Science vs. Scientism

In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled “God and Science Don’t Mix”, the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss argued that science implies atheism, or at least Deism. His argument can be summarized as follows:

• Science tries to explain nature without calling on miracles or Divine Providence.
• Science has been very successful.
• This proves there's no miracles or Divine Providence.
• The big religions assume there is.
• Therefore they’re all false.
• Also, look at Iran to see how bad religion is.

There are many flaws with his argument, and I will discuss some. The fact that science assumes there are no miracles does not mean there never are. Scientists study nature, but their may have been rare, supernatural events in the past. How does science disprove that possibility?

It may be hard to observe Divine Providence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. I wrote to the Wall Street Journal:

Lawrence Krauss’s argument is similar to that of the 19th-century Materialists. They claimed everything was made of atoms, and if given enough information, the entire past and future could be predicted. Such a proposition left no room for free will or Divine providence. The development of Quantum Mechanics in the 20^th century showed that, in truth, nothing could be predicted with exactitude; the smallest particles operated by apparent randomness. This randomness provides a hidden mechanism for God to intervene in the world.

While the letter isn’t exactly publish-quality, my point is clear: The Deism of the 1800’s cannot be justified when facing the mystery of the Quanta.

It would be helpful to compare the attitudes of the two greatest physicists of all time - Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Einstein had a similar attitude as Mr. Krauss'. To quote an article from Time Magazine:

But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God," he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.

Einstein strongly believed in absolute determinism, and felt that science precluded both the notion of Divine Providence and of freewill. He felt such an attitude made it easier to forgive both others and himself for wrongdoings. He held these philosophical convictions so strongly that even as the evidence mounted for the new physics, Quantum Mechanics, he refused to accept it. To his dying day he believed that “God does not play dice with the cosmos”. In another case, which Einstein later called his “greatest mistake”, he fudged his relativity equations to maintain a belief in an eternal universe. Einstein may have felt his beliefs were principles of science, but they were just examples of the bias of scientism.

Isaac Newton was, in many ways, the father of science. His theory of gravity united the heavens and the earth. Did this discovery cause him to reject his religion? Actually yes, but he didn’t become an atheist or Deist. After discovering the unity of the universe, Newton rejected the Christian trinity as idolatry, and accepted the One God of Moses. He even risked his career by refusing to take Christian oaths.

Newton realized the order and unity of nature do not point to atheism, but rather to the One Creator. God and science get along just fine, it’s God and scientism that don’t mix.

Scientism, Einstein & Newton

In a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled “God and Science Don’t Mix”, the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss argued that science implies atheism, or at least Deism. His argument can be summarized as follows:

• Science tries to explain nature without calling on miracles or Divine Providence.
• Science has been very successful.
• This proves there's no miracles or Divine Providence.
• The big religions assume there is.
• Therefore they’re all false.
• Also, look at Iran to see how bad religion is.

There are many flaws with his argument, and I will discuss some. The fact that science assumes there are no miracles does not mean there never are. Scientists study nature, but their may have been rare, supernatural events in the past. How does science disprove that possibility?

It may be hard to observe Divine Providence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there. I wrote to the Wall Street Journal:

Lawrence Krauss’s argument is similar to that of the 19th-century Materialists. They claimed everything was made of atoms, and if given enough information, the entire past and future could be predicted. Such a proposition left no room for free will or Divine providence. The development of Quantum Mechanics in the 20^th century showed that, in truth, nothing could be predicted with exactitude; the smallest particles operated by apparent randomness. This randomness provides a hidden mechanism for God to intervene in the world.

While the letter isn’t exactly publish-quality, my point is clear: The Deism of the 1800’s cannot be justified when facing the mystery of the Quanta.

It would be helpful to compare the attitudes of the two greatest physicists of all time - Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. Einstein had a similar attitude as Mr. Krauss'. To quote an article from Time Magazine:

But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God," he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.

Einstein strongly believed in absolute determinism, and felt that science precluded both the notion of Divine Providence and of freewill. He felt such an attitude made it easier to forgive both others and himself for wrongdoings. He held these philosophical convictions so strongly that even as the evidence mounted for the new physics, Quantum Mechanics, he refused to accept it. To his dying day he believed that “God does not play dice with the cosmos”. In another case, which Einstein later called his “greatest mistake”, he fudged his relativity equations to maintain a belief in an eternal universe. These are powerful examples of the bias of materialism.

Isaac Newton was, in many ways, the father of science. His theory of gravity united the heavens and the earth. Did this discovery cause him to reject his religion? Actually yes, but he didn’t become an atheist or Deist. After discovering the unity of the universe, Newton rejected the Christian trinity as idolatry, and accepted the One God of Moses. He even risked his career by refusing to take Christian oaths.

Mr. Krauss may think that science disproves religion, but Newton realized that, in truth, it confirms Monotheism.

Back to Blogging

I haven't blogged for a while, I think I'll try to put up some posts in the coming days.
A lot has happened since my last blog post. I finished my 20th lap around the sun, and I thought maybe it's time to change the name of my blog. I'm considering "The Path from Sinai" at sinaipath.blogspot.com. I'm also thinking of moving my blog to Wordpress, they have some features Blogger doesn't. I put a poll on the side so readers can vote for their preffered name. You can also leave suggestions in the comments section of this post.
I also started a new website, Ezinagro, which in its early stages. Its eventual goal is to help people find the best website on any topic, and it has many sites you may not have even thought of looking for. Readers of this blog are encouraged to visit Ezinagro, click on its links, and maybe buy some advertising links of their own.

New Talmudica Post

Because this past week's parsha discussed Jewish slaves, I decided to publish some Talmudica charts on the topic. I also published some selected ha'aros from my old talmudica pages. Just visit Talmudica. The old pages are still at geocities and can also be accessed at theses links: 29-33 34-40.

Megillah Shiurim

Talmud used to be actual Bal Peh discussions of the Torah and known halachos. The gemara text is a preserved form of the original live discussion. This shiur is a return to the gemara's original style. Instead of reading the gemara text, the shiur is the gemara discussion. The best way to prepare for these shiurim is to first read the relevant pesukim, mishnayos and braysos. The main halachik pesukim for all of Meseches Megillah are Esther 9:15-32. Below is the relevant mishna and braysa for this shiur.

מתני - קראו את המגילה באדר הראשון ונתעברה השנה קורין אותה באדר שני. אין בין אדר הראשון לאדר השני אלא קריאת המגילה ומתנות לאביונים:

ברייתא - קראו את המגילה באדר הראשון ונתעברה השנה קורין אותה באדר השני, שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני נוהגות בראשון חוץ ממקרא מגילה. ר''א ברבי יוסי אומר אין קורין אותה באדר השני שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני נוהגות בראשון. רשב''ג אומר משום רבי יוסי אף קורין אותה באדר השני שכל מצות שנוהגות בשני אין נוהגות בראשון. ושוין בהספד ובתענית שאסורין בזה ובזה.

The first shiur I'm publishing is similar to Megillah 6b. I already had made chazara shiurim up to daf 6, and I may publish "Torah SheBal Peh" shiurim until daf 8. I tried unsuccessfully to publish this shiur Purim time. I'm publishing it now as a video, because that's ironically easier than publishing an audio file.

Updates: The next shiur, based on Megillah 7a, is now online, and both files are now in audio!

Should A Terrorist Be Released For A Soldier's Remains?

This was YU's assigned essay choice. Most of the arguments in the essay also apply to the exchange of terrorists for a live soldier.

YU Honors Essay A1

Should A Terrorist Be Released For A Soldier's Remains?

"Who is wise?" Alexander the Great asked the Jewish Sages.ⁱ "He who foresees the consequences of his actions," they responded. No advice could be more prudent for the leader of any state, from the Greek Emperor of antiquity to the current Prime Minister of Israel. What may seem like a desirable action now, could turn out to have disastrous results in the future. This issue has to be kept in mind when considering releasing a terrorist for a soldier's remains.

In any moral question, one must compare the potential benefits and losses. Judaism regards the recovery of captives as one of the greatest mitzvoth a person can do. Even so, the Talmudⁱⁱ states that captives should not be redeemed for more than their value. Proper burial is also an important mitzva, but there is no obligation to undertake undue expense,ⁱⁱⁱ and certainly not a high ransom. Recovering the body will also help comfort the soldier's relatives, surely a worthy cause. The benefits of recovering the body are clear: to respect the dead and to comfort the living. The question remains: is it worth the cost?

Freeing a terrorist for a soldier's body can cause great harm. The terrorist who is released comes back as a hero, ready to commit more murder.^iv In addition, the terrorist groups are encouraged to attempt more kidnappings when they see the rewards they get. This is why the Talmud forbade paying too high a ransom even for living captives.

Releasing terrorists has caused Israel big problems in the past. In 2004, Israel released over 400 terrorists in exchange for Hezbollah releasing one captive and three soldiers' bodies. Hezbollah considered it a great victory and they promised more kidnappings in the future.^v Two years later, they fulfilled their promise, and caused the Second Lebanon War, in which the freed terrorists added to their manpower. The cost of recovering the captives two years earlier was the 160 lives Israel lost in the war.

Proponents of such trades claim Israel has a moral obligation to retrieve the soldiers who fought for their country. They also claim the trades are necessary for boosting soldiers' morale. When Israeli soldiers see that they will never be abandoned, and that Israel will do anything to rescue even their dead bodies, they will fight with greater courage.

In truth, these arguments raise issues that demonstrate the opposite. Israeli soldiers go out to battle knowing they may not come back. If they die in battle, they know they gave their lives for the security of their country. By risking future lives to recover their bodies, the soldiers' sacrifice becomes the cause of Israel's insecurity. It would also harm army morale: soldiers risk their lives to capture a terrorist and then the government releases him for a dead body.

Alexander the Great created a large empire, hoping to unify the world, but he failed to foresee that it would collapse and cause more strife. The Prime Minister of Israel should look beyond the immediate benefit of recovering a soldier's remains, and recognize that it is not worth the consequences of releasing a terrorist. Only then would he truly be wise.

iTalmud Bavli Tamid 32a

iiibid. Gittin 45a

iiiYorah Deah 357 - Pischei Teshuva s"k 1 citing the Chavos Yair. The case involved a gentile governor keeping a Jewish body ransom for a large sum. The Chavos Yair ruled it was not necessary to give in to the demand.

ivA report by the Almagor Terror Victims Association showed that 14% of released terrorists were later re-arrested for murder, and they were responsible for the death of 123 Israeli civilians. (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/111648) see also (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1184766004268&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

vSee http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109812,00.html

Yisro - Man of Truth

Yisro hears about the great things G-d did for the Jews so he travels to their camp in the desert. His son-in-law, Moshe, gives him a big welcome and they have a big meal to celebrate his arrival. The Torah continues...

{שמות יח} ויהי ממחרת וישב משה לשפט את העם ויעמד העם על משה מן הבקר עד הערב. וירא חתן משה את כל אשר הוא עשה לעם

ויאמר- מה הדבר הזה אשר אתה עשה לעם מדוע אתה יושב לבדך וכל העם נצב עליך מן בקר עד ערב:

ויאמר משה לחתנו- כי יבא אלי העם לדרש אלהים. כי יהיה להם דבר בא אלי ושפטתי בין איש ובין רעהו והודעתי את חקי האלהים ואת תורתיו:

What Most People would say: Okay, sounds important, I won't bother you any further.

What Yisro said:

ויאמר חתן משה אליו- לא טוב הדבר אשר אתה עשה: נבל תבל גם אתה גם העם הזה אשר עמך כי כבד ממך הדבר לא תוכל עשהו לבדך: עתה שמע בקלי איעצך ויהי אלהים עמך היה אתה לעם מול האלהים והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלהים: והזהרתה אתהם את החקים ואת התורת והודעת להם את הדרך ילכו בה ואת המעשה אשר יעשון: ואתה תחזה מכל העם אנשי חיל יראי אלהים אנשי אמת שנאי בצע ושמת עלהם שרי אלפים שרי מאות שרי חמשים ושרי עשרת: ושפטו את העם בכל עת והיה כל הדבר הגדל יביאו אליך וכל הדבר הקטן ישפטו הם והקל מעליך ונשאו אתך: אם את הדבר הזה תעשה וצוך אלהים ויכלת עמד וגם כל העם הזה על מקמו יבא בשלום:

How the People around might have replied: Yisro, relax. You just got here! Not so long ago, you were fattening cows to every god in the world! And you're talking to Moshe, the greatest prophet ever! He probably knows what he's doing, but he'll ask you for his advice when he wants it. You don't need to give a whole drosho just like that! What are you trying to do, get a new parsha in the Torah?

But that is not what Moshe said..

וישמע משה לקול חתנו ויעש כל אשר אמר: ויבחר משה אנשי חיל מכל ישראל ויתן אתם ראשים על העם שרי אלפים שרי מאות שרי חמשים ושרי עשרת: ושפטו את העם בכל עת את הדבר הקשה יביאון אל משה וכל הדבר הקטן ישפוטו הם:

Yisro was the man of truth. Many people just follow everyone around them, never questioning a thing. But not Yisro. He tried out every religion, never satisfied until he found the truth - Judaism. He joins the Jews, but he notices their courts are not being run so efficiently. Many people would just keep quiet, but not Yisro. If he had just accepted things as they were, he would still be a priest to the Midanite deities. When Yisro saw that things could be run more efficiently, he said so! He was worthy of causing an extra parsha to be added to the Torah. Moshe realized Yisor's suggestion was good, and he recognized the importance of having such a man with them:

(Bamidbar) ויאמר אל נא תעזב אתנו כי על כן ידעת חנתנו במדבר והיית לנו לעינים:

The Blessing Over Bad

Based on my YU Honors Essay

The Blessing Over Bad

Monotheism, Providence and the End of Days

When the people of the bronze age looked at their world, they saw a great variety of natural phenomena. There was fire and water, wind and clouds. The sun was dominant by day and the moon at night. The world appeared to be under the control of many different forces, so mankind worshiped many different deities. But one man delved deeper. He searched beyond all of nature's apparent discordance and realized there was an underlying unity. The sun and the moon, the wind and the clouds, were all part of a greater whole, there was one Source to it all. The man was Abraham, the father of Judaism, and he had discovered God.¹

The primary teaching of Judaism is that everything, whether sunshine or rain, whether good or bad, comes from one God. When we hear good news, we make sure to bless Him in gratitude and recognition for the good He has shown us. It is equally important to acknowledge God when we hear bad news. The polytheist or heretic may attribute his misfortune to another god or to randomness, but we believe everything that happens comes from one Source. When we bless God over bad news, we affirm this fundamental belief.

The blessing also has a deeper meaning. The way we react to events helps determine their effects. When misfortune happens, it may seem like it can only cause harm. However, if we consider it as a Divine wakeup call, it helps cause repentance. If we realize the bad has come because of our sins, it can serve as atonement for those sins.² Even if we cannot understand why the bad is happening to us, by recognizing that God is the source, we come closer to Him. By blessing God on our misfortunes, we express the faith that transforms bad into good.

If instead, we considers the bad that befalls us as chance, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. "If you go with me randomly I will go with you with the wrath of randomness" When the Jews do not recognize the message, God withdraws His protection and shows them what happens when they are actually left to random forces.

The polytheists of ancient times thought the world was the product of many powers, but modern science has proven them wrong. The many apparent forces of nature, from sunshine to wind, all follow the same physical laws, hinting to one Creator. Similarly, we have faith that the many events of history, from exile to redemption, all follow the same plan, guided by one God. We may not understand our misfortunes now, but the days will come when we will.

Abraham recognized the unity in nature thousands of years ago. By having faith and blessing God for everything that befalls us, we are are following in our forefather's footsteps. We are traveling on the path that will lead to the ultimate recognition of God by all of humanity, when all will understand the great unity of both nature and history. In the words of our sages³:

"...On that day will the Lord be One and His Name One" - Is the Lord not One now? ...This world is not like the Next World. In this world we say the blessing, "The Good and Beneficent" on good news and "The True Judge" on bad news. But in the Next World, we will say "The Good and Beneficent" on everything.

1See Bereishis Rabah 35, 39

2Its a basic Jewish idea that suffering atones for sins, but how does that work? I think it is more than just some sort of point system! The onesh one suffers in the next world is the intense shame he will feel for having sinned. But if he considers his suffering here as serving that purpose, then it does. It also helps him repent and come closer to God.

3Talmud Bavli Pesachim 50a

Pride Prejudice & Punctuation

almost all books people read nowadays come with punctuation whether a novel a chemistry book a rambam or even a chumash everything comes with punctuation theres a simple reason for this punctuation makes things easier to read without diluting or altering anything and yet for some reason when it comes to learning the text that needs it most people dont use punctuation the talmud contains the complicated discussions of torah shbal peh and would obviously benefit from some punctuation and yet everyone from brisk to yu from lakewood to migdal oz doesnt use punctuated gemaras why is that these are the reasons they give it makes no difference whether or not theres punctuation once you get used to it struggling over the punctuation is part of the necessary amelus of talmud torah especially when theres a machlokes in punctuation in addition the amelus helps you remember what you learned punctuated gemaros have a different tzuras hadaf which is assur to change how will you find a gemara in another shas how will you learn to read a real gemara if you use a punctuated one none of these arguments seem very strong ill go through each one it makes no difference whether or not theres punctuation once you get used to it having punctuation makes things clearer especially when reading the complicated back and forth of gemara having things punctuated helps ill admit its not the biggest deal but ive seen great scholars struggle for a moment to figure out the punctuation theres a reason everything else in the world is punctuated including most blog posts struggling over the punctuation is part of the necessary amelus of talmud torah especially when theres a machlokes in punctuation in addition it helps you remember what you learned with a punctuated gemara a person can think about the real issues of the gemara beyond how to read the words he can figure out matters of substance beyond where the comma goes a machlokes in punctuation is extremely rare i know of just as many questionable two dots and the punctuated gemara can mark it in those few cases having paragraphs and punctuation allows a person to go through things quicker and see it clearer giving him more time for chazara all of which helps him remember better see picture but why just ban punctuation there are all sorts of shortcuts all around the gemara page first it started with the mesoras hashas and the ayin mishpat and now they have likutei rashi and hagaos vtzionim not to mention the pesukim on the side which might cause someone to read tanach i think all these new laser print gemaros should be banned and people should return to using old manuscripts preferably with some letters rubbed out that would be true amelus punctuated gemaros have a different tzuras hadaf which is assur to change how will you find a gemara in another shas i dont know of punctuated gemaros that keep the tzuras hadaf but it shouldnt be too hard to make its just a technical detail tuvias edition is aimed for beginners so its filled with nekudos but no punctuation personally unless youve already finished shas with the old daf i think its time to use a different tzuras hadaf it was made by gentile printers hundreds of years ago and wasnt laid out perfectly there were no computers and they put tosafos on the page ok thats a separate issue using a different tzuras hadaf might make it a little harder to find something in another gemara but most of the time youll be using your own gemara anyways you can always look things up in the index or do a search on the computer it doesnt seem like a very big issue how will you learn to read a real gemara if you use a punctuated one for one you wont need to read the old fashioned gemaros because youll always be able to use a punctuated one but using a punctuated gemara will probably help people be able to use the other ones because theyll have been able to learn more gemara and have more experience which brings me to another point even if theyre against punctuated gemaros why on earth cant they let 5th graders use them it definitely would make a difference for beginners and they would be able to pick up gemara skills significantly quicker of course the question is based on the questionable assumption that the schools goals are to educate the kids see 31 years of batalah: i think all their arguments are just justifications for what they already have they use punctuation in all other seforim even though all the same arguments could be applied to mishnayos and rishonim they even use a full pasuk marking and trop system in torah shebichsav which actually was given from G d in a perfect umarked form if theres anything that shouldnt be punctuated its chumashim gemaros on the other hand are torah shebal peh and punctuating them just makes them more like the spoken word no one would say any of these arguments if gemaros had already been punctuated these are just ways of justifying things the real reasons people are against punctuated gemaros are not the justifications they say its very hard to accept any change especially something youve been doing a long time after having struggled so much as a beginner without punctuation its difficult to recognize there wasnt much of a point also it takes courage to read from a punctuated gemara you risk looking like youre not capable of reading from a real gemara the real reason gemaros arent punctuated is not because of any of the justifications given many of the kisvei yad did have some punctuation in them it was just too hard for the printers to print so they left it out the beginning of some mesechtos like brachos have some periods in them but it sort of tapers out at least they tried nowadays when the gemaros can easily be punctuated and published theres no reason to continue using gemaros from the 1500s this whole post may seem like making a mammoth out of a mole but it represents much more the refusal to change the gemaros are a prime example of refusing any change even a halachikly legitimate change for the better i think this is a point everyone can agree on

Talmudica Launch

The Talmud is a large uncharted ocean. Its pages are difficult to traverse, and even harder to remember. Most people learn the Talmud from a text without punctuation or charts. It is difficult to get a clear picture of the surroundings.

A new work is needed, one that will chart the Talmud. Things will be much clearer when they're all converted to charts and symbols. That is the task I have begun.

Announcing the launch of a new website:

Talmudica

to view its first pages click on the following links:
Kidushin daf: 29-33 34-40

It is a humble start, not fully complete, without a consistent system. Right now it can be used as an aid while learning the gemara or for chazara. Perhaps it can be developed enough to be able to be learned on its own.
But it's a start. Perhaps others will continue it.

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.