R' Slifkin's Response

This was in the comments of the post below, I'm moving it to the blogpage since it deserves a post of its own. Notice I changed my actual post below and my responses here. My questions are in italics, and I added numbers to slifkin's response.


Q:How are you so sure G-d wouldn't want to show directly His continued involvment in the world? How does that minimize evidence of G-d? What do you believe about miracles such as yetzias mitzrayim?

RNS:(1)It seems very strange that God would only want to show His direct involvement for a small number of specialists. Miracles such as Yetziyas Mitzrayim were exceptional events that took place for the entire nation. ID is limited for those who study cellular biology. (2)And it has nothing to do with God's direct involvement, just His involvement while creating things. (3) ID downplays and negates the idea of seeing Hashem in other aspects of nature that science can explain.
(4)Even the miracles of yetziyas mitzrayim largely took place within a naturalistic framework. (5) I strongly recommend that you read my new book The Challenge Of Creation for an understanding of why there is a strong trend amongst the Rishonim to minimize the concept of supernatural miracles.

Q:How do you explain the Mishna about ma'amaros (and pesukim) ?

RNS:(6)I don't see what this has to do with ID.

Q:Why do you have such great faith in Darwinism? Do you also believe in Freudinism and Marxism?

RNS:(7)That's a remarkably strange question. I might as well ask you why you have such great faith in Judaism - does that mean that you also believe in Freudism and Marxism?
If you want to know why I find major parts of evolution to be convincing, I suggest that you read my book, where I lay out my reasons.



My Rejoinder:

1) Many miracles happened in front of only a few people, tanach is filled with examples. Anyways, anyone can read the biochemistry behind blood-clotting or vision and understand that they couldn't have been produced by random darwinian evolution.

2) Scientists can't say "it can all be explained, there is no need for G-d" if there is proof of His involvement. Also, if there is evidence of G-d's involvement for 15 billion years prior to the creation of man, its hard to say "yea, but G-d has nothing to do with the Universe anymore".

3) How? Do miracles? They both show there's a G-d in a way thats hard even for an atheist to deny.

4) iy'H to b discussed in the future. ( in the meantime, see end of post on ma'amaros)

5) I've reserved the book at the library and hope to read it soon.

6) Read post on it. The Mishana counts ten acts of creation in the Torah and answers those who say "G-d couldv done it with one ma'amar so He must have."

7) Many people say "all those scientists cant b wrong!" and therefore believe in darwinism. but look at the other influential ideas of many decades ago. they were accepted by millions and now are obviously known to be idiotic (though still believed in by some).
a theory proposed by atheists to explain how the full complexity of the universe came about entirely randomly is ridiculous.

3 Questions to Slifkin

In a recent article in the Jerusalem Post, R' Nosson Slifkin declares ID to be against Judaism:

But there are also significant theological problems [with ID]. If God's existence is being demonstrated in phenomena for which there is argued to be no scientific explanation, then what about all those phenomena for which there is a scientific explanation?

...and a few papagraphs later:

So where does that leave the rest of the universe? What about all those structures that do not, even by the admission of the ID camp, present irreducible complexity? The unstated implication of their position is that these things do not attest to a Creator. Don't have a grasp of cellular biology? Sorry, you won't be able to perceive that the universe was created by God.

Either God is everywhere or He is nowhere. But He is certainly not limiting His appearance in the universe to the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system.

When I wrote about this issue a while ago*, what Slifkin calls a rejection of ID I called "ID - natural process?" I explained such a view:
"They basically feel G-d could have done it with just one ma’amar so surely he did. Why ‘bother’ with 10 ma’amoros?" Slifkin is now also claiming that the ten ma'amaros would mean G-d's design can't be observed in anything else. While I understand why he wouldn't like a theory that sounds like "G-d of the gaps", I have some questions for him:

1. How is Slifkin so sure G-d wouldn't want to show directly His continued involvment in the world? How does that minimize evidence of G-d? What does slifkin believe about miracles such as yetzias mitzrayim?
2. How does Slifkin explain the Mishna and pesukim about ma'amaros that say G-d created the universe with many steps ?
3. Darwinism's primary purpose is to explain how the great complexity of the universe could have happened randomly, taking away the need to believe in a G-d. Eventually, it will have its place in history with theories such as Freudinism and Marxism. Why does Slifkin have so much faith in it?

Maybe I'll post his response.


*(See "Ma'amaros and Miracles". Of some relevence is "G-d and Design".)

The Internet

Due to the various problems the internet pose, the haredi community has called for a full ban on its use. This approach will not work. We're already in the internet 2.0 age and the internet is becoming more and more essential. Look at the growth of the internet over the last ten years to get an idea of how big it will be in another ten years. Eventually everything will be on the internet and it will be unavoidable.
Even now, its a necessary or helpful for almost anything. You can get instant information on any topic, you can buy or sell anything, communicate with people, get torah shiurim, etc., etc. The internet is as ubiquitous as the automobile.
It's also like a car in that its dangerous, although in a spiritual way. But no one is calling for cars to be banned just because they can crash. Just like you buckle your seatbelt and drive carefully, you can do the same thing with the internet; in fact you can take stronger precautions. Depending on how much protection you want, you can put use adblock, image blockers, parental controls, web-tracking, or whitelisting. This is the correct way to deal with the problems the internet pose.
Some people think the internet is less like a car and more like the Television. The haredim have gotten along fine without TV. But the comparasion is flawed. Unlike the internet, the TV has barely any useful purpose besides killing time. In addition, a person can use the internet carefully and never see anything bad, while the television is filled with bad shows and ads.
The internet can best be compared to the printing press - it allows the proliferation of information, both good and bad, in a way never thought possible before. Just imagine how much less torah we would have if the printing press had been banned.

Direction of Prayer

Here are pictures from Google Earth with lines emanating from Israel. The purple line in the picture below shows the approximate direction people pray to. It would end up in Uganda, but the intentions bend it. The Bluish line is the actual direction to Israel.

Update: A more accurate image was added. The yellow line goes due east, towards the Congo. The white line is the direction to Jerusalem.

Back to School

I'm going to be going to yeshiva so I'm not sure if this blog will continue having new posts. I originally said I would blog about: Science, Miracles, Metaphors, Lakewood, Black Hats, Israel, Metzitzah and Jumping Elephants. I already wrote about the ones crossed out and about many more topics. Other topics that I would have wanted to mention: Proving Judaism, Anti-Science, Hilchos Haircuts, Hilchos Music, The Internet, and much more. Maybe I’ll figure out a way to continue blogging.

P.S.

I changed the format so all 25 posts show on the Nebach! page itself so you don't need to look at the archives.

Gedolim Pictures I -- R' Menachem of Vilna

______The reverse of the picture says:

Harav Menachem Krakowski
b. in Volkovitch 5630 (1870 CE)
d. in Vilna 5689 (1930)
he was an av beis din in the following kehillos:
Tinkavitch, Haslavitch, Navordok.
Magid Mesharim and Moreh Tzedek in Vilna.
He learned in Vilna and he served the Geonim Meran Naftoli Tzvi Yehudah Berlin and Rabbeinu Chayim HaLevi Soloveitchik. Son-in-law of Rabbi Eliyahu Feinstein Av Beis Din of Pruzaner.
Author of the Avodas HaMelech and the Arzei HaLevanon (published after his death).

signed,
[his Nephew Rav] Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik (Boston)

Have a Good Summer

I will be iy'h away for practically the rest of the summer, so it is unlikely there will be any posts here. I also won't be able to revise the post below this one.

Ma'amoros and Miracles

“With ten ma’amoros (utterances) the world was created. And what does this teach us? Couldn’t the world have been created with one ma’amar? Rather to take retribution from the reshaim who destroy the world that was created with ten ma’amoros and to give reward to the tzadikim who sustain the world that was created with ten ma’amoros”

-- Avos 5:1

What were the ten ma’amoros? They were divine ordinances, but were they just a natural process of creation or were they actual unnatural interventions that created the world? A parallel question can be asked about Intelligent Design. The universe clearly shows evidence of design but can the process of creation still be explained naturally? Science has explained many things that before were simply attributed to G-d, so maybe it can explain the process of creation as well. People used to explain why leaves change color and why it rains by saying G-d causes it, it’s like a miracle, but now we know that the system can be explained with natural laws, the system G-d created. Perhaps creation is similar. Instead of just saying that G-d created all the plants and animals, maybe we can also explain the natural process that happened. In other words, is Intelligent Design just a logical conclusion that can be seen from looking at evolution or is it a necessary explanation for what evolution can’t explain naturally?

Most scientists claim they can explain the existence of all living things just with Darwinian Evolution, but it doesn’t actually work. Small changes cannot explain the great differences between different categories of animals, and the fossil record goes against it. Another evolutionary theory, Punctuated Equilibrium, says the changes happened very quickly after long periods of equilibrium. This theory doesn’t really explain why nature should work like that, but it does fit the fossil record better. Intelligent Design can explain why there would be major changes and how such an organized system would be the end-result.
From the Torah, it seems that there were separate events that weren’t natural. Although only the beginning was creation ex nihilo, each ma’amar seems to be more than just the flow of nature. Some people don’t like this idea and feel it must all have been natural, B’raishis is just hashkafic. They basically feel that G-d could have created the world with just one ma’amar so surely He did. Why ‘bother’ with 10 ma’amoros? Of course, this is the issue dealt with by the Mishnah. The Mishnah explains that the 10 ma’amaros bring reward and punishment into the world; the world is more valuable because of the ma’amoros that made it. To say the only ‘miraculous’ act was creation is almost like Deism, it sounds like saying G-d has no more part in the world. But G-d does, and the ten ma’amoros show that our actions make a difference. When someone sins, he is destroying a world that was created with much ‘effort’ and something the Creator is still actively involved in.

A similar issue arises with nissim – some claim miracles don’t break any laws of nature, they’re just unlikely events that still show G-d is in charge. The sea split naturally because of the wind and just at the time the Jews needed to get across. They feel G-d doesn’t need to break the laws of nature, He’s able to run the world within the system of nature. Also, the greatest wonder is nature itself, so miracles aren’t necessary.
This view is somewhat meaningless nowadays because quantum physics basically says anything could happen, if the smallest particles move in unlikely enough ways. The sea can split naturally even without wind; everything is just probabilities. Anyway, it’s incorrect to say the laws of nature are never broken. G-d intervenes in nature not because He needs to, but to show that He exists, is involved in the world, and we matter to Him. The same thing can be figured out logically, but won’t be strong enough to withstand pagan influences. Avraham was able to convince many people to believe in One God, but his followers' descendants didn’t remain monotheists. Even the Jews themselves became idol worshipers during the exile in Egypt. G-d revealed Himself with miracles so Judaism could better overcome false ideologies.
Some still feel the laws of nature were never broken because it seems quite strange, and doesn’t appear to happen nowadays. But those days were different. There appeared to be all sorts of different forces in the world, and paganism was the dominant ideology. Even a miracle didn’t remove bechirah completely, there was no known system of nature yet. When there was still idolatry, there could still be prophecy and miracles could also be more frequent. Nowadays, the miracles are more hidden than krias yam suf (though still show that history is being guided).
Some feel the unnatural is greater than nature; all of creation was completely miraculous, nature itself isn’t worth studying except for the parts we don’t understand which are the most wondrous. But this is also incorrect. The greatest wonder is not miracles, but nature itself. And the most amazing things in nature are systems we understand the most complexity of. Although it may be amazing how birds can get south, even more amazing is the complexity of photosynthesis. The greatest niflaos ha’boreh are not seen by looking at the gaps in our knowledge. The Mishnah asked a very strong question, why the interventions were necessary at all. We would think it should just all be nature. But ma'amoros and miracles have a purpose. G-d is still involved in the world and the choices we make matter.

G-d and Design

This post on knowing there’s a G-d was written as a dialogue between two people, Reuven and Simon, to make it quicker to write and to allow for poorly written arguments.

Reuven: The Torah begins with “In the Beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth.” The Rambam began the first chapter of Mishnah Torah with the mitzvah to “know that there is a G-d” as it says “I am Hashem, your G-d”. The second chapter begins with the mitzvah to love and fear G-d. The Rambam explains the way to love G-d is to study G-d’s wondrous creations, and to see the infinite wisdom that will cause awe and love of G-d.
Avraham was able to look at the universe, realize there’s a G-d and reach the highest levels of loving G-d. He realized there had to be a “First Cause” and saw that there had to be a Designer.

Simon: You’re quoting the Rambam and Avraham to show studying science is a way to know G-d!? Their science was wrong, its conclusions would have been wrong too. And there’s no point in proving things from current science, since it’s always changing.

Reuven: We may be getting more and more knowledge, but that just shows more and more design. It doesn’t in any way show that earlier evidence of design was wrong. In earlier times, people were able to see the obvious design just from the external factors, by observing the sun and moon, the wind and rain, and the plants and animals. Now we understand (somewhat) the physics that allow the stars to exist, the perfect balance on Earth that allows it to function, and the amazing complexity of biological organisms that make them function. We can then recognize design even more, but even if we just know the end results, we also can. A person who uses a computer can tell quite clearly that the computer was designed and can appreciate it. If the person opens up the computer and studies the CPU, the hard drive or the programming, he sees even more how great the design of the computer is and he can appreciate it more. Science shows design even more and allows us to see actual proof of creation, so it’s not just a philosophical argument.

Simon: Fine, the universe is like a computer, but you still can’t prove design from science. If scientific knowledge made someone realize there’s design, no scientist would be an atheist. Since there are so many scientists who deny design, it’s not a good proof. You sound like those who say the earth is flat and animals spontaneously generate. They just say the scientists are stupid, evil heretics.

Reuven: I’m not denying that there’s free will. There is definitely liberty for someone to deny design, people are biased. Avraham was alone in his generation in recognizing the design in the universe. Everyone else thought there were various forces running the universe. There was a sun-god, a rain-god, some animal gods and many more. They believed there were many human-like gods, which was easier to imagine than an All-Powerful G-d and it had came with less moral restrictions. But Avraham was able to recognize that polytheism was wrong. He realized the sun and the rain and the animals were a designed system, and Someone had to have designed them.
It was far more difficult for Avraham to reject the polytheism and decide on a new theory of monotheism than it is for us. Just like we can understand Newton’s laws without being as smart as Newton, we can know there is one G-d without being as great as Avraham, the Rambam or Newton; they did some of the thinking for us.
Nowadays, we also see far greater complexity. Polytheism has been disproved by the unity shown in the laws of the universe. No one can believe in a wind god or a sun god when we know the principles behind them. (That’s why Newton rejected the Trinity after discovering the laws of the universe.) But the desire to only believe in physical things and to be free from restrictive morals still exists. That’s why there’s atheism. The scientist decides to only believe in physical things, so he rejects the idea of a G-d. He is forced to rely on Darwinian Evolution to explain the undeniable complexity of the Universe. Even if Darwinian evolution was a good theory, it still shouldn’t help the atheist. The end-result shows so much design that the process that made it happen clearly had a designer.
What about the fact that creation is proven since we can detect the big-bang? The scientist also has explanations. This universe could have sprouted from another which in turn could have come from another, similar to the infinite-pile-of-turtles theory. Or maybe the universe expands and then starts shrinking, crunches together and then has another big-bang (this theory has been disproved).
The scientist agrees that the universe appears to show design, he just claims he can explain it. We accept the scientific facts, but point out his explanation isn’t satisfactory nor does it help his claim. This is very different from denying scientific facts.

Simon: That was rather rambling and didn’t explain it very well.

Metzitzah B'Peh Summary

[I had been force to remove this post from my other blog, but now that it’s summer, I’m republishing it.]

The newest edition of Hakirah has an article available online about metzitzah b'peh (in pdf).

In the article he explains the historical medical background to metzitzah - the hellenic system of medicine thought blood was attracted to cuts and could decay and form pus, so it was necessary to get the blood to flow from a cut to prevent disease. (The fact that blood circulates was only discovered in the 1600's and the fact that pathogens cause disease only in the 1800's.) He quotes R' Nachum Rabinovitch who compares the Rambam's requirement for metzitzah to the Rambam’s suggestion to suck the blood out after a snake bite (Yad Peshutah on Sefer Ahava). Modern-day rationals for doing MBP are quoted and refuted. The next part shows that metzitzah b'peh is a danger and many cases are cited where it rchltl’z caused harm to infants. He aslo tells the the history of it, and p'saks about it into the 1800's. He then discusses the p'sak of the chasam sofer who didn't even consider metzitzah b'peh to be a minhag. He concludes that if most of the litvishe gedolim accepted that MBP was a danger, surely now, when we know much more about transmission of diseases, we shouldn't risk it.

Halachic question: note 67 quotes R' Low who in 1850 said you could do MBP on shabbos since it has no benefit so it is only forbidden d'rabanon [mekalkel] which can be allowed since [he considers] it a minhag yisrael. According to those who don't consider it a minhag, would they be allowed to do metzitzah (even not b'peh) on shabbos?

The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax is being sold!

The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax by Nosson Slifkin is being sold here on eBay.

From eBay:

This book is out of print at Yashar Books.
I did a search for this book and it's only available at two other places online: at Amazon for $82 and on Half.com for $100, both used.

The book is in very good condition, it doesn't appear to have ever been read. There are some very slight scratches on the cover that are barely visible. The blank page at the beginning of the book and the inside of the back cover have been been stamped with the word "cancelled". The pages are all in perfect condition.

There has been much controversy about this book. Don't miss this oppurtunity to buy it!

Bid on The Camel, the Hare and the Hyrax by clicking here.

[Update: it's too late.]

The Direction of History

This week’s Haftorah is the last passage in Amos. It ends with these words:

Behold – days are coming – the words of Hashem – when the plower will encounter the reaper, and he who treads upon the grapes will meet the one who brings the seeds; the mountains will drip with wine and the hills will melt. I shall bring back the captivity of My people Israel, and they will rebuild desolate cities; they will return and plant vineyards and drink wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I shall implant them upon their Land; they will not be uprooted again from upon their Land that I have given them, says Hashem, your God.

Jack the city-dweller came to the country to watch his cousin, Farmer Joe working:
They came to a beautiful field of grass. Joe destroyed all the grass and turned the dirt over. Jack was shocked. Joe then took a nice bundle of wheat, scattered it all over the field and went home. Jack went back to the city, perplexed.
A while later, Jack came back. The field was full of wheat. “Ah, I see” he said. Joe then cut down all the wheat, and scattered it in the wind. “Stop!” cried Jack. Joe, ignoring Jack, took the leftover bits from the wheat and began crushing them up. Jack was left speechless. Joe then took the powder he had, mixed it with some water into a clayish paste and went to fire up his oven. He then took the clay (which had grown) and cast it into the flaming oven. “All that work, and you’re just going to burn it?!” screamed Jack, who couldn’t understand.
An hour later, Joe pulled out fresh bread from the oven and Jack finally understood. (From the Palace Gates Haggadah I think, quoting the Maggid of  __ )

Much of Jewish history is very hard to understand, but in the end “the plower will encounter the reaper, and he who treads upon the grapes will meet the one who brings the seeds” and we will understand. The days are coming, after 2000 years, when the cities are being rebuilt, the gardens are being planted, the People have returned to their land where “they will not be uprooted from again.”  

Tefillin on Chol HaMoed

There was a shiur on this topic on YU Torah but it doesn't appear to be there anymore so I'll write what I remember from it.

A person doesn't wear the twa of tefillin on shabbos and yom tov since they are an twa themselves.
Q: Is Chol HaMoed an twa and patur from tefillin?
A: Possibly. If it depends on the mitzva of yom tov, then chol hamoed is also, since you can’t eat out of the succah all of succos and you can’t eat chometz all of pesach. But if it depends on whether there’s an issur melacha, then it’s a question. Is the issur melacha d’oraysa and therefor it is an twa or is it just d’rabanan (and wouldn’t prevent the d’oraysa of tefillin)?

So if each possibility was a 50% chance, there would only be a 25% chance that chol hamoed is not an twa and patur from tefillin. Most of the Ashkenazi rishonim held like this and that’s how the Rema paskens. He says you wear tefillin on chol hamoed and make a bracha, just say it quietly (just in case there are Hassidim in the back).

But other poskim say no, you shouldn't wear tefillin on chol hamoed. Either because twa goes by the mitzvas yom tov or because the issur melacha is d’oraysa. The shulchan oruch says you’re not allowed to wear tefillin on chol hamoed, because twa of shabbos and yom tov doesn’t just permit not wearing tefillin, it makes it assur. The zohar says someone who wears tefillin on chol hamoed is chayiv misa.* The Vilna Gaon also says [the Rema is very wrong and] you shouldn’t wear tefillin on Chol hamoed.

So according to some it’s a chiyuv d’oraysa and according to others it’s assur d’oraysa. The Mishna Berurah, quoting the Ba’ch, suggests a compromise. Put on tefillin, but make a condition before putting them on: Say “If really there’s no mitzvah, I’m not doing anything now; these are just expensive bits of leather I’m wrapping around my arm.” Without the intention of doing a mitzvah, you won’t be doing any issur, even according to the shulchan aruch. Then you say “If there is a mitzvah then obviously I’m doing the mitzvah of tefillin!” That way you’re safe either way and you can put on teffilin, you just don’t make a bracha since you’re in doubt .

The mishna berurah says everyone should follow their custom, just make sure you don’t have some people wearing and some people not wearing tefillin since then it’s “Lo Sisgod’doo. R’ Moshe says elswhere (by which half of sefirah to keep) that in America, this isn’t a concern, since there is no minhag America, everone came with their own customs. In Europe, each town or area had its own minhagim, and it would be wrong to do differently. But in America everywhere’s “Lo Sisgod’doo”. So probably everyone can follow their own minhag for tefillin on chol hamoed also. Just don’t go to a minyan that does have a minhag and not follow it. (Don’t wear tefillin to a Hassidic Minyan, they take the zohar literally!)


* The Rema says this Zohar means only if he wears Tefillin and kills someone would he be chayiv misa.

Am I allowed to be typing this?

I think so. It's a ma'ase hedyot (so is writing nowadays). It's torah, and people will read it on chol hamoed (so it's for the moed and the public). See here for some of the halachos of chol hamoed. There are also some shiurim at YU torah.

Can a Rishon Err?

Can a rishon make a mistake in Science? “Of course not!” some would say. But what about an Amora? Or a Tanna? Or a member of the Sanhedrin? What if it’s a member of the Sanhedrin making a mistake in Torah? What if most of the Sanhedrin makes a mistaken ruling on a chiyuv kareis? Oops, Now we have a pasuk from last week’s parsha:

“If the entire assembly of Israel [the Sanhedrin] shall err, and a matter became obscured from the eyes of the congregation [they permit something that’s really chayiv kareis] ; and they commit one from among all the commandments of Hashem that may not be done, and they become guilty;”

(Vayikra 4:13 Artscroll translation)


Moshe Rabbeinu himself made some ‘mistakes’ in torah. For example, Moshe got angry at Aron HaKohen and made a mistake, when really Aron was right. (vayikra 10:16-20)
Also, in the case of Zimri, Moshe forgot the halacha and only Pinchas remebered (Hashem made Moshe forget, but you still a Sage can forget something.) -see bamidbar 25:7

The Torah is very clear that even the greatest leaders aren’t infallible and can even make mistakes in Torah, something they studied their whole life. Obviously in science, something only developed a few hundred years ago, they may make mistakes.

This is not to say that if a Rishon says something, you can just dismiss it as being mistaken. Obviously, they were the greatest experts and its unlikely they’re mistaken. But if you know elephants can’t jump or something like that you are able to say they were mistaken.

(See also Gil Student’s posts on Hirhurim and Torat Emet. Other blogs like the Jewish Worker also have posts about this issue. Also look at ZooTorah which has many articles about it and has sources.)

Cholov Yisroel

Someone requested a post on Cholov Yisroel but i dont know enough about it and dont have time to write one. There's an issur d'rabanan against drinking milk from a gentile b/c of the fear he may have added non-kosher milk. There are many reasons to be meikil nowadays in America:
It's like a Jew watched it since the Government would punish any farmer who mixed in other milk. (This is R' Moshe's reason). It would be impractical or impossible for farmers nowadays to mix in other milk. A farmer of old whose cow didn't produce enough milk might be tempted to add some milk from the donkey, but nowadays there are thousands of cows who get milked by machines (it's not even milked by a gentile so may be muttar technically), and there are no other animals milked nearby (anothe reason to be matir).

There are also reasons to be machmir.

See here for a discussion of the issue that has R' Moshe's responsa in hebrew and English.
A 3-part series fom R' Jachter on cholov yisroel: Meikil, Machmir, Part Three

Taanis Esther

Q: Why do we fast the day before Purim? No tragedy happened, and its not even the right date!

A: On purim we rejoice and get drunk, so we might forget how serious the threat was and why the Jews were saved. We have to remember that the Jews were threatened with anhilliation and the reason they were saved was because they fasted and did teshuvah. There are still those who seek to destroy us, so to make sure we don't celebrate Purim too light-heartedly, we fast the day before and do teshuva.

Age of the Universe

If a person calculates the age of the universe based on the Torah, he'll get an age under 6,000 years. If a person studies the Earth and universe scientifically he'll get a much larger age (around 14 billion years). At first, religious people just dismissed the evidence of a much older universe by saying the science was wrong, but as the evidence grew they accepted Gosse's Theory. Gosse's Theory basically says the universe was created as an old universe. It's not 14 billion years old, it just was created looking like that, it's really 6,000 years old. One problem with this is there have been stars over 6,000 light-years* away that have exploded (supernovas) and become invisible from Earth. If the universe was created old, it means these stars never existed. There was simply a fake beam of light and a fake supernova. A pretty strange idea. There are many other problems.

I think that the whole claim is meaningless anyways. What a person sees is what exists, even modern physics recognizes that. If in every single way a scientist looks at the universe, its 14 billion years old, than how in the universe is it not 14 billion years old? To who? G-d? G-d is beyond time. There's no such thing as saying it has an absolute age of 6,000 and just looks like 14 billion. That's the same thing as saying it is 14 billion years old. To make my point clearer, imagine if the theory was that the universe is 6,000 years old, just the first second had 14 billion years compressed into it. Clearly, no one could claim this second is a second in any way. A 14-billion year second is 14 billion years. The same for a moment, and the same for no moment at all.

Q: But what about the Torah? Now you're going to claim 6 days aren't literally 6 days? You wouldn't have said that before this scientific evidence, it's a forced answer!
A: No, not at all. How could 6 days be 6 days if there were no people, and for the first few days, not even a sun or moon? The only way they could be literally six days, is if scientifically that is the age determined. It's not, so the six days are clearly something much deeper.

But why did G-d make such an old universe? Why couldn't He have done it in six days?
I may discuss this further in another post, but I think the key may lie in the Mishna in Avos (5:1) that asks why G-d created the universe with 10 ma'amaros (utterances)**, He could have just created it with one ma'amar! The mishna answers that G-d did it to take retribution from the resha'im who are destroying the universe that was created with ten ma'amaros and to give more reward to the tzadikim who are sustaining (she-m'kaymin) the universe that was created with ten ma'amoros.

A similar answer may be applied here. A universe that took 14-billion years and ten ma'amaros to create is inherently more consequential than a universe that was created in an instant.


*A light-year is the distance light travels in a year. So if you look through a telescope and see a star a million light-years away, you're seeing how it was a million years ago. If you see the star explode, it means it exploded a million years ago. If the universe is only 6,000 years old, it means the star could never have existed and what you saw was just an illusion.

** The beginning of B'reishis says 9 times "and G-d said" + "B'reishis bara E-lohim" = 10 ma'amaros. (Bartenura) But why couldn't G-d just have said created everything with one ma'amar?

Learning Gemara with Artscroll

Many people object to people using artscroll gemaras. They have two problems:

• If one uses artscroll, he won't develop the skills and vocabluary to read a gemara properly.
• Torah is something one is supposed to struggle with. If uses artscroll, it's too easy.

The first argument only applies to someone who hasn't learned how to learn yet. It is a valid objection. But I think a person can use artscroll as a tool, not a crutch, to help him learn the vocab and reading skills of gemara. Artscroll puts the hebrew and english together on the translation side. You read the hebrew, then the english, and you can learn a lot more. You can review it by just looking at the gemara side, and looking at the english if u don't understand something. This way you can learn a lot more than by just trying to read the gemara side and you learn how to learn too. Also, the footnotes tell a beginner things he wouldn't have been able to learn at all without Artscroll.

I'm not sure what to think about the second objection. Should a person try figuring out everything the gemara will say about the mishna before reading it? Why is it OK to use Rashi? Obviously, your'e supposed think hard when you learn a gemara, but what's wrong with having it explained clearly so now you can think about the issues without having to figure out where the period is?

Which brings me to a third point. Why don't people use punctuated gemaras? Why don't they make a new gemara with a redone daf now that they have computers instead of using an old hand-set format printed by some gentile a few hundred years ago?

I think they attack artscroll for the same reason they don't use punctuation.

Chazal, Ramban, & Science

The Ramban (in the beginning of Parshas Tazria) mentions the views of the Greeks and seems to imply that Chazal can be wrong in science. See here for a discussion of this topic. I put a comment there and here:

I asked a talmid of R' Moshe Shapiro who asked his rebbe about these rambans and he said that there's more than one level to the physical universe. Just like there's p'shat, remez and sod in Torah, so too by the physical universe. So if ever a gemara or rishon seems to contradict science you can just say they're talking about a deeper level of the universe than science. The ramban doesn't say chazal is wrong, he just mentions both views. They're both right!
The problem with this explanation is if it can't be detected by the eyes or ears or any physical instruments scientists use, then how on earth is it physical? It would make more sense to say certain gemaras aren't to be taken literally, but that is not the approach of R' Shapiro.
Also, the ramban about rainbows says "we are forced to believe the words of the Greeks", and he changes the p'shat in a pasuk because of greek science! Kal V'chomer to modern- day proven science.

Learn Hebrew Early

The first thing any Jew has to know to be able to Learn or Daven is Hebrew. The Torah, Nach, practically all meforshim (Rahi, Tosafos, etc.), all of davening and everything else are all written in Hebrew. The gemara is written in Hebrew/Aramaic and if you know Hebrew it will be easy to learn the gemara's language. And yet many Jews are not fluent in Hebrew! They don't understand parts of davening and chumash and can't learn gemara-rashi-tosafos-etc. because of the language barrier. Its ridiculous! And the yeshivas don't even teach them Hebrew, instead they try teaching them Gemara, etc. even though it's in a language the kids don't understand. If someone didn't know Chinese would he be able to study Sun Tzu's Art of War in Chinese?!
Before beginning any Torah-learning a Jewish child obviously has to know Hebrew fluently. This isn't so easy if you try starting to teach Hebrew when a child is older. It's boring and hard to learn a whole new language when older.
The solution is to send all kids when they're one-to-four years old to a Hebrew-only playgroup. The morah there will speak Hebrew and they could watch Hebrew videos at playgroup and at home. As long as they continue watching, speaking, reading or hearing Hebrew they will retain the language throughout their life and be able to learn and daven.

Black Hattiness

[I had been forced to remove this post from my blog, but now that it’s summer I am republishing it, with slight additions and revisions.]

Is wearing a hat a halacha?

If you ask most black-hat wearing kids, they'll insist it is, but most rebbeim in yeshivas admit it's not. (i) They still insist on it being worn, I guess for political reasons. [This paragraph about being forced to get a hat on shabbos and miss krias haTorah has been removed]

Tefilin are also less important than wearing a hat. If a kid forgets his hat, he’ll be reprimanded and told to bring it the next day. If he forgets it many for many consecutive days, then he’ll get in trouble. On the other hand, when someone forgets his tefilin, even if for many days, nothing happens.

I was once at a house where people are required to take off their shoes when they enter. We made a mincha minyan there, and I was the only person who put on my shoes. There were even two people there who came in a hat, but took off their shoes. They wore a hat, but not shoes which there is an actual halacha to wear by davening! It's all black-hattiness, (ii) not halacha.

The mishna berurah states:

And in our times one has to wear a hat on his head by davening like he goes in the street and not just a yarmulke because [currently] that's not the way to stand in front of important people.... And it all depends on the minhag of the places.

Nowadays, when one wouldn't wear a hat when walking in the street or in front of important people, he obviously shouldn't need to wear a hat when davening. The Mishnah Berurah emphasized the fact that there’s no inherent chiyuv to wear a hat, it’s just like a turban or gartel. (iii)

Some people say you're supposed to wear a double-covering when davening, but this is definitely not a halacha; I think it might be some kabbalistic thing, if anything.

Another reason given is wearing a hat is a minhag, and minhagim are important. But wait one second. Why's it a minhag? Because it used to be what people wore, some Jews just didn't stop. The minhag (or halacha) isn't to wear a hat, it's to wear what one would wear in front of a king. It used to be a robe and turban, now it's a suit and tie. To claim there's a special black-hat minhag isn't accurate, it's just some people didn't stop wearing what they had.

The only real claim that can be made is that a hat is a uniform to show that the wearer is different then the surrounding gentile society. This can only be claimed by those who go everywhere in a black hat, and don't just wear it for davening. Also I wonder if they're trying to separate themselves from gentiles or maybe just from other Jews? Once, a kid didn't want to wear a hat and his mother said "You have to, our type wears a hat." Clearly, she wanted him to show he belonged to the black-hat Jews, and not the modern ones. That is not a good thing.

i. Most, but not all. Once, in Adar, everyone in my former mesivta brought in cowboy and clown hats for davening. The menahel told anyone who had taken off their hat to put it back on. So there are some who feel one must wear a hat by davening, even a ridiculous one.

ii. I’m not sure why they make everyone wear black hats, there’s definetly no basis for that. People are allowed to wear grey or dark blue jackets, but for some reason hats have to be black. I guess it’s part of conforming to Black-Hattiness Judaism.

iii. The reason some people wear a gartel can't be to provide a separation, since they're already wearing many separations. I heard the reason is because a gartel used to be what one would wear in front of a king.

Shemiras Shabbos - First Halacha

I will start with the melachos of garments first since they are not too complicated, not well known, and very important (since they can happen very often).
The first Melachah is Gozez, Shearing.
The mishkan was covered with woolen curtains and it was nessesary to shear a sheep to get the wool, so that is the Av Melachah of Gozez. The Melachah d'oraysa of Gozez is detatching s/t from self or another living thing (or formerly living thing) for any benefit.*

Common Gozez Cases:

• Cutting Nails
• Cutting Hair
• Removing skin

I probably will give more details this week.


(* machlokes if any benefit is d'oraysa but i think this is the halacha. see tosafos on shabbos 94b)

Shemiras Shabbos

I realized many people don't know basic hilchos shabbos and I need to learn it also so I'm starting a Shemiras Shabbos Club which will teach hilchos shabbos. I'll put out some mini-books with hilchos shabbos and I may also put up some Hilchos Shabbos here.

Can Elephants Jump? (Tosafos might have assumed so)

Yes u rasha-kofer! For proof simply click here. I think the matter is settled.
For those who aren't so sure they might want to look at Slifkin's article on the matter (in PDF). The machlokes basically comes down to this:

One side- The ba'alei Tosafos were extremely great, but they lived in France and never saw Elephants. The tosafist assumed they had legs like other animals (that's even how they look in an old drawing) and so he explains the gemara as saying you try to get the elephant to jump. Nowadays we know elephants can't jump since they're too big and their legs are designed differently so we should explain the gemara like Rashi. ___

Other side- Chas V'Shalom to say Tosafos doesn't know about Indian Elephants! The Tosafos were infallible and all-knowing! Elephants can jump!

There are 2 main problems with the second opinion:

• Elephants can't jump. (and even if you deny facts, there's no way you could claim it would be easy to get an elephant to jump, which would be necessary to explain the gemara)

• Christians believe in (limited) Papal infallibility, but Jews don't believe their Leaders are infallible or All-Knowing, only G-d is. So there's no reason to say Tosafos had to have known about Elephants.

(An explanation of the reason for these categories of posts may be forthcoming.)

31 years of Batalah

Most yeshivas start teaching gemara in 5th or 6th grade and 'learn' for about 2 hours a day (in YSV i think it was from 9:00-11:00). There is also learning on Sundays, Fridays, and other half-days. If there are 180 days of gemara-learning in a year, in 3 years one learns about 1080 hours. A secular subject is only learned 40 minutes a day, 4 days a week, and about 120 days a year. So a year of one subject is 80 hours. That means 3 years of elementary-school gemara is really like 13.5 years of learning! After 13 years of learning you would think the kids should come out knowing how to read a gemara perfectly, but alas, this is not the case.
In 3 years of high-school there's at least another 1400 hours of learning-time (there's more hours per day and mishmar) which is the equivalent of 17.5 years of learning! So after 31 years you would think everyone should have completely mastered all gemara-related skills there are!
How come this isn't actually the case? I think it has to do with the emphasis placed on HLD (hours learned per day) instead of actual amount of learning skills gained. If there were only 40-minute periods but they actually emphasized learning the necessary skills instead of HLD, they could teach all the basic skills by the end of elementary school. They could give a Gemara final at the end of 8th grade which would test all the basic gemara skills a person needs. It could be a random gemara which everyone would have to learn during the test and then answer questions to show they understand it. This only sounds unrealistic because of the bad education system that's already in place.

Beginning

I already had a few posts on another blog so I'm putting them here to start this blog. From now on they'll be published for this blog which will have a wider readership.

Why is this blog called "nebach!"?

First and foremost, because I already had this name registered and it's a good short name that's easy to remember. This blog will also complain and say "nebach!" so much that it deserves to be called a nebach for being so hypocritical. Also, who but nebachs would read such a blog? I also think I'll give Nebach-Case awards to well-known nebachs.

Site Changing

Formerly the nebach-case hall of fame web page, this site is changing and will soon become a more serious blog devoted to important Jewish issues.