Science vs Torah. And the winner is....

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Previous 1 2 3 12 13 14 20 21 22 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

↑ Motek ↓

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 5:16 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

It is a conventional method of measurement

conventional to whom? and since when?

Hadasa quoted a Torah scholar's opinion. Do you have a Torah scholar to quote about it (I.e. saying the world is millions of years old) not being a halachic problem?

Quote:

It affords us a way of knowing when historically the event took place, not necessarily when it terms of creation.

I don't understand this sentence. How can one know when something took place historically without speaking in terms of creation? Speaking in terms of creation is the ONLY way time is measured in Torah and halacha.

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 6:42 pm

hadasa wrote:

The Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote that to state that the counting of years is not exact, is to C"V cast in doubt the validity of all Gittin written throughout the ages, since they all state "x number of years from the Creation of the world", and a Get that has any false information on it is not valid.

You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

That's hardly a proof. All it proves is that the people writing gittin believe the world to be that old... but that's not proof that the world is actually that old.

Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that I can show you that, in all probability, Gittin would be valid even with an incorrect date (if the world were more than 5768 years old... if the sofer just stam put an incorrect date on then it probably would not be good.)

We're all familiar with the famous halacha of what happens if a person is lost in the wilderness and doesn't know which day is Shabbos, right? He simply counts seven days and observes the seventh as Shabbos, regardless of what day of the week it actually is.

Now then, suppose (hypothetically) the entire world forgot what day of the week it was. (Yes, I know it'll never happen... that's why it's hypothetical.) What would happen now? We don't know what day of the week it is and there is no way to determine it. What do we do? Well, the same halacha would apply -- we count seven days and observe the seventh (and every seventh) as Shabbos.

Now, what about kesuvos and gittin that need to be written after this event? How can the sofer put the day of the week on the get when it might, in reality, be false? Perhaps it's the day we're currently observing as Wednesday and in reality it's Sunday? Does that make all future gittin and kesuvos invalid? I'm not a posek, but my gut feeling tells me that no -- we'll still have kesuvos and gittin -- and we'll just have to follow the "new" calendar for all future gittin/kesuvos.

The same would apply here as well, I believe. As long as we all agree on the convention of naming the current year 5768, then it's valid, regardless of how old the world actually is.

Tammy

↑ Motek ↓

Tue, Oct 23 2007, 8:46 pm

TammyTammy wrote:

All it proves is that the people writing gittin believe the world to be that old... but that's not proof that the world is actually that old.

As long as we all agree on the convention of naming the current year 5768, then it's valid, regardless of how old the world actually is.

I find your speculation and conclusions completely out of line for a frum forum.

Conventions don't make a valid get, or do you have a halachic source that says they do? Do you have a halachic source or rabbi to quote or are these solely your musings?

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Wed, Oct 24 2007, 10:35 am

Motek wrote:

TammyTammy wrote:

I find your speculation and conclusions completely out of line for a frum forum.

... which is a convenient way of side-stepping the issue.

What is it about my hypothetical that is "out of line" for a frum forum?

Quote:

Conventions don't make a valid get, or do you have a halachic source that says they do? Do you have a halachic source or rabbi to quote or are these solely your musings?

Certainly conventions are valid. All place names are conventions. Today we call the place where I live New York. Before that it was called New Amsterdam. Before that it had some Native American name. If a get was written here in 1645 and it said "New Amsterdam" did it become invalid in 1664 when the name was changed to "New York?" Of course not... because it's just a convention used to identify where the get was written.

Furthermore, as you probably know, for a long period of time in our history, shtaros were not written with the anno mundi date, but with the date of the particular sovereign. They wouldn't be written as "...in the year 3785..." but rather as "... in the third year of King Whomever...." That too, is just a matter of a convention because it, too, depended on the place of the get -- if it were written in a place where King Whomever didn't reign, then the count is meaningless and the get would probably be invalid.

Just because all shtaros today are written using the anno mundi date doesn't mean that it was always done that way. It most certainly wasn't.

Tammy

↑ hadasa ↓

Thu, Oct 25 2007, 7:10 am

Tammy, in your hypothetical situation, I assume the Get would say "nth day of the week, according to the calculation from this point of time" or something similar. IIUC, a Get does not say "5768 according to the Hebrew calendar". It says "5768 leBrias Haolam". That is very different from just a convention.

The issue of place names in a Get is extremely complex. In the country where I live, the Beis Din makes Gittin only in one particular city, where they have a precedent as to how to spell the name in Hebrew letters. Whoever needs a Get and the three Rabbanim have to travel to that city.

The Halachos of Kesuvos are much more lenient, and there "conventions" may be valid, but a single misspelling can invalidate a Get, Kal Vachomer a misconception as to the exact meaning of the date!

Hinda Rochel, I'm not saying everybody "holds" by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. But why is it more acceptable to quote anonymous scientists than a person with tremendous knowledge of science and lehavdil Torah? If my posts were based on my own reasoning, would that make them more valid than when they are based on the Lubavitcher Rebbe? If I myself am not an expert, may I not quote anyone else in a discussion?

↑ amother ↓

Thu, Oct 25 2007, 2:18 pm

Quote:

So, even if HaShem created an "old world," it's then still not wrong to say that it's billions of years old -- we simply follow the evidence.

Quote:

All it proves is that the people writing gittin believe the world to be that old... but that's not proof that the world is actually that old.

And the fact that the Torah gives a detailed calculation of the years and generation (as Mali said) is not enough evidence/proof for you? So you simply believe scientific evidence more??
and we're not talking about the MC or rambam, we're talking about the Torah itself!

I just read through this whole thread, and all I can say is I'm shock

and

!!!

↑ Motek ↓

Thu, Oct 25 2007, 6:41 pm

You haven't provided a halachic source or a rabbi to back up your view. If you feel better calling my lack of response to your bordering-on-heretical musings convenient, so be it.

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Thu, Oct 25 2007, 7:28 pm

hadasa wrote:

Hinda Rochel, I'm not saying everybody "holds" by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. But why is it more acceptable to quote anonymous scientists than a person with tremendous knowledge of science and lehavdil Torah? If my posts were based on my own reasoning, would that make them more valid than when they are based on the Lubavitcher Rebbe? If I myself am not an expert, may I not quote anyone else in a discussion?

I think you are missing my point. From conversations and from studies and from online/real life classes I have learned that an old earth is not contrary to Torah. That is point one.
I trust the Rebbanim I learned from.
The Rebbe's words are important, he was a great man, I am not disputing that, however, his rulings aren't binding on others.

Dating is not problematic for me, or for the Rabbis I trust as it is not based on creation time, but a matter of convience...this is how we describe time. There has to be some method and some method that is binding over Jews. (btw, do the Sephardim write their gittin in the same manner as Ashkenazim?) So for me the time is valid and true.

HOWEVER, those who hold that it must be literally true, must either demand a young earth OR all gittin given prior to some hypothetical future date when an old earth is acknowledged by all, must conclude that most if not all gitting are invalid, and thus there are many mamzerim running around, or decide that it is not problematic. .

It isn't however not proof of an young earth. It does present a quandry if the earth is young for some part of the Orthodox population

↑ TammyTammy ↓

Fri, Oct 26 2007, 10:36 am

Motek wrote:

You haven't provided a halachic source or a rabbi to back up your view. If you feel better calling my lack of response to your bordering-on-heretical musings convenient, so be it.

I fail to see how my hypothetical question above is bordering on heretical that it can't be answered.

At least hadasa actually provided a satisfactory response.

Tammy

↑ hadasa ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 6:15 am

I'm sorry, I have to post a retraction. The point about Gittin was not made AFAIK by the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself. I had read it in a book in which the author combines his own ideas with those culled from the Rebbe's talks and letters. I got confused, and thought he was quoting the Rebbe in this issue as well.

I still believe the point is a valid one, though. Hinda Rochel, I'm interested in hearing what your Rabbanim would say about it. I find it hard to believe anyone would say that information on a Get does not have to be 100% literally correct, if the Rabbanim I know are so careful not to have a single misspelled place name!

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 6:34 am

That it is a conventional method of calculating time and something has to be written down.

Names are imporatnt because they want to be clear on who is being identified, and the date is imporant because it has to be clear when the get was issued. But if we are all stating that the time is XYZ, that is what has to be explicitly clear, and there can't be an error. That it isn't really 5762 years after creation isn't important. That it occured in the Jewish year, 5762 The 22nd of Chesvan is.

↑ mali ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 6:37 am

HR, did you read and understand this post?

hadasa wrote:

↑ hadasa ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 6:41 am

I don't understand why writing a place name with two yuds instead of one or vice versa would make a Get less clear than writing X number of years LeBrias Haolam, if it weren't true.

If the Get said x number of years on the Hebrew calendar, I would agree with you.

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 6:42 am

Yes I did Mali and I disagree with the assessment that an older earth would render a get invalid because of how the date is written.

My husband gets so irritated by things questions...I am always talking with him about them and his response is "it isn't worth arguing about you'll never change their minds."

↑ Clarissa ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 9:27 am

HindaRochel wrote:

A wise man, your husband.

↑ TzenaRena ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 9:55 am

I once heard this response about people who refuse to understand and accept Creation, and cling to evolution:

Why get aggravated? Let them be happy with their "yichus" - coming from the apes - and we will be happy with ours! ( being created by HKBH -mi she'omar v'haya ha'olam ).

sorry I don't have the exact lashon, but this is attributed to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, in his youth, speaking to his chavrusah.

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Sun, Oct 28 2007, 1:03 pm

Clarissa wrote:

HindaRochel wrote:

A wise man, your husband.

Yeah...he's a great guy ...though he can drive me nuts every once in awhile.

TR...noone really familiar with evolution would state we were descended from apes. That shows a lack of knowledge about evolution.

↑ mali ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 4:16 am

HindaRochel wrote:

TR...noone really familiar with evolution would state we were descended from apes. That shows a lack of knowledge about evolution.

No, it just states that we come from the same ancestry.

↑ HindaRochel ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 4:30 am

Exactly. And for the next question, yes they have found beings of intermediary stage, no they haven't found the missing link neither are they like to as there isn't oen distinct entity as the missing link.

And I do believe G-d created us...so I have G-d and evolution.

↑ mali ↓

Mon, Oct 29 2007, 4:42 am

Quick reminder where man came from: (Gen. 2)

6. And a mist ascended from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground.

7. And the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and He breathed into his nostrils the soul of life, and man became a living soul.

No intermediary stages mentioned there. So much for your belief in Torah.

Page 13 of 22

Previous 1 2 3 12 13 14 20 21 22 Next