Akeidas Yitzchak

There are many issues involved in the story of the akeida. In this post, I wonder what happens when one combines 2 classical questions.

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה והאלהים נסה את אברהם ויאמר אליו אברהם ויאמר הנני
ויאמר קח נא את בנך את יחידך אשר אהבת את יצחק ולך לך אל ארץ המריה והעלהו שם לעלה על אחד ההרים אשר אמר אליך

So begins the parsha of the Akeida. G-d tells Avraham to sacrifice his son, and then just as he is about to do it, G-d tells him:

אל תשלח ידך אל הנער ואל תעש לו מאומה כי עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלהים אתה ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך ממני

Question One: How could G-d go back on His word? If He said that Yitzchak should be slaughtered, how could He then say “Just testing!”? G-d's word is Truth!

Answer: G-d didn't tell Avraham to slaughter Yitzchak, He just said “ha'alehu sham l'olah”, a somewhat ambiguos command that doesn't necessarily include slaughtering. Once Yitzchak was put on the mizbeach, that was enough. The command was fulfilled, and Akeidas Yizchak became an everlasting merit for our people.


Question Two: What was the big test for Avraham? G-d commanded him directly to bring his son as a korban! How could he have ignored a direct Divine command?

Answer: Avraham could have come up with some powerful arguments to not listen to the command. “G-d commanded man never to murder, how could I kill my own son? Moreover, G-d promised me that Yizchak will become a great nation, when he said:

ויוצא אתו החוצה ויאמר הבט נא השמימה וספר הכוכבים אם תוכל לספר אתם ויאמר לו כה יהיה
זרעך
and some time later..
כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע..

..it can't be that I should kill him!” But Avraham listened to G-d and went to slaughter his son. He passed the test.

Now, does everything make sense? But one second..

...Question: If G-d just meant Yitzchak should be put on the mizbeach, why did Avraham pull out a knife and get ready to kill his son? Didn't he know that you can't murder? Didn't he know the promise? If in truth, G-d's command just meant put him on the mizbeach, why did Avraham try to do so much worse?!

For Further Emphasis: If G-d really meant for Avraham to kill Yitzchak, we understand why Avraham tried. But then how could G-d have changed His mind? And if G-d actually used a truly ambiguous command, then why did Avraham interpret it to mean something so crazy?


Answer: “Ha'alehu..” cannot just mean put Yitzchak on the mizbeach and take him down. Thats not what the words mean. It says “l'olah”! Putting Yitzchak on a mizbeach and doing nothing is nothing. “Ha'alehu” means put Yitzchak up as an olah, with full intentions to slaughter him just like an olah.

Avraham had to realize that when G-d commanded him to bring Yitzchak as an olah, He meant it. It was docheh any prohibition or promise from before because it was a direct command from G-d. Avraham didn't know what would happen, but he realized he would have to bring his son as a genuine olah.

Avraham traveled to the mountain and went up with Yitzchak and put him on the mizbeach. Then Avraham tied Yizchak down. Then he pulled out a knife, ready to slaughter his son. Only now, at this moment, did G-d say

אל תשלח ידך אל הנער ואל תעש לו מאומה כי עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלהים אתה ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך ממני

Until Avraham showed he was totally ready to actually sacrifice his son, “Ha'alehu sham l'Olah” was not fulfilled. But once avraham raised the knife, it showed he had actually brought Yitzchak as an Olah. He hadn't slaughtered Yitzchak, but the command had been fulfilled. Yitzchak became a complete Olah, and the “ashes of Yitzchak” become an eternal remembrance before G-d. Avraham had fulfilled the nisayon of “Ha'alehu sham l'Olah”, no murder had been committed, and now Yitzchak could truly grow into the great nation of the promise:

ויאמר בי נשבעתי נאם יהוה כי יען אשר עשית את הדבר הזה ולא חשכת את בנך את יחידך: כי ברך אברכך והרבה ארבה את זרעך ככוכבי השמים וכחול אשר על שפת הים וירש זרעך את שער איביו: והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ עקב אשר שמעת בקלי

The Pesukim of Malchiyos, Zichronos and Shofaros

In the rosh hashana mussaf, we read 10 pesukim from Tanach for each section mentioned above. We read them in the following order: Torah, Kesuvim, then Nevi'im. The question is obvious: Why does Kesuvim come before Nevi'im?

Readers of Nebach are probably thinking “Everyone knows the answer to that! Artscroll p. 454 gives 2 answers!”: We have to start with the torah because its so important, and then we follow the rule “ma'alin b'kodesh v'ein moridin” and do kesuvim, then navi. That answer sounds a little bit forced. Alternatively, since King David wrote most of the Kesuvim pesukim said in mussaf, and he came before the nevi'im, so we say kesuvim first.

While davening, I realized another, similar answer. Its quite simple and obvious. The pesukim in kesuvim are primarily about the past and the present. G-d has reigned, He reigns. He remembers people, past and present. The shofar blows. This is especially true if you just read the pesukim as they are in the machzor.

The pesukim from navi are primarily about the future. G-d will be King, G-d will remember us, the great Shofar will blow. This is obvious just from the quotes alone. Therefore, we first read the pesukim about past and present, and only then read the prophecies of the future.

The 3 Billionth Sinner (draft)

(This post was written after Rosh Hashana, but I only got internet access now.)

The Ramabam, based on the gemara, says a person should always view himself as if he has a perfect balance between zechuyos and avonos and any deed he does now will tip the balance. He should also think the whole world is in a perfect balance, and his next action could either save the world or ruin it.

I used to be bothered by this. What are the chances of everything actually being in a 50-50 balance? What is the point in imagining such a unlikely thing? I could imagine the conversation within a potential sinner's mind:

Yetzer Tov: Wait, Don't sin! Maybe the world is tied right now at exactly 32.7 trillion mitzvoth and aveiros. This one sin might tip the balance!”
Yetzer HaRa: I don't think you a career in law would be good for you.

Next question: What is the point in voting? There's almost no chance that your one vote will tip the numbers! True, if everyone thought like that, no one would vote. When that happens, go ahead and vote! In the meantime, its like buying a lottery ticket without any prize!

Case 3 – Based on a true story! : Dovid's* school is having a trip the next day and the organizers need to know how many people are coming so they know how many busses to call. The sign-up list is a two-minute walk from his room.
Dovid's thoughts: Whats the point in signing up, there's no chance I'll be the 51st person on the last bus. And I could always sit on that seat by the steps.
Should he sign up? (You might notice the questions are getting easier.)



The next day: Dovid hadn't signed up but tries getting on a bus. Unfortunately, there are 42 other people who had the same thoughts as Dovid. There's no space for most of them, so they have to remain in school while everyone else goes on the trip.


A better example: The Altlantic Voyager is giving out tickets for its maiden voyage. It needs to know how many people are coming because it can only hold a certain number of passengers. If too many extra people get on, the boat will sink in the middle. 73 people sneak onto the boat, and the boat unfortunately sinks. Luckily, most people manage to get into lifeboats, and they return home. The surviving stowaways are arrested upon their return home.

At one of the stowaway's courtcase:
Lawyer for the Defence: If my client had been the only stowaway, the boat wouldn't have sunk. And even if he hadn't been on the boat, it would have sunk anyways! He did no wrong!
Q4: Your'e the jury. Should Simon go free?




Each and every person who didn't get a ticket for the boat was part of the reason the boat sunk. It doesn't matter if he was the actual person who crossed the limit, the group as a whole sunk the boat.

When someone doesn't vote, he is among the group of non-voters who could have made a difference. Each one of them is responsible for the their candidate's defeat. They are like the people who didn't sign up on for the bus or boat. The candidate knows how important it is to get his supporters to vote and spends millions trying to get that to happen. He's the one who truly knows how important voting is.

Similarly, each and every sinner is the individually responsible for the world being guilty. He's part of the guilty group who sunk the world.


Whether for voting or being judged, make sure your in the right boat.




*not his real name

Read more >> Options >>

Heter Mechira

The shemittah year is over, but I figured I'll publish some notes on Heter Mechira. Its based on an article in Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society and on the book Shemittah and Yovel by Dayan I. Grunfeld. Its mostly accurate.

In the early 1900's, the frum residents of Israel would have faced serious hunger problems if they couldn't work the land on shemitah. They came up with a heter mechira in which they would sell the land to a gentile, and have gentiles do some work for them. Nowadays, the farms would lose much international business if they didn't produce food every 7^th year. Therefore they use the heter mechira and work the land themselves. For the heter mechira to be muttar to do, all of the following halachic leniencies must be true. (It may be easier for the shemitah food to be kosher to eat.)

1. Shemitah nowadays is 100% d'rabanan. Other parts of the heter rely on this.

Although there aren't that many views that dispute this, it may be that shemitah should be considered like a d'oraysa because it was accepted with an “curse & a oath ” [see Nechemia 10].

2. Selling the land uproots the kedusha from both the land and the fruit. (Otherwise there would be no point.)

Although even many haredim in Israel are lenient, its not such a simple issue. The main machlokes is between R' Yosef Karo and the Mabit. There is a teshuva of the Rambam that supports the Mabit.

Correction: Many people are lenient and treat peiros nachri without kedushas shevi'is. But almost everyone holds that it is forbidden for a Jew to work on land owned by a gentile. The hetter mechira relies on a minority opinon that permits it.

3. A “Ha'arama Nikeret” is muttar.

This isn't such a serious problem, especially since shemitah is d'rabanan.

4. It is permitted to temporarily sell Jewish land to a gentile.

This is where the heter runs into serious issues. If the sale is real, it should be forbidden. Even renting land to a gentile is rabbinically forbidden! The HM proponents have 2 responses. 1.A temporary sale is permitted yet still works to uproot the kedusha. 2. Its permitted to sell land to Muslims.

Its questionable who exactly the issur to sell land to applies, but an accurate girsa of Rambam Perush HaMishanyos includes all gentiles.

5. The sale is considered a real sale.

If you sell a whole country to one Arab, but there's no way he'll be able to use it in any way, is the sale real? The government doesn't recognize the sale, and Dina d'Malchusa Dina should make it void.

Some Heter proponents rely on the opinion that Dina d'Malchusa Dina doens't apply in Eretz Yisroel because every Jew has a portion in the land.

Other issues

Shemitah was accepted during much harder times and kept through much worse conditions. They never tried such a heter then. A midrash talks of the gentiles who mock the Jews for eating thorns during the shemitah year.

As Israel got richer, the one-time heter became even more lenient. What was once a horas sha'ah to allow non-Jews to do issurei d'rabanan grew into the heter today where shemitah is treated like any other year.

Other Kulas

R' yannai told the people to work the land during shemitah to pay their tax. Perhaps it was similar hardships as now.

Tosafos suggests it was actual pikuach nefesh. The historic evidence shows that a cruel Roman general was waging war against the Persians, and he probably wouldn't have exempted the Jews from their taxes!

According to the Ba'al HaMa'or, shemitah is voluntary!

I would say this das yochid is cancelled out by the da'as yochid that shemitah is d'oraysa. If your choshesh for one, you should be choshesh for the other.

There is some question what the exact year of shemitah is. Perhaps that safek can help to be lenient.

Safek d'rabanan l'kula doesn't apply if it would be mevatel the mitzvah.

The Ironies.

On many issues, each side takes the opposite views of what they usually would hold so they can be for/against the heter mechira. (Or they keep to their veiws and refrain from using an argument.)

1. You can sell sell land in Israel to Muslims.

2. Dina d'Malchusa Dina doesn't apply in Eretz Yisrael.

You wouldn't here the DL community make these argument in other contexts, and many don't even use them for heter mechira.

3. Manuscripts show the girsa in the Rambam was really goy, not akkum.

4. The historic evidence shows Tosafos was right when they said it was pikuach nefesh.

Charedim don't like basing halachos on more accurate manuscripts, and definitely not on historic evidence.

The Blood of the Burglar

These are my cartoons on "בא במחתרת" about a burglar's break-in as discussed in the 8th perek of Sanhedrin. I didn't write the final page of p'sak, and the cartoons need a little shading in, but otherwise it's done.

Ta'anis Esther

[this is based on a post from 2 years ago and will be published in Peiros Ha'aretz.]

This coming Thursday, the 13th of Adar, is Ta'anis Esther, a puzzling fast day. According to many opinions, this fast commemorates the fast the Jews fought during the war against their enemies on the 13th of Adar. According to others, it is in memory of the 3 days the Jews fasted before Esther went to see Achashverosh. That occurred during Pesach time, so it seems strange to mark this fast on the wrong date. But either way, why is it necessary to fast, no tragedy happened on Ta'anis Esther! Also, according to some opinions, it shold be forbidden to fast on the day before a holiday! What was the great need to fast before Purim?

Purim is an unusually jubilant day in the Jewish Calendar. There are the mitzvoth of mishloach manot and the festive seudah, and there's even a mitzvah to get drunk! This is besides all the customs that have become common, such as wearing costumes.

But matters were very different for the Jews in the times of Haman. A royal decree had been passed, calling for the annihilation of all the Jews. People did not know what would happen. It was scary times.

In the end, the Jews were miraculously saved, but because of an important reason: They did Teshuva. Haman had caused the Jews to wake up, and they fasted and repented. G-d then caused the miraculous turnaround of Purim.

On Purim, when we celebrate with such ecstasy, there's a risk we might become too light-hearted. There are still those who seek to destroy us, and it is vital we don't miss the message. Therefore, on the day before Purim, we recall the troubles and worries the Jews went through, and more importantly, we remember the reason they were saved, and we do teshuva ourselves. Only then can we celebrate a meaningful Purim.

Slifkin and Darwinism (draft)

Although it's been some time since I read the book, I felt I should try to bring to a close the Slifkin & Darwinism series. The last post on this topic pointed out that Science wasn't as perfect as Slifkin claimed. In this post I'd like to discuss Darwinism specifically.

Slifkin says that the science of Darwinism should be judged separately from any implications people draw from it. This is true to a point. But if an ideology allows people to be "intellectually fulfilled atheists" [-Dawkins], perhaps that is part of the reason that it became so widely accepted. The fact that Darwinism and social darwinism developed together and led to Nazism also says something about it.. [eval on own w/o faith in sci random make sence?]

So we cannot just have faith in the Darwinist's words. We must compare their beliefs to ours. They are materialists, who do not believe in anything above the physical. Therefore, they have to pick between aliens having created life or it having spontaneously arisen. Because of many obvious problems with the former (how did the aliens arise?), most scientists prefer the latter.

Fine, that's what they're forced to believe, but why would a religious person accept that? How could someone like Slifkin accept this ideology of randomness? A perfectly encoded string RNA does not just form on it's own. And definetly not with the similarly amazing proteins (all just happening to be made of the just right order of 'left-handed' molecules) to carry out its instructions!

Life could not have arisen and evolved just by unguided forces. There was a Guiding Hand.

Nebach!

Welcome to the nebach! blog. New readers are invited to check out the
selected posts on the side of the Nebach! blog. They can read some posts
on Intelligent Design, then read some critical analysis of "Challenge of
Creation", a book by R' Slifkin. There's some posts on Jewish Education,
and then some more selected posts on miscellaneous topics.
Old readers of Nebach! will be happy to find out that new posts will
becoming to Nebach! some time in the future.

P.S.
I'm sending this posts from the 1980's email service in KBY. It may come
out weirdly.

Ariel

Hebrew

I would normally put this in a comment on the post its relevant to, but im
not able to access my blog in kby. (Check back on old posts for
brilliant insights or information i only found later.)

The Rosh HaYeshiva, R' Greenberg, Gave a shiur today about speaking in
Lashon HaKodesh. I don't think I mentioned in my post the holiness of
Hebrew, another (if not primary) reason to teach hebrew to the very young.
Hebrew is the language of the Jews, the Holy Tongue of the Holy People
(Gur Aryeh, Devarim 1:23). It is the language G-d communicates with
his people (Ramban shemos 30:13).

But specifically about teaching your child hebrew, read this quote from
the Sifri:

When a child begins to speak, his father teaches him lashon hakodesh and
teaches him torah. But if he does not speak with him in lashon
hakodesh and does not teach him torah, it is fit as if he
buried him, as it says, "teach them to your children"

The sifre explains the limud: "l'ma'an yirbu y'meichem" only is true if
"v'limadtem es b'neichem", and "m'klal hen ata shomea lav".
(see also tosefta chagiga 1)

In the Holy Land

I got to KBY 2 days ago, and I'm using their email software from 1989. I'm
emailing blogger whch should post this on my blog. I had been planning on
publishing many posts, but there wasn't enough time between MoKo and KBY.
I don't even have access to my drafts saved on Blogger, but I'll probably
figure out a way to get them. There may be more posts in the future!

A Guten Chodesh

Small Schools

There are way too many Jewish yeshiva high schools for boys. Just in Monsey alone, there are 9? black-hat schools. Due to their small sizes they spend money inefficiently and can't afford many things.

Each school first needs its own building and transportation. Then they each have to get their own menahel, mashgiach, principle, secretary and janitor. Each school then has to offer certain basic classes, even if there aren't enough kids. A calculus class might only have 3 kids. Its not very efficient use of tuition and tzedaka.

But even worse is the lack of choice for kids stuck in a small school. The school is unlikely to have a gym, lab or computer room. The classes will have kids of different abilities dumped together. If AP's are offered, they won't be their own class. Almost everyone will have to go to the same classes without being able to pick what interests them. There won't be any interesting or useful classes like technology or public speaking. There won't be any extracurricular activities or sports. In Limudei Kodesh, there will only be one shiur for all. The brighter and more motivated kids will be forced to learn at a low level. Small schools are clearly quite a disadvantage.

Some will somehow argue that small schools are good, there's more personal attention. Even assuming that's a good thing, it's clearly outweighed by the disadvantages. Imagine if all the high-schools in Monsey moved in to one property. In the beginning, they'll each have completely separate schools, and just save money on the property. But then they'll realize they can get joint transportation and build gyms, etc. They'll make one calculus class for all those interested. They may even start offering a choice of classes besides math. Eventually, they might even realize there's no real point in having so many menahels, etc. After that, they'll figure out a better way to divide up the shiurim and classes. Someone will then notice it will make more sense to have one building and they'll be one school.

So why are there so many black-hat high-schools? There aren't so many elementary schools, girls' schools or modern high schools. There aren't too many bakeries or hardware stores!

I think there's too much of a supply of people who want to be rebbeim, menahilim and rosh yeshivas of mesivtas. In a regular business, that would drive down prices too low, and people would have to switch jobs. But high schools can just collect tzedaka and don't need to be profitable, so anyone can be a rosh yeshiva. I guess the solution is to go to a modern school, which doesn't have as big a supply of rebbeim.

Kollel (draft)

Read this quote:

"...which imposes upon women the burdens of life meant to be borne by men... Opinions vary, but the general trend today is to burden women with a constantly increasing share of what hitherto was an exclusively male concern. And we? We see to our amazement, from our ancient history, that the world today is voluntarily plunging itself into that confusion through which the ancient Egyptians tried to shatter our life force shemachlifin meleches anashim l'nashim and we are warned! The sign of the times speak loud and clear against this new manifestation and bear witness to the truth that this perversity corrodes the forces of life... "

Q: What is the above quote attacking?

A) The Woman's Lib Movement

B) The Kollel Movement

A: This quote, from the Lehman Hagadah (Published _), compares the woman's lib movement to shibud mitzrayim. But How exactly is the Kollel movement different? Haredi society somehow has the contradictory position of both wanting women to keep their traditional roles and support their families while their husbands learn in kollel.

It's a weird idea, that the father shouldn't support his family. The Mishna and the Rambam use strong language against those who take money for learning torah. Fine, it was decided by the achronim that we can no longer keep to such a high standard, and rabbis can earn a salary for their community position. But how did it start that all of the masses go straight to kollel without anyone to support them, many just relying on tzedakah?

See this article in the Jewish Press which discusses this issue more.

The People Have Spoken!

Nebach! has won the Silver Award (2nd place) as best student blog, beating #3 by a single vote! Every single vote was crucial! The final score was 43-42. Thank You to all voters!

(Jewish & Israeli Blogosphere Awards - Best In Class! - Voting Results, Winners)

Slifkin & Science

R' Slifkin is a firm beliver in the indisputable truth of science. To prove how valid science is, he quotes (p.95) the atheist Steven weinberg:

One can imagine a category of experiments that refute well-accepted scientific theories that have become part of the standard consensus of physicists. Under this category, there are no examples whatsoever in the past hundred years.
[Dreams of a Final Theory, 1993]

Let's see. In 1893, scientists believed in a deterministic universe which had always existed with absolute space and time. Pierre Laplace's view was widespread:

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed... for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

One of the greatest scientists of the time had called the existence of the Ether the best-established theory in all of science.

Then along came the Theory of Relativity, which revolutionized ideas about light, gravity, time and space; Quantum Mechanics, which killed determinism and certainty; and Big-Bang Theory which proved the universe had a beginning!

So there's no example of a refuted scientific theory!

Slifkin's statement that only "'minor' facts of modern science... will be overturned" is completely baseless. Just as there have been revolutionary scientific theories in the past, there will continue to be major changes in science. If Slifkin had been around in the late 1800's he would have considered determinism and steady-state theory factual! Slifkin says "not everyone may be qualified to distinguish between those aspests of science that can be considered adequately proven beyond reasonable doubt, and those aspects that may well be overturned in a few years' time. " How is he qualified to judge Intelligent Design?

Slifkin puts too much faith in the 'Scientific Consensus'. Just because scientists believe random, unguided evolution could turn mud into life into humans, doesn't mean it can. To quote slifkin on religious issues (p. 91) "there are questions and there are Questions" on Neo-Darwinism too. Life on Earth shows design, and there are way too many difficulties with the neo-darwinistic worship of randomness.

Not to say there's no difference between the science of today and the 'science' of medieval times. And Evolutionary Theory, although not comparable to the experimental sciences, helps explain the existence of all living things. But not without believing in Intelligent Design. Nothing else could turn nothingness into the amazing complexity of the simplest DNA and the amazing brain.

As for the conclusions drawn by the scientists, Slifkin disagrees. But gently. He says the "religious perspective" is different, or "a religious person would view it differently". It is as if there are two valid ways of viewing creation - the atheistic way and the religious way. Only for ID can he use more emphatic language, (p.288) saying ID is a "danger to religion" and that people who believe Neo-Darwinism is by definition atheistic are "simply wrong" (p.294).

To his credit, Slifkin does point out that many scientists are disingenuous [lying Koferim]. They claim to believe religion is compatible with science, while really believing science has replaced religion. But he considers current scientific consensus more exalted than it truly is.

Creation - Like Purim?

I'm continuing my discussion of The Challenge of Creation. Please read the posts Slifkin on ID and Slifkin&Klinghoffer first (though there is some repetition here).

R' Slifkin seems to side with the view that evolution was a series of apparently random events with incredibly fortuitous results, which he compares to the Purim story. Everything was natural though, therefor ID is wrong. I find this view problematic for many reasons.

If everything just happened on its own, how was it created by G-d? We don't know exactly what "ma'aseh B'raishis" was, but when the Torah says "and G-d created" could it really mean (like slifkin says) 'G-d built into the laws of nature the ability for life to exist"? Slifkin feels this is more elegant than any 'Divine Interference'. Since G-d could have created the world with one act, He must have. But the Mishna in Avos speaks of 10 creation utterances with which G-d created the world, and it deals with Slifkin's very issue (see post Ma'maros and Miracles). From a Jewish point of view, Slifkin seems wrong.

From a non-textual viewpoint, science has not removed the necessity of a Designer to explain the existence and perfection of life on Earth. ID proponents argue that nature shows design in a way that would be recognized in any other circumstance. No one can explain how the DNA of even the simplest life form could have in any way evolved or randomly formed. Slifkin admits this fact in his book. Its unclear why he feels science will eventually have a perfectly materialistic explanation of all of life's origins.

But even if Creation was 'like the Purim story', that wouldn't make ID wrong. If someone teaches the Purim story as pointing to a Guiding Hand, would Slifkin be against it? How else do all the unlikely events make sense? The same thing goes for the development of life on Earth. ID is necessary to explain how a series of fortuitous events could have occurred.

Vote for Nebach!

The final round of voting has begun! I'm a finalist in the student blog category. Please vote for me by clicking here.

Q: Why should I vote for Nebach! over the other 5 student blogs?
A: Because Nebach! is a high-quality blog that discusses fundamental topics in Torah and Judaism. The other blogs discuss boring things like college news or themselves.

P.S.
This is Nebach!'s 50th post!

Slifkin, Klinghoffer and Evolution

Slifkin discusses the religious implications of evolution. He says there are two views among the biologists – those that consider evolution from mud to human as an incredibly fortuitous, unlikely event and those that consider it inevitable. He accepts both as a possibility.

Life – inevitable?? Earlier he said they have no idea how life could have developed from mud. How could incredibly complex self-replicating RNA or protiens form randomly (and violate the 2^nd law of thermodynamics)? No one knows, but “life was bound to arise… and it will arise simlarly wherever and whenever the same conditions obtain”! [quote on p. 256] And a single cell would inevitably turn into a human, brains and all! Why slifkin considers such a view is beyond me.

He says the religious interpretation of this school of thought would be like the “Chanukah story, the ideological victory of which was that the laws of nature are seen to be programmed by God.” I’m not really sure what he’s saying; I would think the religious implication of such a weird idea is Deism.

The other “possibility”, the fact that the development of life was an amazingly unlikely process, clearly points to a Guiding Hand. But not everyone sees it this way. I can’t find the quote in Slifkin’s book, but read this quote from David Klinghoffer, an Orthodox Jew writing about Slifkin and Collins:

Something you'll often hear people say is, "Well, Darwinism doesn't mean God isn't the creator. Maybe evolution was programmed into the universe from the start. So He had no need to guide the process." The problem with such thinking is that it's directly contradicted by a major current in Darwinian evolutionary theory. In his book Wonderful Life (1989), the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould demonstrated what he called the "contingency" of life's history. Gould explained what an incredibly lucky break it was that Earth ever cast up intelligent life forms.
Wisely turning away from this doomed approach to showing God's hand…

It seems Klinghoffer is saying G-d couldn’t have done it, because the evolution from mud to humans was too unlikely for a designer to know it would happen. Klinghoffer then quotes a ‘brilliant’ solution:

In his most satisfying defense of belief, Collins brings forward a clever way of reconciling an unguided evolutionary process with God as the Creator. He points out that God resides beyond the limits of time. Hence, what appears to us as evolution's unpredictable course was, from God's perspective, entirely predictable. It's a neat perspective--except, perhaps, if we ask whether an unguided process of "creation" is still "creation" even if its results were foreseen.

Klinghoffer appears to be a deist, who doesn’t believe G-d could guide nature! And what exactlty is the havamina about G-d knowing the future? And what’s his difficulty with that? Maybe someone can explain it.

To Be Cont…(?)

Finalist Nebach!

Although its not official yet, it seems like I made it as a finalist in the Student blog category. Thank you to all voters! The second round of voting has been postponed to May 9th, to review the voting records. Make sure to come back and vote then!

Slifkin on ID

R' Slifkin makes it clear he does not like the ID movement. Ignoring the scientific issues, Slifkin says ID "involves some extremely problematic theological aspects" which make it a "great danger to religion." (p. 288) His argument can be summarized as follows: ID sees G-d by pointing to things in evolution that can’t be explained naturally. Also, it’s like “G-d of the gaps” and will eventually become obsolete once science can explain everything naturally. We should see G-d in the laws of the universe instead, which are amazingly unlikely constants perfectly suited for life.

Basically, all Slifkin has done is move G-d one step further away. Slifkin is afraid that creation will be able to be explained 100% naturally like the daily running of nature. But, maybe one day, the laws of nature will be explained also! Slifkin blurs the distinction even more between him and ID in chapter two. He says the wavelength of the light from the sun is perfectly suited for life on earth. But perhaps life developed to fit the wavelength, or developed here because the sun had the perfect wavelength! How is Slifkin's view different from ID?

Slifkin says ID “denies the role of G-d in 99% of the universe”. But a person could see both the wonders of G-d in nature and even more clearly in what can’t be explained completely with chance and natural laws. Slifkin recognizes this and calls it “a slight to G-d’s creative abilities. Was He incapable of designing laws that could accomplish all His objectives, and therefor had to interfere to bring about the results He wanted?”

Does Slifkin know G-d’s Mind so well? Perhaps G-d wanted to show Himself more clearly in nature! This is the “extremely problematic theological aspect” of ID? The idea of G-d intervening in nature? A basic Jewish belief of thousands of years is suddenly a “great danger to religion"? Whatever Slifkin’s personal beliefs about miracles, how can he attack ID in such a way?

Whether you call it breaking the laws of nature, or quantum improbabilities or just extremely unlikely events, G-d’s Hand is seen in nature. This is what ID proponents believe.
For example, William Dembski, one of ID's leading proponents, said:

The fundamental claim of ID is straightforward and easy: there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence. [emphasis mine.]

ID's position is just that nature clearly shows design. Some ID proponents even think nature could have been 'preprogrammed', a view remarkably similar to Slifkin's. For example, earlier in the book Slifkin quotes Behe:

It is fine by me if common descent is indeed true, and there is some sort of designed program to power changes over time (i.e., evolution).

But ID is necessary to explain how it all came about. Sure, Amalek could say at krias yam suf that it was just the wind, the Jews were lucky, there is no G-d. And the scientists can say about creation that it was just “natural selection” and chance. But it makes no sense without believing in a G-d who caused and guided it all. What does Slifkin have against ID?

Science & Monotheism (draft)

R' Slifkin begins the book by pointing out that all of science is really based on monotheism. The fact that the nature has set laws that can be understood and that the universe shows such unity points to One G-d who created it all. Atheism and polytheism can’t explain such order.

The connection between Monotheism and Science can be seen in the greatest scientist of all time. Issac Newton, who discovered the Universal Law of Gravitation, recognized the unity the Universe showed. He rejected the Trinity and secretly believed in One G-d. Later in the book (p. 283), Slifkin quotes Darwin:

I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, ''as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." …

But Leibniz preffered to believe in a totally mechanistic universe with no magical “force of gravity”. He felt gravity was like saying there was an ongoing “miracle” that couldn’t be explained. This is almost the opposite of the objections against Darwin. And Darwin himself was an agnostic who didn't believe in any Divine revelation. ...

Coming up

I'm going to yeshiva today. Also, The Challenge of Creation is overdue at the library, so I won't have it anymore. I will still try to publish some posts about:

• Science, Monotheism and Newton
• G-d and Nature
• Miracles & Providence

Then, I'll hopefully move on to part two in the book about the age of the universe and Genesis.
Finally, I'll get to the real issues about ID and evolution.

The Challenge of Creation

A few weeks ago, I finally read The Challenge of Creation, by Rabbi Natan Slifkin. I plan on discussing some of the ideas in the book on my blog. But first, some general comments about the book:

The book consists of 3 parts: Science, Cosmology and Evolution:

• In the first part, Slifkin presents evidence for G-d’s existence from the laws of the Universe. He then discusses miracles, providence and natural law. Finally he shows how to resolve conflicts of Science with Torah by reinterpreting things not-literally.

• In the second part, Slifkin presents evidence for the age of the Universe. He then discusses different approaches of reconciling the science with the Torah. He rejects these approaches and concludes that Genesis is a theological text, not a scientific one.

• In the third part, Slifkin presents evidence for Common Ancestry, Evolution and Natural Selection. He discusses Intelligent Design, but rejects it for religious reasons. He then tries to reconcile Darwinian Evolution with Judaism. Finally, he tries to resolve the contradiction between the scientific explanation of man’s existence and the account in Genesis.

The book is filled with many quotes to give authority to the views presented. Quoting someone doesn’t prove it is true and it makes the book a slightly choppy read, but I guess it is necessary. The book is filled with controversial and sometimes irrelevant footnotes, which often raise issues without discussing them well. I thing some of them should be expanded, and others deleted. The book is overall well-written, though some phrases sound like the writing of a 17-year old. The book often gave me a déjà vu feeling because of its redundancies. The same quotes appear in multiple places in the book. Besides these minor flaws, The Challenge of Creation is an excellent discussion of critically important, but often ignored, issues.

On most issues, I probably would agree with Slifkin. I may disagree somewhat about ID or some of the book’s implications, but I’m not 100% sure about all my views. The posts to come will be discuss the actual issues.

Leap of Faith?

R' Gottlieb of Cross-Currents recently posted about Dr. Francis Collins, discussing "a leap of faith, or what we commonly refer to as emunah peshutah." Although I'm not sure if we really have different views, R' Gottlieb seems to believe you need to first just "have faith" and only then can studying the Universe bring you closer to G-d. He implies the intellect alone won't bring a person to recognize there's a G-d. Maimonides also believed this, he claims. I commented there:

The “leap of faith” you find so appealing is a Christian concept:

Christian dogma, according to Kierkegaard, embodies paradoxes which are offensive to reason. The central paradox is the assertion that the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus). There are two possible attitudes we can adopt to this assertion, viz. we can have faith, or we can take offense. What we cannot do, according to Kierkegaard, is believe by virtue of reason. If we choose faith we must suspend our reason in order to believe in something higher than reason. In fact we must believe by virtue of the absurd.

—The Stafford Encylopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Reli

Maimonides says a person can’t believe irrational things and mentions some Christian beliefs like the one above. This is what he has to say about Emunah Peshutah:

There are some who think a lot about G-d and mention him frequently but have no knowledge and merely follow imagination or accept tradition blindly… Such people are outside of the habitation … and do not in truth mention or think about G-d. Because that which is merely in his imagination… does not correspond to any existing being at all…

—Moreh Nevuchim 3:51 translation by D. Eidensohn

Although religious belief isn’t based entirely on logic, no “leap of faith” is necessary to recognize G-d. Part of recognizing G-d may indeed be “hearing the music” and not 100% mathematical proofs. But it is still based on reason. Avraham Avinu looked at the Universe and realized there must have been a Creator. Only than, was there revelation to him. Certainly now, after the revelation to our forefathers, we need no leap of faith.

Science doesn’t just show the “plausibility of the existence of G-d”, it is very strong evidence for it. The perfection of the laws of the Universe and of DNA are are far more rational to explain based on a belief in G-d than on atheism. Atheism and Christianity require a “leap of faith”, not Judaism.

P.S.
There was only one response to my comment on Cross-Currents, and it was from some Christian who didn't really say anything

The Rambam on Providence & Chance.

In a famous letter to the Rabbis of Montepelier on Astrology, the Rambam clearly states his belief about Providence. He disagrees with the philosophers that all is chance, and quotes the Torah and Talmud to show that the this world is one of Providence and Reward & Punishment:

...The Philosophers claim that everything that happens... is all due to chance... We assert that that what happens to a person is not chance but rather it is the result of G-d's Judgment... The Torah warned and gave testimony that if you don't obey G-d He will punish you (Vayikra 26:14). Therefor if you assert that this suffering is not punishment for sin but merely chance you will suffer additional calamities from this "chance". This is stated clearly in Vayikra (26:27-28): If you walk with me with chance then I will walk with you with the wrath of chance. This is the root of our religion which is the Torah of Moshe - that all events that happen in the world and all suffering that happens to a person is just a decree from G-d. Thus, our sages said that there is no death without sin and no suffering without transgression (Shabbos 55a).
(translation by D. Eidensohn)

The Rambam continues:
...Here is Reuben, a tanner, poor, and his children have died in his own lifetime. And here is Simon, a perfumer, rich, and his children stand before him.
The philosopher will maintain that this is due to chance. It is possible that Reuben could become a perfumer, grow rich, and have children; and it is possible that Simon could become impoverished, turn into a tanner, and witness his children's death. All this is simply fortuitous... This is the position of the philosophers....

The true way upon which we rely and in which we walk is this: We say regarding this Reuben and Simon, that there is nothing that draws on the one to become a perfumer and rich, and the other to become a tanner and poor. It is possible that the situation will change and be reversed, as the philosopher maintains. But the philosopher maintains that this is due to chance. We maintain that it is not due to chance, but rather that this situation depends on the will of "Him who spoke, and (the world) came into being" (Ps. 33:9); all of this is a (just) decree and judgment. We do not know the end of the Holy One's wisdom so as to know by what decree and judgment He required that this should be this way and that that should be the other way; "for His ways are not like our ways, neither are His thoughts like our thoughts" (Is. 55:8). We rather are obliged to fix in our minds that if Simon sins, he will be punished with stripes and impoverished and his children will die and the like. And if Reuben repents and mends his ways and searches his deeds and walks in a straight path, he will grow rich and will succeed in all his undertakings and "see (his) seed and prolong (his) days" (ibid. 55:10). This is a root of the religion. If a man says, "But look, many have acted in this way and yet have not succeeded," why this is no proof. Either some iniquity of theirs caused this, or they are now afflicted in order to inherit something even better than this.
(translation from here.)