ma'amar is interspersed with kabbalistic references and a mention of R. Abulafiah's Imrei Shefer, which obviously were never written by R. Avraham. The manuscript, in fact, is cataloged under the authorship of Eliezer Eilenburg, while the title remains Ma'amar al Drashos Chazal.

Everywhere that the Ein Yaakov version says “avi mori”, indicating was written by the Rambam's son, this version instead says “HaRav Moreh Tzeddek”, indicating it was someone else.

There is also a sefer Imrei Yosher on Midrash which quotes the ma'amar of R. Avraham, and does not contain the controversial section.

The Arabic section found in the library of Westminster College in England also does not contain that section. (Regrettably, it is not a complete version, so it cannot offer conclusive proof.)

It is possible that Eilenburg added these ideas on his own. It is possible that he found them elsewhere as a commentary to R. Avraham and therefore, in his edition, listed the ideas as being separate from R. Avraham's own words. The other possibility is that he really was using R. Avraham's words, but lied and pretended they were his own thoughts.

Another interesting difference is that the printed editions have the signature of R. Avrohom at the end of the Maamar, which is clearly a forgery, for in all the kisvei yad of this, Rabbeinu Avraham's signature does not appear at the end.

So we know for a fact that they forged Rabeinu Avrohoms signature at the end of the Maamar. The manuscripts contradict this, and rightly so, because the Maamar Al Drashos Chazal is an excerpt from the Sefer HaMaspik L'Ovdei Hashem, written by Rabbeinu Avrohom ben HaRambam, so why would he sign his name in the middle of a sefer? The maskilim obviously had an agenda, and we know from Rav Tzaddok that they liked to tamper with Kisvei Yad in this way. There is no question at all that the Maskilm tampered with the Ksav Yad; the only question is how much. We see they definitely tampered with the end, they sure could have tampered with the beginning, maybe even with the ksav yad they found by Oppenheim.

The first time ma'amar odos drashos chazal was ever printed, it was printed by the Maskilim, in their publication, Kerem Chemed, year 2, in 1836. Later, in 1859 it went to kovetz teshuvos Rambam. Ein Yaakov first printed it in 1877.

Rav Tzaddok (Zichronos 51) writes that a well known tactic of maskilim was to print kisvei yad of rishonim to which they had exclusive access, adding comments to fit their agenda and claiming it was the view of this rishon. He says we should be very wary of new kisvei yad when published, checking for insertions to support the agenda of maskilim, unless you know the motzi la'or.

The manuscript with the controversial segment was in a library in Germany (I think) and may have been altered before being sent to the printer and later being placed in Oxford.

MODERATOR Posted - 03 February 2006 11:58

The following is a response to a poster in the "lice" thread who claims that Rav Shlomo Zalman AUrbach ZTL and Rav SR Hirsch ZTL held like Rabeinu Avrohom.

First, please read the above post, regarding the Rbaeinu Avrohom.

Next: Rav Shlomo Zalman never said such a thing and never held such a thing. You are misinformed. Rav Shlomo Zalman said just the opposite --- that the shitah of Rabbeinu Avrohom is a minority opinion, and Rav Shlomo Zalman added, said you can add to the list of the the majority opposing opinion all those who use the principle of Nishtau Hativim to explain the discrepancy between the physical reality and certain statements of Chazal.

The fact that they did not employ the idea that Chazal’s science was incorrect shows that they did not consider it a viable option.

As far as Rav Hirsch, nowhere in any of his writings is such a thing to be found. Nor did any of his Talmidim ever say any such thing in his name.. The idea that Rav Hirsch held that was based the discovery of an unpublished, unsigned essay written by an unknown author, who everyone agrees was definitely not Rav Hirsch - the handwriting is clearly not his – which was not signed by Rav Hirsch nor is there any indication anywhere in the content of the letter that it is the opinion of Rav Hirsch. No reference to Rav Hirsch is made in the essay at all. It was also not written in German, but Hebrew.

The letter was found among letters of Rav Hirsch in the possession of his family. Prof. Mordechai Breuer decided that based on the style of the letter, it must have been Rav Hirsch’s but transcribed by a member of his family. He also decided, based on time place and style, but no proof, that the letter was meant by Rav Hirsch to be sent in response to a specific person etc.

Speculation, of course, and certainly not compelling reason to attribute to Rav Hirsch a position that flies in the face of Halachah and Hashkafa as we know it. Perhaps, in balancing the evidence of authorship, Prof. Breuer did not realize what a radical position he is attributing to Rav Hirsch. Prof Breuer moreover does not claim to have any evidence from any of the myriad of Rav Hirsch’s known writings that he held anything in the direction of what this letter says.

And even if the words themselves were dictated by Rav Hirsch, we have no compelling reason to believe they were intended to represent his conclusive position. For all we know, Rav Hirsch could have put what passed for a 19th century version of a post-it on the letter that said, “Apikorsus that I need to refute.”

More: If you read the letter carefully, you will find that its content is so parallel to the writings of the Meor Anayim on the same topic so as to smack of plagiarism.

So no, I don’t believe for a second that this was Rav Hirsch’s position. And even even even if it as, it is still a small minority opinion that has been rejected in the strongest terms possible by the overwhelming body of sages throughout the generations.All you would have is a kasha on Rav Hirsch. You do not overturn an entire body of Torah principles accepted throughout the generations because an individual Achron seems to contradict it. You have a kasha on the Achron, not a cause to change the principle.

Benj613 Posted - 04 July 2006 12:11

"First: We don’t pasken like that Rabeinu Avrohom."

How can you not "pasken" (i.e. decide that statement x is followed legally) a question of fact? How can you say we follow the opinion that, e.g., the grass is not green but blue, if an analysis of the wavelengths reflected off of the grass determines that those reflected are those that cause the eye to see the color we describe with the word "green"? Paskening has to do with what actions are legally required, not what facts are true or false. Right?

MODERATOR Posted - 04 July 2006 12:50

You're confusing two meanings of "pasken". If you're talking about a machlokes where the posek cannot decide who is right, and cannot bring supproting proof for either side, then he has to "pasken" what to do. He will follow certain rules such as safek doraisa kechumrah, drabonon lekulah, halachah kebasrai etc.

However, if we do have compelling evidence, including superior authority, quantitative and qualitative factors considered, in favor of one opinion in a machlokes, then, depending on whose opinion it is and other factors, we will either reject it as wrong, shrug our shoulders and say we have no idea what it means, or that we don't understand it, or he must means something else, or something like that, but we would disregard it l'maaseh. That applies to what you call facts as well.

(If you don't like the phrase "pasken", you can use any other term you like, but it means that certain hashkofos, although stated by legitimate authorities, are not accepted.)

All the more so in a case where we are talking not about a fact such as whether the grass is blue or green but a theological belief - the question is what is the proper Torah hashkafa, and it affects the proper way to fulfill the required belief in the truth of Torah Shebal Peh, and the parameters of makchish megidehah.

There is no disagreement about this -- as I mentioned, Rav Ovadiah Yosef has a Teshuva about this, where he states clearly we pasken not like Rabeinu Avrohom; Rav Ahron Kotler ZTL stated that it is not part of our Mesorah, and Rav Elyashev has also recently stated that although Rabbeinu Avrohom said such a thing, we may not.

It all means the same thing: We don't hold like Rabbeinu Avrohom.

And so, we are not allowed to hold like Rabbeinu Avrohom.

Like we are not allowed to hold like any opinion, as legitimate as it may be, which was rejected by our mesorah.

That is not because we apply rules of psak such as sfeika doraisa lechumra and the like, but because the weight of Torah authority throughout the generations disagreed, as well as the fact that our understanding of what Rabeinu Avrohom says flies in the face of various statements of Chazal themselves.

taon Posted - 04 July 2006 14:10

we do disagree with what other poskim say even in non-Halachic situations.

MODERATOR Posted - 04 July 2006 14:11

Absolutely correct.

MODERATOR Posted - 13 July 2006 20:44

VinTage FrumTeens (aka "The Mod Squad")

About Me

Links

Alphabetical Index

More Links

Note: