[Avodah] dinosaurs

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:52:58AM -0500, T613K at aol.com wrote:
: TK:  What do you mean by "following" him?  If you do not share  his beliefs 
: then you are /not/ following him.  I guess you can still follow  his psak 
: in matters of kashrus and Shabbos, but if you fundamentally disagree  with 
: his hashkafos then in what sense could you ever be said to be "following"  
: that rav?  I don't even understand your question.

Well, only if you think there is a difference in methodology in reaching
one conclusion and not the other. More in a moment...

...
: I think it implies tremendous self-confidence!  "I know you  think I'm 
: an apikores, I think you're wrong about dinosaurs and wrong about me,  but 
: I respect you anyway."  That sounds like a very unflappable man to  me!  A 
: can accept with total equanimity the fact that B considers him an  apikores, 
: and it doesn't faze him a bit.  

And yet, as you continue...

:> So I think this poses a real question for adherents of shitah A.  Can their
:> eilu va'eilu include shitah B and its exclusion of their own  opinion? Do
:> we say palginan divura -- it's only on the points about which  it's
:> kefirah that A-nikim reject B? 

: I truly believe you are not thinking logically here at all. Let's 
: say I, an adherent of Shitah A, believe in dinosaurs -- not only that they 
: lived, but that they lived millions of years ago. Let's say Ploni, an 
: adherent of Shitah B, believes that I am an apikores. Let's say I also believe
: in EvE. Does that mean that I must now simultaneously believe that there 
: WERE dinosaurs and at the same time must believe that there WERE NO 
: dinosaurs?! ...

That exaxctly what I'mn saying! The resulting paradox means that when B
says that A's position is outside eilu va'eilu, A is compelled to say
that it's B's position that is outside. Because to accept that both are
true would be "not thinking logically here at all."

Agreeing that B is true, albeit not halakhah, would be agreeing that A
is false (beyond just not being kehalakhah).

So, now a A-nik has to conclude that a major poseiq who holds B made a
huge blunder. Doesn't that mean the A-nik must believe that there is a
flaw somewhere in B's methodology of pesaq? How can the A-nik still trust
other conclusions produced by that poseiq using the same shiqul hadaas?

: EvE only means that I, an adherent of Shitah A, accept that those who  
: believe in Shitah B, yesh lahem al mi lismoch and they are still ehrlicher  
: Yidden. I do not have to accept that their shitah is CORRECT! ..

THat is one possible shitah, but not a literal read of EvE. EvE says that
both are divrei E-lokim Chaim. Both are true. It's a pragmatic question
that only one can be din. This is the position of Rashi, the Ramban,
the Riva, the Ran, the Rama, the Maharshal, the Maharal, R' Tzadoq and
the AhS.

See http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-ii.shtml
and http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-i.shtml

RMF in Igros Moshe says otherwise in the haqdamah, that "divrei E-lokim
Chaim" refers to an honest quest for truth, not accuracy. However within
one of the teshuvos, he writes about true plurality as well.

This is onloy an issue here because the substance of one position is
that the other isn't true.

BTW, RRW pointed out to me off-list another example -- saying Machnisei
Rachamim. It's not just a machloqes issur veheter because the oserim are
talking about kefirah -- calling the other shitah outside the spectrum.

Claims of kefirah go beyond EvE because it denies the other shitah even
as a rejected "eilu".

: Your problem, it seems to me, is not really an intellectual problem, even  
: though it is couched in intellectual terms.  I sense, rather, an emotional  
: problem -- an inability to accept, emotionally, the lack of symmetry between 
: two  shitos, one of which says, "You're wrong, but you have the right to 
: think what  you think" while the other says, "You're wrong, and you're an 
: apikores."  

The problem is logical. The first position is saying "You are correct in
saying I'm wrong". 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv