Volume 27: Number 210
Wed, 01 Dec 2010
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zvi Lampel <zvilam...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:38:43 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Moreh Nevuchim Part II Chapter 30.
*From the thread, "Local, Non-Global or Global Flood."*
**
*ZL: > > *The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (**2:30**) invokes the unanimous
position*
*> > of---*
*> > *[a]ll our Sages...that all of this [the creation of Eve from Adam,
the*
*> > tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, and the account of the
serpent]*
*> > took place on the sixth day.... None of those things is impossible,*
*> > because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed.**
**
*RMB: Neither is the concept of day possible because time wasn't created
yet.*
**
*ZL: Time was not created before the sixth day?? This is actually the
exact opposite of what the Rambam holds. The Rambam poses a /kushya/: If
the sun was not created until the fourth day, how were days one through
three measured? He gives a teyrutz: Despite how it seems from a simple
reading of the pesukim, Chazal tell us that everything, including the
sun and the sphere, was actually created the first day. The day-by-day
appearance and placement of each component of creation was only a matter
of drawing them from potential. So time, and the means to measure
24-hour-type days, existed from the first moment of creation:*
**
Chazal have already explained in many places that the word "ess" is like
the idea of "with," they meant by this that G-d created with the heavens
everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the
earth includes. And you already know their clarification that the
heavens and the earth were created simultaneously, as per its saying, "I
call unto them, they stand up together" (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently,
everything was created together, and all the things were separated from
each other successively, so much so, that they made as an analogy to
this one who sows various seeds in the earth at the same time: some
spring forth after one day, some after two days, and some after
three---although all the planting occurred at one moment. According to
this undoubtedly true understanding, the difficulty is removed, that
obligated R. Yehudah b'Rebbi Simon, to say what he would say, and
created for him the problem of with what thing was the first day, and
the second day, and the third day measured. [Indeed,] in Bereshis Rabba,
our Sages said explicitly, regarding the light mentioned by the Torah,
that it was created on the first day. This is how they phrased it: These
[the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] were the
very samelight-bearers that were created on the first day, but He did
not suspend them until the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse]
has thus been clearly stated.
**
*By the way, *the Freidlander translation of the Moreh Nevuchim, which
is what we both, out of convenience, cut and paste from, is a tremendous
help in learning the Moreh, and I use it often. But there are sometimes
errors in translation that change the Rambam's meaning. And this is an
example of that. On*e word in the Friedlander translation of the passage
in question seriously differs from both Ibn Tibbon and R. Kapach. And I
suspect it has misdirected your reading of the rest of the Rambam. *
The clause I place in capitals ("these terms literally") is the culprit:
We find that some of our Sages are reported to have held the opinion
that time existed before the Creation...Those who have made this
assertion have been led to it by a saying of one of our Sages in
reference to the terms "one day," "a second day." Taking THESE TERMS
literally, the author of that saying asked, What determined "the first
day," since there was no rotating sphere, and no sun?
The clause Friedlander translates, "Taking these terms literally," is
rendered by Ibn Tibbon, "omeir zeh ha-ma'amar, ha-INYAN al peshuto."
"Ha-inyan (singular) al p'shuto" does not translate "these terms"
(plural)---referring to the terms "day one" and "day two." "Ha-inyan al
p'shuto" translates, "taking the matter in its simple sense." Rambam is
referring to the simple take of the pesukim that everything was created
ex-nihilo on the attributed day, saying that this led to the mistaken
idea that time always existed even before creation. This, he says, led
some to wonder how there could be the first three days when the sun was
first created on the fourth day. To this the Rambam explains---based on
Chazal---that actually everything was created in potential form the
first instant, including the sun and the revolving spheres, and thus
there was a "day one," "day two" and "day three" before the fourth day.
If you re-read the entire passage of the Rambam, you will see how well
the real words fit the context (and how incomprehensiblly it reads the
other way).
This is why the Rambam wrote what you quoted:
*...I told you that the foundation of our faith is the belief that God
created the Universe from nothing; that time did not exist previously
[to the world--ZL], but was created: for IT DEPENDS ON THE MOTION OF THE
SPHERE, AND THE SPHERE HAS BEEN CREATED [Ibn Tibbon reads: "v'ha-galgal
nivrah"--meaning, "AND THE SPHERE IS A CREATED THING"--ZL].*
**
*>And [RMB continued: Note] the [passage that comes] after the one you
quote:*
**
*There are, however, some utterances of our Sages on this subject*
*[which apparently imply a different view]. I will gather them from*
*their different sources and place them before you, and I will refer*
*also to certain things by mere hints, just as has been done by the*
*Sages. ...*
**
*RMB summarized: So, while it's not impossible, the Rambam finds hints
in Chazal that*
*it's not what the Torah teaches.<*
**
*ZL: Another mistake. The Ibn Tibbon reads: "sheh-ad heinah lo hayyah
tevah nach, V'IM ZEH K'VAR ZACHRU DEVARIM ASHMEE-AIM LECHA MELUKATTIM
MI-MI-KOMOS'SAYHEM." The words Friedlander put in brackets simply do not
exist and, as I will show, are curiously misdirecting. And one wonders
why he translated the simple word "devarim" as "utterances," rather than
plainly as "statements."And the translation, V'IM ZEH as "however" is
also misleading.*
**
*I'll explain.*
**
*A. Up until now, the Rambam was citing statements from Chazal that he
endorsed at face value, building with them his case to answer how time
was measured before the fourth day.**
**
*B. After this, he tells us that there are, however, other statements by
Chazal that cannot be taken at their surface meaning, but rather contain
profound concepts too valuable to be openly revealed to the masses.
Their surface meaning contradict pesukim, reasonableness, or
over-arching principles.*
**
*Note that in the first category, the pesukim are not meant b'pashtus,
whereas the Chazal is meant literally. In the second category, the
Chazal is not meant literally, whereas the pashtus of the pesukim are.*
**
*The first category of statements by Chazal he used to show that,
despite the impression one gets from the pashtus of the pesukim, Chazal
taught us that creation ex nihilo happened only the first day of
Creation, whereas the rest of the days there was a drawing out from
potential as described in the pesukim. He draws this from combining five
teachings.*
**
**The final maamaer Chazal that the Rambam endorses as universally
agreed upon, and which he uses at face value, is the one saying that all
the events in the Gan Eden episode took place on the sixth day* (which,
as established above, was like all the other days defined by a single
revolution of the sphere and/or sun). He explains that this Chazal is
not implausible ("rachok"), because until now nature was not fixed.*
**
*The statements he take at face value (Category A) include what he
dismisses as daas yachid views that go against basic principles---those
about worlds and/or time existing before our world's existence. The
rest, which go counter to those, he endorses and uses to build his
thesis. These include (a) the Chazal that the word"ess" denotes that
everything in the heavens was created together with the heavens, (b) the
Chazal that everything on earth was created together with the earth
(potentially, as he goes on to explain); (c) the Chazal that the heavens
and the earth were created simultaneously; (d) the Chazal that compared
G-d's creating the world to a farmer who plants many seeds all at one
time, yet different seeds sprout on different days; and finally (e) the
Chazal that the sun, moon and stars of the fourth day were identical to
the Light created on the first day; that earth can mean both the planet
and soil. All these together form the answer to the problem the Rambam
posed.*
**
*He thentalks about the pesukim referring to the four elements and their
characteristics, and then returns to citing the Chazal that teach that
the "separated" waters were not our earthly type of waters, and the
"shamayim" of the first day are not the sky; the Chazal that the grass
and trees sprouted only after there was rain, to explain the sequence of
creation, and then the Chazal that everything was created fully-formed.*
**
*THEN he says "sheh-ad heinah lo hayyah tevah nach, V'IM ZEH K'VAR
ZACHRU DEVARIM ASHMEE-AIM LECHA MELUKATTIM MI-MI-KOMOS'SAYHEM."follows
up by quoting the Midrashim about Chava being created simultaneously
with Adam, attached to him; Samael riding upon the Nachash and other
strange things about the Nachash; the gigantic measurements of the Tree
of Life, and other MIdrashic statements from Chazal the Rambam tells us
have profound meaning. So the context shows that the "things/statements
(not "utterances") of the Sages the Rambam referred to are not in any
way opposing what the Rambam said about the events occuring on the sixth
day---which he had after all endorsed as "the unanimous view of the Sages."*
**
*RMB: And the Abarbanel on Bereishis:*
*... Thus the Rambam does not understand the word day to be a temporal*
*day and he doesn't read Bereishis to be describing the chronological*
*sequence of creation.... This is the view of the Rambam which he*
*considered as one of the major secrets of the Creation. In fact he*
*tried hard to conceal this view as can be seen in his words in Moreh*
*Nevuchim (**2:30**). In spite of his efforts the Ralbag, Navorni and*
*the other commentators to Moreh Nevuchim uncovered his secret and*
*made it known to the whole world.... However, despite the Rambam's*
*greatness in Torah and the apparent support from Chazal, this view*
*of the Rambam is demonstrably false....*
**
*ZL: True, the contemporaries, Abarbanel and the Akeidas Yitzchak, who
communicated with each other, both attribute, in their commentaries on
the first pesukim of Breishis, the Ralbag's view to the Rambam.*
**
*And, as you indicated, the Abarbanel vehemently condemns it. And, in
his commentary on the Gan Eden episode (p. 85 in our editions), he
switches track and reinterprets the Rambam:*
**
Abarbanel: "Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav (the Rambam) was
not that all of ma'aseh bereishis was an allegory, rather, only a small
part of it (some elements in the second chapter of Bereishis; and that
(as for the first chapter,) all which is mentioned [in the Torah]
*regarding the activity of the six days,* from the creation of the
heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of
Adam and his wife, up until [the passage of] "va'yichulu", have no
allegory whatsoever for *everything was [understood as] literal to him*
and therefore you will see that in this very chapter--#30 in the second
section--in all which the Rav has explicated *regarding the activity of
the six days,* he did not make [of ma'aseh bereishis] an allegory or a
hint (pirush tzurayi or remez) at all."
*RMB: The Narvoni (as the Abarbanel notes) and the Shem Tov on the Moreh*
*understand the Rambam this way (that it's 6 steps in logical sequence,*
*not time), as does the Aqeidas Yitzchaq (Bereishis sha'ar 3), Ralbag*
*(Milchames Hashem 4:2:8),the Alshich (Bereishis 1:1) and RJBS.*
**
*And what would you say if I showed you that the Ralbag himself denies
that the Rambam said this peshat? In the Rav Kook edition of the
Ralbag's commentary on Breishis, it's on p. 51:
*
Herewith is completed by us the explanation that conforms to the truth,
and to the Torah's language, concerning everything contained in Maasei
Breishis....And it is proper that we should not be skimpy in expressing
thanks to the previous commentators, for what they spoke concerning MB.
For--even if they are found far from the intent that we found here, as
can be seen from how HaRav HaMoreh explained in his honored work 'Moreh
Nevuchim,' and the Chacham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra's Torah
commentary--behold they were nevertheless a cause, in whatever manner,
for us to establish the true way.
It should also be noted that the Ralbag in his commentary offered an
alternative approach to Maasei Breishis. That approach is essentially
that of the Moreh Nevuchim as I explained it. To me it is obvious that
the Ralbag understood the Rambam as I explained him.
Likewise, Ralbag, Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, Part II,
Chapter 8 (conclusion) states:
And you, the examiner, see how we have surpassed all who came before us
in explaining this /parshah/ [in accordance with /Chazal/]. And this is
in the aspect that whoever examines our words cannot doubt our words,
for this parshah itself, both through its terminology and its sequence
testifies on our behalf that this undoubtedly is its true intepretation.
(I inserted the words in brackets, "in accordance with Chazal," because
otherwise one might think that the Ralbag is differing with Chazal,
whereas reading his explanation one sees that on the contrary, he is
citing Chazal as the basis of his interpretation. "Those who came
before" him is referring to those in his era (namely, rishonim,
including the Rambam) who preceded him.
Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/986780a1/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 22:52:46 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Moreh Nevuchim Part II Chapter 30.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:38:43PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote:
> *ZL: Time was not created before the sixth day?? This is actually the
> exact opposite of what the Rambam holds...
I already cut-n-pasted in this thread translations of rishonim whose
understanding of the Rambam matches my description -- that MN 2:30 describes
creation as 6 logical steps in how creation unfolded, nothing to do with
time. I don't see how the point can be debated further if you're so sure
that my read, which ended up matching the Abarbanel's, is wrong.
...
> Chazal have already explained in many places that the word "ess" is like
> the idea of "with," they meant by this that G-d created with the heavens
> everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the
> earth includes...
"'Es' lerabos" is a derashah (a ribui, of course). "Es" translated
al derekh peshat is an article that introduces the direct object of
a sentence.
But this is just tangential, since I really don't see you take on the
Moreh as tenable. I'm not going to bother arguing the details again;
we're going in circles. I'm invoking authority -- you're disagreeing
with the Abarbanel. The Abarbanel says the words you're quoting were
part of the Moreh's attempt to obscure his view, but it's clear enough
-- and the Abarbanel notes that Ralbag and Narboni explain the Rambam
according to this secret of creation.
That's three rishonim who you're disagreeing with about what the Rambam
said.
I'm comfortable enough with that to not bother repeating the same
debate more iterations.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Zvi Lampel <zvilam...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:48:49 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood
*ZL:*
*> > *"Yom" in the context of the Creation account not meaning a regular
day has*
*> > no such mesorah. On the contrary, the mesorah is clear that it is
[no longer than] a*
*> > regular day....*
**
*RMB: >We've debated this numerous times. And I still believe you're
mistaken.<*
**
*And despite my quoting-- *
**
*1. Chagigah 12a that on the first day Hashem established the length of
the day and the length of the night,*
**
*2. Rav Saadia Gaon that a prophet claiming that Hashem created the
world literally in one year is contradicting the Torah and is a false
prophet*
**
*3. The Kuzari who dismisses the Indian belief, that they had
antiquities and buildings millions of years old, as contra our tradition
(rather than reconciling the evidence by interpreting the sixth day as
an era of Adam/"mankind"*
**
*4.The Ibn Ezra defining "yom echad" to the turning of the sphere*
**
*5. The Rambam (MN **2:30**), as I will elaborate.*
**
*6. The Ramban insisting that "*the days mentioned in /Ma'aseh Breishis/
were, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, literal days,
composed [not of years and millennia, but] of hours and minutes, and
they were six, just as are the six days of the work-week*" (maybe he was
countering how some mistakenly took the Rambam--that he meant that only
the first day was meant literally; or maybe his talmid RY of Akko, who
positied that each day consisted of thousands of years)*
**
*7. The Rambam's son (who takes the word "yom" in *the verse (Breishis
2:4)"...the day Hashem fashioned the Heavens and the Earth" to mean a
period (namely a week). He says that here the word "day" cannot be taken
in its conventional way, because the fashioning of the Heavens and Earth
took place over a period lasting six days, not just one. (Needless to
say, if he thought the six days of Creation were already not meant as
conventional days, the contradiction would not have arisen.)
*8. Rabbeynu Bechaya, 9. the Ralbag (first intepretation), 10. Akeidas
Yitzchak, 11. Abarbanel, 12. Seforno, 13. Rabbbeynu Ovadiah
MiBartenuro--all of whom explicitly explain the 6 Creation days as
regular 24-hour type days of light and darkness and/or the turning of
the sphere.*
**
*--despite these sources you had claimed that the majority, mind you, of
rishonim allow for the creation days to consist of eons of time. And
despite your "belief" that I am mistaken, you still have produced not
one classical rishon who does so (and one RY of **Akko**who posits
thousands of years before the existence of our world).*
* All this is with keeping in mind that the context of the "day" issue
is attempts to reinterpret the pesukim to jive with the current view of
academia of our world and its inhabitants having developed through
evolution over the eons of time asserted. Yet even stretching the
meaning of "yom" to mean biliions of years, the sequence of the creation
process and the description of what developed from what in no way
corresponds.
*
*Yes, I am aware that you personally are not promoting this, but a view
that neither academia nor we can attempt to have any idea at all of how
the world developed. But this does not correspond to the
commentaries---who vie with each other's interpretations of the pesukim
to determine the details of creation, nor to the teachings emphasized by
the baalei mesorah--the Moreh Nevuchim 2:17, Midrash Shmos Rabbah about
Onkelos, and Ramban in Torah Temimah citing this Midrash, neing only a
few among them, as detailed in another post.
*
*
ZL: > > *The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (****2:30****) invokes the
unanimous position*
*> > of---*
*> > *[a]ll our Sages...that all of this [the creation of Eve from Adam,
the*
*> > tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, and the account of the
serpent]*
*> > took place on the sixth day.... None of those things is impossible,*
*> > because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed.**
**
*RMB: Neither is the concept of day possible because time wasn't created
yet.*
**
*I address this in another post, which the subject line: Moreh Nevuchim
Part II Chapter 30.*
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/c77447d1/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:03:46 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood
R'ZS wrote, regarding Rashi on Bereishit 1:1:
> So Rashi tells him no, it doesn't mean that, it means that they
> were created for the sake of two "reshises". He doesn't like
> that, so Rashi tells him if he wants to avoid drush then he'll
> have to read it as if it said "bereshis bero".
Actually, I think that the above analysis emphasizes Rashi's secondary
point, while missing his main point. To borrow from the title of a
work that uses the kind of analysis I want to suggest here, What's
bothering Rashi?
What bothered Rashi is, first and foremost, that it is incongruent to
suggest that G"d created heaven and earth in the beginning, since
heaven was created on the second day, and earth on the fourth. The
primordial waters were the first thing in existence, it seems.
So, Rashi says, either read "bereishis" as derash, or as semikhut. THE
POINT IS NOT THAT IT IS DERASH OR SEMIKHUT, but that it would be
incongruent to read the verse as meaning "in the beginning G"d created
heaven and earth."
Of course, I already hear you scream that in 2:4, Rashi finds a way to
claim heaven and earth had already been created on day one. Well, that
shows that there is an (intentional) evolution in Rashi's commentary.
At 1:1, he claims it was incongruent, while in 2:4, once we have read
beyom 'asot haShem E-lohim shamayim vaarets, he gives another,
conflicting interpretation, that 1:1 is literal, and that creation
included one additional, earlier stage.
I suggest that when reading Rashi without preconceptions, the
coherence and attractiveness of this suggested interpretation will
readily be grasped.
Kol tuv,
KT,
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 210
***************************************
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..."