Sunday, June 12, 2011


7/ 11/ 11: Update TBD Tuesday 6/3/14 1:45pm. Hold the date.  Free sign was designed 9/21/12 contra Rabbi Moshe Meiselman as per summarized Torah.  Slifkin downloads are aggregated to the "C^"6 of "YUTORAH.ORG" and the event was hosted Monday December 30, 2013 at 7PM. with charitable sponsorship at and Finally, more is located near Jeremy Wieder. 
The book written by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman that puts to rest all of the confusion promoted by the 'Torah is mythology' lectures of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder was written by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman and is entitled "Torah Chazal & Science"    ( published in 2013, ISBN 978-1-60091-243-6).
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman elucidates the Mesorah on the subject of Torah, Chazal, and Science with pages 40- 62, 171- 176, 263- 272, and 358- 690 being those most directly relevant to the Rabbi Jeremy Wieder mythology lectures

In his mythology lectures Rabbi Jeremy Wieder ( contra Rabbi Moshe Meiselman ) teaches that the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis are a myth; ( He goes so far as to rule out any qualifications regarding the 11 even when (1) the pshat in a verse describes a historical occurrence and (2) Chazal render it a historical occurrence ( and when Chazal definitively treat the matter as a historical one). nonetheless Rabbi Jeremy Wieder asserts that first 11 chapters of sefer Breishis do not contain history- they are myths, about which Chazal and the baalei hamesorah understood incorrectly and therefore we need to reinterpret the text into a myth; Rabbi Wieder says he will do this because the people and the events of the lives of the people in the first 11 chapters of Sefer Breishis are not within the categories of 'ikkarei haemunah, yesodei hatorah, or halacha', and when an event in the verses are not within the categories of 'ikkarei haemunah, yesodei hatorah, or halacha', then we mythologize them when the scientific consensus says the events could not have happened.  (ie. on the other hand, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder claims to reject anything the scientific consensus says if the matter is one of ikkarei haemunah, yesodei hatorah, or halacha- even when the exact same sort of 'compelling' 'scientific' evidence is advanced)  He claims that he is teaching the position of Rambam Ramban Rav Saadyah Gaon Rashba and other rishonim.  

Regarding Avraham Yitschak and Yaakov, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder ( contra Rabbi Moshe Meiselman ) teaches that he himself would stop believing that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were real historical people and stop believing that the historical events ( described in the verses) of their lives were true- if tomorrow the scientific consensus concluded that 'science' has determined that the Avos and/or the events of their lives as described in the pesukim could not have occurred -just as he holds now that the events of the people in the first 11 chapters could not have occurred;  Rabbi Wieder ( contra Rabbi Moshe Meiselman ) says he would do this because the avos and the events of their lives are not within the categories of ikkarei haemunah, yesodei hatorah, or halacha, and as a result we mythologize when the scientific consensus says the events in the narrative are not possible- because rishonim tell us that we must mythologize the narrative in such cases.

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder says: " ..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."

Applying this to the first 11 chapters of sefer Breishis, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder says: "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';  Hashem told us metaphysical truths, whether it’s Breishis or parshas Noach, that were meant to teach us fundamental truths."

{* In the audio, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder ( contra Rabbi Moshe Meiselman) tells us the definition of a 'mashal' is a 'myth', the first 11 chapters of the Torah are a myth, the events never happened.}
(Note that Jeremy Wieder doesn't just teach that the 6 days of  creation are a myth, but that the approximately 2,000 year period of time after the first 6 days of Creation described in the Chumash are myths as well.  Rabbi Jeremy Wieder 
Rabbi Wieder says"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.[editor:or 'Yesodei Hatorah' and 'Halacha', as Jeremy Wieder said earlier *** ]. 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 RMBM's 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*** 

Rabbi Jeremy Wieder says: " 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."

see Rabbi Moshe Meiselman link below.
( contra RABBI MOSHE MEISELMAN)See Rabbi Moshe Meiselman link below in this site.
Regarding  the Exodus from Egypt Rabbi Wieder says: "The question is on events prior to matan Torah, how much must be read historically? I'm not 100% sure about yetsias mitzraimI 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...." 

( Rabbi Jeremy Wieder is saying he is not sure what the psak would be as to whether belief in The Exodus is within one of the 3 categories called ikarei haemunah, yesodei hatorah, or halacha that prevent us from mythologizing the the Exodus if the scientific consensus, now or later, concluded that the scientific method shows the Exodus could not have happened.) 

Regarding the Jewish People's Torah Tradition of the 6,000 year world Rabbi Jeremy Wieder says: " 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."  ( below, see Rabbi Moshe Meiselman link)

Crucially, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder doesn’t at all discuss the subject of what “science “ is when scientists use the term in contrast to when Rambam, Ramban, Rav Saadyah and Rashba use the term(s) they use to speak of triggers for possibly using a non-strictly literal interpretation of words in verses in the Chumash (5 Books of Moses). The applicable rules for allegorizing or mythologizing when certain natural observations and philosophy are employed by the rishonim are a world of difference than when scientists decide that an asserted event could not have happened. 

Crucially, the rules of interpreting Chumash away from the strict literal interpretation (ie. after "scientific 'license has been granted to interpret away from the strict literal)  are not discussed in the lecture; instead, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder says that such verses can be interpreted nonliterally and non historically. No rules or limitations of a reinterpretation are even mentioned by Rabbi Jeremy Wieder other than that it can't violate the '3 categories' above.

Crucially, Rabbi Meiselman explains in his book “Torah Chazal and Science” that “Rambam doesn’t allow allegorizing  ( mythologizing) in Chumash; what Rambam allows is employment of the Rambam’s teaching of the how the Hebrew language operates (ie. Rambam theory of expanded definitions- see Rabbi Meiselman’s Torah Chazal and Science” pages 374-390).  In Rambam’s opinion, accompanying a word’s primary meaning is an entire web of symbolic meanings with which an interpretation remains within the realm of pshat.  Even when employed, the non-primary word meaning falls under the rubric of pshat and “even this methodology cannot be invoked (a) without a compelling reason and (b) when it is in contradiction to any accepted belief or prophecy”(page 388 in Rabbi Moshe Meiselman’s  “Torah, Chazal and Science")
Furthermore Rabbi Moshe Meiselman writes “Applying these word usages are not the same as interpreting a verse allegorically or even metaphorically. In the Rambam’s view, these alternative connotations are all included within the plain meaning. Consequently, the resulting interpretation remains within the realm of peshat. By contrast, metaphoric and allegorical interpretations, when allowed, fall into the categories of remez or sod”
( Meiselman p.387) {  and therefore the Rambam’s position disallows, for example, interpreting the avos into myths- ie. people who never existed.)

( Rambam mentions that a good reason is needed to justify usage of expanded definitions of words in Chumash.  Firstly, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder doesn’t at all discuss the subject of what “science “ is when scientists use the term, versus what "science" is when Rambam uses the term(s).  The uses of their terms for "science" are not the same as today's scientists' use of the term. So what does Rambam allow as a good reason to interpret pshat in a posuk using a non-primary word definition when interpreting a posuk that needs an interpretation using an expanded word definition?  Rabbi Jeremy Wieder merely tells us, "science" is a "good reason". However, as above, what is the meaning of "science is a good reason"?   Rabbi Meiselman discusses this.  Here we will use a convenient piece from Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb who discusses what he learned from Rabbi Meilseman regarding Moreh Nevuchim, Guide of the Perplexed Part II, chap 25. Along the way it is pointed out that Rambam holds that one reason to employ an 'expanded definition' of a word is due to "philosophic demonstration" requiring the reinterpretation of the word in the posuk away from the primary meaning- that, Rambam holds, is a 'good reason' to to use a non-primary word definition for a word to attain a pshat interpretation of a posuk.  Rabbi Gottlieb writes: 
" It remains to comment on the Rambam’s meaning for  'philosophical demonstration'. It is clear from Part 2 chapter 17 that any demonstration relying of the assumption of the uniformity of the laws of nature in the past would not count. On the other hand, the Rambam’s own demonstrations start from presently observed realities and use natural physical/philosophical reasoning, so something like that would count. In any case, the age of the universe and evolution and relating theorizing clearly will not count. 
This last statement of Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (teaching Rabbi Meiselman) alone invalidates Rabbi Jermey Wieder's entire lecture ( we would not even need to forward with the subject of what Rambam indeed allows by way of 'expanded word definitions" to know that the Rabbi Jeremy Wieder conclusion cannot be correct.


Rav Saadyah Gaon

* Crucially, Wieder doesn't qualify what Rav Saadyah holds are the circumstances under which an interpretation in Chumash can depart from the strictly literal interpretation. This is discussed by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman in “Torah Chazal and Science” in pages 363-373.  
A few noted points. Rabbi Meiselman explains there is a critical difference between allegory and metaphor.  
Metaphor is a special use of language. When we talk about the “heart” of a matter we are using the word “heart” in a metaphoric sense and are not referring to the bodily organ of the same name. Just as the heart is viewed as the central part of the body, so is the “heart” of any subject its central issue.
"Allegory, by contrast, is a special use of narrative. In an allegory the narrative is not meant to be taken as true, but only as a tool of instruction. No one ever imagined that Aesop’s Fables were intended as a historical record. Rather, each of the stories is meant to convey a lesson. “  The fact that the Rishonim acknowledge the Torah’s frequent use of metaphor does not at all imply that they held the same with respect to allegory.  These are two separate issues and should not be confused. The prevalence of metaphor in the Kisvei HaKodesh is a feature of how the Hebrew Language functions and how the Torah and the prophets employ it. Acknowledging this reality is not the same as allowing that entire episodes- or even parts of episodes- never took place and are to be viewed as parable or myth.” 

Rav Saadyah gives limits of non strictly literal interpretations.  Here are a number of  Rav Saadyah's limits as mentioned by Rabbi Meiselman ( see full exposition in context and explained in pages 363-373 !  ):   
*A symbolic or metaphoric interpretation of a word in a verse is only allowed when “it is necessitated by a clear and incontrovertible contradiction- experiential, logical, or Scriptural- or by a received tradition. Under all other circumstances such deviation constitutes falsification of the Torah.”  (p.372)

( Rabbi Meiselman notes an example where Rav Saadyah mentions a posuk that refers to Hashem as a "consuming fire". Rav Saadyah does not reject the literal sense of the verse on account of non-corporeality, which can only be established philosophically, but rather Rav Saadyah disputes its literallness on account of an explanation involving a syllogism.  Rav Meiselman writes that when Rav Saadyah Gaon says that 'reason' can trigger deviation from the literal "he is not referring to the reasoning of speculative philosophy, but to everyday reason. There is no evidence in his writings that we may allegorize to square Tanach with philosophic speculation." (p.369-370))
* Furthermore: “Non-literal readings are not allowed when Tanach gives unambiguous descriptions of past or future events. That is why the prophecy of Techiyas HaMeisim must be taken literally. There is no room for abandoning the literal reading when the evidence against it is is merely “highly persuasive”: it must be absolutely compelling."
* Furthermore, “ reading may be accepted that is not unequivocally grounded in the Torah sources. “
* “Rav Saadyah leaves no room at all for allegorization."
* When a metaphoric interpretation is allowed it is a reference of the same word's usage in a different verse.
See Rabbi Meiselman pages 363-373 for full elucidation of this topic.

* Crucially, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder doesn't qualify what Rashba holds are the circumstances under which an interpretation in Chumash can depart from the strictly literal interpretation. 
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman discusses the Rashba’s position on science in pages 420-428 and on page 428 writes that the Rashba maintains:
“...there is never a license to interpret verses allegorically when the Mesorah takes them literally. Our Mesorah tells us that the miracles described in the Torah and Nevi’im actually occurred and that the various personae referred to actually existed, hence we have no right to interpret any of them allegorically” 
(page 428 of Rabbi Meiselman “Torah Chazal and Science. Rabbi Meiselman explains this conclusion in pages 420-428).

APPENDIX to above

What is the Torah Tradition on these matters and in what work can the most comprehensive exposition of these matters be found?

The book written by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman puts to rest all of the confusion promoted by the 'Torah is mythology' lectures of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder. It is entitled "Torah Chazal & Science".  Rabbi Moshe Meiselman examines in depth the matter of the Mesorah on the subject of Torah, Chazal, and Science in pages 40- 62, 171- 176, 263- 272, and 358- 690, the main pages covering matters relevant to the Rabbi Jeremy Wieder mythology lectures.  
Most of the book examines the approach that the Baalei Hamesorah- Rishonim and gedolei achronim- took in relating to Torah, Chazal, and Science- and the relationship between Torah and science; Rabbi Meiselman details the overwhelming consensus of the Baalei Hamesorah in their approach to Torah, Chazal, and Science and just as importantly he develops and demonstrates consensus positions of the baalei hamesorah as well as demonstrating where they differ...resulting in a vivid display of methods the baalei hamesorah both employed- and never employed- when dealing with difficult texts ( He points out, for example, when a much easier answer could have been employed by the Rishonim to clear up difficulties, and yet time after time the rishonim would nonetheless not make use of such methods they considered illegitimate.

In the following paragraph Rabbi Meiselman addresses the topic of individual scholars who broke with the consensus:
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman (pages 359-360):
   " The explosion of scientific knowledge of the 19th century presented continual problems for Torah scholars of the day, who were generally not trained in science.  It was an atmosphere where they felt overwhelmed and under attack.  Few if any had the tools to properly evaluate assertions made in the name of science as proven fact.
  " In the face of these challenges some may have felt compelled to concede the imperfectness of Chazal's factual knowledge. When they did so, however, it was always in response to some specific issue. Moreover, they made no attempt to square this concession with the overwhelming consensus to the contrary.  Had these scholars been more sophisticated in scientific matters they might have felt less intimidated.  For one thing, the distinction between different levels of proof would have been clearer to them. For another, they would have been more aware of the tendency of researchers to overstate their case.
   "As Mori VeRebbe, ztz"l  [ed; Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveichik] intimated in his 1975 address to the Rabbinic Alumni [Append.A], the real problem is a psychological one rather than an intellectual one. It is the feeling of inferiority in the face of apparent sophistication.  Today we realize that the concession those scholars made was unnecessary.  It is also incompatible with the great bulk of classic sources.  
   "Instead of absorbing unwittingly the assumptions and worldview of an alien culture with its own agenda, we should be striving to internalize the assumptions that have informed the thinking of our own Baalei HaMesorah throughout our long history.  When they examined any statement of Chazal it was with an attitude similar to that of Mori veRebbe in his treatment of a certain Talmudic principle in that same address:
   "For the chazakos which Chazal spoke of rest not upon the transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality, which is as changeless as the heavens above"."  

A large part of Rabbi Meiselman's book discusses the proper relationship between the two disciplines of Torah and science. Another large part of the book deals with the conditions under which the pesukim  of the Torah and prophetic writings may be interpreted in nonliteral ways.  Introducing the topic Rabbi Meiselman writes (pages 363-364): 
" In recent years it has become commonplace to deal with perceived conflicts between contemporary theory and bothersome texts by assuming that the latter may be allegorized at will.  The effect of this approach is to prevent the Torah from ever saying anything definite about the world, for the moment it appears to be doing so the reader is at liberty to take the matter allegorically.  
This methodology has become a refuge of sorts for those wishing to remain Orthodox while at the same time accepting all the assumptions of the modern academic world.  According to its advocates, any disagreement with this approach automatically places one in the category of "fundamentalist,"with all the pejorative associations of that term.  The dispute then becomes one between enlightened rationalists and obscurantist fundamentalists.  Since this issue has important ramifications, it must occupy a central place in our discussion of Torah and science....  It should be noted that in all cases our concern is only with non-literal interpretations that are meant to replace the literal ones.  Offering such readings on top of the plain meaning is an entirely different matter...."   
(Rabbi Meiselman covers the topic of 'Allegorizing the Torah' in pages 363- 458.)

Rabbi Moshe Meiselman is a student of Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, having learned with him on a daily basis for about a decade from Wiki: He is a son-in-law of the previous Ziditshoiver Rebbe of Chicago, Rabbi Avrohom Eichenstein. His mother, Shulamit Soloveitchik Meiselman, was the author of "The Soloveitchik Heritage: A Daughter's Memoir". Rabbi Meiselman is a nephew of the Rav Soloveitchik. According to Rabbi Meiselman, they formed a particularly close relationship during their intensive, long, private daily study sessions at Rabbi Soloveitchik's home from the time he was 18 until he was 29 years old, while he attended Harvard University and MIT in Boston, until the completion of his Ph.D. Rabbi Meiselman emigrated to Jerusalem, where he opened Yeshivas Toras Moshe. 
He was a student of Dr. Donald Anderson, he received a doctorate in mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology- MIT- in 1967 for his thesis The Operation Ring for Connective K-Theory. 

Topic Headings in Torah, Chazal, and Science by 
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Torah and Science 
Pages 3- 153 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

When Torah and Science Seem to Conflict:
Pages 177-299 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Celebrated Conflicts:
Pages 300- 366 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Allegorizing the Torah
Pages 367- 462 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

The place of Miracles
Pages 463- 493 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Time and Creation 
Pages 494- 541 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

The Flood and Issues of Evidence 
Pages 542- 572 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Scientific Theory 
Pages 573 -610 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Allowable and Non-Allowable Belief 
Pages 611- 644 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

The View of Mori veRebbi ztz"l [ Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik]
Pages 645- 692 in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman 

Allegorizing the Torah 
in Torah, Chazal, & Science by Rabbi Moshe Meiselman 
( by chapter heading)

Rav Saadyah Gaon On Allegory 
Page 367- 373 in Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's book Torah Chazal and Science

The Rambam on Allegory
Page 374- 390 in Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's book Torah Chazal and Science

The Rambam on Maaseh Breishis
Page 391- 419 in Rabbi Moshe Meiselma  n's book Torah Chazal and Science

The Rashba on Allegory
Page 420- 428 in Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's book Torah Chazal and Science

The Rambam on Aggadeta
Page 433- 453 in Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's book Torah Chazal and Science

Four Approaches to Historical Aggados...Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Ramban, and Rashba
Page 454- 458 in Rabbi Moshe Meiselman's book Torah Chazal and Science

Important links to Moreh Nevuchim article files from Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb

Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed / Moreh Nevuchim 
by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb based on Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb ( 56 pages)


The reader may familiarize himself with additional sources:

The Big Bang, Maimonides, and Modern Science
Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb

Current Limits of Science
by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb on Richard Dawkins' Master Argument

email is dovidlib at

Yoram Bogacz  "Genesis And Genes" ( published 2012 ) ( approbations by Rabbi Feldman of Ner Israel and a letter of introduction by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb of Ohr Sameach

Science and Truth
more sources.... 

Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb ( based upon Rabbi Moshe Meisleman full article at this link. [ End of excerpt ].

* Age of the Universe (Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb)

Notes on Science and Evolution...

Notes on the above outline...

Kuzari Principle 

Kuzari Pinciple:

response to critic:
comments to Kuzari principle:

_______________________________________________________________________ intro to RDG

Following is an article of Rav Dovid Gottlieb and can be found  
(Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb as learned from Rabbi Moshe Meiselman

Follow ( 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.
Further Outline of material

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in a public, televised debate with Richard Dawkins....

Rabbi Ostroff "Why the Origin Sciences are speculative" by Rabbi Ostroff:

Some Back Story :

The monograph you are now reading presents information introducing the reader to the Rabbi Jeremy Wieder lecture posted at entitled "When the Torah Doesn't Mean What it Says: Non- Literal Interpretation of Scripture and the Controversy 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 2005 Jeremy Wieder lecture has been removed from; it is now a broken link. A second Rabbi Jeremy Wieder mythology lecture like the first seems to have been placed at this location after having been apparently removed for a period of time when the 2005 lecture was permanently removed: http:/ It is listed as having been recorded Sunday November 5, 2006.  Rabbi Jeremy Wieder didn't retract anything.  It is a different lecture which maintains all of the same conclusions. All of the quotes of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder on this site are from the 2005 lecture.  Rabbi Jeremy Wieder acknowledges in the lectures that he isn't learned in the Rishonim's philosophy and science, he isn't learned in Greek philosophy and science, he isn't learned in medieval philosophy and science, and he isn't learned in modern science. In his lectures, for instance, he appeals to an undergrad professor and unnamed people he has spoken with on these matters.  Jeremy Wieder ( contra Rabbi Moshe Meiselman ) teaches that what he is teaching is the position of various rabbis among rishonim and gaonim; yet those rabbis' entire corpus of work militate against the very conclusions Jeremy Wieder ( contra Rabbi Moshe Meiselman ) espouses.   Before listening to the Rabbi Jeremy Wieder mythology lectures we advise all to first read and thoroughly study the Rabbi Moshe Meiselman book; the reader will thereby learn the traditional consensus after which the reader can listen to the 21st century iconoclastic mythology lecture of Rabbi Jeremy Wieder.

A poorly written review was offered by R Aviezer.
A 4 part response to the Prof. Aviezer's critique is located here ( on a site of a student of Rabbi Moshe Meiselman):
[ part 1] My Job Made Easier Part 4: Deeply Dissappointed with Professor Av1ezar ( Revised and greatly expanded)

[ part 2] Appendix to Previous Post Responding to Prof. Av1ezar ( Updated- note to self: Always look up your opponents sources before responding)

[ part 3] Deeply Disappointed with Professor Av1ezar Part II: The Scientific Issues (Slightly Revised and Expanded)

[part 4] The Danger of Marrying Torah to Your Favorite Theory


"The limits of Evolution" by Lee M. Spetner Ph.D article published in 'DIALOGUE For Torah Issues and Ideas'
Rabbinic Board: Rabbi Shlomo Miller, Rabbi Aharon Feldman, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman
Editorial Board Rabbis Moshe Einstadter, Eliahu Meir Klugman, Aharon Lopiansky
Fall 5774/2013 No .4
email: for a copy
Before reading the Rabbi Jeremy Wieder mythology lectures we advise all to read Spetner's work. 

Natan Slifkin 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....] "
(Jeremy Wieder mentions in the lecture that he doesn't get what all the fuss is about regarding Slifkin; both of them mythologize or will theoretically one day be prepared to mythologize similar parts of the Torah.)