[Avodah] Our Attitude towards Segulos

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:48pm EST, R David Riceman wrote:
:>                                     If competing Chazals present a 
:>historical description of events in different, non compatible ways, how do 
:>we then hold from Elu VeElu? 
...
: For an extreme position see Michtav Me"Eliyahu III pp. 353-354.

There REED discusses who has a greater place in OhB, tzadiqim or baalei
teshuvah? And onflicting statements about yemos hamoshiach. He answers
that there is only machloqes WRT halakhah, and these aggadic disputes
are more like two people looking at twwo different sides of the same
piece of paper. Their conflicting descriptions do not mean they are
describing different things.

This is much like the Maharal on machloqesin in halakhah. That the
Truth can't be captured in its entirety in olam hazeh, and therefore
each pesaq lemaaseh reflects a different aspect of the greater truth.
But without the second part about the lemaaseh which could end up being
truly different.

However, what would REED's thought say about history?

Perhaps he agrees with the rishonim who hold that chazal use narratives
as meshalim with no concern about the historicity of the story. In which
case, there isn't necessarily anyone insisting anything particular about
history. What conflict?

Alternative, if he doesn't have that "out"....

REED's take in a number of michtavim is that reality is more about what
you perceive in it than what's objectively "out there". Very Kantian.
Reality is the phenomonilogical universe, not the neumenal. Whether it's
his take on the Maharal on nissim, or the Ramban on the nature of time
during maaseh bereishis and time altogether. The notion that he would
say that experiened reality too could differ based on perspective is
not out of the question.

Speaking of which, this takes me to this thread...

On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:45pm EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' Akiva Miller:
:> (Disclosure: I'm actually uncertain about this. It is possible that HaShem
:> does indeed change things as time goes on. It is possible that a hundred
:> years ago, an electron truly was the smallest object, and that HaShem did
:> not introduce quarks until later. But that's a discussion for another
:> thread.)

: Isn't there some sort of assumption that everything that will be
: was created in Sheishes Yemei Bereishis? Otherwise why did those things
: mentioned in Avos (like Pi Ha'ason) need to be created then? Why couldn't
: they be created as necessary?

Following this mehalekh, it's possible that what's "really out there"
was created once, but since reality is more about how we see that
reality, new phenomena emerge as we change.

Kant thought that even space and time were phenomena. Why not quarks?

I am reminded of a thought by a different RAMiller. A totally different
idea, but similr enough for one to remind me of the other.

Hashem is the Rofei cholim. A doctor tries his best, verapo yerapei,
but really the job of the doctor is to hide the Yad Hashem, so that the
hashgachah peratis of the refu'ah doesn't require nissim geluyim. And
so, R Avigdor Miller suggested that Aristotilian medicine was no less
frequently effective -- at a time when it was state of the art in what
people knew about such things.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha at aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507