NEW 6/ 27/ 11: Slifkin downloads are aggregated to the "C^"6 of "YUTORAH.ORG" and this includes "Nosson Slifkin". http://www.yutorah.org/speakers/speaker.cfm/80214/Rabbi_Jeremy_Wieder and http://www.kolhamevaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/khm-torah-literature-and-the-arts-iii-6-r.pdf. Finally more is located here: http:/ou.org/torah/author/Rabbi_Jeremy_Wieder
.
Jeremy Wieder is a YU Talmud Lecturer in the main Beis Medrash at YU, has the Chair of Talmud in YU and is promoted by the Orthodox Union as a distinguished top rabbi and teacher of the Torah and our Mesorah; shul rabbis in the United States let Jeremy Wieder give lectures in their shuls and no one has yet informed all of these rabbis about Wieder's teachings so that they prevent him from speaking in their shuls. See the Jeremy Wieder quotes below.
Furthermore, Jeremy Wieder's teachings indicate that when pesukim -from the 12th chapter of Breishis through the end of Tanach- refer to an event or fact mentioned in the first 11 chapters of Breishis, the reference is also to a MYTH ( ie. the mythical event mentioned in the first 11 chapters doesnt suddenly come to life as a historical event just because it is also mentioned from chapter 12 and onward.)
(The material of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder is similar to the material of Nosson Slifkin- he also mythologizes the first 11 chapters of Breishis( see below some of Slifkin's quotes- this "Slifkin" material is some of the content that Gil Student has publicized, promoted, and popularized through Gil Student's own media outlets. Gil Student as of this writing has not justified why his promotion of Slifkin's teachings are legitimate. See Slifkin's Dennis Prager interview below in this article; here is just one example of where Slifkin teaches the world that the first 11 chapters of Breishis are a Divine allegory that didn't happen historically. )
.
The OU notes about Jeremy Wieder the following: Degree: B.A., M.S., Yeshiva University; Ordination, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Title: Gwendolyn and Joseph Straus Chair in Talmud. We will see later that despite all of this education, Jeremy Wieder's lecture -discussed here- conclusively indicates that he has not succeeded understanding (or teaching) even a minimal amount about the following subjects: the Rishonim's philosophy, general knowledge of current modern science, the modern scientific method, and the differences between what the Rishonim understood to be "philosophic demonstration" (ie. proof ) versus the current range of scientific opinion regarding "demonstration" ( ie. proof) of fact with regard to the origins of the physical universe including the origins of organisms and their features.
.
INTRODUCTION:
The OU presents Rabbi Jeremy Wieder as a paradigm teacher of Torah even though Rabbi Wieder mythologizes the first 11 chapters of Breishis ( which is a rejection of the Divrei Chazal as understood by the Rishonim and the Jewish People throughout all of history). Rabbi Wieder teaches that Jews do NOT need to accept and believe the history of Avraham Yitschok and Yaakov and MAY NOT be required to believe in the Exodus from Egypt. Jeremy Wieder says he personally believes in Avraham, Yitschok, and Yaakov but that he, Jeremy Wieder, would give up his belief in the avos if he was presented with scientific evidence that they didn't exist. Another lesson of the teachings of Jeremy Wieder is that ALL of Chazal and ALL of the Rishonim were factually wrong and mistaken about their beliefs and teachings regarding the historical events mentioned in the first 11 chapters of Breishis-- instead, the first 11 chapters are not really talking about history in even a general way, rather, Chazal and the Rishonim made huge mistakes in believing and teaching that the events of the first 11 chapters are historical- even when such events fit the pshat of the pesukim!). .
Jeremy Wieder is a YU Talmud Lecturer in the main Beis Medrash at YU, has the Chair of Talmud in YU and is promoted by the Orthodox Union as a distinguished top rabbi and teacher of the Torah and our Mesorah; shul rabbis in the United States let Jeremy Wieder give lectures in their shuls and no one has yet informed all of these rabbis about Wieder's teachings so that they prevent him from speaking in their shuls. See the Jeremy Wieder quotes below.
Furthermore, Jeremy Wieder's teachings indicate that when pesukim -from the 12th chapter of Breishis through the end of Tanach- refer to an event or fact mentioned in the first 11 chapters of Breishis, the reference is also to a MYTH ( ie. the mythical event mentioned in the first 11 chapters doesnt suddenly come to life as a historical event just because it is also mentioned from chapter 12 and onward.)
(The material of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder is similar to the material of Nosson Slifkin- he also mythologizes the first 11 chapters of Breishis( see below some of Slifkin's quotes- this "Slifkin" material is some of the content that Gil Student has publicized, promoted, and popularized through Gil Student's own media outlets. Gil Student as of this writing has not justified why his promotion of Slifkin's teachings are legitimate. See Slifkin's Dennis Prager interview below in this article; here is just one example of where Slifkin teaches the world that the first 11 chapters of Breishis are a Divine allegory that didn't happen historically. )
.
The OU notes about Jeremy Wieder the following: Degree: B.A., M.S., Yeshiva University; Ordination, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Title: Gwendolyn and Joseph Straus Chair in Talmud. We will see later that despite all of this education, Jeremy Wieder's lecture -discussed here- conclusively indicates that he has not succeeded understanding (or teaching) even a minimal amount about the following subjects: the Rishonim's philosophy, general knowledge of current modern science, the modern scientific method, and the differences between what the Rishonim understood to be "philosophic demonstration" (ie. proof ) versus the current range of scientific opinion regarding "demonstration" ( ie. proof) of fact with regard to the origins of the physical universe including the origins of organisms and their features.
.
In short, Rabbi Wieder teaches that...
[1] the first 11 chapters of Breishis are a myth and not at all historical ( he says G-d dictated this 11 chapters of mythology to Moshe),
[2] Rabbi Wieder teaches it is a "safek"- a doubt- as to whether the Torah requires belief in the historicity of the Exodus from Mitzrayim,
[3] Rabbi Wieder teaches that the existence of the Avos and the events of their lives may be a myth and may not be historical at all,
[4] Rabbi Wieder definitively teaches that the Torah does NOT require belief (a) in the historicity of the Avos, (b) in the events of their lives, and (c) for that matter, therefore, in the historicity of the entire Sefer Breishis ( i.e. Rabbi Wieder teaches the Torah doesn't require belief in the historicity of any of the 50 chapters of Sefer Breishis).
[5] Rabbi Wieder says that he, Jeremy Wieder, himself, WOULD definitively reject belief in the Avos' historicity under the following circumstances-- i.e. namely, if the SORT of evidence that Rabbi Wieder uses to justify his own mythologizing of the first 11 chapters of Breishis were ALSO evident with regard to the lives of the Avos, then such evidence would require him to believe the " science" and disbelieve in the Avos and the events of their lives. (Jeremy Wieder says that he currently has no reason to believe the stories of the avos weren't historical.)
See Jeremy Wieder quotes below.
See Jeremy Wieder quotes below.
End of Introduction to article.
This article is a Critique of the Rabbi Jeremy Wieder Lecture found at yutorah.org entitled " When the Torah Doesn't Mean What it Says: Non- Literal Interpretation of Scripture and the Controversey over the Works of Nosson Slifkin." which was listed on the calendar as having been given on Nov. 20, 2005, at 8 PM at Wilf Campus Rubin Shul. The link of the Rabbi Wieder lecture has been removed from http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm?shiurID=714680 which is now a broken link. The second lecture on this matter seems to have been returned here: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/716561/Rabbi_Jeremy_Wieder/Non_Literal_Interpretation_of_Scripture_in_Jewish_Tradition. It is listed as having been recorded Sunday November 5, 2006. Jeremy Wieder didn't retract anything. It is simply a different lecture which maintains all of the same conclusions).
.
.
Rabbi Jeremy Wieder states, quote : " ..when there is a conflict between science and philosophy on Scripture--- science and philosophy wins unless adopting the scientific or philosophic approach would either negate [1] halacha or [2] ikarei haemunah or [3] yesodei hatorah."( end quote)
.
Rabbi Wieder and all of us know that the current consensus of the world scientific community rejects the historicity of the events described as historical in the first 11 chapters of Breishis ... on the grounds that the scientific community's employment of the scientific method makes the historicity impossible. Therefore Jeremy Wieder claims that we should believe that the scientific community's assessment of the historical truth in these matters is the position to be believed in as the truth, and NOT the Torah's position on the historical truth. Thereofre
Rabbi Wieder subsequently states, quote: "What is the purpose of Breshis then? And I believe that the answer lies, I will say this carefully, the way I might term a divinely dictated creation mashal { a myth }. Hashem told us metaphysical truths, whether it’s Breishis or parshas Noach, that were meant to teach us fundamental truths."( end quote of Rabbi Wieder)
*** In the audio Rabbi Jeremy Wieder defines mashal as "a myth" multiple times- an event that didn’t take place historically. Wieder has just taught us that the 11 chapters of Breishis and Noach are not historical.
.Rabbi Jeremy Wieder states, quote: "The question is on events prior to matan Torah, how much must be read historically? I'm not 100% sure about yetsias mitzraim. I want to make it clear from the start I believe that yetsias mitzrayim happened and happened as the Torah described it. But if someone were to come along and say ' I believe that the story of matan torah more or less happened as described but I'm not sure if yetsias mitzrayim happened,' I'm not sure if he crossed the line on ikarei haemunah. I don't think it's black and white. I'd like to call it a safek of heresy, I'm not really sure. In theory even though there are lot of pesukim that speak of the basis of a mitzvah being yetsias mitzrayim…could one allegorize and say 'it means the IDEA of yetsias mitzrayim' maybe..." ( end quote). ( So Rabbi Wieder teaches that the Torah Tradition might allow you to mythologize as NON-HISTORICAL the part of the aseres hadibros that states, ""I am Hashem your G-d who delivered you from the land of Mitzrayim, from the house of slavery" . Jermey Wieder simply maintains that it might be permitted to believe that Hashem dictated these words as a myth to Moshe Rabbeinu- assuming you learn from science as such..
Rabbi Wieder also states in the lecture, quote: " When you move to the stories of the avos, let me state from the outset again here I have no reason to believe the stories of the avos weren't historical. But suppose someone were to come along and say, 'I suppose they were not history because of x,y,z evidence- would prove they cant be historical figures’- In this particular case even though I profess a profound degree of uncomfortableness I don't think the person has crossed the line because I don't think the historical existence of the avos is compelling or necessary as one of the ikarei haemunah [ or 'Yesodei Hatorah' or 'Halacha' as per above{ed} ]. Now I know that the Torah frequently mentions Avraham Yitschok and Yaakov but nonetheless it's not really fundamental, if you look, even though at the outset I mentioned, I denied that there is a clear definition of what ikarei haemunah are despite the RMBMs 13 ikarei haemunah, if you were to look at the Rambam's 13 ikarei haemunah and say the avos never existed historically I don't think there would be any conflict" ( end quote)
Rabbi Jeremy Wieder later states, quote: " I can't tell you exactly what would be enough to persuade me that a certain part of the story of Avraham Yitschak and Yaakov should be read as non historical. Do I think that there could be such evidence? Yes. But do I know of any? Not necessarily." ( end quote).
So Jeremy Wieder is teaching that the Torah allows a person to maintain that the avos are a myth if the person thinks there is scientific evidence that the avos are a myth.
Further implications of what Rabbi Wieder teaches include:
[1] Jeremy Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of ancient people living to an age of over 600 years,
*** In the audio Rabbi Jeremy Wieder defines mashal as "a myth" multiple times- an event that didn’t take place historically. Wieder has just taught us that the 11 chapters of Breishis and Noach are not historical.
.Rabbi Jeremy Wieder states, quote: "The question is on events prior to matan Torah, how much must be read historically? I'm not 100% sure about yetsias mitzraim. I want to make it clear from the start I believe that yetsias mitzrayim happened and happened as the Torah described it. But if someone were to come along and say ' I believe that the story of matan torah more or less happened as described but I'm not sure if yetsias mitzrayim happened,' I'm not sure if he crossed the line on ikarei haemunah. I don't think it's black and white. I'd like to call it a safek of heresy, I'm not really sure. In theory even though there are lot of pesukim that speak of the basis of a mitzvah being yetsias mitzrayim…could one allegorize and say 'it means the IDEA of yetsias mitzrayim' maybe..." ( end quote). ( So Rabbi Wieder teaches that the Torah Tradition might allow you to mythologize as NON-HISTORICAL the part of the aseres hadibros that states, ""I am Hashem your G-d who delivered you from the land of Mitzrayim, from the house of slavery" . Jermey Wieder simply maintains that it might be permitted to believe that Hashem dictated these words as a myth to Moshe Rabbeinu- assuming you learn from science as such..
Rabbi Wieder also states in the lecture, quote: " When you move to the stories of the avos, let me state from the outset again here I have no reason to believe the stories of the avos weren't historical. But suppose someone were to come along and say, 'I suppose they were not history because of x,y,z evidence- would prove they cant be historical figures’- In this particular case even though I profess a profound degree of uncomfortableness I don't think the person has crossed the line because I don't think the historical existence of the avos is compelling or necessary as one of the ikarei haemunah [ or 'Yesodei Hatorah' or 'Halacha' as per above{ed} ]. Now I know that the Torah frequently mentions Avraham Yitschok and Yaakov but nonetheless it's not really fundamental, if you look, even though at the outset I mentioned, I denied that there is a clear definition of what ikarei haemunah are despite the RMBMs 13 ikarei haemunah, if you were to look at the Rambam's 13 ikarei haemunah and say the avos never existed historically I don't think there would be any conflict" ( end quote)
Rabbi Jeremy Wieder later states, quote: " I can't tell you exactly what would be enough to persuade me that a certain part of the story of Avraham Yitschak and Yaakov should be read as non historical. Do I think that there could be such evidence? Yes. But do I know of any? Not necessarily." ( end quote).
So Jeremy Wieder is teaching that the Torah allows a person to maintain that the avos are a myth if the person thinks there is scientific evidence that the avos are a myth.
Jeremy Wieder teaches his students regarding the Jewish People's Torah Tradition of the 6,000 year world: " I think the evidence against such a reading is so compelling that makes it impossible to say that the world is only 6000 years ago, I don't think any bar daas with knowledge of science could deny this. " ( end quote) So Jeremy Wieder teaches us that 99% of the Jewish Torah leaders for thousands of years including the ones alive today are wrong, and the Torah Medorah got it wrong, and Jeremy Wieder has gotten it right.
(See below the full statements from Rav Hershel Schachter and Rav Ahron Lichtenstein regarding the unnaceptability of Jeremy Wieder's position. )
[ Note: All of the below quotes of Rabbi Wieder are complete and in context. Many months
after he gave the first lecture, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder lectured a second
time on the same subject matter. Both lectures appeared on the Yeshiva
College web site. Both audios were removed. Just before they were
removed one of the people involved in the department that unwittingly
put up this first material responded in shock that it got up there.
Within a relatively short period of time however, one of them reappeared
on the site. The details of the information surrounding these events
is unknown the editors of this article. The quotes in the below article
are all from the first lecture that was removed. Rabbi Jeremy Wieder made
no retractions or clarifications -in detail or in general - in the 2nd
lecture concerning anything we quote from his first lecture. If we
become aware that Rabbi Wieder retracts
or qualifies anything relevant to this matter, we will publish it here
and/ or update this article to reflect the new material. Contact email
address is below. In the meantime you can listen to the 2nd lecture as
long as it remains on YU Torah web site- but you can't listen to the
first lecture from the YU web site because it was censored from the
site. Amazingly YU has not removed the 2nd audio despite the teachings
of the lecture being the fictions with which Jeremy Wieder plies us.
Perhaps you might ask them for access to the audio.
.Further implications of what Rabbi Wieder teaches include:
[1] Jeremy Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of ancient people living to an age of over 600 years,
[2] Rabbi Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of people speaking the same language until 3,800 years ago and then dispersed after their languages changed on them,
[3] Rabbi Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of a worldwide flood ridding the world of all those not saved by Noach’s ark 4,100 years ago,
[4] Rabbi Jeremy Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of the descent of all people alive today are from the handful of people who were saved in the ark 4,100 years ago, and the consequent descent of all people alive today from a man and woman who existed 6000 years ago.
[5] Rabbi Jeremy Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of Chava being physically created from Adam and that Adam and Chava were created by G-d as a mature adult(s); why? because he maintains that the whole recording of the lives of Adam and Chava is a myth that G-d dictated to Moshe. Jeremy Wieder denies that Adam and Chava existed at all as the Torah describes their lives; even the few events that are mentioned after the expulsion from Gan Eiden is a myth according to Jeremy Wieder.
[6] Rabbi Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of all the languages of today being used less than 6,000 years old,
[7] Rabbi Wieder denies the Torah Tradition's reporting of historical occurrences of Noah's life, regarding both the non miraculous events of his life and also regarding the miraculous events of his life.
(Note: For brevity in speech, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder will interchangeably use the expression ikar haemunah without mentioning the other two categories 'yesodei hatorah' or 'halacha', although he states in the lecture that there is no difference between all three categories with regard to our subject matter.)
.
See below the statements and direction to works of Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, and Rabbi Yisroel Belsky. They are a sampling of some of the distinguished scholars knowledgeable in both the theoretical scientific method and the application of the scientific method, who have studied these matters of Torah, logic, philosophy, the philosophy of the Rishonim, and the field of modern science and the use and meaning of the modern scientific method in relation to the views of the Rishonim regarding the sciences and humanities; they are distinguished scholars supported by the chachmei Hamesorah in their educational roles in these matters. (Jeremy Wieder has no formal or informal training in the sciences, mathematics, the scientific method, the philosophy of the rishonim.).[4] Rabbi Jeremy Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of the descent of all people alive today are from the handful of people who were saved in the ark 4,100 years ago, and the consequent descent of all people alive today from a man and woman who existed 6000 years ago.
[5] Rabbi Jeremy Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of Chava being physically created from Adam and that Adam and Chava were created by G-d as a mature adult(s); why? because he maintains that the whole recording of the lives of Adam and Chava is a myth that G-d dictated to Moshe. Jeremy Wieder denies that Adam and Chava existed at all as the Torah describes their lives; even the few events that are mentioned after the expulsion from Gan Eiden is a myth according to Jeremy Wieder.
[6] Rabbi Wieder denies the Torah Tradition reporting historical occurrence of all the languages of today being used less than 6,000 years old,
[7] Rabbi Wieder denies the Torah Tradition's reporting of historical occurrences of Noah's life, regarding both the non miraculous events of his life and also regarding the miraculous events of his life.
(Note: For brevity in speech, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder will interchangeably use the expression ikar haemunah without mentioning the other two categories 'yesodei hatorah' or 'halacha', although he states in the lecture that there is no difference between all three categories with regard to our subject matter.)
.
Rav Moshe Meiselman answered some questions about a new book he wrote that he is having published shortly:
from http://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=1&ARTICLE_ID=25457
Where Chazal and Science Meet .... Rav Meiselman’s role as expositor of Torah hashkafah on issues of the day has, if anything, only intensified. With the publication of a series of books on the interplay between Torah and science that were deemed by gedolei harabbanim to have overstepped the bounds of a legitimate Torah viewpoint, the Rosh Yeshivah has been cast into the role of explaining what is problematic with the views espoused in these books, which have gained currency within the precincts of Modern Orthodoxy. In this area as well, he says, his ideological opponents are spooked by the opposition of someone who combines Torah stature with stellar academic credentials. To counter this, he says, “they claim that I forgot everything I ever studied at university, that I’m ‘merely’ a mathematician rather than a scientist and, of course, that I’m a revisionist about the views of my uncle.”
To bring authoritative clarity to an area of hashkafah that has become beclouded as a result of individuals invoking gedolim of generations past in support of highly dubious positions, the Rosh Yeshivah embarked on a monumental project that he completed two years ago, and is now being finalized. He has authored a work based on years of exhaustive research and reflection, which addresses a number of key issues relating to scientific issues arising in Torah.
Through a systematic discussion of the views of all of the Rishonim, he demonstrates their consensus on a foundational tenet of Torah: that Chazal’s halachic pronouncements, including those that implicate scientific matters, were based on a deep and comprehensive perception of physical reality of this world that emerged from their knowledge of Torah, the blueprint of that reality. This is a truth that was acknowledged even by the non-Jewish scientists of Chazal’s time. The Rosh Yeshivah points out that “even in regard to areas of pure halachah, of course, Chazal sometimes said, ‘Teiku,’ and left matters unresolved; but where they spoke unequivocally, their word is definitive and binding. What emerges very clearly from every Rishon, bar none, is that Chazal don’t make mistakes.”
Also included in the forthcoming volume are thorough discussions of the place of allegory in Torah she’bichsav, the application of the principle of ein mikra yotzei midei p’shuto to matters of aggadah, an explication of the role of nissim, the limitations of science and what it can and cannot do, and a debunking of the erroneous notion that there is no such thing as psak in hashkafic matters.
[ ed; the date the book's of R Moshe Meiselman will be published to the public is, according to the publisher, sometime between the May 2012- September 2012.
http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/interviews-and-profiles/%E2%80%98ultimately-scientists-always-realize-the-torah-is-correct%E2%80%99-an-interview-with-rabbi-moshe-meiselman/2011/11/23/
http://baltimorejewishlife.com/news/news-detail.php?SECTION_ID=1&ARTICLE_ID=25457
Mishpacha Magazine: Mosaic of Truth - For Rav Moshe Meiselman, It's Nothing But Emes By Eytan Kobre for Mishpacha Magazine.
See further:
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb:
mms://stream.simpletoremember.com/simpletoremember/gottlieb/Evolution_age-of-the-Universe.mp3
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Kuzari Principle
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htmhttp://www.torahanytime.com/scripts/media.php?file=media/Rabbi/Dovid_Gottlieb/2010-02-18/The_Theory_of_Evolution/Rabbi__Dovid_Gottlieb__Recorded_In_LA_The_Theory_of_Evolution__2010-02-18.wmv
Video On VIDEO: Evolution Lecture given in Los Angeles February 2010, by Rav Dovid Gottlieb.
http://www.torahanytime.com/scripts/media.php?file=media/Rabbi/Dovid_Gottlieb/2010-02-18/The_Theory_of_Evolution/Rabbi__Dovid_Gottlieb__Recorded_In_LA_The_Theory_of_Evolution__2010-02-18.mp3#
Audio On VIDEO: Evolution Lecture given in Los Angeles February 2010, by Rav Dovid Gottlieb.
THE KUZARI PRINCIPLE-Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm
Living Up To The Truth -Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/works/RabbiGottliebLivingUpToTheTruth.pdf
Brief Thoughts on Torah and Science -Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://dovidgottlieb.blogspot.com/
MP# catalog-Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html
Age of the Universe -Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/AGEOFTHEUNIVERSE.htm
CommentsRabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/index.htm
Biblical Criticism Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/lectures/biblical_criticism.htm
Lectures
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/lectures/index.htm
The lecture of Jeremy Wieder show his total ignorance of what "philosophic demonstration" means to the rishonim versus what 'observable operation of the world' means to the rishonim versus what "origin science and what is entails" means to the rishonim. Without knowing clearly what these three distinct categories meant to the rishonim, Jeremy Wieder cannot competently even step up to the plate to remark on when the the Rambam or any of the other rishonim will allow nonprimary word meanings in Tanach to interfere with the literal - not to mention- historical, understanding of a posuk with all their implications.
Jeremy Wieder is ignorant of the fact that none of the quotes from the rishonim use backward extrapolation regarding an event to draw conclusions about the origins of something in the world. Moreh Nevuchim is explicit in this rejection.
The rishonim don't ever even hint that even one single PRINCIPLE of theirs regarding THEIR "science" could EVEN BE remotely analogized to the 'origin sciences' of today which the Jeremy Wieder lectures requires of us.
.
THE RISHONIM's use of philosophy, logic, and natural science without exception never applies to the part of "contemporary science" that uses past EXTRAPOLATION upon which to base conclusions about "origins". To sum it up: Reasoning from the prevailing natural order to the fact of creation in time is invalid because reasoning from the final state of a developed system to the origin-conditions of the system is invalid. [ this is Rambam's anti-extrapolation principle]..
[ another remark regarding Slifkin: Unfortunately, after the hysteria ensued among many in response to the letter signed by about a dozen or so Sages banning a Slifkin book, the truth about Slifkin's fuller spectrum of beliefs and teachings BECAME publicly known when Slifkin began to reveal more of his beliefs that have furthered him from teaching true Torah Teachings: Slifkin began teaching that the first 11 chapters of Breishis were a myth- something he had not written in his published works but which he began to communicate publicly some time AFTER the original work of his was banned by contemporary Sages. And Gil Student still promotes Slifkin's books and Gil Student promotes Slifkin's speaking engagements where he goes to modern orthodox shuls and teaches them his teachings. And so when all the orthodox Jews go to these speaking engagement they hear about how the Sages of today banned his books just prior to when he revealed to the world that he was hiding his beliefs that the first 11 chapters were a myth that was perpetrated on the Klal Yisroel. (See below in appendixes of this article which includes his interview on the Dennis Prager show where he says the first 11 chapters of Breishis are a myth. The maddening and saddening irony of this is that while the initial ban was about other content, and protests for and against Slifkin's material were the rage, part of the array of arguments used to defend Slifkin were that they were claimed to have been made by previously living accepted rabbinic authorities. Again, ironically, Slifkin showed his true beliefs shortly after when he began making claims about Torah that all authorities in all generations worldwide rejected. The result was that either these teachings, or Slifkin's disparaging comments about contemporary Sages, led to other contemporary Sages- who hitherto had not signed on to the book ban- to ban all of his writings and signed letters adding additional graphic descriptions of how terrible, disgusting, and false the subsequent writings of Slifkin were. It was revelatory to the Sages --who now wrote letters banning Slifkin's work even when they had not signed on to the original ban-- that this person, Slifkin, had actually continued to digress as far away as he did. We mention this here to connect to Rabbi Jeremy Wieder who has also removed himself from the Torah Tradition in this vein, and yet has such a prominent position in both YU's Yeshiva Program as well as such an exalted status within the OU - Orthodox Union. The whole situation along with the ongoing nature of the acceptance of these teachings by such prominent personage is a mystery.]
Wouldn't a student of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder be honest in asking himself, "well if Jeremy Wieder teaches that the Rishonim were mistaken about Chazal, and taught falsehood about actual Torah Mesorah, maybe the Rishonim and Chazal messed up about a lot of other things things they included in their content with regard to the Torah Mesorah...and therefore why should I consider Divrei Chazal to be authoritative at all? Shouldn't I just abandon not only the Divrei Chazal but abandon the whole Torah? Shouldn't I abandon all of Chazal and all of the Rishonim as well as anything that Jeremy Wieder teaches? Why should any of the Rishonim or Chazal have any authority over me if Jeremy Wieder can come along and disagree with the Rishonim and all of the post Rishonim Torah authorities. After all- the pshat and Chazal and Rishonim's Mesorah are all uniformly provided to us and handed to us by the current generation of Torah authorities...except now Jeremy Wieder comes along and tells us the opposite. The student has asked a fair question ( if he embraces Jeremy Wieder as a rabbinic authority).
________________________________________
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb Kuzari Principle
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htmhttp://www.torahanytime.com/scripts/media.php?file=media/Rabbi/Dovid_Gottlieb/2010-02-18/The_Theory_of_Evolution/Rabbi__Dovid_Gottlieb__Recorded_In_LA_The_Theory_of_Evolution__2010-02-18.wmv
Video On VIDEO: Evolution Lecture given in Los Angeles February 2010, by Rav Dovid Gottlieb.
http://www.torahanytime.com/scripts/media.php?file=media/Rabbi/Dovid_Gottlieb/2010-02-18/The_Theory_of_Evolution/Rabbi__Dovid_Gottlieb__Recorded_In_LA_The_Theory_of_Evolution__2010-02-18.mp3#
Audio On VIDEO: Evolution Lecture given in Los Angeles February 2010, by Rav Dovid Gottlieb.
THE KUZARI PRINCIPLE-Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm
Living Up To The Truth -Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/works/RabbiGottliebLivingUpToTheTruth.pdf
Brief Thoughts on Torah and Science -Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://dovidgottlieb.blogspot.com/
MP# catalog-Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html
Age of the Universe -Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/AGEOFTHEUNIVERSE.htm
CommentsRabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/index.htm
Biblical Criticism Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/lectures/biblical_criticism.htm
Lectures
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/lectures/index.htm
mms://stream.simpletoremember.com/simpletoremember/gottlieb/Evolution_age-of-the-Universe.mp3
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/scienceandtheageoftheuniverse/
( see more at www.dovidgottlieb.com )
Comments to the Kuzari Principle
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/q-a-on-kuzari-principle.htm
http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/scienceandtheageoftheuniverse/
( see more at www.dovidgottlieb.com )
Comments to the Kuzari Principle
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/q-a-on-kuzari-principle.htm
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/publications.htm
intro to RDG
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/coming_h.htm
intro to RDG
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/coming_h.htm
from Rabbi Jonathan Ostroff
http://toriah.org/operation-science-vs-origins-science/index.htm
Rabbi Jonathan Ostroff : The Age of the Universe and Big Bang Cosmology
http://www.toriah.org/science/big-bang/index.htm
From Rabbi Ostroff November 30, 2004
Rambam: "No inference can be drawn in any respect from the nature of a thing after it has been generated, has attained its final state, and has achieved stability in its most perfect state, to the state of that thing while it is moved towards being generated. … Whenever you err in this and draw an inference from the nature of a thing that has achieved actuality to its nature when it was only in potential, grave doubts are aroused in you" ( Moreh Nevuchim 2:17 )
Abstract: The universe is confidently asserted to be 14 billion years old based on the outstanding successes of the big bang theory. But this confuses necessary conditions with sufficient conditions. There are at least six unproven assumptions needed for the theory, numbered (a) to (f) in the sequel, that have never been experimentally demonstrated. Two of the assumptions are foundational, three of the assumptions involve the need to postulate hypothetical entities that have never been experimentally observed, without which the theory would be in contradiction of experimental observations. The last assumption involves experimentally observed anomalies that flatly contradict the theory even in the presence of the postulated hypothetical entities. The absence of experimental confirmation2 of these assumptions makes the whole basis for the 14 billion year age calculation highly speculative.
Download paper (pdf 244kb)
http://toriah.org/operation-science-vs-origins-science/index.htm
Rabbi Jonathan Ostroff : The Age of the Universe and Big Bang Cosmology
http://www.toriah.org/science/big-bang/index.htm
From Rabbi Ostroff November 30, 2004
Rambam: "No inference can be drawn in any respect from the nature of a thing after it has been generated, has attained its final state, and has achieved stability in its most perfect state, to the state of that thing while it is moved towards being generated. … Whenever you err in this and draw an inference from the nature of a thing that has achieved actuality to its nature when it was only in potential, grave doubts are aroused in you" ( Moreh Nevuchim 2:17 )
Abstract: The universe is confidently asserted to be 14 billion years old based on the outstanding successes of the big bang theory. But this confuses necessary conditions with sufficient conditions. There are at least six unproven assumptions needed for the theory, numbered (a) to (f) in the sequel, that have never been experimentally demonstrated. Two of the assumptions are foundational, three of the assumptions involve the need to postulate hypothetical entities that have never been experimentally observed, without which the theory would be in contradiction of experimental observations. The last assumption involves experimentally observed anomalies that flatly contradict the theory even in the presence of the postulated hypothetical entities. The absence of experimental confirmation2 of these assumptions makes the whole basis for the 14 billion year age calculation highly speculative.
Download paper (pdf 244kb)
"Why the Origin Sciences are speculative" by Rabbi Ostroff:
http://www.toriah.org/operation-science-vs-origins-science/index.htm
http://www.toriah.org/operation-science-vs-origins-science/index.htm
"The Operational Sciences" describe how the universe operates today. Operational sciences are based directly on empirical testing and can be used to get us to the moon or map the human genome. Good technology is based mostly on such empirical observations and testing. The stability and rationality of nature is guaranteed by the Creator of the Cosmos, thus making the operational sciences possible.
By contrast, the Origin Sciences attempt to explain via chance and naturalistic processes how the cosmos and the marvels of life originated. For example, how did the first cell originate? How did the human genome originate? How did creatures with no eyes develop eyes? How did creatures with no no brains develop brains? How did the solar system or galaxies of stars originate?
"The Origin Sciences" include implausible naturalistic accounts of such origins using chance and naturalistic explanations such as Big Bang Cosmology, the Chemical Origin of Life, Biological Evolution and Dating Methods extrapolated to an open-ended and unobservable past. Origin Sciences are speculative and often suspect because they are based on untested foundational assumptions, vast extrapolations, and the need to postulate unobserved hypothetical entities to save the theories from disconfirmation from stubborn anomalies in the data." see link for rest toriah.org.
Another scholar to review is at this work:
At
this above essay in Appendix # 2 you will you will find a discussion as
to what Maimonides' refers to as "demonstration" and how Maimonides'
relates the use of "non primary" meanings of words in Tanach for
interpreting a posuk to the topic of what is "philosophic
demonstration".
Jeremy wieder is so completely uneducated in these subject matter that he literally tosses out 3,000 years of historical beliefs in the Torah Tradition but doesn't even make an effort - not even a poor effort- to convince us of what the rishonim are talking about when they refer to "philosophic demonstration" and its application to the subject of modern science. He doesnt even bother to address what the most distinguished scholars on these matters- within the frum community- have to say on this subject. The latter is not a trivial aspect of critique, because it reveals the slipshod manner in which Rabbi Jeremy Wieder cast off 3,300 years of Torah Tradition of Chazal and the Rishonim and the contemporary Sages, and to the degree of lack of attachment to methods of interpreting texts and Rishonim. Jeremy Wieder doesn't even feel the need to inform us whether or not he has a rebbe ( someone a bigger scholar than him) who told him that he could interpret and teach his lecture against all of 3,300 years of Mesorah. The lecture of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder leads to false teachings and to make matters worse, evidently no one in YU -in positions of authority - stop him from teaching these false teachings to the heiligeh bnei Torah.
.
Knowledge of the material of people like Rabbis Dovid Gottlieb, Moshe Meiselman, and Jonathan Ostroff - to cite just 3 scholars among many- is necessary to have even minimal knowledge for an opinion on the matter. Even on Jeremy Wieder's audio lecture he peppers his remarks by referring to the limits of what he learned of modern science having come from his recollection of what he learned from his undergrad science teachers. Furthermore Jeremy Wieder makes remarks about why he maintains evolution is science-- his remarks themselves cry out that he doesn't understand the Theory of Evolution, otherwise he could not possibly have uttered the few remarks he made about the topic. If we challenged him to explain to us how he can suggest the throwing out of 3,300 years of tradition about the history of the avos and the history of the first 11 chapters in Breishis on account of his belief that the modern academics are correct in assuming the laws of natures were in force 12 billion years, something beyond their scope to claim, what would his response be? All he says in the lecture is that we should believe academics when the consensus is in accordance with the position that negates the parts of the Torah he cites, and he also adds " I think the evidence against such a reading is so compelling that makes it impossible to say that the world is only 6000 years ago, I don't think any bar daas with knowledge of science could deny this. "
Jeremy Wieder is ignorant of the fact that none of the quotes from the rishonim use backward extrapolation regarding an event to draw conclusions about the origins of something in the world. Moreh Nevuchim is explicit in this rejection.
The rishonim don't ever even hint that even one single PRINCIPLE of theirs regarding THEIR "science" could EVEN BE remotely analogized to the 'origin sciences' of today which the Jeremy Wieder lectures requires of us.
.
THE RISHONIM's use of philosophy, logic, and natural science without exception never applies to the part of "contemporary science" that uses past EXTRAPOLATION upon which to base conclusions about "origins". To sum it up: Reasoning from the prevailing natural order to the fact of creation in time is invalid because reasoning from the final state of a developed system to the origin-conditions of the system is invalid. [ this is Rambam's anti-extrapolation principle]..
[ another remark regarding Slifkin: Unfortunately, after the hysteria ensued among many in response to the letter signed by about a dozen or so Sages banning a Slifkin book, the truth about Slifkin's fuller spectrum of beliefs and teachings BECAME publicly known when Slifkin began to reveal more of his beliefs that have furthered him from teaching true Torah Teachings: Slifkin began teaching that the first 11 chapters of Breishis were a myth- something he had not written in his published works but which he began to communicate publicly some time AFTER the original work of his was banned by contemporary Sages. And Gil Student still promotes Slifkin's books and Gil Student promotes Slifkin's speaking engagements where he goes to modern orthodox shuls and teaches them his teachings. And so when all the orthodox Jews go to these speaking engagement they hear about how the Sages of today banned his books just prior to when he revealed to the world that he was hiding his beliefs that the first 11 chapters were a myth that was perpetrated on the Klal Yisroel. (See below in appendixes of this article which includes his interview on the Dennis Prager show where he says the first 11 chapters of Breishis are a myth. The maddening and saddening irony of this is that while the initial ban was about other content, and protests for and against Slifkin's material were the rage, part of the array of arguments used to defend Slifkin were that they were claimed to have been made by previously living accepted rabbinic authorities. Again, ironically, Slifkin showed his true beliefs shortly after when he began making claims about Torah that all authorities in all generations worldwide rejected. The result was that either these teachings, or Slifkin's disparaging comments about contemporary Sages, led to other contemporary Sages- who hitherto had not signed on to the book ban- to ban all of his writings and signed letters adding additional graphic descriptions of how terrible, disgusting, and false the subsequent writings of Slifkin were. It was revelatory to the Sages --who now wrote letters banning Slifkin's work even when they had not signed on to the original ban-- that this person, Slifkin, had actually continued to digress as far away as he did. We mention this here to connect to Rabbi Jeremy Wieder who has also removed himself from the Torah Tradition in this vein, and yet has such a prominent position in both YU's Yeshiva Program as well as such an exalted status within the OU - Orthodox Union. The whole situation along with the ongoing nature of the acceptance of these teachings by such prominent personage is a mystery.]
Wouldn't a student of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder be honest in asking himself, "well if Jeremy Wieder teaches that the Rishonim were mistaken about Chazal, and taught falsehood about actual Torah Mesorah, maybe the Rishonim and Chazal messed up about a lot of other things things they included in their content with regard to the Torah Mesorah...and therefore why should I consider Divrei Chazal to be authoritative at all? Shouldn't I just abandon not only the Divrei Chazal but abandon the whole Torah? Shouldn't I abandon all of Chazal and all of the Rishonim as well as anything that Jeremy Wieder teaches? Why should any of the Rishonim or Chazal have any authority over me if Jeremy Wieder can come along and disagree with the Rishonim and all of the post Rishonim Torah authorities. After all- the pshat and Chazal and Rishonim's Mesorah are all uniformly provided to us and handed to us by the current generation of Torah authorities...except now Jeremy Wieder comes along and tells us the opposite. The student has asked a fair question ( if he embraces Jeremy Wieder as a rabbinic authority).
Appendix A
.
RAMBAM on this matter:
Rambam does not suggest that observation of the natural world's current processes are used as evidence that Breishis is a myth, on the contrary, he says in MN 3:50, that despite the fact that analysis of the natural world's current processes yield the conclusion of an old earth, the Traditional understanding of the pshat in the pesukim in Breishis teach us of a young earth. See the appendix below for the Rambam's words on this matter.
Rambam states, quote: "Since it is a fundamental doctrine of the Torah that the world is newly created and that the first [human] creation was Adam and that the time which elapsed from Adam to Moshe is approximately 2,500 years…."Rambam is quite clear (Moreh 3:50 - Kapach ed. pg 400) this is a doctrine that must be believed despite the fact that this is a case where logic + the senses lead one to conclude that the occurences in the first 2,500 years of Creation are not possible.( see Rabbi Ostroff below who explains that the Rambam explains that anyone viewing such a diversified world with so many inhabitants belonging to so many different cultures speaking so many different languages spread out over such large geographical locations, might doubt the recentness of creation and the fact that initially, only one man was created ( editor's note: doubt due to logic + the senses }. Therefore, the Torah goes out of its way to list the specific generations which unfolded from Adam to Moshe, who their leaders were, what occurred to them, and that they originally all spoke one language as one would expect from a society which descended from one lone man. Rambam tells us that here the Torah gives us an example of a supernatural occurrence leaving behind evidence that does not demonstrate the supernatural occurence-- instead the earth shows a history different than the Torah describes. The ancient people in the midbar who first received the Torah's account didn't need 20th century knowledge to know that the Torah's account directly contradicted their naturalistic observation about the world-- despite which the Jewish People/ Jewish Tradition / maintain the account of history all the way back 3,300 years: No Jewish Tradition interpretation response ensued to mythologize the account of Breishis and the 2500 year young history in order to square it to what didn't make sense to their naturalistic conclusions about their physical world; no extrapolation about the past would interfere with their tradition of understanding historical events noted in pshat in the pesukim.
{ { We see clearly from the Rambam ( and Rav Saadyah - see below ....etc...) that the Torah will indeed tell us the TRUTH on occasions where our logic + our senses do not. Rambam points to pesukim in MN 3:50 to show why the history is as the Messorah has it, and why the skeptical point of view is deficient as he explains it in 3:50. Part of Rambam's philosophical demonstration in MN 2:17 shows why all attempts to dismiss the Mesorah on Creation is invalid.
{ { We see clearly from the Rambam ( and Rav Saadyah - see below ....etc...) that the Torah will indeed tell us the TRUTH on occasions where our logic + our senses do not. Rambam points to pesukim in MN 3:50 to show why the history is as the Messorah has it, and why the skeptical point of view is deficient as he explains it in 3:50. Part of Rambam's philosophical demonstration in MN 2:17 shows why all attempts to dismiss the Mesorah on Creation is invalid.
( Moreh Nevuchim 2:17 ) Rambam quote: "…It is quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced: nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion: you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions.... We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed such-from-such, and that it has been created such-from-such. The Aristotelians oppose us, and based their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence." end quote of Rambam.
.
To sum it up: Reasoning from the prevailing natural order to the fact of creation in time is invalid because: Reasoning from the final state of a developed system to the origin-conditions of the system is invalid. [ this is Rambam's anti-extrapolation principle.] .
.
Furthermore,
Rambam quote from Letter to Chasdai Halevi / igeret harambam el harab hagadol rabbi chasdai halevi hasfardi ( Rambam quote cited on page 69 of Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn's " A Jewish Sourcebook on Wisdom of Torah ( note: warning: unverified/ possibly a forgery) quotes Rambam: "As a general rule, philosophers establish their assertions with clear rational proofs. The philosophers before Plato denied G-d’s existence and they broughtproof that the world is eternal and not created. Some of the newer philosophers acknowledge G-d’s existence and that the world was created- and thus are consistent with the views of Moshe. There are other philosophers who acknowledge G-d’s existence but insist that the world is eternal and that that G-d does not interact with the world. The fact is there is no conclusive logical proof for any of these viewpoints. Each brings support for their position- but not irrefutable proof….Now obviously one cannot say that the world is not eternal and not created, however I don’t have irrefutable proof that that world was created. Therefore, the matter is irresolvable purely on the basis of logical proofs and neither position can refute the other. The fact is that man’s intellect is limited and as long as the soul is contained in the body , it is not able to know that which transcends nature. Since it exists within nature it is impossible to see that which is beyond nature…It is able to see and understand only that which is within nature. A clear proof of the inability to penetrate that which transcends nature is the fact that none of the three theories has an irrefutable proof. However prophecy is a form of knowledge which is superior to philosophy. Prophecy is a different dimension and requires no proofs or arguments. Once it is established that something is known through prophecy it is unquestionably valid. Thus we see that a prophet was never required to prove that what he was saying was true—but only to prove that he was a genuine prophet. Therefore prophecy is superior to any rational proof and is able to know that which transcends nature. Moshe was the greatest prophet who ever lived and reached the highest level of prophecy. Once we accept that intellect cannot refute that which is learned from prophecy there is no need to bring proof to that which is learned by prophecy. Thus the only way to refute our beliefs- which comes from the prophecy of Moshe- is to deny that Moshe was a prophet. However if you acknowledge that he was a prophet then rational proofs are not needed concerning what he said. To try and establish these matters purely on the basis of intellect cannot result in an irrefutable understanding. It is equivalent to trying to gather up all the water in the world into a small jug.".
.
Regarding the position of Rabbi Wieder regarding the uniform Torah Tradition on the historicity of the Exodus: The Torah Tradition uniformly teaches the Exodus was experienced nationally and the Jewish People testify to having experienced it ( the testimony of our national experience is what can be called the Testimony of the belief of a national unforgettable event). This event leads up to matan Torah- (another national unforgettable event testified to by the Jewish People) ....this leads onward to the entry to the Holy Land ( another national unforgettable event) ...all of this makes the 'stuff' of which is the quintessential justificatory claim of the Jewish People that Chazal and the Rishonim uniformly describe as the anchor of our knowledge of the Truth of Torah: All our families witnessed it. ( see further an intro at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm ).
.
To sum it up: Reasoning from the prevailing natural order to the fact of creation in time is invalid because: Reasoning from the final state of a developed system to the origin-conditions of the system is invalid. [ this is Rambam's anti-extrapolation principle.] .
.
Furthermore,
Rambam quote from Letter to Chasdai Halevi / igeret harambam el harab hagadol rabbi chasdai halevi hasfardi ( Rambam quote cited on page 69 of Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn's " A Jewish Sourcebook on Wisdom of Torah ( note: warning: unverified/ possibly a forgery) quotes Rambam: "As a general rule, philosophers establish their assertions with clear rational proofs. The philosophers before Plato denied G-d’s existence and they broughtproof that the world is eternal and not created. Some of the newer philosophers acknowledge G-d’s existence and that the world was created- and thus are consistent with the views of Moshe. There are other philosophers who acknowledge G-d’s existence but insist that the world is eternal and that that G-d does not interact with the world. The fact is there is no conclusive logical proof for any of these viewpoints. Each brings support for their position- but not irrefutable proof….Now obviously one cannot say that the world is not eternal and not created, however I don’t have irrefutable proof that that world was created. Therefore, the matter is irresolvable purely on the basis of logical proofs and neither position can refute the other. The fact is that man’s intellect is limited and as long as the soul is contained in the body , it is not able to know that which transcends nature. Since it exists within nature it is impossible to see that which is beyond nature…It is able to see and understand only that which is within nature. A clear proof of the inability to penetrate that which transcends nature is the fact that none of the three theories has an irrefutable proof. However prophecy is a form of knowledge which is superior to philosophy. Prophecy is a different dimension and requires no proofs or arguments. Once it is established that something is known through prophecy it is unquestionably valid. Thus we see that a prophet was never required to prove that what he was saying was true—but only to prove that he was a genuine prophet. Therefore prophecy is superior to any rational proof and is able to know that which transcends nature. Moshe was the greatest prophet who ever lived and reached the highest level of prophecy. Once we accept that intellect cannot refute that which is learned from prophecy there is no need to bring proof to that which is learned by prophecy. Thus the only way to refute our beliefs- which comes from the prophecy of Moshe- is to deny that Moshe was a prophet. However if you acknowledge that he was a prophet then rational proofs are not needed concerning what he said. To try and establish these matters purely on the basis of intellect cannot result in an irrefutable understanding. It is equivalent to trying to gather up all the water in the world into a small jug.".
.
Regarding the position of Rabbi Wieder regarding the uniform Torah Tradition on the historicity of the Exodus: The Torah Tradition uniformly teaches the Exodus was experienced nationally and the Jewish People testify to having experienced it ( the testimony of our national experience is what can be called the Testimony of the belief of a national unforgettable event). This event leads up to matan Torah- (another national unforgettable event testified to by the Jewish People) ....this leads onward to the entry to the Holy Land ( another national unforgettable event) ...all of this makes the 'stuff' of which is the quintessential justificatory claim of the Jewish People that Chazal and the Rishonim uniformly describe as the anchor of our knowledge of the Truth of Torah: All our families witnessed it. ( see further an intro at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm ).
.
It is also beside the point to mention that the historicity of the events are an essential part of the fulfilling of numerous mitzvos ( the fulfillment of the mitzvah only takes place within the rubric of the historical experience- experiencing Pesach as though we ourselves left Mitzrayim is a mitzvah on Seder night, and many others mitzvos like the mitzvah to remember the Exodus. Furthermore the first of the Aseres Hadibros is "I am Hashem your G-d who delivered you from the land of Mitzrayim, from the house of slavery"). Nonetheless Rabbi Wieder teaches students that the Torah Tradition might not require a Jew to believe in the Exodus.
Rabbis Hershel Schachter, Mayer Twersky, Mordechai Willig, and Michoel Rosenzweig, write " Jews of all generations most certainly know that we lived in Eretz Mitzrayim." http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2010/homosexuality.html.
Chapter 20 verse 2 that " I am Hashem your G-d Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery", and furthermore in the Ten Commandments, Deuteronomy Chapter 5 verse 6, " I am Hashem your G-d Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery". and furthermore, in verse 14 and 15 " But the 7th day is Sabbath to Hashem, your G-d; you shall not do any work- you, your son, your daughter, your slave, your maidservant, your ox, your donkey, and your every animal, and your convert within your gates, in order that your slave and your maidservant may rest like you. And you will remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and Hashem, your G-d, has taken you out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm; therefore Hashem, your G-d, has commanded you to make the Sabbath day."
Appendix B:
Rambam Moreh Nevuchim 3:50 and 2:17 and more
Rambam Moreh Nevuchim 3:50 and 2:17 and more
The Mesorah doesn't provide a trigger to allow the scientific method of today to be employed to draw conclusions about how Hashem let the physical world appear after the 6 supernatural days of Creation, after the supernatural Flood, and after the supernatural Dispersion. MN 3:50
[Rambam, Yad Hachazaka, Laws of the Temple]: "The location of the Altar [in the Holy Temple] is very precise. This location may not be altered in any way. … We have an authentic tradition that the place where David and Solomon built the Altar on the threshing floor of Arona, is the very place where Abraham built an altar and bound Isaac upon it; this is where Noah built [an altar] when he came out from the Ark; this is where Cain and Abel brought their offerings; this is where Adam the First Man offered a korban [an offering to God] when he was created – and it is from [the earth of] this place that he was created."
.And when the Rambam discusses the mitzvah of shemitta and yovel, he identifies the precise historical year this mitzvah first took place as follows: Rambam:"When did they first start to count? 14 years after they entered the land…7 years they were involved in conquering, seven years in dividing up the land…it therefore turns out that on the two thousandth, five hundred and third year from the Rosh Hashana of molad Adam haRishon, being the second year of creation" (the first 5 days of creation were the last 5 days of the first virtual year of creation - see Rosh haShana 8a Tosfos s.v. Litkufos), they started to count. (Hilchos Shemitta v'Yovel 10:2).
And here, Rambam : "Adam haRishon was commanded to keep six mitzvos…an additional one was added to Noach…until Avraham came who was additionally commanded on milah and davened tefilas shacharis. Yitzchok separated tithes and added another prayer towards sundown. Yaakov added gid haNasheh and davened maariv. In Egypt, Amram was commanded in some additional mitzvos until Moshe came at which point the Torah was completed by him." (Hilchos Milachim 9:1)
.But according to Wieder we need to say that these Chazalim ( and the Rambam ) taught and handed down a Mesorah about events about which they were all wrong because they didn't know they were really myths.
.And when the Rambam discusses the mitzvah of shemitta and yovel, he identifies the precise historical year this mitzvah first took place as follows: Rambam:"When did they first start to count? 14 years after they entered the land…7 years they were involved in conquering, seven years in dividing up the land…it therefore turns out that on the two thousandth, five hundred and third year from the Rosh Hashana of molad Adam haRishon, being the second year of creation" (the first 5 days of creation were the last 5 days of the first virtual year of creation - see Rosh haShana 8a Tosfos s.v. Litkufos), they started to count. (Hilchos Shemitta v'Yovel 10:2).
And here, Rambam : "Adam haRishon was commanded to keep six mitzvos…an additional one was added to Noach…until Avraham came who was additionally commanded on milah and davened tefilas shacharis. Yitzchok separated tithes and added another prayer towards sundown. Yaakov added gid haNasheh and davened maariv. In Egypt, Amram was commanded in some additional mitzvos until Moshe came at which point the Torah was completed by him." (Hilchos Milachim 9:1)
.But according to Wieder we need to say that these Chazalim ( and the Rambam ) taught and handed down a Mesorah about events about which they were all wrong because they didn't know they were really myths.
.
The position of Jeremy Wieder in this respect is exactly the same as Nosson Slifkin who wrote : "Actually, if someone feels that one needs to have a sufficiently qualified authority upon which to rely for the allegorization of the Mabul, then I can provide one. It's a more authoritative source than the Rishonim. More authoritative even than Chazal. It's the Metziyus. Hashem's "diary of history," the physical world, states that there was no global Flood. I think that Hashem is a reliable source (unless, of course, He was deliberately deceiving us...). There is only one metziyus. On the other hand, there are different ways of understanding the Torah...." [ found at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/nosson-slifkin-rabbi-dessler-avraham-chaim-carmell.htm ] .
.With regard to Dovbear, shiurim download, hirhurim, and the "Gil Student" hirhurim postings, we must say the jury is inside.
To adequately understand this crucial matter, let's read a few articles from Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb ( former professor of philosophy of Johns Hopkins Univ. and Phd in mathematical logic and philosophyand magid shiur of Yeshivas Ohr Sameach of Jerusalem) with the collaboration of Rav Moshe Meiselman ( Phd from MIT and Rosh Yeshiva of Toras Moshe and a very primary talmid of Rav Y D Soloveitchik). They are just two individuals with haskamos for their teachings from gedolei yisroel of past and present. This will show us an example of how some modern scientific conclusions are not the "truth " about which the rishonim included in what we should determine to be the truth within the rubric of philosophic demonstration and the senses. Let's recognize that Jermey wieder doesn't even remark on this information which leaves us wondering how Jeremy Weider could have commented on the topic AT ALL given his vast scientific and philosophic ignorance.
" Science is not truth. It is a system that enables us to predict the future based on the past. This assumes regularity. It cannot deal with irregularity and does not plan around it. This does not prove that irregular events cannot occur. Only, science does not have the tools for this. When you allow that there were periods of time when there was a different natural order, the question of dating becomes impossible to address scientifically. The question of timing becomes meaningless because time is the relative relationship of various natural processes…." ( see full article below) The dating processes are based on a series of assumptions. First and foremost is the assumption that we can project backwards with the same rates of natural processes as we have today. But even that is problematic. [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p. 201: "In several modern cosmological theories, the so-called constants of nature (such as the masses of the elementary particles) actually vary from place to place or from time to time...."]"
Appendix C
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb and Rabbi Moshe Meisleman : " Science is not truth. It is a system that enables us to predict the future based on the past. This assumes regularity. It cannot deal with irregularity and does not plan around it. This does not prove that irregular events cannot occur. Only, science does not have the tools for this. When you allow that there were periods of time when there was a different natural order, the question of dating becomes impossible to address scientifically. The question of timing becomes meaningless because time is the relative relationship of various natural processes…." ( see full article below) The dating processes are based on a series of assumptions. First and foremost is the assumption that we can project backwards with the same rates of natural processes as we have today. But even that is problematic. [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p. 201: "In several modern cosmological theories, the so-called constants of nature (such as the masses of the elementary particles) actually vary from place to place or from time to time...."]"
( see full article below or at http://dovidgottlieb.blogspot.com/ full article at this link. [ End of excerpt ]
.
.
more of article below dated Sunday, July 09, 2006 :
"Brief Thoughts On Torah and Science"
[The material below has benefited from the comments and advice of my teacher Rav Moshe Meiselman. Material in red is his. New thoughts will be added regularly. The interested reader might also look at http://www.toriah.org/]
.Question #1: There is no evidence of a world-wide flood - no mud layer etc. And how did the kangaroos get to Australia?Answer: There is no reason to expect that the flood will have naturalistic consequences. The Torah describes the event as being outside the natural order. And even details of the story which are not explicitly described as such are taken that way be the commentators. For example, the Ramban says that the ark was too small to fit everything in, even though the text does not mention this. There are people who think that the flood was a lot of water. Chazal [the rabbinic tradition] say not. While the verse talks about restoring the seasons, which would mean a planetary tilt, Chazal refer to the cosmos as far away as the stars. It was a disruption of the entire natural order. There was a different natural order where the rules that govern our cosmos did not apply. HaKodosh Boruch Hu [G-d] ripped apart the world and put it together. Only in the Taivoh [ark] did the natural order continue. This is beyond nature..
Question #2: You say the universe could be literally only 5766 years old and the appearance of greater age is misleading. That means that G-d is deliberately fooling us - that is outrageous!Answer: He is not misleading us at all. Just the opposite. He revealed the truth to us directly in the Torah. We are using tools that may be misleading us. The dating processes are based on a series of assumptions. First and foremost is the assumption that we can project backwards with the same rates of natural processes as we have today. But even that is problematic. [Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p. 201: "In several modern cosmological theories, the so-called constants of nature (such as the masses of the elementary particles) actually vary from place to place or from time to time...."]
We know that the magnetic force of the earth is changing. Therefore two thousand years ago it should have been totally different than today. On the other hand other tools tell us it was the same. This is a well known problem. I have never seen a solution. However, if in the six days of creation there were rules totally different than we live by, then there is no ability to project into that period of time. If the rules during the mabul [flood] were different, we cannot even project beyond that. We are not being fooled. We are fooling ourselves. Science is not truth. It is a system that enables us to predict the future based on the past. This assumes regularity. It cannot deal with irregularity and does not plan around it. This does not prove that irregular events cannot occur. Only, science does not have the tools for this.When you allow that there were periods of time when there was a different natural order, the question of dating becomes impossible to address scientifically. The question of timing becomes meaningless because time is the relative relationship of various natural processes. Today time is measured by relating all other processes to the behavior of the cesium atom. Science cannot talk about the moment before big bang for that reason. Therefore they cannot say what caused it because that operates within a different system.[So the question should really be put this way: Would G-d create the world in such a way that if we look at it WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE TRUTH HE REVEALED TO US we will be mistaken about its nature? Now the answer to that question is clearly yes. First, we say it twice every morning - G-d makes the work of creation new continuously - Do not forget that He did not leave us to our ignorance - He told us the truth in revelation. We just cannot see the truth with our eyes. Second, traditional sources take this proposition explicitly - see Daas Tevunos [The Understanding Heart] by Ramchal, and Nes v'Teva ["Miracle and Nature"] by Rav Dessler.] end of article____________________________________________________
We know that the magnetic force of the earth is changing. Therefore two thousand years ago it should have been totally different than today. On the other hand other tools tell us it was the same. This is a well known problem. I have never seen a solution. However, if in the six days of creation there were rules totally different than we live by, then there is no ability to project into that period of time. If the rules during the mabul [flood] were different, we cannot even project beyond that. We are not being fooled. We are fooling ourselves. Science is not truth. It is a system that enables us to predict the future based on the past. This assumes regularity. It cannot deal with irregularity and does not plan around it. This does not prove that irregular events cannot occur. Only, science does not have the tools for this.When you allow that there were periods of time when there was a different natural order, the question of dating becomes impossible to address scientifically. The question of timing becomes meaningless because time is the relative relationship of various natural processes. Today time is measured by relating all other processes to the behavior of the cesium atom. Science cannot talk about the moment before big bang for that reason. Therefore they cannot say what caused it because that operates within a different system.[So the question should really be put this way: Would G-d create the world in such a way that if we look at it WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE TRUTH HE REVEALED TO US we will be mistaken about its nature? Now the answer to that question is clearly yes. First, we say it twice every morning - G-d makes the work of creation new continuously - Do not forget that He did not leave us to our ignorance - He told us the truth in revelation. We just cannot see the truth with our eyes. Second, traditional sources take this proposition explicitly - see Daas Tevunos [The Understanding Heart] by Ramchal, and Nes v'Teva ["Miracle and Nature"] by Rav Dessler.] end of article____________________________________________________
[ BLOG editorial remark; recap comment: Hashem TOLD US THE TRUTH. Yes, if someone on principle ignores revelation and looks only to what the senses + logic reveal about the world, he WILL BE TRICKED, but HE IS TRICKING HIMSELF. Also - we say every morning twice that HKBH makes the creation new continuously [even JEREMY WIEDER says it! ]. It certainly does not look that way. So it is inescapable that Hashem does not reveal the true nature of existence to our observation [but rather reveals it to us - so we will not be misled]. The Torah never tells us to determine all truth from analysis of the physical world.
.
The next article of Rav Dovid Gottlieb can be found at ( a teacher of R D Gottlieb on some of the matters contained herein) http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/AGEOFTHEUNIVERSE.htm (R Moshe Meiselman is a teacher of R D Gottlieb of parts of this material ).Appendix D:
.
"THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE"
.
"THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE"
"The solution to the contradiction between the age of the earth and the universe according to science and the Jewish date of 5755 years since Creation is this: the real age of the universe is 5755 years, but it has misleading evidence of greater age. The bones, artifacts, partially decayed radium, potassium-argon, uranium, the red-shifted light from space, etc. - all of it points to a greater age which nevertheless is not true. G-d put these things in the universe and they lead many to the false conclusion of a much greater age. I said the evidence is misleading. Does that mean that G-d is tricking us?
Not at all: He told us the truth! Only someone who [perversely] decides to ignore the statement of the Creator and rely only on what he can investigate will be lead to a false conclusion. Only to such a person is the evidence misleading. And note that this policy of creating the world looking different from its true nature is an inescapable Jewish idea. For, we recite twice every morning that G-d constantly recreates the universe, even though this is not observable. Let's first understand that G-d certainly can do this if He wishes. There is no logical impossibility in imagining such indicators of false age. Furthermore, something like this is part of the naive understanding of Genesis. Adam was created as an adult. Observing him a few minutes after he was created, we would assume him to be at least twenty years old: he was created with misleading symptoms of greater age than he possessed. The trees created in the Garden of Eden presumably had tree rings. Tree rings usually indicate the age of the tree, but in this case the rings are misleading evidence of age the trees did not possess. So the idea is not inherently absurd. The usual response to this idea is: "Why would G-d do that? Why would He want to mislead us in that way?" Now strictly speaking we don't have to answer that question. Knowing why G-d would do it is not a prerequisite to asserting that He did it. Often we don't know why people do various things; that does not lead us to doubt that they did them! Nevertheless, even though we don't need to answer the question, we can.
Briefly, the purpose of the physical world is to hide G-d's presence so that we can exercise free will. In fact, the Hebrew word for "world" - olam - means "hiding". So evidence which hides the true age of the universe since Creation would be part of the general policy of hiding G-d's presence.
A more sophisticated objection to the solution is this. Can we not defend any arbitrarily chosen age for the universe by this logic? If we said the universe is 50,000, or 500,000, or 5,000,000 years old, we could always say that the evidence of greater age was due to misleading evidence put there by G-d! Doesn't this trivialize the whole project? It means that there is no objective standard at all for deciding how old the universe is! The answer to this objection is as follows. Indeed, if we were to use this logic without any limits, it would trivialize all investigation in the age of the universe. But we are suggesting that it be used to resolve a contradiction between two generally reliable sources of information. Under these conditions it is wholly appropriate. I will give you an analogy. Suppose George is accused of murder, and we have his fingerprints at the scene of the crime, the murder weapon at his premises, and he has a motive. Suppose the only argument put forward by the defense is that George is being framed. That will surely not be taken seriously. To take it seriously would undermine almost all attempts to convict, since almost always it is possible that the defendant is being framed. But now suppose we have a witness who claims to have seen George 100 miles from the crime at the time when it occurred. Now we have a contradiction in the evidence. Now it surely would be appropriate to suggest the possibility of a frame-up and to investigate that possibility. After all, frame-ups do sometimes happen.
Our case is strictly parallel. To suggest that G-d hid the true age in defense of any arbitrarily chosen age is wrong. But to use that suggestion to solve a contradiction in the evidence is perfectly appropriate. Of course, this solution assumes that the Jewish tradition does have enough evidence to be regarded as generally reliable. I believe that this is true, but defending it requires a much larger effort ( see links directly below for this 'much larger effort' in providing this overwhelming evidence {ed} ). In the meantime, given that premise, the analogy with prosecuting crime holds. Therefore it seems to me that this solution is perfectly adequate to reconcile the two ages of the universe: the Jewish date gives the real age, while the scientific estimate is the result of reading misleading evidence." [ end]
For the audio of the above article from Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb just above cut and paste the following:
For the audio of the above article from Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb just above cut and paste the following:
mms://stream.simpletoremember.com/simpletoremember/gottlieb/Evolution_age-of-the-Universe.mp3
For the series of audios containing the evidence for the veracity of the Torah referred to above as " a much larger effort " in the above article, cut and paste the following:
Then follow the directions to click the audio. If the link doesn't work you can find it at ... . http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html ( scroll down to the 20th lecture Evolution and the Age of the Universe" and then listen to the 78th lecture Science & The Age of The Universe . These are must listens for everyone to hear for forming conclusions about these matters.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html entitled " Historical Verification of the Torah ". We would recommend first listening to the newer taping of " Historical Verification part 2 " which is listed as audio # 16, or first read the article at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Kuzari_Principle_Intro.htm and then listen to "part 2" linked above, then on to the 4 recordings at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html entitled Historical Verification of the Torah - Standards & Prophecy (1 of 4) (download) Historical Verification of the Torah - Sinai & Miracles (2 of 4) (download) Historical Verification of the Torah - Revelation (3 of 4) (download) Historical Verification of the Torah - Higher Quality of Life (4 of 4) (download). Then we recommend reading the short book entitled "Living Up to The Truth" at
www.dovidgottlieb.com/publications.htm
or go right to a pdf of it at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/works/RabbiGottliebLivingUpToTheTruth.pdf
These provide the best contemporary elucidation of the evidence for the verification of the truth of the Torah for the 21st century mind, in language of the 21st century in the tradition of the Kuzari for its time. The root of much of the material in Rabbi Gottlieb's work is sourced in the traditional evidence given by the rishonim for the varacity of the tradition - the Mesorah.
www.dovidgottlieb.com/publications.htm
or go right to a pdf of it at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/works/RabbiGottliebLivingUpToTheTruth.pdf
These provide the best contemporary elucidation of the evidence for the verification of the truth of the Torah for the 21st century mind, in language of the 21st century in the tradition of the Kuzari for its time. The root of much of the material in Rabbi Gottlieb's work is sourced in the traditional evidence given by the rishonim for the varacity of the tradition - the Mesorah.
.
So now we can apply the above directly to the false assertions of Jeremy Weider and Nosson Slifkin regarding the first 11 chapters of Breishis:
* The Mesorah doesn't allow an avenue to allow for the employment of the scientific method to be employed to draw conclusions about how Hashem left the physical world appearing after the 6 supernatural days of Creation, after the supernatural Flood, and after the supernatural Dispersion.
.
FURTHER OUTLINE OF MATERIAL FROM RABBI DOVID GOTTLIEB'S AUDIO LECTURES ON http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/
.
Appendix E:
.
Pirkei Avot 2: 17: " ...know what to answer an unbeliever...".
Pirkei Avot 2: 17: " ...know what to answer an unbeliever...".
.
From Maimonides Pirkei Avos commentary on this Mishanah: .
" Study the matters that will enable you to reply to the gentile non- believers, so you will be capable of refuting them and answering them if they question you. Our Sages stated ( San Hedrin 38b) that this refers to a gentile non believer, but not to a Jewish non believer, for such discussion will cause the latter to increase his mockery and scorn for Jewish values. It is not proper to argue with such a person at all, for he will never be restored. There is no cure for him as it is written, " None that got to her will return; they will never regain the paths of life." ( Mishlei 2:19)
.
( editor : note however the RMBM's expression of tolerance for the children of such people in Hilchot Mamrim 3:3, regarding a tinok shenishbu : " They should be drawn close with words of peace until they return to the Torah's rock - bed strength." See also in his iggeres hashmad where he says similarly. ) In the tradition of Slifkin ( which is published by Gil Student). The latter does not appear on YUTORAH.ORG nor on YU Torah web sites...
( This is perhaps an example of the source for the practice of the previous generation's and the current generation's chachmei hamesorah to not engage in discussion with those who teach and spread the denial of traditional unargued teachings - yesodei hatorah- the heart of Torah belief principles.) An example of this might be the zero tolerance for the engagement in dialogue with Nosson Slifkin ( or his publisher Gil Student ) about matters of the ban again Slifkins works. The signers of the ban would not engage in dialogue with him. Subsequently the 4 well known gedolei Yisroel who had not initally signed the ban, subsequently wrote the now famous letters excoriating all of Slifkins writings across the board. ( ie. Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav Yaaov Perlow, Rav Aaron Schachter, and Rav Ovadiah Yosef. ) They refused to engage Slifkin in dialogue and refused to even explain or directly let him know why they were writing excoriating letters about his writings.)
Maybe the present day chachmei hamesorah acted in accordance with the above Rambam ? In the tradition of Natan Slifkin.
.
Rav Aahron Lichtenstein (Legitimization of Modernity, p. 14 ) "In the absence of an imprimatur from any Shofet ShebeYamecha [contemporary authority] whatsoever, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify adoption of norms and values in defiance of a wall-to-wall phalanx of gedolei Israel. Such action would simply be regarded as error…[T]he ordinary person must base himself upon a Shofet ShebeYamecha…[And] no such course [of action, in defiance of the gedolei Israel,] could be championed in the public sphere."[from p.14]( end quote).
( . Since Jeremy Wieder is not a shofet shebeyamecha, all of his above positions are invalid since none of the contemporary shoftim maintain the positions of Rabbi Wieder. )
.
.Rav Hershel Schachter: " Just as in other areas of halachah, one should consult a competent moreh horaah when faced with such a shayla. Just because one is knowledgeable in Yoreh Deah vol. I or one delivers a good pilpul shiur on sugyos in Nashim or Nezikin, it does not necessarily follow that that individual will be qualified to pasken on hilchos mesirah – lehakel or lehachmir."
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2007/rsch_mesirah.html.
.
.Rav Hershel Schachter: " Just as in other areas of halachah, one should consult a competent moreh horaah when faced with such a shayla. Just because one is knowledgeable in Yoreh Deah vol. I or one delivers a good pilpul shiur on sugyos in Nashim or Nezikin, it does not necessarily follow that that individual will be qualified to pasken on hilchos mesirah – lehakel or lehachmir."
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2007/rsch_mesirah.html.
.
Rav Hershel Schachter lectures on an audio entitled " The Legacy of the Rav" distributed in October/November 2007 (?) yutorah.org - Rav Schachter and Rav Twersky gave lectures in NJ in 2007 about Rav Y B Solveitchik ( see fuller selection below) : Rav Schachter states Rav Soloveitchik's sentiment and words ... " ...Everyone has to have a rebbe. And in the drasha he { Rav Soloveitchik} would elaborate and explain that even if the rebbe passed away already the talmid has to try to figure out what would the rebbe have said in this situation…what would the mehalech hamachshava be. When he would work on a shailah he would always have this syag…this mesores siyag latorah…he would have a tradition that would serve sort of as a boundary mark that you can’t go past that gvul -there are certain traditions that you cant just say whatever you please …you can’t just say a chidush against the way everybody does it. If that’s the common practice- or if that’s what he heard his father or grandfather say- that’s what it says in Shulchan Aruch, then you can’t go against that. There always has to be a gvul in learning. Rav Soloveitchik would say in different occasions and its published in one of his published droshos that people make a mistake and think that the Gemara consists of two different parts, halacha and aggadah. So the halacha are dinnim and aggadah is machshava. So he would say ha-aggadah is also dinim – ha-aggadah is also halacha. There’s a halacha how you have to act and there are halachos how you have to think. So the halacha is halachos chovos ha-eivarim – how you have to shake a lulav – how you have toi daven- how you have to listen to tikias shofar-and the aggadah tells you how you are supposed to think. And it is also binding. ... And we have a tradition on machshava - we have a tradition on hashkafah. You can’t say whatever you please.... We have traditions on attitudes and not only on specific issues that come up-- we have traditions on attitudes. And that’s what the Gemara says. The Gemara says “ eyzehu Am Haaretz?” In the days of the tannaim they had an institution of am haaretz. Who is an am haaretz? So there are different opinions in the Gemara ‘who do we label as an am haaretz that we treat differently than others’? So one opinion in the Gemara- very surprising- says, “He learnt Tanach and Mishnayos but he wasn’t meshimush talmidei chachamim”. So that’s called an am haaretz. Gevalt! The man knows Tanach and he knows all of the Mishnayos in the days of the Tanaim. So what’s wrong? What does it mean he wasn’t meshimush talmidei chachamim? It means he didn’t pick up the attitudes of the talmidei chachamim. You can’t write everything down; you have to transmit orally certain attitudes to place emphasis on and how to think and how to decide and how to poskin halacha. And as Rav Solovietchik said, ‘there are a lot of people very successful in giving a shiur in Gemara but they’re not good in poskining halacha because we have a tradition on how to work out a psak halacha and you have to take other things into consideration. So he was complaining about some of the younger modern orthodox rabbis- that a lot of them --- they know what it says in the Gemara and they know what it says in the Shulchan Aruch and they looked in the Achronim. Yeh, they looked in all the sources, but ‘ lo shimush talmidei chachamim’ ‘they don’t have a tradition on the attitude that they are supposed to have’. And he felt this is like aggadah -that just like halacha means how you’re supposed to act there is aggadah – how you’re supposed to think and develop an idea , what attitude a person is supposed to have." ( end of selection).( ed. Since Jeremy Wieder does not have "a tradition on the attitude that [ ...he...] is supposed to have", on account of his not being meshamesh and following the talmid chacham, all of the above positions of Rabbi Wieder are invalid. )
.
"The fact is that matters of Hashkafa and values are every bit as important, and guidance in those areas, every bit as crucial—and the role of Chachmei HaMesorah is maybe even more crucial in those areas."
"Guidance in the area of Hashkafa [beyond the ascertaining of facts], what impact [ ] policies are likely to have—these are areas in which the consultation of Da’as Torah, Chachmei HaMesorah, becomes critical."
"Not all rabbanim are equal…being Mach’ria in [ ] Klal Yisroel issues requires more than skill and proficiency…it remains the prerogative" of Chachmei HaMesorah." [ end of quotes of Rav Rosenzweig)
.
APPENDIX F:
It is incredible that Jeremy Wieder ( and Nosson Slifkin for that matter ) says that there is no conflict when the Rambam himself says there is a conflict. Rambam does not suggest that observation of the natural world's current processes are used as evidence that Breishis is a myth, on the contrary, he says in MN 3:50, that despite the fact that the observation of the natural world's current processes refutes the historical claims of Breishis, Breishis is historical since the pesukim say they are.Rambam says in Moreh Nevuchim, (3:50) : "Since it is a fundamental doctrine of the Torah that the world is newly created and that the first [human] creation was Adam and that the time which elapsed from Adam to Moshe is approximately 2,500 years…." The Rambam goes on to explain that anyone viewing such a diversified world with so many inhabitants belonging to so many different cultures speaking so many different languages spread out over such large geographical locations might lead one to draw conclusions from what one sees in the world refutes the Torah. Rambam teaches us that we reject this conclusion in favor of the Mesorah. Furthermore, we will see below, that yesodei Hatorah coming via a kabbalah from Chazal from Moses may never be tampered with on account of "proof" because a kabbalah is effectively an axiom of Torah and "proof", like psychological demonstration, will never contradict the Torah according to Rambam - since Rambam maintains that the Torah and philosophical demonstration are totally in sync.
in MN 3:30 Rambam notes pesukim and learns that the pesukim communicates the refutation to the skeptical point of view regarding the historicity of sefer Breishis. Part of Rambam's philosophical demonstration in 2:17 shows why all attempts to dismiss the Mesorah on Creation is invalid. ( MN 2:17 ) Rambam: "…It is quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced: nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion: you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions.... We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed such-from-such, and that it has been created such-from-such. The Aristotelians oppose us, and based their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence." end quote of Rambam.
Rambam does not suggest that observation of the natural world's current processes are used as evidence that Breishis is a myth.
To sum it up: Reasoning from the prevailing natural order to the fact of creation in time is invalid because: Reasoning from the final state of a developed system to the origin-conditions of the system is invalid. [ this is Rambam's anti-extrapolation principle.] .
Rambam does not suggest that observation of the natural world's current processes are used as evidence that Breishis is a myth.
To sum it up: Reasoning from the prevailing natural order to the fact of creation in time is invalid because: Reasoning from the final state of a developed system to the origin-conditions of the system is invalid. [ this is Rambam's anti-extrapolation principle.] .
.
So the issues dealt with above about history don't even fall into the category of "science" according to Rambam because Rambam only maintains that philosophical demonstration is science, and therefore what one sees in front of ones face in the present is an element about the physical world to be used within the rubric of philosophic demonstration- NOT the projecting backwards in time of origins, as we saw in the Rambam above; that is not part of the "science" that touches on the issues discussed herein. So even before we address the issue of when and if the notions of the "science" of the rishonim effects whether we interpret a posuk or a kabbalah historically or non historically, we needed to understand what is looked upon as the "science" of the rishonim's statements to begin with.
.
Appendix G :
Other places Rambam argues creation ex nehilo is a yesod of Torah:
[1] ( Rambam says in 3:50 of the Moreh [ RMBM: ] "Since it is a fundamental doctrine of the Torah that the world is newly created [ ex nehilo , yesh meayin] and that the first [human] creation was Adam and that the time which elapsed from Adam to Moshe is approximately 2,500 years…." The Rambam goes on to explain that anyone viewing such a diversified world with so many inhabitants belonging to so many different cultures speaking so many different languages spread out over such large geographical locations might lead one to draw conclusions that pshat in the kabbalah we have of the pshat in the pesukim regarding the recentness of creation is false !
[2] In describing the philosophic argument of Yesh Me-ayin Rambam calls it in 2:21 the " Theory of Moses our Teacher" ( i.e. " we come to the question whether the cause, which must be assumed for a variety of properties noticed in the heavenly beings.... is due to a determining agent, such as we believe, in accordance with the theory of Moses our Teacher." )
[3] As cited above, Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 2:28: " Many of our coreligionists thought that King Solomon believed in the Eternity of the Universe [ because of certain verses in Solomons writing] . This is very strange. How can we suppose that any one that adheres to the law of Moses our Teacher should accept that theory? if we were to assume that Solomon had on this point, G-d forbid, deviated from the Law of Moses .... [ Rambam procedes to asks rhetorically how anyone could even think for a moment that the Prophets and Sages accepted the text if Solomon had really maintained this position of Eternity of the Universe]
[4] ( Moreh Nevuchim 2:17) "We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed such-from-such, and that it has been created such-from-such. The Aristotelians oppose us, and based their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence."
( we have highlighted the final words in red to draw your attention to the implications of those words: although Rambam mentions the word Aristotelians, the final words in red once again eliminate from acceptable belief the possibility of the Platonian Creation position. Further down it will be clear why this comment is needed.
[5] ( MN 2:30) "...For we believe that this universe remains perpetually with the same properties with which the Creator has endowed it, and that none of these will ever be changed except by way of miracle in some individual instances, although the Creator has the power to change the whole universe, to annihilate it, or to remove any of its properties. The universe had however a beginning and commencement, for when nothing was as yet in existence except G-d, His wisdom decreed that the universe be brought into existence at a certain time, that it should not be annihilated or changed as regards any of its properties, except in some instances; some of these are known to us, whilst others belong to the future, and are therefore unknown to us. This is our opinion and the basis of our religion. The opinion of Aristotle*** is that the Univers, being permanent and indestructable, is also eternal and without beginning. We have also shown that this theory is based on the hypothesis that the universe is the necesary result of causal relation, and that this hypothesis includes a certain amount of blasphemy."
( ***editorial note: though he mentions the name Aristotle and not Plato, Plato also holds exactly the same position as Aristotle regarding the point Rambam labels " blasphemy". If Rambam says blasphemy then the point of Aristotle is the rejection of a yesod Hatorah. Namely, the blasphemous statement is " ... the Universe, being permanent and indestructable, is also eternal and without beginning. We have also shown that this theory is based on the hypothesis that the universe is the necesary result of causal relation...". Rambam chose to just mention Aristotle ( referencing the "king" of philosophers { physicist is also termed} but Plato maintains the exact same position with regard to the blue highlighted portion above, ( The reader shouldn't be confused with the divergence of views of Aristotle and Plato mentioned, for instance, in 2:25 regarding the entirely different issue concerning
MN: 2:25, " ..the heavens are transient" and MN 2:15 "...Plato ...holds ...the heavens are likewise transient.". Plato nonetheless holds the blue portion in italics above, the same as Aristotle.
.
Conclusions and Appendixes regarding Jeremy Wieder's misues of rishonic statements to make his case for "science" "winning" over Torah:
Appendix H:
[ As for the notion of interpreting a Chazal in accordance with philosophical demonstration--- when the rishonim do that, there is no hint that the rishonim ever suggest that the the very interpretation they are suggesting is not already known to Chazal. ]
* As Rabbi Zvi Lampel ( author of Dyanics of Dispute and the intro to the Rambams commentary on the Mishnah) remarked: " ONE MUST REALIZE THAT THE RAMBAM (BY POINTING OUT THE COMPATIBILITY OF PLATO'S VERSION OF THE WORLD'S ORIGIN WITH THE Y'SODOS OF JUDAISM, DESPITE ITS INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE NON-YESODIC, BUT EQUALLY AUTHORITATIVE MESORAH OF YESH MEI'AYIN), IS SPEAKING ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICALLY: CAN HE PRODUCE EVEN ONE INSTANCE WHERE THE RAMBAM ACTUALLY OVERTURNED ANY OF WHAT HE CONSIDERED TO BE CHAZAL'S UNDERSTANDING OF A TORAH NARRATIVE, ON THE BASIS OF A "PROOF" AGAINST THAT UNDERSTANDING? ONE REASON THIS CANNOT BE FOUND IS THAT PLATO'S VERSION OF THE WORLD'S ORIGINS, NO LESS THAN THAN ARISTOTLE'S, CANNOT BY DEFINITION BE PROVEN IN terms of being an alternative to CREATION EX NEHILO as an explanation of the world's origins....
"THERE CANNNOT BE A PROOF FROM OUR POST-CREATION WORLD FOR ETERNITY VS. CREATION BECAUSE CREATION BY DEFINITION WORKED WITH OTHER RULES--AND THIS APPLIES TO DETERMINING THE LENGTH OF TIME THE UNIVERSE EXISTED AS WELL.
"ONE MUST ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE KIND OF PROOF THE RAMBAM IS TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE A PROOF THAT WAS EVIDENT TO CHAZAL ( editor -ie. philosophical demonstration ). THE CONSENSUS OF CHAZAL, PASSIONATELY ADVOCATED BY THE GAONIM AND RISHONIM, IS TO TAKE MAASEH BREISHIS AS AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED NO MORE THAN 6,000 YEARS AGO, AS A META-NATURAL PROCESS.
"NOWHERE DOES THE RAMBAM SAY THAT ANYTHING CHAZAL CONSIDERED THE INTENT OF THE TORAH COULD NOW BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION.
"ONE MUST ALSO CONSIDER THE ABSURDITY OF THE CHARGE THAT, PARTICULARLY IN THIS FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY AND HASHKAFA, (ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING IN OUR EMPHASIS ON RECITING "KI SHEYSHESS YOMIM ASA HASHEM ESS HASHAMAYYIM V'ESS HA'ARETZ"), HASHEM WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ALL THE ZEKAINIM, NEVI'IM, TANNAIM, AMORAIM, RISHONIM V'ACHRONIM FROM MOSHE RABBEYNU UNTIL RJW TO HAVE BEEN FUNDAMENTALLY MISLED ABOUT THE TORAH'S INTENT. " [ end Rabbi Zvi Lampel]
[ Rabbi Lampel's words fit as well with regard to the only available understanding of the historical occurrences ( as accepted by the rishonim in their understanding of the divrei Chazal on the issues of the pshat) in all of sefer Breishis covering the first 2,500 years of human history ( see the Rambam quote below from Moreh Nevuchim 3:50 )
(OF COURSE NONE OF THIS HAS bearing on when a rishon maintains that the surface meaning of Words of Chazal IS CONTRADICTED BY THE PESHAT OF A POSUK OR BY OBSERVABLE FACT and therefore not something which Chazal ever meant ( as understood by the rishonim) as having surface meaning. There are often times where rishonim maintain that the divrei chazal being examined are not to be taken in accordance with their surface meaning when those divrei Chazal do not fit pshat in a posuk. [ However, there are times when the opposite is the case: For three examples see Rambam's intro to Perek Chelek where the historical reality of events is not apparent from a number of psukim where Chazal explain the pshat as allegories ( based on a kabbalah (or drush ?) --- cases where the "the pashtan" would never be able to see in the words the historicity of events the pesukim are referring to unless Chazal recorded the kabbalah ( or drush?) under discussion ( eg. Dovid Hamelech having sent a shailah to the San Hedrin as recounted in the Talmud ( see there in Intro to Perek Cheilek ) Rambam takes the divrei Chazal as historical despite the verses in question not being pshat !!
...............................................................................................................................
"THERE CANNNOT BE A PROOF FROM OUR POST-CREATION WORLD FOR ETERNITY VS. CREATION BECAUSE CREATION BY DEFINITION WORKED WITH OTHER RULES--AND THIS APPLIES TO DETERMINING THE LENGTH OF TIME THE UNIVERSE EXISTED AS WELL.
"ONE MUST ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE KIND OF PROOF THE RAMBAM IS TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE A PROOF THAT WAS EVIDENT TO CHAZAL ( editor -ie. philosophical demonstration ). THE CONSENSUS OF CHAZAL, PASSIONATELY ADVOCATED BY THE GAONIM AND RISHONIM, IS TO TAKE MAASEH BREISHIS AS AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED NO MORE THAN 6,000 YEARS AGO, AS A META-NATURAL PROCESS.
"NOWHERE DOES THE RAMBAM SAY THAT ANYTHING CHAZAL CONSIDERED THE INTENT OF THE TORAH COULD NOW BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF NEWLY DISCOVERED INFORMATION.
"ONE MUST ALSO CONSIDER THE ABSURDITY OF THE CHARGE THAT, PARTICULARLY IN THIS FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING OF HISTORY AND HASHKAFA, (ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING IN OUR EMPHASIS ON RECITING "KI SHEYSHESS YOMIM ASA HASHEM ESS HASHAMAYYIM V'ESS HA'ARETZ"), HASHEM WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ALL THE ZEKAINIM, NEVI'IM, TANNAIM, AMORAIM, RISHONIM V'ACHRONIM FROM MOSHE RABBEYNU UNTIL RJW TO HAVE BEEN FUNDAMENTALLY MISLED ABOUT THE TORAH'S INTENT. " [ end Rabbi Zvi Lampel]
[ Rabbi Lampel's words fit as well with regard to the only available understanding of the historical occurrences ( as accepted by the rishonim in their understanding of the divrei Chazal on the issues of the pshat) in all of sefer Breishis covering the first 2,500 years of human history ( see the Rambam quote below from Moreh Nevuchim 3:50 )
(OF COURSE NONE OF THIS HAS bearing on when a rishon maintains that the surface meaning of Words of Chazal IS CONTRADICTED BY THE PESHAT OF A POSUK OR BY OBSERVABLE FACT and therefore not something which Chazal ever meant ( as understood by the rishonim) as having surface meaning. There are often times where rishonim maintain that the divrei chazal being examined are not to be taken in accordance with their surface meaning when those divrei Chazal do not fit pshat in a posuk. [ However, there are times when the opposite is the case: For three examples see Rambam's intro to Perek Chelek where the historical reality of events is not apparent from a number of psukim where Chazal explain the pshat as allegories ( based on a kabbalah (or drush ?) --- cases where the "the pashtan" would never be able to see in the words the historicity of events the pesukim are referring to unless Chazal recorded the kabbalah ( or drush?) under discussion ( eg. Dovid Hamelech having sent a shailah to the San Hedrin as recounted in the Talmud ( see there in Intro to Perek Cheilek ) Rambam takes the divrei Chazal as historical despite the verses in question not being pshat !!
...............................................................................................................................
Appendix I:
on Rav Saadyah
A word about Rav Saddyah: Rav Saadyah never remarks anything contrary to the above Rambam quote. Now here are two quotes showing his position regarding a kabbalah or drush by Chazal ( the way Chazal intended the remarks ) from the introduction to his Full Commentary on the Torah:" .. .For the goal of every written work is that its ideas be wholly grasped by those who hear it [read]. The only exception is if the chush (sensory perception) or the seichel contradicts that terminology, or if the peshat of that terminology clearly contradicts another verse, or contradicts the mesorah of the prophets...."
[LATER ON ] " ...one is obligated to know that when correctly interpreted, utilizing one of the several categories of figures of speech, the verse must agree with the muchash, the muskal, the pashtei hapesukim and the mesoress.” [ end Rav Saadyah ]
It goes without saying that Rav Saadyah agrees with the Rambam's ( and all other chachmei hamesorah) position that, as we communicated above: The occurrence of miracles has been witnessed, and therefore all contradictions to the Torah based upon the impossibility of miracles is voided. And specifically regarding Maasei Breishis, the properties of things and the way they develop in the post-Creation world are not valid ways to determine what they were like and how they developed during the Creation process, which the Torah and Chazal describe as a meta-natural one. It is irrelevant ( precisely with regard to philosophic demonstration) , if present-day properties and processes are in contradiction to those depicted in Maaseh Breishis by the Torah and Chazal. "
See fuller text of Rav Saadyah at this link:
http://www.google.com/base/a/1603416/D6666854328318572431
See the sefer Ikkarim on topic: ( interesting: while Jeremy remarked in a rather pained manner on the audio that the ACTUAL historicity of the events in Breishis isn't important from the torah's own 'perspective' -- the Ikkarim - linked below- points out that they are indeed important, and the RMBM, in MN, 3: 50 , indicates this as well. )
Rav Albo, Sefer ikkarim:
http://www.google.com/base/a/1603416/D17465578903569693175
see "How the Days of Creation Were Understood by Our Sages"
by Rabbi Zvi Lampel, ( author of Dynamics of Dispute and Introduction to RMBM perush hamishnayos) at this link:http://www.toriah.org/Torah/RZL/Our-Sages-on-Days-of-Creation.htm
Appendix J:
on the RAMBAN
In his source material Jeremy brings a Ramban on a posuk in chumash on Noach's rainbow. Rabbi Zvi Lampel comments: ( EDITOR: one should really carefully read the progession of the Ramban's remark on the posuk on the rainbow prior to reading the following remark of R Z Lampel, otherwise the reader will not understand what or why it is being said by R' Lampel: ] [ Rabbi Z Lampel:] "That the rainbow is a natural phenomenon is not contradicting a belief held until the Ramban discovered Greek science. It was an issue already discussed previously. Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon and the Zohar both already commented that the rainbow existed before the Mabul. It’s an old issue. It is the Ramban's derech (similar to Tosefos) to show how his final opinion evolved. He does this all the time, saying that at first he would have said one thing, but upon further reflection or from other pesukim he concludes otherwise. Ramban's hava amina, that the rainbow made its first appearance in the world only after the Mabul, is from the first part of the posuk The second part of the posuk proves the rainbow appeared previously as well. The Ramban supports this reading with the Greek understanding of optics and empirical proof. There is no Chazal clearly insisting that the rainbow first came into existence after the Mabul. There is no hint that the Ramban is understanding himself as contradicting Chazal. Perhaps RJW is attributing his iconoclastic position to the Ramban based upon how the Rambam (not Ramban) explains the mishna in Pirkei Avos that lists the rainbow among those things created erev Shabbos. The Rambam takes the mishna to mean that Hashem put into the nature of His creations the imperative to act differently at future assigned times. Hence, the thinking goes, the mishna is telling us that the rainbow, like the earth’s “mouth” at the time of Korach, did not appear until long after Creation. And the Ramban is disagreeing. But what about the Rambam (vs.the Ramban) himself? Does his commentary indicate the Rambam was not privy to the Greek's stand and principles of physics and optics that the Ramban was, and thought there was no rainbow until Noach? This would seem preposterous.
" So perhaps the Rambam himself, and perhaps the Ramban, took the miraculous nature of the rainbow to be the undeniably miraculous fact that, as of the Mabul, it appears solely in reaction to man's behavior. In fact, the Rambam himself maintains that miracles by definition are not permanent in nature. So it doesn't seem that he would take the mishna to mean that the rainbow, in its intinsic make-up, is a miraculous thing. But he does hold, as does the Ramban quite emphatically, that Hashem constantly causes nature to react to man’s deeds, and that this is a miracle no less than the splitting of the sea. And why, in the first place, assume that the Ramban understands the mishna the way the Rambam does altogether? Ramban doesn't say how he understands the mishna. Perhaps he understands it as the Meiri does, which meaning has nothing to do with our issue.In short, there is no basis to say that the Ramban used newly discovered sciences to deny Chazal's understanding of past events.
"I can understand the motive in utilizing one rishon’s explanation in conjunction with another’s in order to support traditional understandings. But there is no excuse for injecting one rishon’s approach into another’s in order to create a new iconoclastic chulent." [ end of R' Lampel]
Appendix K:
THE RASHBA
Now Jeremy brings the Rashba as a source text. Incredulously, the very Rashba he brings ( ed' in his source material at the link ) militates against JW's own position. Consider this comment from Rabbi Zvi Lampel ( author of Dynamics of Dispute):
[ R' Z Lampel :] " The very source ( ed; the Rashba ) brought... shows that classical Judaism considers JW's approach illegitimate. The very words JW underlines in his source page militates AGAINST JW's position. Let's begin translating the Rashba at an earlier point than the underlined words:
[ RASHBA:] "And it is true that it has been proven for us, leaving absolutely no doubt, that miracles and signs through which nature has been changed have taken place , and it has likewise been proven that Hashem Yisborach is capable of changing the natural properties of things at will, such as placing a road through the depths of the sea through which to pass [at the Red Sea], and to cover the face of the earth with water [during the Flood].
But does this make it obligatory for us to believe without argument that nature will always be changed? And if we are told that a donkey [or fish!—ZL] has been seen somewhere that talks and tells of future events, are we obligated to believe this? [Absolutely not!] For the donkey’s speaking to Bilam was a temporary, necessary event, and meant for its wondrous characteristic.
"And should we believe even more [incredibly] than this, that--on the basis of the verse, “And all the trees of the field will clap hand, then the trees of the forest shall sing in praise (Isaiah 55)”--in the future hands shall be created in the forests’ trees, or that mouths shall be placed on the trees, and they will become beings of intelligence and speech, to the extent that they will sing in praises? It is not sensible for us to say such, for there is nothing forcing us to say such a thing. For the fact is that many verses speak figuratively. But when something is mekubal b’yaaeinu, why should we be mevatel the kabbalah, even if philosophical chakirah is mevatel it."
[ RASHBA:] "And it is true that it has been proven for us, leaving absolutely no doubt, that miracles and signs through which nature has been changed have taken place , and it has likewise been proven that Hashem Yisborach is capable of changing the natural properties of things at will, such as placing a road through the depths of the sea through which to pass [at the Red Sea], and to cover the face of the earth with water [during the Flood].
But does this make it obligatory for us to believe without argument that nature will always be changed? And if we are told that a donkey [or fish!—ZL] has been seen somewhere that talks and tells of future events, are we obligated to believe this? [Absolutely not!] For the donkey’s speaking to Bilam was a temporary, necessary event, and meant for its wondrous characteristic.
"And should we believe even more [incredibly] than this, that--on the basis of the verse, “And all the trees of the field will clap hand, then the trees of the forest shall sing in praise (Isaiah 55)”--in the future hands shall be created in the forests’ trees, or that mouths shall be placed on the trees, and they will become beings of intelligence and speech, to the extent that they will sing in praises? It is not sensible for us to say such, for there is nothing forcing us to say such a thing. For the fact is that many verses speak figuratively. But when something is mekubal b’yaaeinu, why should we be mevatel the kabbalah, even if philosophical chakirah is mevatel it."
[ R Lampel comments:] "Again, the Rashba, Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon, the Rambam, the Rambam and all the rishonim consider the six-day creation as a a matter of kabbala. This is obvious from their never saying otherwise and the way they explain the pesukim. The Rambam states explicitly that the Jewish people believe in a specific way that Maaseh Breishis took place--namely in a meta-natural manner which he understands as taking six literal days. And Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon in Sefer Emunos V'Deios, itself states that if someone who claims to be a prophet claims that creation took literally one year to complete, he is a false prophet! He certainly does not propose that new discoveries in science would turn upside-down and inside-out the meaning of the Torah as understood beforehand. And all the more certainly gives no credence to RJW’s proposal that the Torah’s presentation of Maaseh Breishis can be taken as lessons of truth presented in a mythological, poetical form. The understanding of certain pesukim as figures of speech is the way Rav Saadia Gaon and other meforshim maintain was the way those pesukim were understood since Moshe Rabbeynu. Nowhere do they even hint at the radically-charged idea that post-Sinaitic discoveries would show, that up until those discoveries, the generations of baalei mesorah misunderstood the basic character of Maaseh Breishis, the Mabul, or the Avos." [ end of R' Lampel ]
Appendix L:
Miscellaneous Letters
[1] Then a section of the RMBM brought by Rabbi Ostroff regarding the 2,500 years of history from Creation to Moshe.
[2] Dennis Pager interview of Slifkin ( after the ban of three of his other books, and after publication of Slifkins new book, " Challenge", Slifkin was interviewed by Dennis Prager, a Conservative Jew. The transcript is below. In the interview and his book Slifkin denies the first 3 chapters of Breishis is at all historical. ( see below Rabbi Avraham Carmel’s letter to Slifkin regarding Slifkin’s denial of a global mabul ( he maintains there was a local flood in part of Mesopotamia as the scientists evidently report. Slifkin has also put Jeremy Wieders audio link on his own internet site Zootorah.com ( or .org)
[3] Rabbi Yoel Ostroff response to Slifkins Dennis Prager interview. Yoel Ostroff is distinguished in his own right and is a talmid of Rabbi Shlomo Miller of Toronto. Rabbi Shlomo Miller of toronto has given Rabbi Ostroff permission to speak in his name - to the media- regarding his ( Rav Shlomo Miller’s ) positions regarding Slifkin’s first three banned books.
[5] A quote from Gil Student: " "I repeat Rabbi Slifkin's claim that we received permission from a prominent posek before publishing this book. I will add that another prominent posek told my close friend that those who signed the ban against Rabbi Slifkin are "morons"." His word; not mine. No, I will not give out names." [ end of gil student's quote... see full text below]
[6] A protest of the above quote from Dr. Betech, and a letter from Rav Belsky to Dr. Betech, and the link to a portion of Rav Belsky's Student's sefer on inyanei Divrei Chazal and Creation.
[ 7 ] An email from Slifkin denying that Chava physically came from Adam:
[8] Article of Rabbi Gavriel Beckhoffer
Appendix M:
Rabbi Ostoff on the RAMBAM
Here is a citation from Moreh Nevuchim [ 3:50 ] from Rabbi Yoel Ostroff :
[ RMBM: ] "Since it is a fundamental doctrine of the Torah that the world is newly created and that the first [human] creation was Adam and that the time which elapsed from Adam to Moshe is approximately 2,500 years…etc."
[ Ostoff continues:] "and the Rambam goes on to explain that anyone viewing such a diversified world with so many inhabitants belonging to so many different cultures speaking so many different languages spread out over such large geographical locations, might doubt the recentness of creation and the fact that initially, only one man was created " ( Ostroff continues: ] Therefore, the Torah goes out of its way to list the specific generations which unfolded from Adam to Moshe, who their leaders were, what occurred to them, and that they originally all spoke one language as one would expect from a society which descended from one lone man (Moreh 3:50 - Kapach ed. pg 400)" [ end of Ostroff ]
The following lecture is a "must listen" for any religious Jew- for anyone at all......
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html ( the 14th lecture called " Evolution and the Age of the Universe". This is a must listen for everyone to hear prior to forming any conclusions about these subject matters)
Email of Slifkin denying that Chava came from Adam:
this is an unedited copy of an email that Rabbi Slifkin sent someone. ( The person is not anyone Slifkin knew at all) ( the email address and name of correspondent have been "X"ed out, and the question and response have been placed in chronological order, but no words at all have been edited. The boldfaced font has been added by me )-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mail to:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005
To: zoorabbi@zootorah.com
Subject: Hello Hello Rabbi Slifkin,
I have been looking at your website and read about the "Controversy" and want to ask if acceptance of evolution would also mean that you would accept that Eve didn't literally come from Adam's rib or side- physically and literally?
Thanks for your response ahead of time,
xxxxxx
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: RE: Hello
Date: 10/23/2005
From:
zoorabbi@zootorah.com
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent from the Internet (Details)Dear xxxxxxxx,It wouldn't necessarily require that, but I do happen to believe that this is not literal (I think that this is by far one of the cases where it is easy to see that it is meant allegorically).
best wishes,
Natan Slifkin
_____________________________________________________________________
Now for the Dennis Prager interview quotes: full link of entire interview between prager and slifkin may be found here.
Excerpts of Slifkin's interview with radio host Mr. Dennis Prager, a Conservative Jew, on Pragers radio show. Prager does not accept Torah Misinai, and Slifkin tells the audience that the first 11 chapters of Breishis are a myth ( non historical )
http://www.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=dc645667-8d76-4370-84cd-75a6a5132a03A more complete transcript can be found at :
P= Dennis PragerS= SlifkinC= A Caller[ ] Brackets are the Transcriber's
P- When it says Eve is created from part of Adam you take that as a teaching lesson or literally?
Slifkin - See, that too I would follow Maimonides' lead in saying these things are not meant as scientific accounts ( transcriber: Slifkin means a historical account, since the scientific method is not what is of concern here) . I'm not sure what the precise message involved in that account is but I would think that's meant to be an allegorical account and not a factual description of what happened .
Transcriber: More talk….a few minutes pass ]
P- Alright , let's go, the 6,000 years is invalidated by science and because you are not bound to take it literally can you answer the fundamental Jew or Christian by saying that , well, one day was never meant to be a 24 hour day of Creation.
S- Well I think in the text itself it's pretty apparent because the day is defined by the earth and the sun and the sun itself is only made on the fourth day so from the text itself it's pretty clear that something fishy is going on. In Judaism there's a long tradition that Geneis is an esoteric text not to be taken at face value. P- And likewise Adam and Eve?
S- Right.
P- I'm sorry?
S- Like with Adam and Eve.
P- As not literal.
S- That's more controversial…that's the way Maimonides understood it— Maimonides understood the whole account of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden as a message as being a perennial struggle that man undergoes through in this world as opposed to being a history or anthropology of the first people. [Transcriber : More talk….a few minutes pass ]
[Transcriber : Someone calls in to the program and asks a question about plants being created without the sun being in existence]
Slifkin responds to the caller: "Oh, excellent, it gives me an opportunity to clarify. I don't actually believe the 6 days of Genesis were each billions of years long. I don't think it's describing a sequence of time at all. I think the entire text is completely allegorical--- teaching us very theological lessons about the material world, but I think what you raised is a very good point that indeed those who take this kind of quasi literal approach saying that each day is an eon ..That it shows the problems with the approach. "
P- Wait, I do believe there's a chronological element here because it all leads up to the creation
of humanity ….and that is chronological.
[ Caller breaks in ] "I agree there because even if that third day was a weak the plants could not have survived more than a day without sunlight which—they survive off sunlight- that's nature. "
Slifkin- " Right, and there's other issues with the sequence too, you see birds were made on day 5 and land animals were made on day 6, whereas in fact the fossil record shows land animals came before."
( transcriber: Slifkin is here denying that birds were made before land animals)
P- Why would G-d write a text which shows chronology when there is no chronology?
Slifkin:"Because what it's giving is a conceptual sequence. "
[ transcriber: Slifkin again denies the historicity and therefore Chazal and the Rishonim's position on the hisoricity of the events in question) End of interview excerpt.
____________________________________________________________
Following is Rabbi Yoel Ostroff response to Slifkins Dennis Prager interview.
Yoel Ostroff is distinguished in his own right and is a talmid of Rabbi Shlomo Miller of Toronto. Rabbi Shlomo Miller has given Rabbi Ostroff permission to speak in his name - to the media- regarding his ( Rav Shlomo Miller’s ) positions regarding Slifkin’s first three banned books.
He runs the site
toriah.org
Following is a preface to Ostroff’s article written by Ostroff:
"In his book Challenge of Creation (2006), Rabbi Slifkin claims that there is convincing evidence that the marvels of life are due to chance and naturalistic processes (such as random mutation and natural selection). Given that he accepts the supposed billions of years of fully naturalistic evolution, Rabbi Slifkin,
in his book , denies the supra-natural creation and historicity of the first man and women (Adam and Chava). This contradicts the first chapter of the Torah which describes the creation of Adam at the culmination of the creation week (Adam is created on day six in the image of God). Rather, in Challenge, Rabbi Slifkin argues that the first three chapters of the Torah is pretty much a total allegory. Thus, according to Challenge, there was no historical meta-natural creation week as described in the first chapter of Genesis. "
The following is Ostroff article:
found at this link is found below in its entirety
http://www.toriah.org/misc/RNS/topics/challenge-quotes.htmMisunderstanding of the Rambam in Challenge of Creation (2006)
Challenge of Creation " (2006), Rabbi Slifkin writes that his book addresses the challenges provided by the modern scientific enterprise to Torah by following the approach of the Rambam. Thus, Challenge puts the Rambam front and center in the book's attempted reconciliation between Darwin and Torah. However, Challenge manages to do to the Rambam what the Rambam describes was done to God.
[Rambam:] "It is not implausible that despite one's endeavor to make a premise clear and simple and, striving to expunge any ambiguities and dispense with any reinterpretations, some will understand from [his very words] the reverse of that premise. This has happened even with the words of Hashem Yisborach" [Rambam, introduction to his Maamar T'chiyyas HaMeisim].
Shema Yisrael;
-- "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" -- is a pledge of allegiance to the One unique and transcendent God. The Rambam's point is that despite God's clearest statement to the contrary, Dualists saw in this pledge a hint that there is more than one god. Likewise, despite the Rambam's clear statements on core Jewish beliefs with respect to Creation, Challenge has managed to arrive at the very re verse of what the Rambam explicitly stated. We start with some relevant quotes from Challenge:
[ Slifkin ]: " Rambam understood the six days of creation to be describing a conceptual hierarchy of the world rather than a historical account of Creation. … [Rambam] believed that most of the account of Adam in Genesis is not a historical account of an individual but instead a portrayal of the role of man in the world."
[1]
[ Slifkin ] "Thus the early references to "Adam" are speaking about the fundamental nature of man in general, rather than referring to a particular person who fathered Cain and Abel." [2]
[ Slifkin ] "Putting all this together with the Rambam's and Ralbag's explanation of the six days, it would seem that, according to this approach the first three chapters of Genesis are for the most part speaking about the archetypical nature of man and his life in this world rather than a historical account of a particular person's life." [3]
[ Ostroff: ] "However, contra Rabbi Slifkin, the Rambam (and Ralbag) say no such thing! Consider, for example, the following proof text from the Rambam's halachic magnum opus. [Rambam, Yad Hachazaka, Laws of the Temple]: "The location of the Altar [in the Holy Temple] is very precise. This location may not be altered in any way. … We have an authentic tradition that the place where David and Solomon built the Altar on the threshing floor of Arona, is the very place where Abraham built an altar and bound Isaac upon it; this is where Noah built [an altar] when he came out from the Ark; this is where Cain and Abel brought their offerings; this is where Adam the First Man offered a korban [an offering to God] when he was created – and it is from [the earth of] this place that he was created." [4]
For the Rambam, Adam is a real historical figure created on the sixth day in the image of God (no less real than our patriarch Abraham). An explicit prooftext such as this, of course, settles the matter conclusively. There is no allegory. The first man Adam and the first woman Chava are real historical personalities, the ancestors of all mankind.
Rabbi Slifkin quotes an Abarbanel (A1) in which the Abarbanel at first attributes an allegorical opinion to the Rambam. [This attribution can be found in the Abarbanel's commentary on Chumash Bereishis (1:1) question #9.] However, Rabbi Slifkin omitted to quote two essential subsequent comments of the Abarbanel (see A2 and A3 below). In chapter 2 ( just after question #42), the Abarbanel revisits the issue of allegory in the Rambam, at which point Abarbanel writes as follows:
A2:
"Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav (the Rambam) was not that all of MB was an allegory, rather, only a small part of it (some elements in the second chapter of Bereishis, not the first), and that 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] "v'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 MB] an allegory or a hint (pirush tzurayi oh remez) at all; rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally..." (Abarbanel to Sefer Bereishis page 86, second column, 14 lines down)
When the Abarbanel wishes to characterize the 'hierarchal scenario" of creation, he refers to it as tzurayi (i.e form, allegory – see for instance bottom of page 85, left column and top of page 86 right column) and thus when he ultimately states "he did not make [of creation] an allegory or a hint (pirush tzurayi oh remez) at all" he means that the Rambam entirely rejected the hierarchal explanation in favour of a literal reading. The Abarbanel on his actual commentary to the Moreh (Standard Ibn Tibbon edition pg. 64b first column on the bottom) confirms this approach as follows.
A3: And the Rav (Rambam) also meant with this to what he stated at the end of chapter 29 and chapter 30 of this chelek, and this is that the true chiddush (i.e. creation from nothing) is what is described in the verses regarding the six days of creation… and it is entirely litera l and therefore the seventh day was the day of rest to demonstrate that after all was completed on the sixth day, nothing more was created… and in order to testify to this great thing , Shabbos was established as the seventh day to hint at and make known that absolutely nothing was created after the sixth day… "
The truth is the Abarbanel had no choice in the matter. The Rambam is so clear regarding this issue that it is impossible to think differently. The Abarbanel (A2 above) writes that the Rambam "did not veer from the literal interpretation" of the Genesis verses in response to the following prooftext in Moreh Nevuchim.
The account of the six days of creation contains, in reference to the creation of man, the statement: "Male and female created he them" (1:27), and concludes with the words: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (2:1), and yet the portion which follows describes the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith, and all this as having taken place after Adam had been placed in the Garden of Eden. All our Sages agree that this took place on the sixth day, and that nothing new was created after the close of the six days. None of the things mentioned above is therefore impossible, because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed [Moreh Nevuchim 2.30]
As we saw, contra the Challenge quotes, the Abarbanel's opinion (A2, A3) is that the Rambam took the whole first chapter of the Torah literally. But the Abarbanel also writes that, according to the Rambam, some of the events ( e.g. the serpent) in the second chapter of the Torah are to be treated in the same way as Jacob's dream about the ladder reaching down from heavens (presumably this means that, like Jacob's dreams, the temptation was real enough but not that there was an actual serpent). However, the above prooftext indicates that the Rambam took the whole second chapter literally as well, as is stated by Rabbenu Crescas in his commentary to the Moreh.
It is clear, according to the opinion of the Rambam, that in the account of Adam and Chava, the matter of the serpent, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge all are possible as literally stated ( kemashmayo ), since nature was not yet established. New formations not previously in existence came into existence on each of six days of the creation week. So too, the matters mentioned such as Adam, Chava and the other events all happened literally ( kepeshutam) because they occurred on day six.
[With respect to Adam and Chava created as a single entity:] Nobody questions the historical truth of the creation of Adam and Chava, the account of Cain, Abel, Seth, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge . However, the Sages, by way of hint ( remez) have enlightened us with [additional] precious insights. The Rambam, who is the Teacher of Righteousness, was drawn after the Sages to expound their meaning [in their comment that the first couple was created a single entity].
The prooftexts (above and below) establish the following important ideas in the Rambam.
The first chapter of the Torah is not allegorical at all. Rather it is a historical meta-natural account of the creation of the cosmos. Creation is unable to be duplicated via chance and naturalistic processes which obtain in the post-Creation period without a specialized ma'amar Hashem to activate this process.
The meta-natural creative process did not happen all at once. It lasted the entire sheshes yimey bereishis and culminated with Shabbos at which point the creative process was permanently suspended and the laws of nature permanently fixed. The first man was a historical personality, created, supra-naturally in the image of God on the sixth day of creation, precisely as outlined in the Torah.
Shabbos is a commemoration of these fundamental principles .
1. When the Rambam discusses the grammatical connotation of the word va'yanch in the dibra which relates to Shabbos (Shmos 20:10), the Rambam states as follows: "[and the grammatical context of the word vayanach] is that [Hashem] caused reality to perpetuate in the state that it existed on the seventh day. In other words, every single day of the six days saw a process which caused new events to come into existence, [a process] which transcends the fixed nature which currently obtains in the universe in general (Moreh - Kapach ed. pg. 111).
2. The Rambam states in Moreh Nevuchim that every episode related in the Torah is there for one of two purposes. Either it is there to reinforce a hashkafa which relates to one of the fundamentals of the Torah, or it appears in the Torah as a form of tikun olam, a societal infrastructure which facilitates harmony amongst mankind. If so, asks the Rambam, what is the purpose of all the generations listed between Adam haRishon and Avraham Avinu? Here's the Rambam's response: "Since it is a fundamental doctrine of the Torah that the world is newly created and that the first [human] creation was Adam and that the time which elapsed from Adam to Moshe is approximately 2,500 years…etc." and the Rambam goes on to explain that anyone viewing such a diversified world with so many inhabitants belonging to so many different cultures speaking so many different languages spread out over such large geographical locations, might doubt the recentness of creation and the fact that initially, only one man was created. Therefore, the Torah goes out of its way to list the specific generations which unfolded from Adam to Moshe, who their leaders were, what occurred to them, and that they originally all spoke one language as one would expect from a society which descended from one lone man (Moreh 3:50 - Kapach ed. pg 400)
3. When the Rambam discusses the mitzvah of shemitta and yovel, he identifies the precise historical year this mitzvah first took place as follows: "When did they first start to count? 14 years after they entered the land…7 years they were involved in conquering, seven years in dividing up the land…it therefore turns out that on the two thousandth, five hundred and third year from the Rosh Hashana of molad Adam haRishon, being the second year of creation (the first 5 days of creation were the last 5 days of the first virtual year of creation - see Rosh haShana 8a Tosfos s.v. Litkufos), they started to count. (Hilchos Shemitta v'Yovel 10:2)
4. "Adam haRishon was commanded to keep six mitzvos…an additional one was added to Noach…until Avraham came who was additionally commanded on milah and davened tefilas shacharis. Yitzchok separated tithes and added another prayer towards sundown. Yaakov added gid haNasheh and davened maariv. In Egypt, Amram was commanded in some additional mitzvos until Moshe came at which point the Torah was completed by him. (Hilchos Milachim 9:1)
5. "Man was created alone in order to teach the world that whoever destroys [i.e. kills] a human life, it is as if he destroyed the entire world; and whoever maintains a human life, it is as if he maintained the entire world. Behold, all of mankind is created in the form of Adam haRishon and yet each person's countenance is dissimilar from his friend's. Therefore, each and every person can say, 'the world was created specifically for me'". (Hilchos Sanhedrin 12:3)
[1] Natan Slifkin, The Challenge of Creation, Yashar Books, 2006, page 339..
[2] Ibid. page 340.
[3] Ibid. page 342.
[4] Rambam, Yad HaChazaka, Hilchos Beis Habechira, 2:1-2.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The following is an email to a group of over 20 email addresses. All have been deleted except for three of them. It is from Dr. Betech to the group, sent to Gil Student and cc:'d to Slifkin and over 20 others.
Re: Public protest
Inbox
from Isaac Betech isaacb@tovnet.com
to Gil Student
cc
zoorabbi@zootorah.com [ ed; that is slifkin ]
[ editor: the rest of the email addresses this email was sent to have been deleted ]
B"H
R. Gil Student:
At 09:38 PM 12/20/2006, you wrote:
[ these are gil students words in an email gil sent ) "I repeat Rabbi Slifkin's claim that we received permission from a prominent posek before publishing this book. I will add that another prominent posek told my close friend that those who signed the ban against Rabbi Slifkin are "morons". His word; not mine. No, I will not give out names."
[Dr. Betech replies to Gil Student: ]"
"I have been closely following this email forum for weeks, and because of personal considerations have been abstaining from directly participating in it, but today we feel the obligation to respectfully intervene (see B"M 84b), since we read the "m" word written, qualifying the world renowned Talmide Chachamim who signed the Giluy Daat in question.
Not being an American, I was in doubt of the actual meaning of the "m" word, then I checked the dictionary and understood that it is describing a mentally retarded person.
See the American Heritage Dictionary
mo•ron n.
1. A stupid person; a dolt. 2. Psychology A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
[From Greek m ron, neuter of m ros, stupid, foolish.]
Of course we understand that you may try to justify yourself saying that you are just repeating someone´s else remark, but this does not exempt us from making a public "Mechaa" (protest) for the honor of all these Talmide Chachamim shlit"a (for Halachik definitions see Chafetz Chaim Klal 8 Halacha 4).
As you know, the only place in the Talmud where the following shaking expression appears is:
"Kol hamebaze Talmid Chacham en lo refuah lemakato" (Shabbat 119b).
As a physician, I am very concerned for the words you wrote, specially in these troubled times for Klal Israel, where we see so many tragic diseases, even among our Torah brethren.
Being a pediatrician (Newborn Intensive Care Specialist), I am clearly aware of the meaning of mental retardation. We have had the great zechut of meeting many Gedoley Torah (including some of the Rabbanim who signed the Giluy Daat) and of course none gave us the impression of being what you wrote about them, obviously the complete opposite is the truth.
Sincerely,
Dr. Yitzchak Betech _________________________________________________________
Following is a letter sent to Dr. Betech from Rav Yisroel Belsky. The date is prior to the publishing of Slifkin's new book " Challenge". Rav Belsky gave his haskamah to one of Slifkin's books which happened to not be one of the books that, all things considered, would have brought about the ban ( and it was the only book Rav Belsky wrote a letter for ). The book "Challenge" ( and of course non of the quoted material noted above ) of course has not been given any support from Rav Belsky. Also see this link for an essay of Rav Belsky found in his book put together by talmidim of his
www.google.com/base/a/1603416/D16017261858410305478
This link is from a book that was published in 2005- after the publication of Slifkins 3 other banned books and before the publishing of his "Challenge ", the newest book, and prior to the Prager interview of Slifkin.
____________________________________________________________
Following is the letter of Rav Belsky to Dr. Betech:
[scanned from original letter]
November 15th 2005 / 13 Cheshvan 5766
Dr. Isaac Betech Mexico City, Mexico
Dear Dr. Betech‘N’Y’ [ These two letter ‘nun’ and ‘yud’ transliterated from original Hebrew of these two letters]
Thank you for the enlightening and pleasant conversation that we had the other day concerning scientific issues in the Talmud. It was heartwarming to speak with a man of your scientific background who has achieved the awareness that the sages of the Talmud were far advanced in all facets of wisdom and correct in every field of knowledge. I had told you then that so-called contradictions between Torah and science never presented any problem to me because I had not come across any that couldn’t be resolved with ease.
I was quite surprised when you told me that you had seen an exhibited claim saying that I had supported writings which doubted certain statements by the sages. Nothing can be further from the truth
My only public statement in this area affirmed what I always knew to be correct, i.e. that the sages spoke only the truth and were the repository of all wisdom. My approbation for a book on the species mentioned in the Torah affirms these ideas quite clearly. Those who think otherwise would do well to have the Hebrew translated for them so as to clear up any possible misunderstanding.
The book in question had sought to confirm the traditional translation of the biblical species called shofon and to lay to rest all perceived difficulties between Talmudic statements on the subject and evidence from the natural world. The author’s method of resolution followed a certain approach which he discovered in the works of some noted Talmudic scholars.
He consistently supports the Talmud’s view and always maintains their absolute integrity as I noted in my approbation.
However I believe he erred in minimizing the scope of the Talmudic sentence of “Shalit beolamo yodes “ which seems certain to mean that the list of four species mentioned in the Torah is absolute and should be taken literally.
There are other instances where he treated Talmudical dicta with complex interpretations in order to make them agree with what he perceived as natural phenomena. Your extensive and careful research, though, yields a much more satisfactory product as it obviates the need for a resolution by demonstrating that those difficulties never existed in the first place.
Your material should be required reading. I note that all Halachos that appear in the Talmud based on natural sciences are immutable even if one supposes that modern research disproves their hypothesis. A discussion on the subject would require a book length document, but suffice it to say that every seeming contradiction can be shown to be of no consequence to a seasoned mind.
I would appreciate an opportunity at some future date if our busy schedules permit it to carry forth our discussion. I have since become aware of your great successes in conveying the Torah’s message to our beloved Jewish brethren; all honor to you. Please accept my warmest blessing for Hatzlocho in all your holy endeavors,
Sincerely,
Rabbi Yisroel Belsky
_____________________________________________Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Gan Eden as Allegory
http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/04/gan-eden-as-allegory.htmlRabbi Gavriel Bechhofer
An old posting on a recurring topic:
I certainly do not claim to have done exhaustive research, but I would like to present what I have found concerning Gan Eden account as allegory.
In the first place, there is no source that I could find that holds that
the whole of the Gan Eden account is allegory. Such as opinions
concerning an allegorical interpretation exist, they pertain only to the nature of the "Nachash", the serpent in the story. The opinion that the serpent was not a real live creature, while distinctly a minority view, is the view of the Sfornu on the episode (Bereishis 3:1) with the serpent and the "Efodi" Commentary on the Moreh Nevuchim (Ibn Tibbon edition, II:30, pp. 51-52).
In my opinion, this is clearly not the Rambam himself's position, and I invite readers to peruse the Moreh themselves (p. 356 in the Pines
English translation).
I note that the Abarbanel mentions that the Rambam himself holds the episode allegorical, but he clearly was influenced by the Rambam's commentators, whom he calls the Rambam's "friends."
The Abarbanel himself, however, is critical of the Rambam (according to his understanding of him). The Abarbanel, in fact, uses reasoning that I used in my previous postings: It is incorrect to take texts that the Torah conveys as actual factual description and interpret them allegorically! He does give some novel interpretations of the events in Gan Eden, but all true to a factual perspective.
The Sfornu's view does have legitimacy, however, because it has a source in Chazal: "And the serpent: Rabbi Yitzchak said, this is the yetzer hara [evil inclination]. R. Yehuda said, the serpent was an actual serpent. They came befor Rabbi Shimon [b. Yochai]. He told them, certainly both opinions are one. The serpent was Samael and he appeared on [in?] the serpent, and the v! isage of the serpent is that of the Satan and all is one..."
(Zohar Chadash 35b; Torah Sheleima vol. 2 p. 252) (readers not familiar with that work should understand that it is an exhaustive, comprehensive and encyclopediac compilation of all Chazals and most Rishonim and many Acharonim on Torah she'bi'ktav)
(We see, BTW, from the Zohar Chadash that those that equate the serpent with the evil inclination thus need not dismiss its actual existence, but rather see it as "evil incarnate" (see the Nefesh HaChaim 1:6 in the note there).
Now, to me it seems quite clear that R. Shimon b. Yochai rejected R.
Yitzchak premise that it was only the yetzer hara and R. Yehuda's
premise that it was only an actual serpent, but rather explained to them that it was both. Nevetheless, the Sfornu is perhaps entitled to adopt the opinion of R. Yitzchak.
I could not find any Chazal or Rishon that takes the rest of the account of Gan Eden as allegorical. Indeed, the Ramban in his commentary 3:22 and in the "Toras HaAdam" (Kisvei Ramban vol. 2 p. 295 in the Mossad HaRav Kook edition) takes great pains to stress that Gan Eden and all the events that occured therein actually existed in this world, and that references to a spiritual Gan Eden in Chazal, refer to a parallel spiritual realm that also really exists, and that the events that transpired in Gan Eden below also transpired in that Gan Eden on high. Again, I only checked Rishonim at my ready disposal, but these seem pretty clear. Rabbinu Bechayei takes the view of the Ramban, of course.The Ibn Ezra as well is adamantly opposed to allegorical interpretation (See Nechama Leibowitz's "Iyunim" p. 14 as well). So is R. Sa'adia Gaon.
So far the Sfornu is all I found. Bear in mind: a) that he too takes
the rest of the Gan Eden account as literal; b) that he was not adverse to the surreal (see his link of "Tumah" and demons in his "Kavanos HaTorah"; c) the Sfornu himself weaves in and out of the allegory in 3:14. The last point causes me to wonder if the Sfornu is actually engaging here in exegesis - perhaps this is actually homiletics?
Yet, be that as it may, the Sfornu only makes this jump here where he can cite verses from Nach (and where we find basis in Chazal) in which the tern "Nachash" is used as an express allegory for the Evil
Inclination and the Power of Fantasy. The Sfornu certainly did not take the Flood as allegorical - there is no basis for that, even according to the Sfornu's non-mainstream approach here. Thus, although according to Tradition, as previously mentioned by other MJ posters, there is precedent - albeit slim - for an "allegorical" interpretation of a highly specific aspect of the Gan Eden account, there is no such tradition in the case of the Flood.
Posted by YGB at Wednesday, April 20, 2005
.
Let's be clear, just like Slifkin ( quotes far below) , Jeremy Wieder does not maintain that the scientific theories we have today maybe giving insight into Chazal's teachings, such as Rav Belsky notes in his English sefer on Breishis ( published by his talmidim, found in stores ), with regard to concepts of time compression and relativity, whereby it is clear to all that the relativistic behavior of time is only a tiny fraction of the whole picture. [ Rav Belsky for instance notes, according to Chazal, this is no surprise, for time is considered to be one of the secrets of Maaseh Bereishis, and is largely beyond the grasp of the human mind. Additionally, Jeremy Wieder doesn't maintain, as Rav Belsky, that the midrashim regarding worlds destroyed PRIOR to our world may be useful in understanding geological findings. No- Jeremy Wieder ( as does Nosson Slifkin) regards the first eleven perakim as a myth- not in accordance with the explanations of all Chazal and Rishonim- and denying the universally accepted rishonic understanding of the events as the rishonim understood the divrei Chazal as Chazal bring us the Mesorah from the Neviim. Jeremy Wieder: " What is the purpose of Breishis then? and I believe that the answer lies, I will say this carefully, the way I might term a divinely dictated creation mashal ( myth ) .... Hashem told us metaphysical truths, whether it’s Breishis or parshas Noach, that were meant to teach us fundamental truths." ..........................................
.
Appendix: Points about Rambam's parameters of pesukim interpretation:( unverified)
Rambam's position is that the discipline of "philosophic demonstration" can't contradict Torah because Rambam maintains that philosophic demonstration is always in line with Torah. ( Of course the Rambam also mentions that many truths in the Torah do not have a philosophic demonstration for support.)
Let's look at pesukim interpretation specifically: Rambam's methodology for posuk interpretation can be seen in the first 50 chapters of the first part of the Moreh Nevuchim where he proves incorporeality:
(A ) The range of acceptable meanings attributed to a word in a posuk is determined and limited by its actual usages seen in the Tanach. We cannot go beyond actual usages. So while we can say that "lev ("heart") means "central part," since there is a verse referring to the "lev (heart) of the heavens," we cannot say "lev" means "water carrier" on the grounds that we know the heart is a pump. This is because there is no verse in which it is used to mean pump. (b) The acceptable meanings for a word or phrase follow a hierarchy - some are preferable to others. (c) Furthermore, we only abandon the primary ( preferred) meaning of a word or phrase if that meaning is demonstrated to be false [not merely reasoned to be false]. ( It is taken for granted by Rambam that there will never be a situation where philosophic demonstration will contradict a KNOWN yesod of Torah, which is a kabbalah, which is a "theory of Moses our Teacher" A posuk will never be interpreted to contradict a yesod, however Rambam will only interpret a posuk not using primary meanings of words when a proof is manifest that the posuk should not be interpreted with its primary word meanings. Only then will Rambam use a non primary word meaning. So for example, he will not use a non primary word usages simply because the resulting posuk interpretation will yield a more reasonable assignment of meaning to the posukl. Reasonableness is not adequate for the employment of non primary word usages--- only "proof" is. ( of course, this whole subject has nothing to do with a rishon maintaining that a "pshat" is not in sync with a statement of Chazal--- rather, for reasons beyond the scope of thid article, a rishon will have reasons that a particular statement of Chazal is not meant as pshat. This has no bearing on our subject so we will not treat the outline of that subject matter))
. It must be pointed out that Rambam considers "proof" not just philosophic proof, but proof from pesukim and Chazal. For example, in presenting "proof" that G-d is not a physical body, for example, he uses philosophical demonstration in MN 2:25, but in 1:55 his "proof" is through pesukim! There is therefore no reason to limit his references (in 2:25)to the "proof" that determines the legitimacy or illegitimacy of an interpretation to philosophical demonstration alone. A posuk or Chazal would also constitute such proof. Pesukim were never meant in a simple way that contradicts either demonstrable reality or Chazal.
. **** Rambam teaches us certain principles which are easily applied to even our current scientific milieu. Here is a selection of them, ones we will refer to throughout: ( 2:17) Rambam: "…It is quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced: nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion: you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions." .... "We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed such-from-such, and that it has been created such-from-such. The Aristotelians oppose us, and based their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence." end quote. .
.Appendix: Points about Rambam's parameters of pesukim interpretation:( unverified)
Rambam's position is that the discipline of "philosophic demonstration" can't contradict Torah because Rambam maintains that philosophic demonstration is always in line with Torah. ( Of course the Rambam also mentions that many truths in the Torah do not have a philosophic demonstration for support.)
Let's look at pesukim interpretation specifically: Rambam's methodology for posuk interpretation can be seen in the first 50 chapters of the first part of the Moreh Nevuchim where he proves incorporeality:
(A ) The range of acceptable meanings attributed to a word in a posuk is determined and limited by its actual usages seen in the Tanach. We cannot go beyond actual usages. So while we can say that "lev ("heart") means "central part," since there is a verse referring to the "lev (heart) of the heavens," we cannot say "lev" means "water carrier" on the grounds that we know the heart is a pump. This is because there is no verse in which it is used to mean pump. (b) The acceptable meanings for a word or phrase follow a hierarchy - some are preferable to others. (c) Furthermore, we only abandon the primary ( preferred) meaning of a word or phrase if that meaning is demonstrated to be false [not merely reasoned to be false]. ( It is taken for granted by Rambam that there will never be a situation where philosophic demonstration will contradict a KNOWN yesod of Torah, which is a kabbalah, which is a "theory of Moses our Teacher" A posuk will never be interpreted to contradict a yesod, however Rambam will only interpret a posuk not using primary meanings of words when a proof is manifest that the posuk should not be interpreted with its primary word meanings. Only then will Rambam use a non primary word meaning. So for example, he will not use a non primary word usages simply because the resulting posuk interpretation will yield a more reasonable assignment of meaning to the posukl. Reasonableness is not adequate for the employment of non primary word usages--- only "proof" is. ( of course, this whole subject has nothing to do with a rishon maintaining that a "pshat" is not in sync with a statement of Chazal--- rather, for reasons beyond the scope of thid article, a rishon will have reasons that a particular statement of Chazal is not meant as pshat. This has no bearing on our subject so we will not treat the outline of that subject matter))
. It must be pointed out that Rambam considers "proof" not just philosophic proof, but proof from pesukim and Chazal. For example, in presenting "proof" that G-d is not a physical body, for example, he uses philosophical demonstration in MN 2:25, but in 1:55 his "proof" is through pesukim! There is therefore no reason to limit his references (in 2:25)to the "proof" that determines the legitimacy or illegitimacy of an interpretation to philosophical demonstration alone. A posuk or Chazal would also constitute such proof. Pesukim were never meant in a simple way that contradicts either demonstrable reality or Chazal.
. **** Rambam teaches us certain principles which are easily applied to even our current scientific milieu. Here is a selection of them, ones we will refer to throughout: ( 2:17) Rambam: "…It is quite impossible to infer from the nature which a thing possesses after having passed through all stages of its development, what the condition of the thing has been in the moment when this process commenced: nor does the condition of a thing in this moment show what its previous condition has been. If you make this mistake, and attempt to prove the nature of a thing in potential existence by its properties when actually existing, you will fall into great confusion: you will reject evident truths and admit false opinions." .... "We, the followers of Moses, our Teacher, and of Abraham, our Father, believe that the Universe has been produced and has developed such-from-such, and that it has been created such-from-such. The Aristotelians oppose us, and based their objections on the properties which the things in the Universe possess when in actual existence and fully developed. We admit the existence of these properties, but hold that they are by no means the same as those which the things possessed in the moment of their production; and we hold that these properties themselves have come into existence from absolute non-existence." end quote. .
A sidebar about Slifkin ( unverified)
The above teachings of Jeremy Wieder of the supremacy of current scientific consensus as it tramples the Mesorah of Klal Yisroel are similar to the views of Nosson Slifkin that surfaced more clearly AFTER the banning of 3 of his books that contained objectionable material. The material of the two are seemingly indistinguishable. After the banning of 3 of his books circa 2005, in his subsequent book and lectures, Slifkin has gone so far as to mythologize most of the first 11 chapters as well as proclaiming the supremacy of current scientific consensus over the Mesorah. Additonally he actually said that he doesn't allegorize the avos since he has no reason to ( see the transcript of the interview Slifkin gave on the Dennis Prager radio show below). And Wieder in his newer 2006 audio says Slifkin doesn't go far enough in his mythologizing because Slifkin doesn't, according to Wieder, give science enough authority in trumping Torah. JW actually says this. If you listen to the 2005 audio and the 2006 attempt to hide his true 2005 feelings, you'll be amazed as we were.
Following is just a short example of his positions:
.
[ Slifkin: ] "Actually, if someone feels that one needs to have a sufficiently qualified authority upon which to rely for the allegorization of the Mabul, then I can provide one. It's a more authoritative source than the Rishonim. More authoritative even than Chazal. It's the Metziyus. Hashem's "diary of history," the physical world, states that there was no global Flood. I think that Hashem is a reliable source (unless, of course, He was deliberately deceiving us...). There is only one metziyus. On the other hand, there are different ways of understanding the Torah....] [ found at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/nosson-slifkin-rabbi-dessler-avraham-chaim-carmell.htm ]
.
Ther above position of Slifkin is Slifkin's own creation. It certainly is not to be found anywhere in the Talmud or the Rishonim. Similarly, Slifkin kicked off a book tour with the publishing of his first book AFTER the ban and in an interview on radio communicated his position to millions on the DENNIS PRAGER radio show: SLIFKIN STATES on the radio show: "Oh, excellent, it gives me an opportunity to clarify. I don't actually believe the 6 days of Genesis were each billions of years long. I don't think it's describing a sequence of time at all. I think the entire text is completely allegorical--- teaching us very theological lessons about the material world, but I think what you raised is a very good point that indeed those who take this kind of quasi literal approach saying that each day is an eon --That it shows the problems with the approach "
see more transcript and link to audio below in this article.
.
Furthermore Slifkin wrote to a person -- a person he didn't know- and responded to the person's question as follows:
[ Questioner Asked :]
-----Original Message----- From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mail to:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 To: zoorabbi@zootorah.com Subject: Hello Hello Rabbi Slifkin, I have been looking at your website and read about the "Controversy" and want to ask if acceptance of evolution would also mean that you would accept that Eve didn't literally come from Adam's rib or side- physically and literally? Thanks for your response ahead of time, xxxxxx [ Nosson Slifkin responded:]
"----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: RE: Hello Date: 10/23/2005 From: zoorabbi@zootorah.com To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent from the Internet (Details)
Dear xxxxxxxx, It wouldn't necessarily require that, but I do happen to believe that this is not literal (I think that this is by far one of the cases where it is easy to see that it is meant allegorically).
best wishes,
Natan Slifkin "
.
(see full email below. )
The above excerpts of the evolution of Slifkin's positions are all POST- BAN. Despite the ban Slifkin's positions, as seen above, went further into the arena of heresy and his web site became a full spectrum of bizayon to the top talmidei chachamim in the world. The lengths to which Slifkin's newer, post ban positions went, beyond the matters that originally lead to the ban, led the 4 gedolim who had not originally signed the original ban to write letters excoriating all of Slifkins writings across the board. ( ie. Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky, Rav Yaaov Perlow, Rav Aaron Schachter, and Rav Ovadiah Yosef originally had not signed the ban, but when they saw a year or so later what Slifkin subsequently wrote agains the Mesorah they were so disgusted that they wrote these excoriating letters and refused to speak with him directly.
.
Below is unverified:
Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim contains in it a defense of the Torah against philosopher critics of the Torah for frum Jews ( 3:1:) " in the manner adapted to the training of those for whom this work was written." Since Rambam discusses Torah in light of philosophy he makes reference on occasion to a yesod hatorah as the "Theory of Moses our Teacher". One would expect him to discuss a matter of a kabbalah from Moses in this manner, adopting the writing style and content relevant to the discipline of which he writes. ( see examples below). Rambam in this work, and in all of his works, teaches without exception that that kabbalos that are received are the Torah we adhere to and believe in the way we have received them as being understood by Chazal. This is so fundamental to all of Rambam's writings that it is almost inconceivable that Wieder would dispute this by imagining otherwise. For one example, Rambam says in Moreh Nevuchim 2:28: " Many of our coreligionists thought that King Solomon believed in the Eternity of the Universe [ because of certain verses in Solomons writing] . This is very strange. How can we suppose that any one that adheres to the law of Moses our Teacher should accept that theory? if we were to assume that Solomon had on this point, G-d forbid, deviated from the Law of Moses .... "[ Rambam procedes to asks rhetorically how anyone could even think for a moment that the Prophets and Sages accepted the text if Solomon had really maintained this position of Eternity of the Universe] So we see how Rambam expresses the position that no one can have the opinion of anything other than yesh me-ayin- because it is a fundamental of Torah. But Wieder appeals to the Rambam ( 2:25) for what Wieder says is the Rambam's position of being willing to terminate this yesod (fundamental ) of Torah if Rambam found a proof to do so ( such as philosophic demonstration). ( In his lecture, Wieder himself expresses amazement at this Rambam ( in accordance with Wieder's naive understanding of 2:25. ) Wieder is positing that the comprehensive full meaning of 2:25 is simply ' I, the Rambam, would myself reject yesh me-ayin if forced to on account of philosophic demonstration ( proof).'. ) So far: -Wieder says that we can't reject a yesod of Torah, -Wieder uses his own understanding of a Rambam ( 2:25) to elicit just that position, -and then Wieder ignores a Rambam that says the opposite of 2:25 but doesn't deal with this matter all.Well which is it? Wieder can't claim that Rambam doesn't consider this a fundamental of Torah since Rambam says so explicitly and describes it as a "Theory of Moeses our Teacher". Yet Wieder chooses his naive understanding of 2:25 to advance an entire iconcolastic postion again all of the chachmei hamesorah for 3,300 years Clearly Rambam isn't writing in 2:25 that he himself would overturn a yesod of Torah. We will deal with that far below. Wieder's enterprise is alas unimportant for a far more fundamental reason that we will procede to instantly: ( Again, Wieder's enterprise we are referring to is the idea that the rishonim maintain that natural "science wins over Torah" when ikarei haemunah, yesodei hatorah, and halacha are NOT involved. ( Wieder) ) ( one more point to make prior to the main refuation of Wieder: *Wieder advances an idea that the rishonim suggest that a situaton could arise where the received traidition ( kabbalos) could contradict Torah. However, the rishonim who employ philosophical demonstration maintain philosophical demonstration cant contradict Torah : philosophical demonstration is the fabric upon which and through which we learn Torah. More about how to understand 2:25 correctly will be dealt with far below) Now onto the main refuation of Wieder: The main reason that Wieder is completely lost in this subject is because his whole irresponible enterprise is predicated on telling his listeners that the rishonim include certain areas of modern scientific consensus to be within the rubric of " philosophic demonstration" . We will see instantly the rishonim only use what we will term here "absolute" philosophical demonstration { PD } that is absolute and for which there are no other possibilities -- for use in intepreting Torah. This is seen throughout the Moreh as when Rambam rejects Aristotles and Platos notions of Yesh Mi Yesh on account of there not being an absolute PD. The absoluteness of PD that is required is not found in some of the scienctific conlusions found today among the consensus of the scientific community.
Comments may be sent to solorest at gmail.com
Full Q & A of Rav Moshe Meiselman as published in the JP in November 2011 :
This
page was exported from JewishPress [ http://www.jewishpress.com
]
Export date: Thu Jan 19 3:32:25 2012 / +0000 GMT
Export date: Thu Jan 19 3:32:25 2012 / +0000 GMT
‘Ultimately, Scientists Always Realize The Torah Is Correct’: An Interview with Rabbi Moshe Meiselman
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman is rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Toras Moshe in Jerusalem (which is marking its 29th anniversary with a tribute dinner on Sunday, December 11, at Ateres Avrohom Hall in Brooklyn). A nephew of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, zt”l, Rabbi Meiselman learned Torah on a daily basis with his uncle for more than a decade. Rabbi Meiselman has just finished writing a book (as yet untitled) on Torah and science due to be published in the next few months. The Jewish Press: What is your new book about and why do you feel it is relevant? Rabbi Meiselman: A few years ago there was an explosion in the Orthodox world regarding Torah and science, with many people writing a lot of material and creating a lot of confusion. In many cases the authors lacked the necessary training in Torah, science, and machshavah required to properly address this topic. As a result the Torah was misrepresented and distorted. I had spent many years thinking about this subject, and debated whether I should involve myself in the matter. When my name was mentioned in some recent literature against my will, I decided to sit down and organize my thoughts, and over time a book emerged. There are new books and articles continuously being written on this topic. I therefore felt I would present what I consider to be the point of view of the Torah. Based on a tremendous amount of sources from Chazal, Rishonim, and Achronim, I show what the classic and constant approach of the Torah has been toward this topic. According to our mesorah the Torah we have was given by Hashem on Har Sinai and does not contain mistakes. Everything the Torah describes is absolutely true. To suggest that Chazal are full of mistakes has the potential to undermine the authenticity of our mesorah. I felt motivated to show that Chazal are not full of mistakes and that the Torah, our mesorah, is completely true. How does this book differ from other books on the topic? I believe this book differs from others on this topic because I possess a unique background that enables me to bring to bear a tremendous amount of Torah knowledge coupled with very broad scientific knowledge and machshavah. I did not feel other books on this topic combined all three of these necessary components in a complete manner. You were a talmid of your uncle Rav Soloveitchik. What was your relationship with him like? And did you ever discuss the topic of this book with him? I learned very intensely with my uncle one on one for twelve years. I discussed all aspects of life with him including many of these topics. I quote him in this book, and where I do it is with an exact quote. Many other areas of the book are based on things he said. His heavy influence is felt throughout the book, even when he is not quoted. Were you close with any other prominent rabbanim? I lived in Los Angeles from 1977-1982 where I had a major responsibility for much of the psak halacha of the city. In that role I became very close with Reb Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, and I was continually in touch with him. When I moved to Eretz Yisrael I asked Reb Moshe who my new “address” should be and he said I should go to Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. Subsequently, I became a ben bayis there, and discussed psak halacha along with many other issues with him. When I founded Yeshivas Toras Moshe it was done in accordance with his psakim. I believe that my personal closeness to him and to his family played an important role in my daughter marrying his grandson. Why did you decide to open Yeshivas Toras Moshe? Yeshivas Toras Moshe was founded to enable young men who were coming to Eretz Yisrael for a certain period of their lives to experience guidance in a close manner by gedolei talmidei chachamim in a structured environment. All of the rebbeim are world-class talmidei chachamim who give themselves completely to their talmidim. The yeshiva follows a very thought-through plan of structure in which the talmidim can climb step by step in Gemara, halacha, mussar, and machshavah. Baruch Hashem, our talmidim have gone on to become very accomplished talmidei chachamim and bnei Torah, and we feel we have accomplished our original goal. Returning to your book, what are some of the specific aspects of Torah and science that you discuss? The book discusses many aspects of this subject. One topic that is discussed is what parts of the Torah are to be taken literally and what parts are to be taken as allegory. Throughout the generations there have been people who have been very loose with the literal translation of the Torah, and the Rishonim have been sharp in rejecting this approach completely. Nowadays there are individuals who, in the name of science, would like to have a license in terms of taking many aspects of Torah not literally. Our job is to understand the Torah under the guidelines and rules set forth by the Rishonim. In the book I go through various opinions of Rishonim on this topic, and each of the Rishonim gives strict limitations as to when the Torah is to be taken absolutely literally and when it is to be taken as allegory. In another part of the book I discuss the fact that the Torah contains all of the chachma, wisdom, of Hashem on this world. Torah can be understood on many different levels. The deepest level of understanding includes in it all of the chachma of the world. It is for this reason that one can find many aspects of the briah (physical world) within the Torah. This concept was universally accepted by all of the Rishonim. This point is conveyed through the following story brought in both a Gemara in Bechoros and a Midrash in Bereishis: Rabban Gamliel was in Rome and met a Roman scientist. The scientist asked Rabban Gamliel if he knew how long the pregnancy of a nachash is. Rabban Gamliel replied that he did not, and they departed. Rabban Gamliel subsequently met Rabbi Yehoshua who immediately noticed that something was bothering Rabban Gamliel and inquired as to what it was. Rabban Gamliel told him he had met a Roman scientist and that he was unable to answer his question concerning the pregnancy of a nachash. Rabbi Yehoshua responded that it is seven years and derived it from a pasuk. Rabban Gamliel returned to the scientist and told him the answer was seven years, as derived from a pasuk. Upon hearing this, the scientist began banging his head against the wall and said he had spent many years studying this subject and in a matter of minutes “you figured it out by expounding on the Torah.” There are many lessons one can learn from this story. One thing to note is that Rabban Gamliel was disturbed by the fact that he did not know the answer to this scientific question. He could have brushed off the question by responding that he is not a scientist and not thinking twice about it. The reason Rabban Gamliel was disturbed when he did not know the answer is that this was an indication that he was lacking in his Torah knowledge. He felt if he had a more complete understanding of the Torah he would know this as well. Indeed, Rabbi Yehoshua deduced the correct answer from the Torah itself. I personally find it truly amazing when science confirms after years of experimentation that what the Torah has taught us is correct. Chazal made statements about the physical world that did not always correspond to the scientific views of a particular era – be it 2,000 years ago, 1,000 years ago or even in more recent years. But as time goes on the Torah’s view has been confirmed many times over. In the book I go through several examples of when the Torah taught something that was contradicted by science, and eventually science proved that which the Torah taught to be correct. From experiencing this outcome in many instances we can take the following important lesson: although often throughout time people thought the Torah did not understand the physical world, in fact the Torah’s view was based on a deeper understanding of the physical world far beyond what was available at the time via experimentation. Therefore, even if things that at a given time seem to contradict what science believes to be true we should understand that the Torah’s view is of a deeper understanding of the world than what is available to science. One example of the Torah view being challenged by earlier science, only to later be proven valid by modern science, concerns the question of whether there was a beginning to the world. The Torah says the world had a beginning. Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers said the world had no beginning. As time went on it became more accepted that the world had always existed. But by the 1960s just about everyone agreed the world had a beginning. Their understanding of that beginning still does not coincide with ours; they are, however, on the right track and eventually they will catch up. The Rashba put it beautifully when he said, “Science always changes and we always remain the same.” This is evidence that although scientists for a long period of time may believe something contradicts the Torah, ultimately scientists will realize the Torah is correct. Does the book discuss some of the statements of the Gemara that science has challenged? The book discusses aspects of supposed conflicts between Torah and science, many of which were addressed by Rishonim and Achronim. The book not only discusses their answers but also focuses on the approach the Rishonim and Achronim took when addressing this topic. One common thread that runs through all of them is that when confronted with a contradiction, none of them said the Torah was mistaken. They either tried to understand the Torah better or tried to understand the physical world better.
Excerpt: A nephew of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, zt”l, Rabbi Meiselman learned Torah on a daily basis with his uncle for more than a decade. Rabbi Meiselman has just finished writing a book (as yet untitled) on Torah and science due to be published in the next few months.
Post
date: 2011-11-23 21:18:53
Post date GMT: 2011-11-23 19:18:53
Post date GMT: 2011-11-23 19:18:53
