by Rabbi Eli Mansour
“The nation settled in Kadesh; Miriam died there and was buried there. The nation had no water…” [Chukat 20:1-2]
Why did Beneh Yisrael suddenly run out of water when Miriam died?
Rashi explains that as Beneh Yisrael traveled through the desert, a miraculous, mobile well accompanied them to ensure that they would have a constant, adequate water supply. This well was provided in the merit of Miriam, an exceptionally righteous woman and prophetess, and once she died, the well was taken away, leaving the people without water.
The question, however, remains, why didn’t the well remain even after Miriam’s death? Was her great merit insufficient to continue providing the nation with water even after she passed on?
The Keli Yakar [Rav Shelomo Efrayim Luntschitz of Prague, 1550-1619] offers a remarkable explanation. He notes that when the Torah reports the death of Miriam, it simply states that she died and was buried. No mention is made of eulogies or mourning, in contrast to the Torah’s accounts of the deaths of Aharon and Moshe, where it is explicitly mentioned that the nation wept for the loss of their leader. It seems, the Keli Yakar observes, that the people were not moved by Miriam’s death, and did not properly eulogize or mourn for her. They failed to appreciate the fact that their constant water supply was directly and solely due to her. God therefore took away the well so that the people would appreciate what an exceptionally righteous person they lost. As they did not properly appreciate the miracle of the well and Miriam’s greatness which provided it, it had to be taken away.
The Keli Yakar’s insight teaches us the importance of appreciating everything we have while we have it. If we take everything we have for granted, then God is compelled to take it away, Heaven forbid, so we can appreciate just how valuable it is.
Unfortunately, we take so many things for granted in our lives. People do not generally appreciate their vision until, God forbid, they or someone they know suffers vision loss. We do not appreciate our health until, God forbid, we or someone we know takes ill. We do not appreciate our children until we meet a childless couple.
Each morning, we are required to recite a series of Berachot thanking Hashem for things that may appear simple and trivial. First and foremost, we recite “Elokai Neshama” to thank God for restoring our soul, for enabling us to wake up in the morning. We recite the Beracha of “Poke’ah Ivrim” to thank Him for our eyesight, “Malbish Arumim” to thank Him for our clothing, “Zokef Kefufim” to thank Him for allowing us to stand up straight, and “She’asa Li Kol Sorki” to thank Him for our shoes. We receive all these gifts, and so many more, each and every day, and our Sages who composed the liturgy wanted to ensure that we thank God for each one of them.
These blessings, like most of our blessings, are not fully appreciated until they are taken away from us. I once saw somebody I know running out of a burning building in a bathrobe; he was at the gym when a fire erupted, and he had no time to put on his clothes. This is when I appreciated the Beracha of “Malbish Arumim.” When we hear of somebody who wrenched his back during the night, we appreciate the Beracha of “Zokef Kefufim.” The Beracha of “She’asa Li Kol Sorki” came into focus for me after a bizarre experience I had once when I traveled to Mexico City to deliver a lecture in a large synagogue there. The hotel in which I stayed offered a free shoeshine service, whereby guests leave their shoes outside their room at night and then have it returned shined early the next morning. So, I left my shoes outside the room, and when I opened my door the next morning to go to the synagogue for Shaharit and my lecture…they were not there. I went down to the lobby to meet the people who had come to take me to the synagogue, and they saw me there without any shoes. This is when I appreciated the Beracha of “She’asa Li Kol Sorki,” that even the shoes on our feet should never be taken for granted.
Rav Avigdor Miller [1908-2001] would occasionally put his head in a sink full of water for several moments, until he needed to come out of the water for air. He explained that he wanted to feel grateful for the air we breathe at every moment of our lives. In order to truly feel appreciative, he deprived himself of air for several moments, during which time he was able to appreciate how precious the air is.
Part of the reason why it’s so difficult for us to appreciate our blessings in life is because we’re so busy complaining about our “problems.” These “problems” are things like traffic jams, a flat tire, a head cold, a misbehaving child, or a broken piece of furniture. When our emotional energy is expended on worrying about these “problems,” we are not able to feel happy and grateful for our blessings – that we have a spouse, children, a roof over our heads, a source of livelihood, friends, clothing to wear, and so on.
One Rabbi recommended that we each compile a list of ten blessings in our life and keep this piece of paper with us when we pray the daily Amida. When we reach the Modim section, in which we thank God “for Your wonders and favors that are given at all times,” we should look at the list so we can be grateful for the particular blessings in our lives. This will help us experience true gratitude, and appreciate what we have while we have it, so that the Almighty will continue showering us with these blessings and not, Heaven forbid, take them away from us.





.jpg)

There is no "summer" or "winter" for the sun. The temperature of the sun does not change based on what the season on Earth is.
Secondly, the transit of Venus across the sun occurred in spring, not summer. Summer starts on June 21.
Thirdly, even if it were summer, it's not summer all over the Earth. When it's summer in the US and Israel, it's winter in the Southern Hemisphere. If the issue at hand is a danger of the sun scorching the earth, it would be just as valid to say that Venus should transit the sun in winter, since we don't want the Southern Hemisphere to burn up either.
Furthermore, looking at the last few transits of Venus, none of them have occurred at a time when it was summer *anywhere* on Earth.
Nov 23 1396 (autumn in Northern Hemisphere/spring in Southern)
May 25-26 1518 (spring/autumn)
May 23 1526 (spring/autumn)
Dec 7 1631 (autumn/spring)
Dec 4 1639 (autumn/spring)
Jun 6 1761 (spring/autumn)
Jun 3-4 1769 (spring/autumn)
Dec 9 1874 (autumn/spring)
Dec 6 1882 (autumn/spring)
Jun 8 2004 (spring/autumn)
Jun 5-6 2012 (spring/autumn)
Furthermore, the transits upcoming in 2117, 2125, 2247, 2255, 2360, 2368, 2490 and 2498 all occur in the spring and autumn. NONE of them will occur when it is summer anywhere on Earth.
The claim that Galileo's telescope observation of the phases of Venus disproved the geocentric model has long ago been disproved.
Cite, please? Please explain who disproved it and when (long ago) it was disproven and how.
but would actually become the favored model of the universe
I doubt that. Disproving a heliocentric model does not automatically make a geocentric model correct. But before we get to that, please provide some proof that the heliocentric model of the Solar System is wrong.
The Wolf
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate system” .
"It is my firm belief that it is the Sun that revolves around the Earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science" (Lubavitcher Rebbe)
THE FIRST OR LAST BLOG DEPENDING UPON HOW YOU LOOK AT THE LIST IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
THE SAME IS TRUE FOR A GLASS HALF EMPTY OR HALF FULL
REMEMBER ALEPH TO TAV CODE SWITCHING?
THUS IT ALL DEPENDS UPON ONES PERSPECTIVE
LE CHAIM
Velikovsky in some book describes, that Venus several times collided with Mars & Earth in Exodus times. It appeared from Jupiter or was comet, origin of Venus is quite mysterious.
I agree with geocentric system, it's understandable-visible with clear eye.
The following words are from a letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, zt'l, to the Organization of Orthodox Scientists (1971):
"...It was conceivable, in those days, that if one approached a student who dabbled in science and told him that according to the Torah-hashkofo [Torah outlook], the sun revolves around the earth, he might well repudiate Torah altogether. So, in an effort to encourage the student to put on Teffilin [ritual prayer boxes], the well-meaning Rabbi did not mind conceding that the earth revolved around the sun. But surely there is no longer any justification whatever to perpetuate this ‘inferiority complex!’ Certainly there is no basis for holding on to views which have come down in outdated elementary and high school textbooks on science.
This matter of the sun and the earth is a further case in point. To declare categorically in the name of science, that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vise versa, is, as noted above, turning the scientific clock back to the 19th century and Medieval science. It is also at variance with the theory of relativity, which has likewise been universally accepted. Science now declares—as categorically as it is permissible for contemporary science—that where two bodies in space are in relative motion, it is scientifically impossible to determine which is at rest and which in motion."
http://www.torahscience.org/torahsci/rebbeletter.html
http://thestir.cafemom.com/technology/136748/how_to_avoid_internet_doomsday
The Final Slope
Indeed, we live in an Olam shel Sheker, to borrow a phrase.
Explaining relative motion in either model is of course possible. But still, the earth revolves around the sun. To cite myself from an earlier comment on my own blog:
there are significant objections to this assertion, imho. i am no expert in the Rebbe's thought or in astronomy, and others can correct me, but perhaps i will present it in a later post. in shorthand: stellar parallax, the coriolus effect, the motion of pendulums, the fact that all *other* planets still would be rotating on their axis, so why not earth, and the need to resort to epicycles in the ptolmaic model to account for the apparent retrograde motion of the planets. of course you can describe motions from any vantage point using any coordinate system, but the heliocentric model explains it much more simply and accounts for all these phenomena.
''And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed...''[Yehoshua 10:1]
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0610.htm
(For instance, "The Malmad Hatalmidim understands that the pursuit was so hot and successful that they were able to accomplish as if the day was longer.")
The Torah also says that Hashem has an outstretched arm, even though we know Hashem does not have a body. Not everything is intended to be taken literally. Some things might be written idiomatically -- that is, we say that the Sun rose this morning, even though we know the earth is rotating. Or, it could be written from the typical observer's perspective. Or, some things might be written according to the limited understanding of the people of the time, because the Torah is not a science book. To cite Isadore Twersky, summarizing the views of Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, a Rishon: ""A statement may be purposely erroneous, reflecting an erroneous view of the masses. We are not dealing merely with an unsophisticated or unrationalized view, but an intentionally, patently false view espoused by the masses and enshrined in Scripture. The view or statement need not be allegorized, merely recognized for what it is."
Or, in the language of Chazal, dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam.
kol tuv,
josh
anyway I wonder if its okay to speak of the planets in such a way? Are they thinkers? do they have faces?
You are correct; these are meant to be taken metaphorically, or to express deep concepts in cryptic fashion.
Isnt this astrology and is this wrong?
It might be astrology. Whether it is forbidden, or incorrect, might be a dispute among Rishonim. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
All the best,
Josh
"Geocentrism", Avi Rabinowitz, B'Or HaTorah 1986
"De Labore Solis - Airy's Failure reconsidered", Walter van der Kamp 1988
"Geocentricity”, Gerardus Bouw 1993
"True Science supports the Bible", Malcolm Bowden 1998
"Torah Metaphysics versus Newtonian Empiricism", Shimon Cowen, B'Or HaTorah 1999
"Galileo was wrong", Robert Sungenis 2008
"Hashemesh b'gvuraso" Yosef Zalman Bloch 5769
By the way, don't google and visit B'Or HaTorah's website. Google Chrome warns of malware...
kt,
josh
Disbelief in geocentrism is not a mark of religious rationalism! There are plenty of modern rabbis who are not "rationalists" who know that geocentrism is not true.
Was Ramban (Nachmanides) a 'religious rationalist'? No, but he reinterpreted a pasuk about the genesis of the rainbow on the basis of what he knew from Greek science, such that it could not have been a new creation. He did NOT say that we must disregard science. Go ahead and dismiss the Ramban, a kabbalist.
And anon, *do* you believe that Jews and gentiles have a different number of teeth?
kol tuv,
josh
And should Relativity ever be shown to be disproven (not a few modern scientists are Anti-Relativists; others believe in "Absolute Space"; others in the existence of the Ether) - "it takes only one experimental result to disprove an entire theory" (Stephen Hawking) - then the zero velocity results of all the scores of Michelson-Moreley-type experiments that have consistently failed to detect the Earth's purported 67,000 mph velocity round the Sun - are real, not apparent, and we go back to a Geostatic Earth.
Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. Only its fixity and staticity is referred to - "Hashem writes what He means and means what He writes": "We cannot feel our motion through space; nor has any experiment ever proved that we are actually in motion!" (Professor Lincoln Barnett)
However, might I ask you the following question, assuming that the Earth does not rotate.
Does Venus rotate? Could an observer on Venus, who was born on Venus, make exactly the same "venocentric" assertions, that Venus is fixed in place and the rest of the universe rotates around it?
Same question for Mars. And Jupiter. And Neptune. We can only assert that one of them it stationary at a time, at MOST.
At any rate, here are two interesting links. here and here.
Build a proof on an impossible assumption?
Oh, sorry, of course it's possible - if they sent a pregnant astronaut to Venus!
And that would assert that Venus is fixed!
Looks like you can interest NASA in a new project.
"We can only assert that one of them it stationary at a time"
You're in perfect agreement with the geocentrists there.
Current Relativistic scientific thinking is that heliocentrism, plutocentrism, alpha centauricentrism....AND geocentrism are by definition all EQUALLY valid and in NO WAY can be said to be wrong.
Relativity does not say that the universe has no center: it says that we cannot DETERMINE where that center is.
To do so, one would have to go outside of the universe, observe it from the outside, something that we cannot do even theoretically (except from Olam Haba!), and then report back in what is the true state of cosmic affairs. Torah Jews believe that they already have had that report!
"We know that the difference between the heliocentric theory and geocentric theory is one of relative motion ONLY, and that difference has NO physical significance. If the Galileo Affair had taken place after Einstein had framed his General Theory, it would have resulted in an EVEN DRAW draw out of physical and mathematical necessity” (Sir Fred Hoyle).
The Jewish scientist Michelson of Michelson-Morley zero-velocity experiment fame stated on his death bed that one thing he wanted to do was to have his experiment performed on the Moon, away from the Earth, to see if the interference fringes on his interferometer showed up there, unlike on Earth. NASA refuses to have his experiment performed on the Moon or on a Shuttle because if Special Relativity is shown to be wrong and the intereference fringes appeared from orbit, whilst not on Earth, then it would mean that the Earth was stationary in am ABSOLUTE, non-Relativistic sense, the entire card castle of modern cosmology would collapse, and Geocentrism & the Tenach would be re-enthroned. Something which NASA, the Scientific Establishment and TPTB cannot allow to happen!
No, a thought experiment. If any frame of reference is equally valid, then a frame of reference with Venus at the center is also equally valid. And that Venutian would still see all the other planets rotating. I think you simply did not understand what I was saying.
"Something which NASA, the Scientific Establishment and TPTB cannot allow to happen!"
Really?! A conspiracy theory, that NASA is NOT interested in advancing scientific knowledge and so are deliberately suppressing experiments? I thought it could not get any sillier.
By the way, the best illustrative example of this approach of "Torah Jews believe that they already have had that report" is at this Imamother forum. Read the very first post there. Do you agree, for example, with the statement that: ""Science" tells us that the Pacific Ocean is the largest body of water on the planet. The Torah tells us that the Mediterranean is the largest (hence it's name "yam hagadol"). We know the Torah is right because it comes from the One who created the Oceans. "
Also, see this post on Avakesh.
Have a great Shabbos,
Josh
Isn't that one of the wonders of Hashem's creation? He created a universe with intelligent beings at its center that have the ability to imagine alternate realities!
And by the way (and I'm saying this not as a logical argument but as a gut feeling, so you may disagree with me) the fact that anti-geocentrism vastly diminishes the importance of Man in the universe and therefore his obligation to moral behavior (whereas the Torah holds that every action of every human being has a critical effect on the entire universe), seems to throw some doubt on the sincerity of its proponents.
The "observer, born on Venus" was a way of making the thought experiment more concrete, and to aid in visualization. But instead, you entirely missed the point and carried on as if I were putting forth an argument entirely out of touch with reality.
You wouldn't be a geocentrist if you didn't (incorrectly) believe that the Torah promotes geocentrism. The science and pseudoscience follows.
Actually, they are all wrong. The right way to say it is that for every free falling object(such as the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, Venus, Mars, etc) a local Lorentz reference frame can be constructed, such the physics will be the same as for all other local Lorenz reference frames. The Earth, in its local Lorentz frame, is rotating around its axis in 24 hours. That is all: the Earth is not moving, that is the big Chiddush. The physics is the same here as in a local Lorentz frame, constructed in the same way, of Venus, of of Mars, or of the Sun. Each not moving, but rotating, in its local Lorentz reference frame.
It still exists, but in the Internet Era its power has been weakened.
Organised pressure groups, chicanery, sharp practice, and jealous histrionics abound in the "altruistic" Scientific Establishment, all geared to prevent and discredit any research and experimentation that threatens the establishment "status quo" or is against "informed opinion", especially in the area of today's three "sacred
cows" of Evolution, Relativity and Heliocentricity.
Any doubters or nay-sayers are lambasted with epithets like "dupe", "heresy", "shameful", "disgraceful", "pseudo-scientific fanaticism", "fog of nonsense", "red herrings", "shallow", "starry-eyed fundamentalism", "extreme", "lack of balance, "dogmatic","bigoted", "hysterical", "far fetched", "ignorant", "of no help to anyone",
"height of presumption" etc.
Even on this forum, the term "perverted" has been used!
500 years ago heliocentrism was viewed as the heresy. Now its the geocentrists who are the 'heretics'!
When even President Reagan in 1984 dared to express his doubts in the theory of evolution, public questions were raised as to his sanity!
Researchers like Immanuel Velikovsky (catastrophist), Halton Arp (anti-Big Bang), Stefan Marinov (anti-Relativist), Pons and Fleischmann (cold fusion), Robert Gentry (pleochroic haloes), Richard Milton (anti-evolution), Barry Setterfield (decrease in
speed of light), Eric Braithwate (free energy), Walter van der Kamp (geocentrist) etc., were shown to have reasonable cases, or even to be substantially correct, yet they were all greeted with epithets like "stupid", "drivel", "loony", "harmless fruitcake",
"in need of psychiatric help" etc., and conspiratorial attempts at the highest levels were made to silence them, ban their publications, restrict their access to laboratories, deny them telescope time
etc. in blatant disrespect of the pursuit of novel human knowledge.
Einstein taught that there is a force inside a sphere of matter that is in motion. He wrote plainly to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913, "If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around."
i.e.
Mach's Principle states that an Earth rotating on its axis every 24 hours produces EXACTLY the same weather patterns, Coriolis Forces, Foucault Pendulum, equatorial bulge etc, as a universe rotating round a stationary Earth every 24 hours.
This is not true. See my previous comment. Mach's Principle is not physics. That is, it is "philosophy" that played a role in the long construction of General Relativity, but it is not true.
Ernst Mach (he of the speed of sound "Mach Number" fame)
proposed an important principle which is that the mass of the universe is a major controlling factor in all relative movements of the various bodies, particularly the planetary system relative to the rest of the universe.
Whether the universe rotates around the Earth or the Earth spins on its axis is indeterminable. It is a matter of the geometry of moving bodies and whatever reference grid we choose will give EXACTLY the same results.
The subject of geocentricity is held in such HORROR by orthodox scientists, that rather than use such an emotive word, they use "Mach's Principle" as a code word for the same subject.
Mach took Newtonian relativity to its logical conclusion, stating quite plainly:
"Obviously it matters little if we think of
the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if
we view it at rest while the fixed stars
revolve around it. Geometrically these are
exactly the same case of a relative rotation
of the Earth and the fixed stars with
respect to one another.All masses, all velocities, thus all forces are relative. There is no basis for us to
decide between relative and absolute
motion. If there are still modern authors
who, through the Newtonian water bucket
arguments, allow themselves to be misled
into differentiating between relative and
absolute motion, they fail to take into
account that the world system has been
given to us only once, but the Ptolemaic
and Copernican views are only our
interpretations, but both EQUALLY TRUE".
Einstein held likewise.
If Mach is wrong, then so is Relativity.
If however Moshe Rafal is one of the growing number of ANTI-Relativists, then what is his explanation for the zero-velocty result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and positive result of the Michelson-Gale experiment?!