Chazal, Science, Controversy ... - Slifkin

ForeverYoung
Guest

Wed, Feb 09 2005, 7:25 pm

Quote:

why would Hashem have created the world in such a way that people will get confused and believe in evolution ?

the answer IS free will

Quote:

If your answer is along the lines of free will, keep in mind that until Darwin, everyone believed in creationism. Why the change ?

people changed their minds, b/c the further we move away from Adam, the lower the world sinks. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of Yeridas Doros.

Responcibility is a great burden. As Motek said:

Quote:

because by eliminating a Creator from the scene, there are no responsibilities, yay!

Wed, Feb 09 2005, 11:17 pm

For those who think that people just choose to believe in evolution so they can avoid responsibility : In many ways it is much easier to be religious. Much, much easier. You have a whole comprehensive system of beliefs- if you do this, you will have a good life and be a good person and go to heaven. If you don't, you won't. If you are not religious, there are many more conflicts and many more difficult issues to decide. As the famous quote goes : " A believer just has to explain the existence of evil, while the atheist has to explain the existence of everything else"

Quote:

zeh l'umas zeh - Hashem created the world so that kedusha corresponds to tuma
the more the revelations of chasidus became revealed to the world, the more shtusim became revealed

About this and Niskatnu HaDoros ( ha-ha, de-evolution). First of all these sort of contradict each other- do you have a way to combine them ? Also, the zeh l'umas zeh poses some questions of its own : Aren't we supposed to eventually increase in holiness as moshiach's arrival becomes more imminent ? The rambam says this will be a natural process. Having equal tumah and kedusha would not really work out for moshiach to show up. Although it did in Yetzias Mitztrayim,sort of, but this geula is supposed to be different, right ? From another perspective, Darwin was born in 1809 and the Baal Shem Tov was born in 1700. The Tanya was printed in 1796. The Origins of the Species was printed in 1859 So what did the world do for balance for 63 years or 159 years ?

Rivka

Thu, Feb 10 2005, 4:58 am

Interesting points mp. BUt I think Darwinism is a bit like a cult or religion if you look at religion as an easy option. Yes religious people just take what is said for granted and don't question it...blind faith.
So same with Darwin's theory....note the theory at the begining.
If humans evolved from monkeys then how come when humans are born they are not monkeys to begin with. You cannot have evolution and suddenly it stops there and there is no need for it. Unless what is being said is that once evolution happens then the whole DNA changes.
It is unexplained especially when Darwin cannot say how long this evolution takes place. I mean if I lived in Africa and married a white person and my children did the same, no where along the line would there suddenly evolve a black child due to evolution...no they would be white.
The truth is if one says evolution happens over billions of years, no one can prove it and to be safe no one can disprove it.
One can say that when one says "oh Hashem created the world and everything" sounds like a cop off. But so does Darwin's theory.
Basically, it all depends on what you believe.

Motek

Thu, Feb 10 2005, 8:59 am

Quote:

good questions, and although not for this thread, a brief answer - the Rebbe addresses them in Yud-tes Kislev sichos in which the Rebbe explains how the revelation of Chasidus was BOTH 1) to counter the increasing darkness of galus 2) to prepare for the revelations of Geula with a foretaste of the teachings of Moshiach

Quote:

what did the world do for balance for 63 years or 159 years ?

come on ... you can figure that out ... Darwin and his theory wasn't the only thing going on in the world, you know ... there was the French Revolution, the Czars, among other things

good point Rivka about blind faith, it's pretty funny how the theory is "believed" - an maamin ...

Motek

Thu, Feb 10 2005, 9:01 am

re the "bridges" between parts of creation (though I haven't checked any of these sources myself):

Sefer Adam Yoshor (Drush ABY"A) and Etz Chaim (Shaar Mem Beis from memory) about the monkey. R' Chaim Vital quotes the "chachmei ha'teva" on this.

"In truth, with these four particular aspects there is one aspect that includes them all, and it is a bridge between one aspect and another aspect; it includes the two of them. Mirroring this, the 'chochamei hateiva' say that between 'domeim' (mineral life) and 'tzomeach' (plant life) there is the 'korali' (coral, as in the ocean kind) that is called 'almugim' (a type of tree?). Between 'tzomeach' and 'chai' (animal life) there is the adnei hasadeh (beasts of the field), as is mentioned in Maseches Kila'im (Perek Cheis, Mishnah Hei)... And between 'chai' and 'medaber' (man, lit. speaking) it is the 'kuf' (monkey)."

the Rambam explains what this means, that there are certain African tribes that haven't even thought of the possibility of a G-d, and it is this that makes them "an intermediary" between animals and humans."

btw - on the subject of "intermediaries" between different levels of creation, the Rambam describes a mouse that is not reproduced in the normal way but comes from the earth and gradually is transformed into an animal. (that would be domem to chai, skipping tzomei'ach)

ForeverYoung
Guest

Thu, Feb 10 2005, 10:30 am

Great link.

it actually shows that people are SCARED to admit that they believe intelligent design:

Quote:

Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.

any intelligent thinking person will see right through it, even if they deny it.

yehudis

Sun, Mar 06 2005, 2:16 pm

I just spoke to a rabbi who is somewhat involved in the controversy. (It came up in a shiur, and I asked him afterwards.) So he said it is not true that all the gedolim consider Rabbi Slifkin's books to be heretical. He said it would take hours to go into details about different letters signed by different people and what exactly they said, but basically:

1) Rav Eliyashev signed the letter which stated that these books do not belong to a frum home. Meaning that if people don't have these questions, they should not read these books and start thinking about these questions. This letter did not say that the books themselves are heretical. Moreover, he also signed another letter, by Rabbi Aharon Feldman, stating that Rabbi Slifkin is one of the lamed-vavniks.

2) There are gedolim who refused to sign the ban, such as Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky, Rav Aharon Shechter, Rav Aharon Feldman.

3) The letter banning the books was only printed in the Israeli version of the Yated Neeman. When the American version of the Yated wanted to print it, Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky wrote another letter saying that the books are not only presenting a legitimate view, but this also happens to be the view of the Rambam, Avraham ben HaRambam, and some other people who lived a thousand years ago. Rav Kamentsky told the editor that if they are printing the ban, they should also print his letter. In the end, the editor decided not to print either.

Motek

Sun, Mar 06 2005, 5:33 pm

an urban legend in the making

Quote:

Dear _______,

My short visit to Israel last week was, among other reasons, to ascertain Rav Elyashiv's reason for the issur on Slifkin's books. Contrary to rumors, I did not travel on anyone's behalf.

Rav Elyashiv felt that the hashkofos of the books regarding Chazal and the age of the universe are forbidden to be taught, and this despite the fact that others, even great people (such as R.Avraham ben HaRambam, Pachad Yitzchok and, in our times, Rav Dessler and R.Shimon Schwab) may have said similar things.

"They were permitted to say these things, but we may not," he said.

In other words, the halacha is not like them. Most important, Rav Elyashiv said that by his signature on the public announcement regarding the books he did not mean to rule that the author is a min or kofer. As far as he is concerned, Rav Eliashiv said, the author could be one of the lamed vov tzadikim; the books nevertheless are forbidden to read.

He was surprised when he was shown that the announcement described the books as kefira and minus. He then dictated a statement to me, in the presence of his secretary, Rav Yosef Efrati, and one of his grandsons, which read as follows:

(translated from hebrew)

"My intention when I added my name to the public announcement [regarding the issur] was only regarding that the books should not enter the Jewish community."

The word "only" was meant to specifically exclude the implication that the author is a heretic.

With best wishes,
Aharon Feldman.

people twist it around so that it sounds absurd (lamed-vavnik is quite hilarious).

as to R' Aharon Shechter - he didn't sign it because the letter said the books are full of kefirah and R' Aharon said he's not sure if its kefirah even though it's definitely assur to say those things
so since he didn't know that, he didn't sign it
if you know R' Aharon at all, that's so him ...

yehudis

Sun, Mar 06 2005, 6:51 pm

Motek, where did you get this letter from?

Quote:

people twist it around so that it sounds absurd (lamed-vavnik is quite hilarious).

OK, so I guess I misunderstood what he said embarrassed

Still, it's clear from the letter that Rav Eliashiv doesn't consider Rabbi Slifkin himself to be a heretic, which was a big part of our discussion here.

Also, what do you say about Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky's view? (Who happens to be very much involved in kiruv and probably deals with a much different audience than Rav Eliashiv and other Israeli rabbis.)

Motek

Sun, Mar 06 2005, 7:16 pm

yehudis wrote:

Motek, where did you get this letter from?

it's posted around the Internet

actually, someone told me about it first (when I asked him about what you said), and when I asked for the letter he told me to google

Quote:

OK, so I guess I misunderstood what he said

or he said it wrong

Quote:

Still, it's clear from the letter that Rav Eliashiv doesn't consider Rabbi Slifkin himself to be a heretic, which was a big part of our discussion here.

was it? the discussion was on the tochen, not on him and I posted that at some point, that the ban was not on him

Quote:

Also, what do you say about Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky's view?

same as I think about slifkin's ...

IndyMom

Sun, Mar 06 2005, 7:57 pm

I live in a VERY christian area and although I try to avoid discussing religion - there are times where I can't avoid it. I go to college here so am surrounded by these people every day. Sometimes, when I am defending judiasm vs. christianity I use arguements like "who said a day had to be 24 hours", and "Adam was created a man - with a biological history - DNA from a mother and a father - even though we know he did not have an actual mother and fahter, so to our world was created with a biological history so it looks millions of years old, but may still be only 5756 years old". Now, I am NOT a Torah scholar, and I don't even remember where I heard these arguements from, but I always found peace in the fact that Torah is true and science and Torah do not contradict as some of our fellow american religions do. Reading this thread I wonder if I am heretical to say these things? I don't know. It made sense to me, but what do I know.

Motek

Mon, Mar 07 2005, 12:22 pm

IndyMom wrote:

"Adam was created a man - with a biological history - DNA from a mother and a father - even though we know he did not have an actual mother and fahter, so to our world was created with a biological history so it looks millions of years old, but may still be only 5756 years old".

this part is true and fine, just like saying that the trees that Hashem created were created with rings that made them look older than one day

and the animals, fish, etc. were not created as embryos ...

but why would a Christian differ with a Jew anyway, about Creation?

and maybe you shouldn't be getting into these discussions ...

Tefila

Mon, Mar 07 2005, 12:37 pm

Quote:

Being that I am a BT, I can tell you that it is much cheaper and easyer to be not frum. I am honored to be a Jew, a representative of the Almighty G-d on this Earth, but it is MUCH easyer to live my life like I want, not like G-d wants me to

And you are extra special anny coz you made the decision on your own, rather then from habit from birth!

IndyMom

Mon, Mar 07 2005, 2:50 pm

Since christians take only the literal meaning of the translated version of our Torah they do differ on how they view creation. I try to steer clear of these discussions, but being as that I am the only jewish chemistry major in a VERY christian environment, there are times where the questions do come up. I hate having to answer them becuase I don't feel like I am an expert.

ForeverYoung
Guest

Mon, Mar 07 2005, 8:31 pm

Quote:

In other words, the halacha is not like them.

what does halacha (the laws of conduct) have to do with the creations?

Quote:

Motek: only regarding that the books should not enter the Jewish community

this seems to correspond to:

Quote:

Yehudis: This letter did not say that the books themselves are heretical.

Also, Motek, pls ask that person what should a frum person do if he does have these questions.