What is the central point of the universe, sun or earth?

Ribbie Danzinger ↓

Tue, Aug 28 2007, 7:21 pm

The following is an excerpt from an article by Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh shlit"a:

Quote:

Until Copernicus, the scientific view of the earth corresponded to the Torah's point of view. The earth was considered static and the whole universe revolved around the earth-center. However, Copernicus proved empirically that the sun is actually the center of the universe and we on earth, together with the other planets, are moving around the sun-center. This new angle is probably the most significant change of perspective that science has offered in all of history and at first glance it apparently presents a challenge to the Torah perspective.
The way that Kabbalah and Chassidut deal with questions such as these is unique, as the following anecdote illustrates, beautifully capturing the relationship between science and the Torah's view of scientific discovery, especially scientific innovations that seem to change the way people relate to the universe.
Although Copernicus initiated heliocentricity and totally negated geocentricity with his mathematical equations, this new theory did not reach the general public until several centuries later, in the time of one of the great Chassidic masters, the Ruzhiner Rebbe .
When disciples of the Holy Ruzhiner, as he is called in Chabad tradition, heard of this apparently heretical scientific discovery that had turned the world inside-out, as it were, they brought the news to their Rebbe, probably anticipating his absolute denial that such a phenomenon could ever be reconciled with true Torah teachings and that anyone who believed such a thing was an heretic.
However his reaction was very unusual. When he was informed of this, the Holy Ruzhiner remained completely composed and his response was a very special one. He said that whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth depends on the service of the tzaddikim, the righteous Jews of the generation. The answer to the question of "What revolves around what?" is not an absolute answer. If, for instance, the tzaddikim in this generation would serve G-d in a manner in which it would be correct to see Pluto as the center of the solar system, then in some mysterious way scientific discoveries would adapt to reflect that change.
This reply is a revolutionary thought that suggests that in truth there is no debate between Torah and science; rather it is an open field in which the Torah influences science's perspective on physical reality. Moreover, we will see that our understanding of science can actually offer us greater insight into Torah principles.
The service of the tzaddik influences the way science perceives the world because in the eyes of the tzaddik, the earth and the sun etc. are all merely symbols that represent his service of G-d. The verse in Psalms reads, "The sun and its shield are G-D [Havayah, G-d's essential Name] G-d [Elokim]." From this verse we can clearly see that the sun and its shield represent two different aspects of G-d in some way, Havayah, the essential Name of G-d corresponds to the center of the sun, while the Name Elokim corresponds to the sun's shield. The Name Elokim is the only Name of G-d that is used throughout the story of creation and its numerical value in Hebrew (86) equals the value of hateva, "nature"; Elokim is the revelation of the supernatural, essential Name of G-d (Havayah) as it appears in nature. Just as the sun's shield can be observed and studied physically, so too we can observe the direct effects of G-d, Elokim as they manifest in nature. The actual sun within its shield cannot be measured at all and therefore alludes to G-d's Essential Name, Havayah. The Torah thus identifies the two dimensions of Divinity, the supernatural dimension and the natural dimension, as the sun and its shield. Similarly, the other celestial bodies, including the earth, can be identified as symbols of creation itself.

Last edited by Ribbie Danzinger on Wed, Sep 05 2007, 6:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

chocolate moose

Wed, Aug 29 2007, 6:21 pm

Look who's back.

TammyTammy ↓

Wed, Aug 29 2007, 6:37 pm

[quote="Ribbie Danzinger"]

Quote:

I know I'm going to hear it again from some people on this board for my "anti-Torah" view, but what the heck.

Rabbi Ginzburgh is wrong. Copernicus did not prove that the sun was the center of the universe. He never even proposed it. What he did show was that the sun was the center of the solar system.

Quote:

Although Copernicus initiated heliocentricity and totally negated geocentricity with his mathematical equations, this new theory did not reach the general public until several centuries later, in the time of one of the great Chassidic masters, the Ruzhiner Rebbe .

Untrue. It was already well known well before the Ruzhiner Rebbe lived (early 1800s). Even by the 1600s it was well understood that Ptolmey's cosmological view was not valid.

Tammy

TzenaRena

Wed, Aug 29 2007, 7:03 pm

Tammy, what's annoying about your incessant need to jump up and "refute" well thought out positions of Gedolei Torah, is that you don't actually refute them. You just declare them "invalid", or "wrong", as though waving your magic scepter really casts that spell of invalidity over them.

And it seems that you start from the premise that in perceived conflicts between Torah and Science, that scientific theory is "right", and Torah is hopelessly primitive and wrong.

↑ TammyTammy

Wed, Aug 29 2007, 7:11 pm

TzenaRena wrote:

I'm sorry, but in this case, Rabbi Ginzburg *is* wrong. Copernicus did not prove that the sun was the center of the universe. What he did show was that it was the center of the solar system. It's that simple. The same goes for his statement about when it was well known that Ptolmey's view was wrong.

Don't ask me to just ignore what he said and pretend that it was right when it isn't.

Quote:

And it seems that you start from the premise that in perceived conflicts between Torah and Science, that scientific theory is "right", and Torah is hopelessly primitive and wrong.

I wasn't aware that Rabbi Ginzburg's opinion of Copernicus' theory or the history of the acceptance of the Copernican cosmological view was Torah.

Tammy

gryp

Wed, Aug 29 2007, 7:50 pm

Quote:

The verse in Psalms reads, "The sun and its shield are G-D [Havayah, G-d's essential Name] G-d [Elokim]." From this verse we can clearly see that the sun and its shield represent two different aspects of G-d in some way, Havayah, the essential Name of G-d corresponds to the center of the sun, while the Name Elokim corresponds to the sun's shield. The Name Elokim is the only Name of G-d that is used throughout the story of creation and its numerical value in Hebrew (86) equals the value of hateva, "nature"; Elokim is the revelation of the supernatural, essential Name of G-d (Havayah) as it appears in nature. Just as the sun's shield can be observed and studied physically, so too we can observe the direct effects of G-d, Elokim as they manifest in nature. The actual sun within its shield cannot be measured at all and therefore alludes to G-d's Essential Name, Havayah. The Torah thus identifies the two dimensions of Divinity, the supernatural dimension and the natural dimension, as the sun and its shield. Similarly, the other celestial bodies, including the earth, can be identified as symbols of creation itself.

Ribbie (are you around???), Chassidus explain this concept in much more depth- the sun and it's shield, Chesed and Gevurah, Or and Tzimtzum, Hashem name Hava'ye and Hashem's name Elokim, how Hashem's Or is like the sun and it's rays but on a closer observation it's really very different, and more.
Have you learned all this?

Sue DaNym ↓

Thu, Aug 30 2007, 10:39 am

TammyTammy wrote:

Quote:

And it seems that you start from the premise that in perceived conflicts between Torah and Science, that scientific theory is "right", and Torah is hopelessly primitive and wrong.

I wasn't aware that Rabbi Ginzburg's opinion of Copernicus' theory or the history of the acceptance of the Copernican cosmological view was Torah.

Tammy

well it is torah. the gemara says that anything that any talmid is asid lhischadaish was given at sinai. therefore, was rabbi ginsburgh (learn to spell before claiming you know anything about science) is torah and therefore right.

HindaRochel ↓

Thu, Aug 30 2007, 12:51 pm

OH for grief sakes. The man misspoke. He said universe instead of earth. Tammy was just correcting an error. It doesn't change the deeper meaning of his post. Neither does his understanding of history.

Who knew what when...accccccccccch

Copernicus wasn't even the first to suggest heliocentrism. The issue was long debated in various countries.

It dosen't change the Rabbi's position.

The Rabbi was wrong on historical facts. Unless the vast majority of history books online and off, have had their entries altered by viscous anti-religious people in a sudden burst of conspiritorial escasty.

↑ Sue DaNym

Thu, Aug 30 2007, 12:56 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

The Rabbi was wrong on historical facts. Unless the vast majority of history books online and off, have had their entries altered by viscous anti-religious people in a sudden burst of conspiritorial escasty.

I wouldnt be surprised. people have gone to great lengths to discredit the torah.

(not saying that it did in fact happen - just that I wouldnt be surprised if it did)

↑ HindaRochel

Thu, Aug 30 2007, 3:39 pm

BTW Tammy,

Did Copernicus know of other solar systems at the time he wrote? It may be possible, I don't know as I'm not as familiar with the history of astronomy as you are, that he did think our solar system was it. When did astronomers realize that our solar system was one of many?

Motek

Fri, Aug 31 2007, 1:37 pm

On a different but related note:

Quote:

To declare categorically in the name of science, that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vise versa, is, as noted above, turning the scientific clock back to the 19th century and Medieval science. It is also at variance with the theory of relativity, which has likewise been universally accepted. Science now declares—as categorically as it is permissible for contemporary science—that where two bodies in space are in relative motion, it is scientifically impossible to determine which is at rest and which in motion.

It is very saddening to think that those who should be the champions of the Torah-hashkofo and its advocates, especially among Jewish youth in general and academic youth in particular, are timid or even ashamed to expostulate it. This is all the more regrettable precisely in this day and age, after science had finally come out of its Medieval wrappings, and accepted the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty, etc., etc. which makes it so easy for an orthodox Jewish scientist to espouse the Torah-hashkofo boldly and forcefully, without fear of contradiction. Yet some Jewish scientists have not yet managed to free themselves from the fetters of the 19th century approach and inferiority complex. Surely the time is ripe for a reassessment as to where they stand.

from a letter written by the Lubavitcher Rebbe decrying orthodox Jewish scientists' apologetics

http://www.torahscience.org/to......html

p.s. my husband did not agree with R' Ginsburgh's article

↑ Ribbie Danzinger

Mon, Sep 03 2007, 8:37 am

Sorry to have taken so long to respond. I'm not always logged in these days (Baruch Hashem!)
Just a point that should be considered: this is only an excerpt from the complete article. Here is a link to the source:
http://www.torahscience.org/na.....2.htm
Perhaps reading all of it may clear up some of the disagreement.

What exactly is it that your dh disagrees with, Motek?

Tehilla

Mon, Sep 03 2007, 4:10 pm

For those interested, the full article from Rabbi Ginsburgh can be found here:

http://www.inner.org/Nav_class.....60220

Mommy3.5

Mon, Sep 03 2007, 9:45 pm

Sue DaNym wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

I wouldnt be surprised. people have gone to great lengths to discredit the torah.

(not saying that it did in fact happen - just that I wouldnt be surprised if it did)

good grief. You cannot be serious.

amother

Mon, Sep 03 2007, 10:30 pm

Quote:

I think it wouldhelp if ppl read the whole article. I think it was taken out of context. someone else posted a link above for the whole thing.