[Avodah] Rav Elchanan Wasserman & Why People Sin

[H Lampel via Avodah]

On 6/3/2015 9:57 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I think our point of contention is simple:
>
> You seem to be treating "modeh al ha-emes" as referring to a kind
> justification that isn't a proof.
I thought I was clear that I was taking it to be the same informal kind 
of proof as R. E. Wasserman's and R. Akiva's. The kind of proof not 
delineated in formal Aristotelian format, but clearly recognized and 
accepted by a healthy and unbiased mind.
>
> Whereas I see the Rambam as saying more like: this doesn't work as proof,
> but if you already agree to the emes, look how nicely it works out.
I did not see this in your previous remarks that characterized the 
''modeh-al-ha-emmess" as a formal proof/argument:

:> There is here an actually a reference to a formal proof. The Rambam
:> recaps a point made in 2:19-20.

> 2:20 marks the end of an Argument from Design, which is what I was
> referring to. ...This is a formal argument, unlike R' Aqiva's or REW's own appeal
> to the obviousness of a design and thus Designer.
And I don't see how one can possibly interpret (MN 3:13 [not 3:15 as I 
mistakenly typed previously])  ''And know that one of the strongest 
/proofs/ (min /ha-gedolah sheh-b'ra'ayos/) for Creation ex nihilo, for 
one who is /modeh al ha-ememmes/, is his understanding the /proof/ (/hu 
mah sheya'amod alav ha-mofase/)...'' as meaning:

> ''this doesn't work as proof, but if you already agree to the emes, 
> look how nicely it works out.''


Zvi Lampel