Google Ads

I added some ads on the side. If an ad interests you, click on it. Since I've started the blog, there's been 6 clicks.

Update:
I've removed the ads since most of them were for things like interfaith marriages or Jesus.

Comments I've put on Hirhurim about ID and Miracles

(these comments were taken from the post below)

on comment "explaining" miracles:

what is the point in saying the annenei hakavod were volcanic plumes, etc.?all these things would all still be very unikely so y not just say the electrons, etc. somehow moved in just the right way so as to split seas, etc. it's the same unlikely probability. in addition what was the point in appearing miraculous? to trick the Jews of the time? if it was a miracle to them, y should we have to say it wasn't really? what exactly is the point in saying miracles weren't miraculos? the Ramban explains the purpose in having them happen, what's so problematic? miracles completely show that G-d created and cares about the world and there's Hashgacha. people who don't like the idea shouldn't like the idea of the universe being created in 10 ma'amoros either, it's the same thing - G-d appears to b doing things in a (chvsh) "cheaper" way, y couldn't He just do it w/o miracles, with only one ma'amar? but there is a reason - it adds value to the world, it shows G-d cares even about us...
people might not like the idea of law-breaking miracles b/c they don't happen nowadays, but we don't have nevuah either. there was s/t about the times of a'vodah zara that made nevuah and maybe miracles able to happen (perhaps they didn't affect bechirah as much then) nowadays it's not like that and we can't even detect those times well, the Jews' clothes didn't even wear out, they left no records.
eventually this will b discussed more on my blog.
(rav on 10 makkos)

Hirhurim, ur point is not relevant to design:

Hirhurim: This came to mind recently upon reading an article about the merits of various scientific theories by a rabbi with no advanced scientific training, in which the author declared a particular scientific theory to be "illogical" and unscientific.

me: maybe to declare a theory illogical w/o knowledge is wrong but certain conclusions can be drawn no matter what. certain issues do not require the best scientific knowledge to determine. this universe appears designed no matter what level of scientific knowledge u have. u could have lived 3819 years ago and recognized there was a designer just by looking at the universe. u could live now and with just a superficial knowledge of physics and biology and recognize the design. u could be a biochemist and see it even more. or u could be a future scientist, where it will be even clearer to the unbiased. just like a computer appears designed even without having any clue how the CPU works, so too the universe. of course, if u understand the inner workings of a computer, u'll have more appreciation of it, and the same goes for the universe. its a mitzvah to learn about the universe so u can come to greater fear and love of g-d. even though there are many scientists who look at the universe and say it's purely random, a person with much less knowledge can still realize that the scientists are completely wrong. u don't even need to know statistics and probability to tell that this universe was designed.
(fake torah and science)

anti-miracles?
while i agree w/ r' sax that we can find G-d in nature, i believe miracles r still important. they show w/o doubt that G-d exists, cares about our actions and the world and intervenes when necessary. the miracles of yetzias mitzrayim, matan torah and coming into eretz yisroel r the foundation of Judaism, and explain y we have lasted for 3300 yrs.
miracles make even the non-believer exclaim "this is a finger of G-d!". r' sacks says this is a pagan way of thinking. so when the jew saw the "hand of G-d" that was also bad? all the miracles that happened to the jews - what were they for? so they should come to pagan conclusions?
a more sophisticated approach is necessary. nature is amazing and can bring one to figure out theres a G-d, but at certain points in history, G-d performs miracles so the jews can "see" G-d.
(g-d of gaps post)

Amalek, Darwinism and Nazism (draft)

Avi Shafran of Cross-Currents recently wrote about Amalek and the worship of Randomness.
I put a comment there:

Amalek also heard about the miracle of the sea splitting, but it didn’t react like other nations - it explained the miracle “The wind was blowing, it was pure chance”. Amalek so hated the Jews implication of purpose that it attempted to destroy them, but not by abiding to any norms of war, instead attacking the weak and unprotected Jews at the rear.

Although the idea of Evolution has existed for thousands of years, and Jewish sources also say only the beginning was creation ex nihilo, until recent times most people still saw the need for a Designer. Only in the mid 1800’s was it proposed that all of the amazing miraculous creation could be explained by pure chance and a purposeless struggle between creatures.

Herbert Spencer, a Social Darwinist, invented the term “survival of the fittest”, the fundamental belief of Darwinism. Charles Darwin himself said:

We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
(Descent of Man)

Eugenics, the application of Social Darwinism, was popular in America and Europe until the rise of Nazi Germany. The Nazis hated the idea of a G-d, but still believed in purpose to existence – the strong should dominate or annihilate the weak and rule on their own. They were big believers in Darwinism. Their antithesis was the Jews, who, as Hitler said, “The Jews have inflicted two wounds on humanity: Circumcision on the body and conscience on the soul." The Nazis therefore tried annihilating the Jews.

Although Eugenics has lost popularity, and most atheists aren't killing Jews, the idea of Darwinism that everything is just the result of randomness, without a higher purpose, is still quite common. This is similar to the philosophy of Amalek.

ID V

based on YU Honors Admission Essay A2

The Universe – Random Process or Intelligent Design?

Imagine taking a tour of various universes, looking for evidence of design. In each universe you determine its laws, and trace its development. You look at the final product, examining it for any apparent purpose. After touring several universes, you come to our own Universe. You have to determine whether or not it is designed. Here is some evidence you might consider.

The first amazing thing about the Universe is its laws and constants. If the force of gravity was a little stronger, if a neutron weighed a tiny bit more, if the universe had expanded any faster, then the universe would have been unstable, and nothing could have existed.

The best explanation scientists can come up with to explain the “fine-tuning” of the laws is the “Multiple Universe Theory”: This Universe might be just one of innumerable universes, and it is the only one where life can exist, which is why we are in it.

While explaining away a need for G-d, this theory requires a lot more faith to believe. There is absolutely no evidence for it, it is unverifiable, and it violates Ockham's razor.

There is even more evidence of design from the existence of living things. The biological machinery and DNA coding that make up the smallest cell are far more complex than a supercomputer. Scientists believe they can explain the emergence of this complexity with Darwinian Evolution.

When living things reproduce, they copy their DNA to their offspring. On rare occasions, there is an error in copying and on extremely rare occasions, the change is beneficial. An improvement in the genes of one member of a species will give that organism a better chance of survival than its fellows. Over time this can cause a change in the species.

There is scientific evidence to show this occurs on small scale and causes minor changes in species. It may even explain minor differences between similar species, such as the different beaks of birds on the Galapagos. But can unguided natural selection alone explain the great complexity of life?

Take one small example: blood clotting. In order for blood clotting to work, 16 enzymes must be present in the blood. They must interact in a precise sequence known as the Clotting Cascade. If only one of the chemicals is missing, the blood clotting will not work, and therefore the organism enjoys no advantage from having the other 15 chemicals. How can natural selection explain the emergence of such a system?

Scientists have proposed that many of the 16 components had an additional purpose which gave the organism an advantage. Even if this is true, there is still strong evidence for design: The fact that each chemical happens to have another purpose that would allow the development of Life with with its amazing ecosystem, diversity of the species, and a mind that can contemplate it all.

After finishing with this universe, you move on to the next: a random collection of particles almost existing, before all collapsing into nothingness.

One Year

It's been a year since the beginning of Nebach! I may start posting more often.

R' Eliyahu Feinstein

YU Admission Essay (slightly edited)

R’ Elye Pruzhaner

In 1884, a terrible cholera epidemic swept through Poland and the town of Pruzhana was not spared. On the first day of selichot, Meir the coachman died, and the health authorities insisted that he be buried immediately. The Chevra Kaddisha, afraid of catching cholera, refused to carry out the burial. R’ Elye, the Rav of the town, refused to hold the selichot services. Instead, he went to the house of the deceased, accompanied by one other person. Upon seeing that R’ Elye was going to perform the burial himself, people began to gather around the house to try to persuade the Rav to let them perform the task. He remained there, until the ritual cleansing (“Tahara”) had been completed, and it was only after the burial that the synagogues were reopened for Selichot.

R’ Elye, or HaRav Eliyahu Halevi Feinstein was born in Slutzk, Russia, in 1843, and died in Pruzhana in 1929. He was my great-great grandfather and a leading rabbinic authority of his time. Many important scholars learned from R' Elye, including Rav Moshe Feinstein, his nephew and Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik, his grandson...

R Elye held many rabbinical posts during his life, but always on one condition: that he be free from non-urgent community concerns until noon every day, so he could study Torah uninterrupted. After serving as Rav in Storbin, Kletzk, Karelitz and Reisin, R’ Elye settled down in Pruzhana. Although he received many offers to be Rav of larger cities, he preferred to stay in Pruzhana. He was twice offered the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, but turned it down because of family obligations.

In 1910, R. Elye participated in a large conference of Jewish leaders in Petersburg. He suggested that, due to changes in society, there was a need for secular education in the chadarim (Jewish day schools). He proposed that children be taught Russian and mathematics to enable them to have decent livelihoods in adulthood. The proposal was met with a lot of resistance from some of the rabbis and was not implemented. Later, the Socialists and secular Zionists were able to lure large numbers of poverty-stricken Jews to their irreligious ideologies.

Perhaps, had R. Elye's ideas been carried out, secular socialism would not have made such inroads into Judaism.

Once, a terrible fire devastated half of Pruzhana. R' Elye was abroad at the time undergoing medical treatment, but he rushed back when he heard the news. He went to the regional governor, with whom he was on good terms, and asked him a seemingly minor request: Could the government allow all building materials to be transported to Pruzhana without the usual tariff? The Russian government acceded to the request and Pruzhana became an important relay station for all of western Russia. The money saved because of the tariff exemption was used to rebuild the city, which was accomplished remarkably quickly.

In meeting R’ Elye, I would be able to see how a truly great leader balances authority and compassion, intellectual pursuits with communal responsibilities, and spirituality with worldly insight.

Some comments I’ve put on Hirhurim (slightly edited):

Post where people were saying “eilu v’eilu” applies to modern-day jewish groups:

me: eilu v'eilu? that was about shammai and hillel. maybe it applies later but definetly not nowadays.

Some other commenter: Ah, nowadays there can only be ONE way! And coincidentally it is the way of the group that you think is right! What nonsense. Eilu v'eilu implies that there is only one correct derekh in aovdas hashem today? This is the shoresh of the problem in your machaneh.

me: only some haredim would say eilu v'eilu in a halachic dispute nowadays b/c they feel gedolim can't err and therefore if there's a machlokes, they're both right. they r taking a unique case and applying it even nowadays. the hazon ish said it may apply to certain cases among rishonim but even he agreed it doesn't apply nowadays.
that's for specific halchic disputes. as for completely different groups of orthodox judaism, what does eilu v'eilu mean anyways? Obviously, the Jews should really be one group. making different agudos (groups) is forbidden by the torah. perhaps u can say different people can have their own derech, but that's not eilu v'eilu (there's one law, just diff. people have diff. personalities, etc. and have their own way. but there's no machlokes). the best choice is just to say like we say about our religion: we're right, e/o else is wrong. (although from left to right, they may be right enough to get a share in olam haba)
(pirchei-politics)


I heard a similar story:A russian minister asked the netziv or s/o about aggaditic gemaras and he replied: If the decrees you want were signed by the czar to expel or kill the jews, a poet might say "a drop of ink drowned a million people". e/o would know what it meant but in a thousand years they wouldn't. the same with aggadata.
(R. Yisrael Salanter on Aggadata )


some commenter (paraphrased) explaining gil student’s motives : i have books to sell. i better keep on blogging about the slifkin ban even though e/o is sick of it b/c that way they'll buy the books.
Me: it doesn't really explain y all the blogs are discussing it or y people r reading it and it seems like unlikely motives. personally, i'm tired of people saying they're tired of slifkin ban discussions. it's not like making of a gadol, the ban is implying scientific facts r kefirah. the controversy around the rambam's books lasted many decades or centuries and this seems to be a continuation of it. (of course, they didn't ban the mishnah torah for saying chazal could err, only now when science has advanced so much do they realize its kefirah to believe.) (its coming)


about the ban:
the "majority of gedolim" also believe the universe is 15 billion years old. they just say 15 billion years happened in a week, which doesn't mean anything.
the slifkin books were banned because they said chazal could make a mistake in science, not because they said the universe is old.