[Avodah] Malachim & mistakes

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 03:28:42PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> "Istakel be'oraisa uvera alma".  Therefore everything in the world must
> be in the Torah.

Doesn't it only require that everything in the world was made to conform
to the Torah? What if there are multiple ways to provide a world in which
the Torah's ideals can be implemented? Wouldn't that require "symmetry
breaking" (a term I'm only loosely borrowing from quantum cosmogony)
where HQBH chose version A over B for reasons not in His Torah?

I'm reminded of the Rambam's explanation in MN 3:26:
    Those who believe that these detailed rules originate in a certain
    cause, are as far from the truth as those who assume that the whole
    law is useless. You must know that Divine Wisdom demanded it -- or,
    if you prefer, say that circumstances made it necessary -- that
    there should be parts [of His work] which have no certain object:
    and as regards the Law, it appears to be impossible that it should
    not include some matter of this kind. That it cannot be avoided
    may be seen from the following instance. You ask why must a lamb be
    sacrificed and not a ram? but the same question would be asked, why
    a ram had been commanded instead of a lamb, so long as one particular
    kind is required. The same is to be said as to the question why were
    seven lambs sacrificed and not eight; the same question might have
    been asked if there were eight, ten, or twenty lambs, so long as some
    definite number of lambs were sacrificed. It is almost similar to the
    nature of a thing which can receive different forms, but actually
    receives one of them. We must not ask why it has this form and not
    another which is likewise possible, because we should have to ask
    the same question if instead of its actual form the thing had any of
    the other possible forms. Note this, and understand it. The repeated
    assertion of our Sages that there are reasons for all commandments,
    and the tradition that Solomon knew them, refer to the general
    purpose of the commandments, and not to the object of every detail.

"You ask why must a lamb be sacrificed and not a ram? but the same
question would be asked, why a ram had been commanded instead of a
lamb..." And similarly one might ask why there are 4 fundamental forces
(assuming current theory is correct) rather than 3 or 5 -- "there [are]
be parts [of His work] which have no certain object".

I'm not saying I personally am at home with the Rambam's shitah. Just
raising it and the parallel for discussion.



Another problem is just defining the word Torah -- do we mean the Infinite
Daas of the Borei, the full potential of what Hashem gave us, that which
people are capable of extracting from what He gave us, or something else?
(I assume we'll all agree we don't mean the words in a seifer Torah
without even any TSBP, since neither the Pythagorian Thm nor the Law
of Coservation of Matter-Energy are in TSBK. But that too is a valid
translation of the word "Torah".)

The further down we descend the scale between Divine Thought and that
which people can understand of what He revealed of His Thought, the
harder it is to take "everything is in the Torah" literally. Which I think
is the thrust of what RDE remembers RSF answering him, as per R
Daniel Eidensohn's post of 7:56pm EDT yesterday:
> I once asked this question to Rabbi Freifeld - he responded, "Everything
> is in the Torah but there is no one today who can find everything in it."

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 03:18:00PM +0200, R Doron Beckerman wrote:
: Funny you should bring that example up, and right before Succos.  The
: concept  can be derived from Tosafos Succah 8a s.v. kol amsa.

(1st, I think RDB needs to sleep more. Posting at 3:18am???? But back
on subject...)

I agree with those who suggested that Tosafos don't provide an example,
as they knew Greek math. Who says they found it in the Torah? There is
also a second problem with using the gemara they're analyzing ("kol
amsa bribua', amsa uterei chumshei be'alakhsonah")... Knowing the
specific right triangle with sides proportional to 1, 1, appx 1-2/5,
is different than knowing the general formula for all right triangles
that Pythagoras gave. But shas too post-dates Pythagoras by centuries.



While we're open to that amud, I'm more impressed with the proto-calculus
in the previous Tosafos, in their proof that the area of a circle is
pi * r ^ 2. (See also my hesped for R Dr Eliezer/Leon Ehrenpreis, where
I open describing my first-impression of REE -- his using this Tosafos
to open the teaching of calculus. I give the proof in English.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/08/r-dr-eliezer-ehrenpreis-zl.shtml>)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha at aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore