Avodah Mailing List

Volume 20: Number 1

Tue, 03 Oct 2006

• 1. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Zvi Lampel)
• 2. R' Keller's JO article on evolution (Jonathan Baker)
• 3. Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Sober Family)
• 4. Rambam on corporality (david guttmann)
• 5. Re: R' Keller's JO article on evolution (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: R' Keller's JO article on evolution (Micha Berger)
• 7. Erev Shabbos Jews (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (Zoo Torah)
• 9. Re: Rambam on corporality (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Rav Keller's JO article on evolution (David Riceman)
• 11. Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur (Yitzchok Levine)
• 12. Re: Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur (Zev Sero)

Mon, 26 Jun 2006 from: Gershon Seif <gershonseif@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On page 16 of the recent JO, Rav Keller brings proofs that when the Torah 
says a day in Mayseh Beraishis, it is literal... 

> Here's my understanding of what he wrote. 

> 1. Ein mikra yotzai midai pshuto. Since the Torah has definite lines of 
demarcation of time and evolution assumes one long continuum, it would 
be against this basic rule of learning Torah to twist mayseh Bereishis 
into an evolving creation....<

Of course, I have much to say in support of Rav Keller's compelling arguments, but to focus on the first point, summed up above, I thought it would be informative to quote a passage from Rav Yosef Albo's Sefer HaIkkarim. Rav Albo (whose work vies mostly with Christianity, rather than, say, Karaism) champions peshuto shel mikreh in understanding both the mitzvos of the Torah and the Torah's narratives. For our purposes, however, I will just include the comments regarding narrative.

Similar to the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim, although the work does not explicitly formulate the qualifying role of Chazal and mesorah in either mitzvos or narratives, the use of Chazal and mesorah as a categorical yardstick for validity of renditions permeates the Sefer HaIkkarim. He is clearly loyal to their adjustments to peshat.

I would also add a principle in analyzing the statements of commentators, and indeed anyone who's statements are worthy of interpretation: When one uses words that have a primary, usual contextual meaning (e.g., "day," to mean a 12 or 24-hour type day) and also a secondary contextual meaning (e.g., "day" to mean a year or an era), then--when the context alone does not reveal the intended meaning (e.g., "In my day we never questioned Chazal")--the primary, usual meaning should be taken as the one understood by the commentator--especially if that commentator does point out other instances where the secondary meaning is the intended one.

Now, the quote from the Sefer HaIkarrim which, interestingly, chooses the word "day" to illustrate the necessity of abiding by the peshuta shel mikreh.

'IKKARIM, CHAPTER 21 (pp.192-194)

"The Torah is called a "testimony" (aidus --Ex. 25:21 and Ps. 132:12). This is to signify that the Torah must be understood by pashtus (the normal meaning of its words), just as the testimony of witnesses:

"When witnesses testify, we do not say, let's tweak the time or interpret the testimony to keep the witnesses innocent of perjury. To illustrate: let's say they testified that Reuven killed Shimon on the first day of the week, and then their testimony is proved false. We do not say, let's interpret their testimony to prevent them from being false witnesses. Let's say that by "on the first day of the 'week' " they meant on the first of the seven-year sabbatical cycle (the "week" of years). Or let's say that by "he killed him" they meant he refused to give him alms, which would support him; or they meant he did not teach him the Torah, [which is, after all,] the true source of life in the World to Come. We do not say any of this because a testimony must be understood naturally, and if witnesses are shown to have given false testimony, they must be put to death, and we do not interpret their words in ways to save them...

"There are many passages in the Torah that, according to all the sages, bear allusion to noble, sublime and intellectual things, such as the story of the Garden of Eden, and the four rivers, and so on. Nevertheless, none of these sages deny the reality of the natural meaning. They hold that while those things do exist in reality, they at the same time also bear allusion to more noble and celestial things. Thus, the Mishkan and its kaylim were real things, although at the same time they bear allusion to sublime and celestial things.

"[Regarding Chazal's describing of the Four River of Eden in metaphysical terms:] The human body shares many things with the lower forms of life. It shares a tongue, a set of teeth, and a pair of lips for eating. But at the same time, these organs exist in man for a nobler purpose: a means of speech and expression for lauding God and speaking His praises -- a nobler purpose than that which they serve in animals. Likewise, in the world of nature, we find four [literal] rivers and so on, which at the same time allude to more noble things.

"[Proof:]The Rabbis say that Jerusalem on earth represents Jerusalem in Heaven (Ta'anis 5a). They [obviuosly]do not mean to deny that Jerusalem exists on earth and serves an important purpose -- namely being the dwelling place of the Shechinah. Nor, just because the Bible says, "Thus shall Ezekiel be unto you as a sign" (Ezekiel 24:24), do we deny that the man Ezekiel actually existed. In the same way, we must understand that the other things in the Torah that allude to nobler and more sublime matters are nevertheless also true in their natural meaning. This is especially true of the commandments. They do allude to noble and sublime things, but at the same time they are important in of themselves, and have a purpose in being [physically] performed. This then is the reason the Torah is called a testimony: to signify that its words are true in their pashtus meaning, and that they must not be interpreted figuratively so as to abolish the pashtus meaning."

Zvi Lampel

R'Gershon Seif:
 
> Here's my understanding of what he wrote.

Here are some responses, but I don't have the article in front of me.
It seemed to me at the time I read it, that at least the first part
basically rehashed Xtian arguments for creationism.  Need we take our
biblical interpretation from them?

Further, the below points conflate arguments against evolution with
arguments against old-earth, which the Xtians do as well.
 
> 1. Ein mikra yotzai midai pshuto. Since the Torah has definite lines of
> demarcation of time and evolution assumes one long continuum, it would
> be against this basic rule of learning Torah to twist mayseh Bereishis
> into an evolving creation.

R' Alan Brill notes that until the mid-19th century, nobody took the
Creation narrative literally.  On his first tape from the Revelation
course he gave at YU last year (available on www.yutorah.org), he gives
a catalogue of rishonim & acharonim and how they each viewed the Creation
narrative as a metaphor: for spiritual realm, for morality, etc.

Once the outside world began to produce evidence that the world was older
than 5500 years, suddenly rabbis started taking Genesis literally, perhaps
as yet another way to reject the outside, Haskalah, Goyish world.

It's also not clear how universally "ein mikra yotzei midai peshuto"
was meant to be applied to all of Scripture, or only to those passages
where the commentators applied it.
 
> 2. The Ramban, Bereishis 1:3, and the Rashbam Bereishi 1:4 take this
> literaly.

Yes, and that's one of the fundamental arguments Gerald Schroeder uses
to argue his old-earth theory.
 
> 3. The Gemara Chagiga 12a (and rashi there explains that to mean a
> 24 hour day) says that midas yom and layla were created on the first
> day. Rashi says the gemara is based on the posuk of vayehi erev vayehi
> voker yom echad.

What does that mean?  "Midah" is an abstraction.  Midat hadin and midat
harachamim are also created entities, but we can't *see* them, they have
no associated physical reality.  So it doesn't force a reading of 24-hour
days.

Rashi, however, uses vayehi erev vayehi boker vs. creation of the Sun
on the 4th day as proof that the Creation narrative is non-literal: 
ein mukdam ume'uhar batorah.  See on the pasuk.
 
> 4. The 4th of the aseres hadibros says to remember Shabbos and sanctify
> it.. for in 6 days Hashem made the heavans and the earth and He rested
> on the seventh. - Rav Keller writes about this "Can we seriously consider
> this an allegory for a period of billions of years? Is this the lesson the
> Torah is teaching us- the greatness of God that He took 6 long undefined
> periods of time to crate the world?

Why shouldn't it be an allegory?  R' Keller's argument just begs the question.
The question presumes its own answer.

It's what I call a "vayashkem Avraham baboker" argument - how do we
know Avraham wore a yarmulke?  The verse says "vayashkem Avraham baboker"
- can we seriously consider that he went out without putting on his
yarmulke?

As an allegory it works fine.  God created the Universe in 6 stages, and on
the seventh He created rest, having finished the creation.  It's not the
story of creation that is mechayev in Shabbat, it's the commands at Sinai
and elsewhere.   So a literal Seventh Day is not forced here.
 
> 5. The torah telling us that Hashem rested, is saying that creation came
> to a halt. This flies in the face of evolution which states that this
> is an ongoing process.

It also flies in the face of Jewish philsophy, whether Maimonidean or
Kabbalistic, that says that if God ever stopped creating the Universe and
giving it sustenance, the Universe would cease to exist.  Don't we say,
every day, before Shma, "hamechadesh betuvo, bechol yom tamid, maaseh 
bereshit"?  This is a non-argument.
 
> 6. The Kuzari writes that the number of years from creation to his time
> is universally accepted by all Jews without acception. Rav Keller adds,
> even though this is nolonger the case, the mesorah is still the mesorah.
 
And Tanach tells us that all the Jews accepted David, Solomon, etc. as
their king.  That was historical reality.  Does that mean Solomon is
still our king?  The mesorah is that that was historical reality.  Now
that we have a new reality, with other sources of input about the nature
of the physical universe aside from the Bible, the mesorah is that we
should accept the reality we are faced with.  How is that not equally
a true statement?

> 7. The gemara in Kesubos 5a instructs us to have weddings on Wednesday
> because that was the day fish were created.

A cute aggadita, that is clearly not binding.  More people have weddings
on Tuesday because of two vayehi tovs, another cute aggadita.  Next?
 
> 8. Shulchan Aruch (OC 229:2) is m'chayaiv us to recite birkas hachamo
> once every 28 years, and it is on Wednesday, the day the sun ws created.

Fits with the same allegory.  I said it the year my niece was born.  Twice,
even, once at sunrise with my shul in the park, again a couple hours later
at school on the roof.  We also say Hayom harat olam, we also theorize that
Rosh Hashanah was the first Shabbos, rather than the beginning of creation,
we also theorize that the world was created in Nissan - there are lots of
competing theories as to the correspondence of the calendar to the "moment
of Creation" - none of which seem exclusively binding.
 
> 9. The Ran on the 1st perek of R"H explains that we are judged on R"H
> because the world was created on 25th day of Elul and Adam was created
> onthe 6th day which was R"H.

See previous paragraph.  How do we usually treat teshuvot that quote
only arguments that bolster their own side?
 
>  - He also writes that the Rambam agrees with a 6 day creation. He
> writes the Rambam has beenmisquoted. All the now famous Rambam in MN
> meant was that there are sodos of Kaballah that are lying behind the
> simple meaning of the words.

And this discredits the whole article.  THE RAMBAM DIDN'T KNOW KABBALAH.
All the "proofs" that he did were forgeries and wishful thinking, compared
with his own statement in the Moreh that as far as he knew, the original
esoteric meaning of maaseh bereshit was lost.  See Gershom Scholem, Mechqare
Kabbalah I.  If R' Keller accepts this claim, it shows he has a weak grasp
of the difference between truth and wishful thinking.  Funny, he seemed to 
have a pretty good grasp of the difference when he wrote his article on
post-1994 Chabad.
 
--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

RGS: 4. The 4th of the aseres hadibros says to remember Shabbos and sanctify
it.. for in 6 days Hashem made the heavens and the earth and He rested
on the seventh. - Rav Keller writes about this "Can we seriously consider
this an allegory for a period of billions of years? Is this the lesson the
Torah is teaching us- the greatness of God that He took 6 long undefined
periods of time to crate the world?

My husband z"l used to take precisely the opposite position. He argued that BECAUSE the seven days can be understood as an allegory, we do not need to take them literally.

In other words: we do not need to posit that the Torah specifies six days in order to tell us that the world was literally created in six days. We are permitted to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence against a young universe. We can understand the Torah as describing the creation of the world in six distinct stages (length not defined), followed by a seventh stage of rest. The Torah calls these stages "days" not because each one lasted 24 hours, but to convey the message that the pattern of creation is eternally reflected in the sanctification of the seventh literal day of every week.

As always, Moshe's clear insights lose a lot in their transmission through me - I wish he were here to write this, but I will just have to do the best I can and hope that any inaccuracies will be forgiven.

(Ironically, RGS's post was originally submitted the day before Moshe died, but I doubt he would have had the strength to respond in any case.)

Gmar chatima tova,
Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20060930/e31faaf7/attachment.htm

May I suggest an alternate solution:

Rambam in 1:35 writes that even children have to be taught that G-d is not
corporeal. He also says further that attributes may be taken literally. In
1:26 R. Eidensohn quoted : "thus that which is neither a body nor existent
in a body does not exist in their opinion." I read it as people can accept
either one of the two. Isn't "nor existent in a body" attributes? R.Kafah
indeed translates "Ulefichoch Toaruhu betoarim hamorim al gashmus". So
people may and can accept "attributes indicating corporeality" but may not
accept corporeality itself. I think that in 1:35 Rambam makes it quite clear
that even the simple may not accept corporeality as he enumerates a
comprhensive list: children,women, stupid ones,and those of deffective
natural disposition. 

Thus because everyone must be taught that G-d is not coropreal, for them to
accept that he exists they may be taught attributes that point to
corporeality. 


GCT 

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

Jonathan Baker wrote:

> R' Alan Brill notes that until the mid-19th century, nobody took the
> Creation narrative literally.  On his first tape from the Revelation
> course he gave at YU last year (available on www.yutorah.org), he gives
> a catalogue of rishonim & acharonim and how they each viewed the Creation
> narrative as a metaphor: for spiritual realm, for morality, etc.

On the contrary, until the mid-19th century nobody questioned the
literal meaning of the narrative.  They looked for deeper meanings,
beyond the obvious, but not for a moment did they accept or even
consider that the physical events didn't happen exactly as described.
You yourself acknowledge a few paragraphs later that the Ramban and
Kuzari took it literally; do you really think they were unique in
this?


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

On Sun, October 1, 2006 3:32 pm, Zev Sero wrote:
: On the contrary, until the mid-19th century nobody questioned the
: literal meaning of the narrative.  They looked for deeper meanings,
: beyond the obvious, but not for a moment did they accept or even
: consider that the physical events didn't happen exactly as described.
: You yourself acknowledge a few paragraphs later that the Ramban and
: Kuzari took it literally; do you really think they were unique in
: this?

The Ramban took the 6 days literally -- after the time between 1:1 and 1:2,
and except according to REED who argues that the Ramban describes days of a
form we can't comprehend. RYGB cited many other sources who asserted that span
of time between the first two pesuqim; pretty much every mequbal but the Ari.
To the point that RYGB wrote that this was the majority shitah historically.
Rashi about day 4 was also raised. The Rambam and whether the 6 days of
creation were time of any sort was also discussed. Given the Maharal, REED and
this shitah in the Rambam, I'm convinced the majority opinion was that the
time span of creation is a meaningless question. The idea that most assumed it
was literal is FAR from given. But we've all stated our positions on the
subject multiple times already.

I don't mean the following about RZS's post in particular. But look, if
lifting the ban means just spending another year going around the same circles
saying exactly the same things, I'll just slap the ban back on again.

Tir'eh beTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@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

On Sun, October 1, 2006 2:47 am, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote to Areivim:
: My sense was that the Rav z'l' was referring to mental preparation for
: Shabbos akin to mental preparation for t'filah, and for my part I'm nowhere
: near where I would want to be on either point.  I can't speak to whether
: I'm in the minority, but perhaps an honest response by Areivimites (who in
: many ways represent the cream of observant Jewry) would give some
: indication of how relevant the Rav's words are to this generation, even
: though there is much "kiruv r'chokim" and even though one can note with
: appreciation the hiring of a proud young Jew by Mr. Trump.

    "Even in those neighborhoods made up predominantly of religious
    Jews, one can no longer talk of the 'sanctity of Shabbat.' True,
    there are Jews in America who observe Shabbat... But it is not for
    Shabbat that my heart aches; it is for the forgotten 'erev Shabbat'
    (eve of the Sabbath). There are Shabbat-observing Jews in America,
    but there are no 'erev Shabbat' Jews who go out to greet Shabbat
    with beating hearts and pulsating souls. There are many who observe
    the precepts with their hands, with their feet, and/or with their
    mouths - but there are few indeed who truly know the meaning of the
    service of the heart!" (On Repentance, pp. 97-98)

I am not sure how these words can be read in any way other than RMP does.
Although I think RYBS is speaking more of the avirah of "Shabbos is coming"
that drove the preparation, rather than the preparation itself.

I very much feel the truth of these words. To my mind, we need to have real
effort learning Jewish meaning and values. Not as "qiruv rechoqim", but as
"hisqarvus" (in the hitpa'el) for those of us who are FFB or otherwise frum
long enough to be shomeir mitzvos without being excited enough about qedushas
Shabbos to anticipate its arrival.

Sorry for turning this into an ad for AishDas. No, I have to admit I'm not sorry.

So, why did I redirect the conversation to Avodah? Because I feel that a
discussion of how to develop "beating hearts and pulsating souls" is Torah,
not about Torah.

Tir'eh beTov!
-mi

PS: Kindly remember that the idiom "the Rav" doesn't mean the same person to
all members of Avodah.

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@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

R' Gershon Seif asked for people's comments on Rav Keller's article in the
JO. I have some material up at www.zootorah.com/controversy/jo.html

Kol tuv
Natan Slifkin

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>

> *Rav Elchonon Wasserman ...  I heard in the name of Rav Chaim Brisker
> that the Rambam views that there is no such thing as inadvertent heresy.

This is explicit in MN I:36.

> However the Rambam ... attributes
> indicating corporeality have been predicated of Him in order to indicate
> that He, may He be exalted, exists, inasmuch as the multitude cannot at
> fIrst conceive of any existence save that of a body alone; thus that
> which is neither a body nor existent in a body does not exist in their
> opinion.
>
> Rambam thus states that the Torah describes G-d in physical  terms
> because the masses can not accept the existence of a non-physical G-d.
> Thus the Torah itself has to teach the masses heresy - which according
> to the Rambam means that they will lose their Olam HaBah.!?

I think this misstates the Rambam's opinion.  What the masses misunderstand 
is the nature of existence, not the nature of God; they predicate existence 
only of physical things (not, for example, of the British constitution). 
Incidentally, it's not only the masses: Boswell reports that Dr. Johnson 
shared this misapprehension.

Even the philosophically sophisticated don't understand what it means for 
God to exist, since existence predicated of God is wholly different than 
existence predicated of anything else (MN I:35,57).  As a result, while the 
Bible uses imprecise language to describe God's existence, there is no 
precise language available.

The Bible tries to correct people's misapprehensions about God but not their 
misapprehensions about the nature of existence.  The Bible uses some phrases 
indicating that God is not physical ("v'el mi t'damyuni v'eshveh", MN I:55). 
Even someone who is philosophically naive should realize that there is a way 
to harmonize those verses with the ones which seem to attribute corporeality 
to God's existence.  Thinking of God's existence as a positive attribute is 
a mistake but not a heretical one (MN I:51).

David Riceman 

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com> (citing Sefer HaIkkarim)

> "When witnesses testify, we do not say, let's tweak the time or interpret 
> the testimony to keep the witnesses innocent of perjury. To illustrate: 
> let's say they testified that Reuven killed Shimon on the first day of the 
> week, and then their testimony is proved false. We do not say, let's 
> interpret their testimony to prevent them from being false witnesses. 
> Let's say that by "on the first day of the 'week' " they meant on the 
> first of the seven-year sabbatical cycle (the "week" of years). Or let's 
> say that by "he killed him" they meant he refused to give him alms, which 
> would support him; or they meant he did not teach him the Torah, [which 
> is, after all,] the true source of life in the World to Come. We do not 
> say any of this because a testimony must be understood naturally, and if 
> witnesses are shown to have given false testimony, they must be put to 
> death, and we do not interpret their words in ways to save them...

This may be tangential to your main point, but how do you harmonize this 
with Pesahim 11b "Zeh yodeia b'ibburo shel hodesh v'zeh eino yodeia"?  See 
the whole sugya there (which extends to 12b).

David Riceman 

Many have the custom of making Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur 
right after Maariv. However, this means that the wives of the men 
making Kiddush Levanah have to wait longer before they can break 
their fast, because they have to wait for their husbands to return 
home and make Havdalah before they can eat. Is it really proper to 
perform this mitzvah at the "expense" of others who may well be 
feeling weak from fasting?

Along the same lines, I have noted that some women stay in shul after 
Neilah and daven Maariv. This means a delay in preparing the meal 
after the end of Yom Kippur. Again, is it really proper to perform 
this mitzvah at the "expense" of others who may well be feeling weak 
from fasting?

I have no answer to either question. I am merely raising the issue.

Yitzchok Levine 

Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> Many have the custom of making Kiddush Levanah on Motzoei Yom Kippur 
> right after Maariv. However, this means that the wives of the men 
> making Kiddush Levanah have to wait longer before they can break 
> their fast, because they have to wait for their husbands to return 
> home and make Havdalah before they can eat.

Why can't they make their own havdalah?  Whether women are obligated
in havdalah or not, mimah nafshach they are yotze.  Or are you
concerned about bracha levatalah, if it should turn out that they
are not obligated?



> Along the same lines, I have noted that some women stay in shul after 
> Neilah and daven Maariv. This means a delay in preparing the meal 
> after the end of Yom Kippur. Again, is it really proper to perform 
> this mitzvah at the "expense" of others who may well be feeling weak 
> from fasting?

At whose expense?  If the wife is at shul, and so is the husband,
then they will go home together, at a time and pace that is mutually
convenient.  And surely whoever is at home with the kids can feed them.

PS: My shul always has a "havdalah" after maariv, so everyone can
stay for maariv, nobody has to go home hungry, and kiddush levana
can be said besimcha, *after* breaking the fast.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 3, Issue 1
************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."