- This topic has 63 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Without getting involved in all the various sevaros and lomdus of chazaka, it does seem to be based on the premise that things don’t change without a cause, and on that comes the chidush of chazaka that we don’t assume a cause happened until we know for sure.
Is that principle not antithetical to all what Judaism stands for: that there is nothing to be taken for granted, and teva is as much a neis as a neis nigleh, and, so too that there;s nothing to keep things the same any more than they should be changed?lol,wut
Can u give an example so we clueless ones have some idea of what you are trying to say
Toi
+ 1“and teva is as much a neis as a neis nigleh, ”
where on earlth did you get the idea that this is “all what Judaism stands for”If I measure a mikva and it contains 40 saah.
Is it “antithical to Judaism ” to beleive that 30 seconds, 10 minutes or 10 hours later without anyone removing water there are still 40 saah!?and lo and behold if there is 40 saah is that a neis nigleh no less than if there was no water ?
Reminds me of the joke of the moifes performed by a Rebbe who was upset tha that a bus drove by him while he was waiting “The bus should crash killing erveryone on board” The rebbe prounounced.
His chassidim turned to him “but Rebbe, there might be yidden on the bus”
The Rebbe said ” oy youre right! the bus Should NOT crash”
And haflo vaphela the bus didnt crash!you do realize that is a joke right?
I can’t help but point out that the square root of 2 is irrational.
The Torah itself instructs us to rely on Chazaka.
The fact that Hashem constantly recreates all that exists in no way conflicts with the fact that in His wisdom, He created the world to function in a systematic way.
Ubiquitin, I’ve never heard that “joke” before. I find it to be profoundly disturbing on many levels.
The question is a creative view, yet I believe in that in and of itself is the answer; that nothing is to be taken for granted is more applicable to say that a new occurrence will not happen. One may ask if we understand that the world is continuously being sustained, is that not a new occurrence itself? Yes, that is valid, however when we have a prior which shall through a new occurrence happen in accordance to the prior it is only a singularity in the new occurrence; as opposed to a change from the prior status, which is also a new occurrence in the change, for a plurality of change. Now, if one asks in change is there a distinction between the amount of change, that is the original concept, that within a context one should not assume a change. Or one could merely address the issue more simply, that there are two prisms, the world Hashem runs for us to live in with a set code of laws of nature and how we are to interact with that world; and that in and of itself, it is Hashem constantly renewing that world. If one asks how can such a duality exist; that is by definition Hashem’s will in the creation for there to be a concept of occurrence for us to live and accomplish the purpose of creation. Please pardon the (overbearing) philosophical overtone (and semicolons and or run on sentences), yet the question mandates such a response.
Is that principle not antithetical to all what Judaism stands for: that there is nothing to be taken for granted, and teva is as much a neis as a neis nigleh, and, so too that there;s nothing to keep things the same any more than they should be changed?
No, it’s a halachic principle. It doesn’t address the likelihood of something changing, only the assumptions we do or do not make.
I can’t help but point out that the square root of 2 is irrational.
I can’t help but point out that that’s not such a nice thing to say.
Ubiquitin, I’ve never heard that “joke” before. I find it to be profoundly disturbing on many levels.
Why? I don’t.
CY
“Ubiquitin, I’ve never heard that “joke” before. I find it to be profoundly disturbing on many levels.”nu nu, its an old joke. Sorry if I made it more violent than it had to be. I ddint mean to distrurb you let alone “profoundly disturb”
We have Chanukah and Purim. Chanukah is a neis nigleh but Purim is a neis nistar.
Tosfas in Sukkah 8:1 proofs that 1 2/5 is an approximation of the square root of 2. If you take a square of 5, its diagonal is 7 but the area of that diagonal square is 49 but it should be 50 which is half of the outer square of 10 by 10.
If someone understands calculus the slope of a curve (derivative) is based on the fact that in an infinitesimal interval the vertical and horizontal distances don’t change. Also, finding the velocity for a particular time is based on an average velocity for an infinitesimal time, figuring it will not change in that small time. The whole mathematical theory is based on chazaka meiikara.
There is another joke where a Jew did not have any wine and matzah for Pesach. He went to a Rebbe who assured him that he will have. When it was Pesach was a week away, he still did not have. So he decided to sell some pillows an covers and bought them for the money. He meets the Rebbe on Pesach who asked him did you have your matzah and wine? Yes, he answers. Says the Rebbe, I told you, you will have.
ubiquitin- I was really just ridiculing the tzu shtell. Cuz it’s really dumb.
why would we be instructed (by the torah, as catch yourself so brilliantly pointed out;” a halachic principle”, to quote the pearls of DY) to, in essence, ignore that very concept that the world is actually being created every moment, and act as if it’s autonomous?
When you sent that reply, you clicked the submit button, not the log out button, correct? If so, why? Isn’t there an equal chance of getting the result you want no matter what you do?
Who cares why I thought you did? I’m not the one asking the question.
The question isn’t why I thought you did, but why you in fact did.
Are you specifically asking a question about chazakah meikara, or are you actually asking why Hashem created the world as He did?
See this thread: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/six-days-of-creation-refreshing
Then please answer why you hit submit.
I ask because, to paraphrase, by doing that, you in essence ignore the very concept that the world is actually being created every moment, and act as if it’s autonomous.
(You don’t really, I just mean according to your question.)
Perhaps the easiest way to address this is merely to cite the nefesh hachaim which explains the constant renewal of existence is a continuous plane, the previous second does not in the slightest hint towards a continuance, yet Hashem acts like a table holding an object which sustains the object further. If the table ceases for a moment to hold the object it shall fall, yet the object is the same as long as it is held. Yes, due to the object not holding itself, nothing must stay the same; however it remains as is until the change occurs. To understand any purpose within the limits of causality that we are confined by, we need the context of the temporal continuum of past, present, and future; for without, what is created by Hashem in creating us to constantly cease existing to the new existence? With this understanding that the renewal of existence is in continuum with the past, not that it is obligatory; rather it is for there to be meaning to existence, the norm (however exceptions can occur) has to come with context which allow us to choose with free will (and with the understanding we work with of the purpose of creation which is contingent of doing something which necessitates a past). Hence in the new existence this second there is a relation to the previous second, so the new existence even if new by definition is different; to say it is different from the past also, is the plurality of change mentioned above. When existence is new, while remaining within the context of the past which there for purpose has to be a concept of, this is a single change. Only something not contingent upon the past, yet in the context of the past. If there were to be a change from the context too in the renewal of existence, that would be a plurality of change. Chazaka d’meikara states that when we have a context, we remain within the context until the context is removed. Constant newness is with the old when there is a new cause. This is applicable within daily living that even the same routine for decades can remain new when the cause of yesterday is applied anew today. I know I have been redundant, yet I hope it helps clarify the gray. If I have been vague, or failed to hit the crux of the question, please elucidate in length what doesn’t properly correlate; in other words a definitive equation asking to be solved. Half the Beauty and all of the wastefulness of philosophy is that unless every term if perfectly defined nothing was said, so for my sake please define all terms that you have in the difficulty, and that I failed to define in my response. I hope I am the only one getting a headache from the cumbersome wording here.
√2, I apologize if you were offended. I assumed that you chose that screen name precisely because it is an irrational number. I was just saying that I disagree with the question. Whatever the value of √2 is (and it is obviously in the neighborhood of 1.414), it is an irrational number (like pi, there is no pattern to its decimal sequence).
The joke portrays a rabbinic leader as having infantile selfishness and vindictiveness. It also implies ever so strongly that non-Jewish life has no value. I was taught that such “jokes” are anathema to the Torah, even when said clearly in jest.
With all due respect to Avrah, I and others also answered the question, albeit not in so verbose a manner. If you prefer, here is a somewhat more elaborated expression of my response:
Suppose there were a Pasuk which said, “Hashem said to Moshe, saying: Even as I create all that exists, ex nihilo, at every moment, I generally conduct the world in such a way as to give the impression that there is a continuous existence. I choose to have the world function in a systematic, predictable way, except for such times as when I will conduct extraordinary miracles. You are therefore to conduct yourselves as though the existence of Creation were continuous, despite your realization that it is not.'”
Would you then still have a question?
But there is such a Pasuk – it is the one where the Torah instructs us to follow Chazaka.
But there is such a Pasuk – it is the one where the Torah instructs us to follow Chazaka.
As well as every other pasuk which deals with how we interact with the world Hashem put us in.
Yes, DY, I suppose that’s true.
Although perhaps the Limud to follow Chazaka is slightly more explicit.Various theories have been advanced as to why Hashem would choose to conduct the world in such a manner.
For one, otherwise there would be virtually no such thing as moral freedom (what we call Koach Habechira) – we would be coerced to follow Ratzon Hashem by the clarity of our perception that He is the One Who runs the world (along the lines of what Rav Moshe Feinstein said about the Koach Habechira of Malachim – ע’ דרש משה פרשת בראשית).
Additionally, a world which operates on a logical system of action-reaction (cause and effect) helps us to understand and internalize the concept of Midah K’neged Midah, so that we can use our experiences as guides in our Avodas Hashem.
What’s more, as the Pasuk says, מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ, the king establishes his government on the basis of justice (in somewhat more modern parlance, Law and Order). The fact that the world operates in a perfectly consistent way that is regulated by Laws which can not be violated is an expression of Hashem’s Majesty.
There is plenty more out there, but these are the three which resonate most strongly for me.
There’s no explicit pasuk to follow chazakah; it’s a limud. And again, it’s a limud that we make a halachic assumption. That could have been true even if we didn’t live our lives based on the perception of cause and effect.
What is with all these strange definitions of what is “antithecial” or “anathema” to Judaism?
even if you dont like somehting that doesnt mean the torha considers it Anathema.
“The joke portrays a rabbinic leader as having infantile selfishness and vindictiveness. It also implies ever so strongly that non-Jewish life has no value. I was taught that such “jokes” are anathema to the Torah, even when said clearly in jest.”
Which Rabbinic leader? there isnt one it isnt real it never happened. it is a joke about simple chasidim not the unnamed non-existent Rebbe. If you said it makes fun of simplicity of some chasidim, fine
Square root
“avrah (the only one who answered the question):”I too answered. Though it was in the form of a question, that you didnt answer. IT was the same a DY’s point regarding hitting submit which you didnt answer either
“he gemara (gittin and other places) discusses chezkas chai–we can assume that he who was alive yesterday is alive today. Is that not antithetical to our core beliefs? ”
No – as you showed from the Gemara
Why do you think that is antithetical?
The Rambam lists 13 core beliefs? which one is that antithetical to?The Nefesh Hachaim I believe is shar gimel perek aleph, and there is no contradiction to the concept of a constant chiddush ha’olam, rather as I elucidated above the chidush ha’olam is made in a way which practically in our existence is only perceived as sustaining what was, this is not to say that it is a perpetuation, there is only a reality put into the context the was. It is brand new, not dependent on what was, just made anew like what was in the general existence. Take a look at the Maharal in hakdama to gevros hashem, I believe it may be hakdama shlishi where he discusses the methods Hashems perpetuates existence with. Further clarification is probably better to be done with a Rabbi well versed in haskafa, for it appears a lot of the dialect is lost in the medium of the coffee room and the contest to answer the question, and leave the questioner unsatisfied.
The Rambam lists 13 core beliefs? which one is that antithetical to?
The first one?
“The first one?”
you must have a different version.
Mine doesnt say that beleiving a person who was alive yesterday isstill alive is “antithical to Judaism”
He might be alive due to Hashem who is the “oseh” reffere to. But that doesnt mean theres a fifty/fifty chance he is dead.Does yours say something else?As you see from the Gemara
“To reiterate, I’m 100% aware that this is a Torah-ordained doctrine. The question is WHY it is so.”
Of course, we can not truly know the mind of Hashem. Nevertheless, we are free to theorize about the reasons for such things.
In my last post, I mentioned three of the theories advanced in ספרים.
why it is that we’re to look at the world with an attitude of “everything here is by default going to stay unless there’s a definite change.”
Who says we’re to look at it that way? We’re supposed to act that way while knowing that Hashem could just as easily recreate things differently from moment to moment.
עולם כמנהגו נוהג Hashem created the world that things only change when they need to change. We have inertia and we are not allowed to be matriach מטריח Hashem needlessly.
שבת קי”ח ע”ב
הקורא הלל בכל יום הרי זה מחרף ומגדףA doctor must get a diploma to proof himself. Once he received it, we accept him at face value. Hashem proved Himself with miracles. We accept Him at face value without the need to prove Himself anymore.
“הקורא הלל בכל יום וכו the reason is that he only recognizes the great miracles and doesn’t realize that כל הנשמה תהלל י-ה, as the Midrash says, על כל נשימה ונשימה תהלל י-ה, we are suppose to praise Hashem for every breath take.
square root of 2,
“why would we be instructed (by the torah, as catch yourself so brilliantly pointed out;” a halachic principle”, to quote the pearls of DY) to, in essence, ignore that very concept that the world is actually being created every moment, and act as if it’s autonomous?”
Doesn’t the very fact that the Torah has to instruct us to make this assumption a priori rather than leaving it as an unspoken empirical assumption speak to the fact that Hashem is constantly sustaining the world?
We are only entitled to the benefits of the world because of the mitzvos we do. These changes constantly, therefore, Hashem has to constantly renew the world as it says המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית.
“הקורא הלל בכל יום וכו the reason is that he only recognizes the great miracles and doesn’t realize that כל הנשמה תהלל י-ה, as the Midrash says, על כל נשימה ונשימה תהלל י-ה, we are suppose to praise Hashem for every breath take.
That’s not the reason and who told you that he only recognizes the great miracles? The one who only recites it by the actual ‘great miracles’ really means it always whole the one reciting it every day only recognizes the great ones!? That’s upside down.
The Maharal actually explains it’s because he considers everything a miracle and doesn’t recognize the order that Hashem created.
HaLeivi, this interpretation if from the Ksav Sofer. I think the logic is, if you mention the open miracles on the appropriate day through The Great Halel, you are not excluding the daily miracles but emphasizing the historical miracles, happening that day but if you say The Great Halel every day than you are praising Hashem for the mentioned miracles for no reason but not for any other miracles.
So if said alongside regular Psukei D’Zimra it would be fine then?
This idea, that the creation is re-created at every instant is not found in Chazal or Rishonim. It first shows up in the above referenced Nefesh Hachayim. It is sort-of self understood within the framework of Kabbalah or Rambam ideology. If existence itself is lent from Hashem then it is a constant act of perpetuation of existence. This is applied to the Pasuk, בדבר ה’ שמים נעשו, that the substance the world is made from is D’var Hashem.
This is a fine idea, but not essential to Judaism or the Torah. It is also, seemingly, an idea that was taken a bit too far. In fact, denying the function of Sheshes Yamim might truly be undermining the Torah. As we know, keeping Shabbos is like keeping the whole Torah.
So, while pondering the lofty concept of how the whole existence hangs on, and is made up of, D’var Hashem, let’s not lose sight of the basic idea of ‘creation’. Rules of nature were crafted and the world was formed back in Sheshes Yemei Bereishis. Existence was lent and is continuously breathed from then on.
The question about Psukei D’zimra applies to the Maharsha’s explanation also.
But not the Maharal’s.
Where is the Maharal?
HaLeivi, Did you see my post 1505216?
Could be if you say it in the regular Psukei Dezimro the publicizing is not so obvious.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.