Just count how many of you are lined up at the time machine and subtract one.

That every existing thing seems to have a cause, together with the sheer complexity of the universe, reasonably points to an earlier cause which had no cause (and therefore cannot be properly defined or explained), and one that was cognizant of what it had created. This cause is called God.

It should be noted, however, that this argument alone does not prove Judaism or any other religion that I know of. It simply says there was a creator.

It doesn’t require superior knowledge; only a general familiarity with the debates of the cogs in the jews versus christians debating machines, and the ability to google.

apushatayid –

The OP is certainly asking a fair question. She has done her due diligence and called the number and she got no answer. She doesn’t know who this rabbi is, so it is quite responsible of her to ask the question on a public forum which can help produce facts. Anyone giving a hechsher should be real about how well-known they are in the community, and if they are not, and they expect to be accepted by responsible people, they should make their credentials accessible one way or another.

With respect to the editor, I would like to know if there is good ethical justification for revealing personal info post-mortem. If not, this thread should be deleted.

Logician –

Many if not most (if not all) of the issues that divide the kofer and the ma’amin are in the realm of logic. They may not have been proven or disproven with logic, but one can imagine that theoretically an argument might exist that can logically prove or disprove any of these issues. My point here has been about the justifiability of the claim that one not read a book or listen to an opinion that may or may not contain such a logical argument. Thus I believe my argument is relevant.

Therefore something which would contradict that – i.e. imply that He is something He cannot be – is a logical contradiction.

Please cite an actual example of this, where I cannot fall back on the simple but logically viable answer that God’s existence is unfathomable by its very definition.

Logician –

Not sure what you mean by a weak perception of self. That one plus one equals two is more real to me than something I see with my own eyes, simply because the fact is my eyes are fallible. Now, it is true that my whole perception of logic may be false, but within my perception, logic is of a higher level than anything else, and my perception is all I can go with, because it is all I perceive.

I understand that we are not capable of comprehending things such as God and the world coexisting but not being able to comprehend something does not indicate a contradiction. Moreover, we cannot fathom God’s existence so essentially it is not possible for this to be a logical problem.

Logician –

Not logic as in understanding what I believe.

I am not referring to understanding everything. I am talking about logic in the mathematical sense. So is the Rambam.

Torah thought is full of ideas we absolutely believe to be true, yet are utterly contradictory.

I was not aware that I believe things which are utterly contradictory.

“Absolute Truth”

…is not what I mean by truth. I am talking about subjective truth, albeit subjective only in reference to logic. Again, mathematical logic.

Aside: As for absolute truth not being a Jewish concept, that cannot be correct. Mainstream, traditional Judaism clearly maintains that God’s existence is absolute (Rambam Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 1:1-2). Therefore God’s existence is absolute truth. If someone who knew what he was talking about said something like that, it may have been in reference to absolute morality, which is an entirely different discussion.

I can quote Rambam too.

Logic trumps all.

Torah613Torah –

It’s a judgement call whether to accept or reject new theories.

But it’s generally intellectually dishonest not to even consider new theories.

your mind does not ultimately define what is true.

Your mind may not define what is true, but it is the only way you know anything.

DaasYochid – I’m not commenting on what’s pragmatic. I’m simply saying that there isn’t really a way to argue this to a person with questions. Not just a person with “teirutzim.”

Torah613Torah –

But Hashem created the world with bechira, so there is no way you can propose an argument so strong that no one can debate it, or else there wouldn’t be free choice.

That does not address whether your beliefs are true, it only says that if they are, there is a reason opposing arguments exist. Therefore you haven’t justified why the IHNRP should accept a rule saying he should ignore certain books.

Life is short and we have to grab the truth and focus on it.

That’s a good rule for practical purposes, but it isn’t a logical argument. You wouldn’t expect a mathematician to ignore theories that undermine his whole way of figuring things out simply because life is short and doing so could possibly prove his whole life wasted. If such a person is out there, he is a shame to his profession. You shouldn’t expect any less of any person seriously interested in investigating what is true.

What is the alternative? To only listen to certain arguments? Based on what? Your assumptions that the others are wrong? Where do those assumptions come from? A person you trust more than yourself? Why do you trust that person? Because your logic and reason tells you s/he is wiser than you? If it doesn’t, then why? If it does, then why would your logic and reason not also say that it is reasonable that someone out there might possibly have a good argument against a value held by the person you trust? It might be painful and it might drive one mad, but if someone is really, really interested in truth, why wouldn’t they listen to opposing arguments whatever the subject?

Letting everyone’s opinion be aired may not cause the truth to come out very quickly, but only allowing one stream of opinions to be aired is not exactly a better alternative. If one is interested in truth, that is.

DaasYochid – Ah, I see. You’re right.

I think popa is right. The Tosafos HaRosh appears to be saying that the pasuk is a raya for Chazal to approximate, because the pasuk does so too.

I don’t know what “Halachic pi” means.

Who said anything about eight years? The first three years of a child’s life costs a lot of money too. Anyone who lives responsibly knows whether they will be in the ballpark of affording that.

Are you financially independent? Because for some reason it seems that it’s usually the people who aren’t, who disagree.

I’m still waiting for the big talmidei chachamim here to answer why this is any different than any other mitzvas asei, which one is not obligated to perform if one really cannot afford it (See OC 636 for details).

The poskim don’t say you’re an apikoros if you forgo the mitzva of lulav and esrog because it will cause you to not be able to make rent next month. In fact, they say it’s the right thing to do.

This is relevant:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-sam2-yitayningwut-jothar-and-the-other-yoreh-deah-people

talmud – Dunno. One thing is clear though, which is interesting, that the Midrash assumes the reader is already familiar with these characters.

The Midrash interestingly cites the myth of Romulus and Remus in a couple of places, for example in Bereishis 48:9.

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/perekT.asp?sefer=1&perek=18

I don’t get paid for Sundays I am asked to come in for

Why???

Reminds me of a story they say about R’ Shach. Supposedly they once served him ice cream at a dinner and after taking a spoonful, he whispered to the fellow next to him, “it’s very cold, no?”

yekke2 –

Isn’t one of the fundemental differences between ??? and ???? that ??? is a ????? and ???? is a ??? (many ??????? speak about it; I know at least the ???? ???? uses this to explain why ???? ????? ???? ????)?

It is true that rov is a birur and chazakah is not. But at the end of the day, rov and chazakah both work the same way. I’ll explain.

If you are holding three pieces of meat, two kosher and one non-kosher, and I pick one, it is probable that I picked the kosher one. That is very logical. This is what we mean by rov being a birur.

If yesterday my animal didn’t have a hole in its lung, it may have one today. Assuming things stay the way they are is not really a logical premise as much as it is a practical way to live. Meaning, it makes sense for us to establish a rule called “the assumption of status quo” because otherwise we’d be going crazy wondering which way to turn, but when it boils down to logic, the status quo is not actually any more likely than anything else. This is what we mean by chazakah not being a birur.

Even though rov tells us what is probable, there is still the chance that the less probable outcome occurred. In the above case the chance is 33%, which is quite significant. Who says that we have the right to disregard the other possibilities? Or as one might say in Aramaic, ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? The fact that it’s a birur doesn’t answer the question; birur just explains what rov is, it doesn’t say why we follow the rov.

The question is equally strong if not stronger when it comes to chazakah; ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???????

The answer, without getting into details, is that the Torah tells us to follow the rov and to follow the chazakah. The Torah says that when there’s a majority to one side, don’t worry about the minority. It’s not your concern. Similarly, when there’s a chazakah, don’t worry about other possibilities. You can assume things didn’t change, because the Torah put its stamp of approval on chazakah.

In other words, at the end of the day the reason we follow both rov and chazakah is because of the din, not because of the birur. If it were the birur factor alone it wouldn’t suffice, because who says we don’t have to consider the minority?

When rov is pitted against chazakah we can still judge which is more likely and come up with a winner: rov, but the bottom line is the mechanism we use when we follow both rov and chazakah is not a likelihood or a probability; it’s a din.

If there is a ??? of ???? ??? ??? by ???????, then why do you need 1/60, 1/100 and all the different ????? of ?????, as long as there is a majority you can say “I am taking from the ???”?

Good question. You know who asks this? The rishonim! The Ra’avad, the Rashba! Seriously, you seem like a ba’al kishron (that’s an honest compliment), but you’re learning backwards. It’s not your fault, the whole system is messed up. You don’t learn sfeikos by learning R’ Shimon, you learn it by learning the Gemara with the rishonim. After all that’s how R’ Shimon himself did it too…

Anyway. The Ra’avad answers that ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??????, ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????, ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???’, ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??, ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??, ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ??. He is quoted by the Rashba in Chulin 99b ?”? ???.

The idea is that something which is nikar is obviously not batel b’rov. The fact that you can still taste it makes it considered nikar (to some mid’rabbanan and to some mid’oraisa). The same concept applies when the thing mixed in has a certain level of chashivus. This is where the halachos of 1/60 et al come from.

I don’t know whether bichlal it is shyich bittul here because there is no “issur” and “heter”, this is like ???? ????? which is a ?????? between the ????? ????? ??? ?”? and the ?? (I’m not sure exactly where, I think it is in ??”?).

The Ran you are looking for is in Nedarim 52a. If you’ll notice the oilam has discussed it here:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/fish-and-meat/page/2#post-334691

Here you are making a good point. This should l’chorah qualify as heter b’heter in the Ran’s book. I hear. Efsher.

If you are saying that there is no ??? of ???? by ????? ????

I am not saying that; I am saying that bitul always comes into effect only because it has already passed the kavua test; i.e. there is nothing nikar about the minority that distinguishes it from the majority. That is the kavua test, and since the matzos pass that test, there will be bitul, and you won’t have to worry about kavua.

ICOT –

The fact that you are willing to consider baking shelo lishmah b’shogeg not a ma’aseh rish’us shows that what you do consider the ma’aseh rish’us is baking shelo lishmah b’mezid (presumably with the intent to sell under false pretenses). My response to that is that since the action of baking shelo lishmah bemeizid does not inevitably lead to selling anything under false pretenses, it does not appear to me to be inherently an act of rish’us, since he can always decide not to do so.

Your response about palginan is a fair point. It would be worthwhile to be me’ayen in Tosafos in Kesubos 18a ?”? ???? to gain clarity about this.

Lol I suppose you’re right.

sam4321 – I would think so. The fact is it’s a safek to us and we have no easy way of finding out.