Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Why Gemara Cases Seem So Crazy

Yesterday's post was terribly selfish and narcissistic; I think physics is really cool, so I will use any opportunity to write about it.  It's not that I am unaware that not everyone finds physics and fascinating as I do; it's more than I am insensitive to that feeling.  (Ok... so add "insensitive" to the list also.)  There are two basic ways to deal with a yeitzer rah; either conquer it or immerse oneself in it till your tired of it.  Guess which one I usually endorse for myself.

Imagine you are at a Royal Society natural philosophy conference in the late 1600s.  Isaac Newton gets up to address the crowd.
Newton: I am here to announce my theory of natural philosophy which will revolutionize the way we view the world and completely overturns the Aristotelian paradigm heretofore held.  My first principle is that a body at rest tends to stay at rest, while a body in motion tends to stay in motion -- in complete contradiction to Aristotle who holds that a body in motion tends to come to rest.
General murmuring...
One of Crowd: See here, Professor Newton! I have never observed a body to continue in its motion unabated!
Newton: Quite right, sir. That is because of a phenomenon that I call "friction". However, without friction, rest assured that the body in question would never waver from its course; not in speed, not in direction.
One of Crowd: I see. Can you, then, demonstrate for us a body that is not acted upon by this friction of your?
Newton: Well... ... no, not really. All physical systems are subject to frictional forces.
All of Crowd: Then, good "sir", please be kind enough to stop wasting our time.
That is not what happened, of course, though an explanation of why not is beyond the scope of the present work.  (I LOVE that expression!)  Wait a minute!  The whole reason for the present "work" is to explain that.

The most efficient way to understand a complex logical system is to break it down into its fundamental building blocks.  The more fundamental, the more distant each unit of understanding will be distant from any realizable situation.  That is because to make things work at all, they need a lot of supporting cast.  If you want to study lungs in a living organism, you are going to need a circulatory system, a digestive system, a nervous system, etc.

So whereas Aristotelian physics was very understandable on the surface, it blocked science and technology for nearly two millennia.  Newton, on the other hand, opened up the modern age and to an ever increasing understanding of our physical world.

Chazal, l'havdil, opened up the modern age and the door to much, much more than just the physical world.  Chazal opened up the door to an understanding of reality itself... and invited you in.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: Yetzer HaRa -- Spiritual Force of Tuma vs Physical Ta'avos

In any project planning, there are two basic approaches: top down and bottom up.  Top down starts with describing what you want done at the highest level that seems reasonable.  You then break that down into a list of things that are smaller in scope (they only accomplish part of the job) and are therefore easier to actually accomplish.  That process can is then repeated with each sub-project.  Each iteration produces a new set of smaller projects.  For any of the projects, the level above provides the "why" for the project of interest, and the projects below provide the "how" for the current project.  Bottom up starts, as it's name suggests, from the lowest level -- here is stuff I know I can do, and proceeds by asking "what can I do by putting this stuff together?" For example, I have a project to slake my thirst.  Top down would start by a requirement to get a cool drink into a container from which I can drink.  That breaks down into: (1) fin...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...