Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 092

Wednesday, September 8 2004

• Re: Literal meanings
• RE: The Age of the Universe (historical Gan Eden/Adam HaRishon)
• Abravanel: Rosh Amanah
• Abravanel
• halcha vs agada
• Literal Meanings
• Re: Non-literal explanations of Torah
• Torah as Allegory
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: Calendar
• Re: Chaseros and Yeseros in STAM
• R"H simanim - no cow
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Non-literal explanations of Torah
• Re: halcha vs agada
• pshara vs. din
• Re: Chaseros and Yeseros in STAM
• RE:Teaching torah to women
• RE: Age of the Universe
• RE: The Age of the Universe (historical Gan Eden/Adam HaRishon)

The subject of literal and nonliteral meanings is vast. I devoted a great
deal of time and effort to try to understand it over the years and have
not yet fully suceeded. However, here are a few of my conclusions -
in brief form becasue the subject is so vast.

1. There is no question that Chazal often interpret in ways that do not
appear to be exactly what the verses say.

2. However, a substantial minority, perhaps a slight majority of these
instances are varieties of sophisticated peshat. What I mean by that
is that the literal meaning creates difficulties in interpretation that
the Chazal's interpetation solves. It , on the other hand, suffers from
a disadvantage of not being as literal. So make your choice. Whatever
you choose will possess a problem.

These difficulties are occasionally idioms or language problems, more
often theological difficulties or contradictions to other places in
Tanach. In a significant minority of cases literal understanding were
against a received tradition, which Chazal considered as contradiction
as well.

3. Some Rishonim do not solve these problems but rely on the authority
of tradition, ex. Ibn Ezra.

4.Others admit of a sophisticated system of encoding within the text, ex
Rashbam. Thus, they can learn simple peshat and preserve interpetations
of Chazal which they see as encoded on a level beyond the peshat.

5. A significant number of interpretations are asmakhtas of various kinds,
for mneumonic or polemical, or even didactic/ inspirational purposes.

6.Chazal also saw the Torah much less restricitvely than we tend
to see it. They saw peshat a pebble thrown into the sea. Many other
interpretations arise out of waves that it produces, some closer to the
source pebble and some quite a ways afar.

7 We are much more sensitive to the entire issue of falsification or
development of Oral Law because of the attacks on the Mesorah of the
past 300 years. We are much more sensitive to the issues of pshat and
drash and attuned to implications that critics claim for them. Chazal and
Rishonim were certain of the divinity of Torah and the traditions. They
therefore allowed themselves a much more daring form of expression. They
might say, f.e. that Moshe wrote a posuk without meaning by it what
the critics now mean. They did not have to watch their words like we
do. To a great degree the whole issue of peshat and derash (not the terms
themselves) is an issue that postdates the Chazal. Their reigious issues
were different. Much of discussion about these issues is, therefore,
anachronistic and gets into the way of understanding the texts themselves.

M. Levin

[RNS:]
> I will only continue my discussion with R' Ostroff if he can 
> either (a) cite my postings where I wrote what he asserted to 
> be my position, or (b) retract these assertions. In any case, 
> I believe that appropriate Avodah protocol should be to cite 
> people's postings and let their words speak for themselves, 
> rather than presenting one's own version of someone's position.

I retract any previous assertions as to your position on the hominid
and Adam HaRishon (and am happy to do so) and look for you to speak for
yourself as I am very much puzzled by your approach. I cite some of your
writings below, and ask for further clarification.

===
A. "But the theory that man was created by inserting a soul into a
hominid creature which itself evolved from the earlier creatures is no
more problematic than the embryo evolving from a sperm and egg" [RNS,
The Science of Torah, p179, see also p206]

===
B. Avodah <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n088.shtml#16>

[JSO wrote referring to (A)]
>According to RNS, it is true that man is distinguished from the beast 
>by a neshama. But historically, he never was created directly from the 
>earth (makom hamizbeach) on the 6th day in Gan Eden.

[RNS replied]
Actually, I think I did not make any statement as to what happened,
just regarding whether this is an acceptable belief, which I think it
is. But, yes, I do now believe that to be the case.

(C) RNS on Avoda <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n083.shtml#02>
"For this reason, it seems to me that the only viable approach is that of
Rav Dessler, who explains that the six days are six sefiros, representing
modes of "Divine power" used in creation, and do not refer to periods of
time at all or even necessarily to a chronological sequence. Bereishis
would therefore represent a spiritual hierarchy of creation, rather than
a description of a physical process."

===
0. In (C) you appear to assert that Beraishis is not historical. Does
this mean you take all of maaseh beraishis as an allegory (including
the 6th day) or only some parts. Which parts are historical and which
parts are allegorical?

1. What is the relationship between the hominid quoted in your book in
(A) and Adam HaRishon/Gan Eden/yom-ha-shisi?

2. Was Adam HaRishon as described in the Torah a real historical person?

3. Is the account of Gan Eden historical or an allegory? (Which parts
are historical and which allegory).

4. Was there an actual historical yom ha-shisi (part of maaseh beraishis)
in which Adam HaRishon lived in Gan Eden.

5. Was Adam HaRishon historically created directly from the earth (not
"evolved') on yom ha-shisi?

6. Was Adam HaRishon historically expelled from Gan Eden about 5764
years ago?

Kol tuv ... Jonathan

Rosh Amanah is online at:
<http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/rosh_amanah.pdf>

I would be indebted to Rabbi Slifkin if he could kindly point us in the
direction of the citation to which he has made several references.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
rygb@aishdas.org   www.aishdas.org/rygb

RYGB has requested my source for saying that Abravnel understood Rambam to
be understanding Gan Eden allegorically (or aspects of it, at any rate).

Funnily enough, I think that I originally discovered this in the Avodah
archives, Volume 3 Number 122, in a posting by RYGB himself! I quote:
>I grant 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).

I think I subsequently found it in Abravanel's perush al haTorah.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin

[Be careful where you take this... -mi]

> Let me give you a mashal. Let's say we found the personal diary of a Dagol
> from th year 1900 in which he wrote that he considered himself to be
> the moshiach. But the matter was never publicized during his lifetime.
> Can we condemn him because it later came to light? I say no way.
...
> davka reading Graetz's account of the post Shabbetai Zvi withchunt
> and the investiatiosn of R. Yonsan Eibeschutz etc. IMHO had RYE refrained
> from the suspcious passages in the controversial Kmea {amulet} then it
> would have been nobody's business. Unfortunatley this incident created
> one of the most acrimonious samples of sin'a between talmidei Chachamim
> since the era of Rabbi Akiva.

I agree when a private individual is concerned. However, a teacher of
Torah or a Rav with unorthodox views is a ticking bomb that can injure a
great many people. Private views of such an individual are public property
and public concern. Adaraba, we should consider how the R. Eybeshutz
affair is to be intereted as a precedent for our times.

M. Levin

Last weeks Parsha contains the following statement: "Bread you did not
eat; wine you did not drink so that you should know that I am the Lord,
your God."(Devarim 29:5)

But we know that the Bnei Israel did in fact have bread and did have
wine. How else could they have made the Lecham HaPanim or Soles and
the Nesachim?

The Ramban must have had the same difficulty and decided that the Torah
could not have meant that they never had any wheat or wine at all. What
the Torah must mean here is that whatever wheat they did have was not
enough to sustain them and that was the Neis of the Mon.

It is interesting that the Ramban did not take this Pshat literally at
all and took it only interpretively. IOW "Bread you did not eat" ...Lav
Davka. Why was he allowed to interpret the meaning non-literally but
interpretively? Are Rishonim the only one's permitted to do this? If so,
why them and not subsequent generations? Why didn't the Ramban simply
remain with a question rather then saying the Pasuk should not be taken
literally?

I don't think the issue of precisely when exactly allegorical
interpretations of the Torah are allowed and when they are not has been
addressed. I have been following much of the "back and forth" between RNS,
RYGB, RMB, and RJO and have seen a lot of quoting of Rishonim of various
statures in trying to back up various positions WRT to allegorizing
sections of the Torah. I am a bit perplexed as to the parameters
of permissibility of allegorizing. What is allowed? How far can we
go? And who is permitted to allegorize and who not? Can I do it? Can R
Elyashiv? Or must we go back to the era of the Rishonim? Indeed if the
Rishonim can, why them? Perhaps we need to go back to the Gaonic period
or to the Amoraim or even the Tannaim? Is there indeed any Mesorah on
the subject of allegorizing? Is there any Halacha Pesuka on it in print?

Also, what if someone does allegorize a portion of the Torah that has
not been yet allegorized by anyone? Is that Assur? does that make him
an Apikores... or near Apikores?

IIRC (and he can correct me if my memory is wrong) this issue came up
in one of RYGB's Dafyomi Shiurim in reference to the proper approach
to the age of the universe and evolution. I remember him saying that
one should rely on Chazal and/or Rishonim to reconcile scientific data
with the Torah but theories like Gerald Schroeder's were problematic
and were therefore highly unlikely because they had no Mesorah at all to
back them up. BUT... IIRC, RYGB stated that it is not Assur to believe
as Schroeder does.

If it is not Assur to speculate about the nature of Adam HaRishon's
creation, while it may not be the best approach it is not an Assur
approach.

If this is true, one should not be condemned for ANY allegorical
approach at any time because, what separates one biblical narrative from
another? The Mabul as allegory was first suggested by Rabbi Shubert Spero,
(father-in-law to Dr. David Applebaum, ZL) in an article in Tradition
Magazine (IIRC). He based the idea on the lack of any geological record
that would indicate a world wide flood. One can argue the point, but
if one is permitted to allegorize why not the Mabul? Is that off limits
because none of the Rishonim suggest it? Rabbi Spero suffers to this day
the slings and arrows of those who condemn his position as near Apikursus.
Does that make Dr. Schroeder's hypthesis that God's creation of Man was
part of an evolutionary process... Apikursus as well?

To take this idea a step further if we can allegorize at all, why stop
with one or two events? Why not allegorize the entire Torah if one wishes
to for "whatever" reason ...as those who are believers in "biblical
criticism" (as are many if not all of the thinkers of Conservative
“Judaism”) do for the lack of archeological evidence? I think we can all
agree that to say that none of the narratives of the Torah ever took place
at all but are simple Mashalim for our ethical development is Apikursus.

But, why?

HM

I apologize for not previously citing a source or citation for Ralbag. It
is a very extensive section of his commentary on Bereishis. Here are
some brief extracts, beginning on p. 53 of the Mossad HaRav Kook edition:

"The 'Garden' alludes to the material intellect. The allusion of this
is that just as gardens contain plants for which it will give life
(i.e. in potential), so too the material intellect gives life to ideas.
.and the matter of 'planting the garden' means that tools were prepared
for [man] to grasp matters.
.the tree that was 'pleasing to the appearance and good to eat' alludes
to attaining certain concepts. (he explains at length how 'eating the
forbidden fruit' alludes to certain intellectual phenomena)
And it is fitting to know that Eden is a place in the inhabited [world],
and to the east of it is found a garden which contains all fruits
of delight. and this is part of the wisdom of this allegory, that its
simple meaning is also something that is found. and the division of
rivers from the garden alludes to that which the material intellect
leads to other powers of the soul.
And the snake alludes to the power of the imagination. (He explains
elsewhere that it is inappropriate to accept that it was an actual snake,
as it is inappropriate to accept that there was an intelligent talking
animal) 'And God called to the man' - is by way of allegory, in the manner
of 'And God said to the Satan' (Iyov 1:7), 'And God said to the fish'
(Yonah 2:11); and so too is that matter with God's statement to the
woman and with God's statement to the snake. And behold, the Torah has
benefited us with a great benefit in social conduct by telling us this
matter in this manner. Namely, that it is not appropriate for a judge to
judge a person, if he does not verify the matter with him face-to-face..."

We see that Ralbag does comment on the allegory having some aspects of
manifestation in the physical world. However it is clear that he does
not hold that there was any physical tree of knowledge, snake, or sinful
eating of physical fruit. Likewise, none of the conversations of Gan
Eden actually took place, except in the most abstract of spiritual senses.

Ralbag later notes that Rambam even allegorized Chavah (with which Ralbag
disagrees). He adds:

"some of the latter great sages erred in this area, and made allegories
(tziyurim) of the matter of Kayin, Hevel, and Shes. And in doing so they
ruined the intent of the Torah. And it is fitting to know that it is not
appropriate to make an allegory in the words of Torah, except in places
where it is necessary that they be allegorical, for if this method were
given over [freely] to men, the Torah would fall and we would not be
able to derive from it the intended benefit." Note that Ralbag does not
rule out allegory altogether, he just rules out doing so frivolously,
without sufficient cause (similar to Rav Saadia Gaon), because otherwise
there are no limits on its application.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin

Please excuse my ignorance. I've been trying to follow this discussion
that's been going on for a while, and I have a basic (I think) question:
If we start saying that things in the Torah are not to be taken literally,
then how do we know that there is such a thing as a neis? And if there
is such a thing as a neis, why is it so hard for certain people on this
board to disregard scientific research - the world isn't run according
to scientific principles?

And if parts of the Torah are an allegory, then who says that Matan Torah
and/or Yetzias Mitzrayim ever really happened - maybe the _entire_ Torah
is an allegory - and none of it is literally true? And if it's because
we have a 3000 year old kabbalah, than we have to take into account that
they had a 2500 year kabbalah about B'riyas Ha'Olam happening 2500 years
before. If our Kabbalah is literal, why shouldn't their's be?

Now, I am well aware that many people reading this post will look down
their nose at these questions, and won't deign to bother informing
me that the Rishonim and Acharonim deal with these concepts, and if I
don't want to spend 10-15 years of my life studying Jewish philosophy,
I really shouldn't post to Avodah. But - to the rest of you out there,
Torah hee, v'lilmod ani tzarich, v'da'ati k'tzarah, (in the words of
the Rambam Hil. Talmud Torah), and I just want to understand why people
feel constrained to rational scientific explanations in what (from our
tradition) is clearly an irrational unscientific world.

Moshe Yehuda Gluck 

I was fascinated to read in a previous digest that RYGB accepts that the
universe is probably billions of years old. Please could RYGB explain
his preferred method of reconciling this with the traditional Torah age
of 5764 years? (I.e. is it six long days, Schroeder's method, previous
cycles of history, fitting in the extra time on the first day, etc.,
etc. - which one.)

Kol tuv,
Nosson Slifkin

Micha Berger wrote:
>While hashkafah has issues of truth vs falsehood, there are no other
>dimensions to the question. Unlike halakhah, which also can be resolved
>on the level of law vs non-law.
>...
>Because by the rules of pesaq, they couldn't go with a da'as yachid
>in the rishonim. It is not, in any technical sense, a pesaq.

>Nor was the Me'iri's statement about mazal. He simply tells you which
>side of a machloqes amora'im he takes. He doesn't follow any of the
>rules of pesaq that we use for halakhah.

>: the Chasam Sofer says that the view that of Hillel that Moshiach isn't
>: coming is wrong - he says it is now heresy to have such a belief because
>: the majority has established that it is wrong. Why isn't that psak? ...

>That is pesaq. You should really read RGS's paper. The 12th ikkar emunah
>is part of how we pasqen who is an apiqoreis. The question isn't one
>of fact -- will Mashiach come, but one of din -- may someone believe
>he won't.

You keep coming back to what you say is the technical rules or aspects
of halacha which you are asserting preclude my definition of psak.
However this seems rather circular. You don't actually have any sources
which specifically reject what I am saying such as something saying
that anything which doesn't fit in these parameters is not halacha.
I undertand of course that the absence of specific rejection does not
mean that my assertion is correct either. I still think my definition
is valid and useful but more research is needed.

Daniel Eidensohn

The thread on the calendar has been going on for so long that by now it is
"inyana d'yoma"

"Echad b'Tishrei rosh hashana l'tkufa" according to R.Eliezer, who holds
that the world was created in Tishrei.

I wish to point out that a clear explanation of the concept of molad
b"hrd and molad v"yd appears in R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin's classic "HaMoadim
B'Halacha", pp 35-36 in the seventh edition (chapter 2 of the section
on RH). Interestingly, if you count from molad v"yd, this year is 5763,
and on RH we will start the year 5764. RSY Zevin cites the Baal HaMaor
to AZ, 2b in dapei haRif, who says that it makes more sense to count from
molad v"yd, but the minhag is to count from b"hrd. (The Baal HaMaor calls
starting counting from before the world was created "Choshev et shelo
nitmza k'nimtza" - regarding something which does not exist as if it
existed). This has interesting implications for a discussion of tension
between accepted Jewish practice and both logic and objective reality.

RSY Zevin's footnotes cite T'shuvat RHai Gaon in "Otzar Hageonim" to
RH 10b; Hamefaresh to Rambam Kiddush HaChodesh chapter 6; the Gra in
hashmatot to Choshen Mishpat siman 67; and the Chazon Ish Orlah siman 16.

Saul Mashbaum

The Minchas Chinuch discusses the issue of Chaseros and Yeseros ( missing
and extra words ) with respect to a ST and quotes the Gemara in Kiddushin
that we are not choshesh for such a possibility because we are not bkiim
in this din. The MC raises the issue of why this din isn't applied also
to Tefilin and Mzuzuos. Anyone see any suggested answers?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

Reb Josh posted that the Bach states that the original custom was cow
head in honey.
Alas Reb Josh's memory is not flawless.
The Tur (OC 583) mentions the customs of sheep head in honey, of sheep
lung, and of ram (in memory of akeidat yitzchak). The Bach sites the
sources, but does not add any cow.

I just got back from a week's vacation only to find this discussion still
going on. Surely if God could create the world in a week it should take
us less time than that to decide when He did it.

David Riceman

At 05:36 AM 9/7/2004, [RNS] wrote:
>I was fascinated to read in a previous digest that RYGB accepts that the
>universe is probably billions of years old. Please could RYGB explain
>his preferred method of reconciling this with the traditional Torah age
>of 5764 years? ...

Previous cycles of history.

YGB 

At 12:03 AM 9/6/2004, [RNS] wrote:
>RYGB has requested my source for saying that Abravnel understood Rambam to
>be understanding Gan Eden allegorically (or aspects of it, at any rate).
>Funnily enough, I think that I originally discovered this in the Avodah
>archives, Volume 3 Number 122, in a posting by RYGB himself! I quote:
> >I grant 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).

>I think I subsequently found it in Abravanel's perush al haTorah.

I do not recall looking up a Rosh Amanah at the time - but I accept
my comment at the time as authoritative :-) and thus the Spero school
relies on a misunderstanding of the Rambam that the Abravanel rejects
in any event.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 01:25 PM 9/6/2004, [RHM] wrote:
>IIRC (and he can correct me if my memory is wrong) this issue came up
>in one of RYGB's Dafyomi Shiurim in reference to the proper approach
>to the age of the universe and evolution. I remember him saying that
>one should rely on Chazal and/or Rishonim to reconcile scientific data
>with the Torah but theories like Gerald Schroeder's were problematic
>and were therefore highly unlikely because they had no Mesorah at all to
>back them up. BUT... IIRC, RYGB stated that it is not Assur to believe
>as Schroeder does.

It is certainly not assur to hold like Schroeder - but it is wrong and
perhaps assur to believe that when the Torah asserts adam was made afar
min ho'adamah that this is the result of evolution.

In general, accounts the Torah presents as historical cannot be
allegorized.

[Email #3. -mi]

At 02:13 PM 9/6/2004, you wrote:
>I apologize for not previously citing a source or citation for Ralbag. It
>is a very extensive section of his commentary on Bereishis. Here are
>some brief extracts, beginning on p. 53 of the Mossad HaRav Kook edition:
>"The 'Garden' alludes to the material intellect....

Sorry, I'm not getting this here. The Spero school is of the opinion that
entire episodes - not just specific aspects - that the Torah depicts
as historical - with times, dates, the works - can be allegorized,
and that this may be done at will to resolve conflicts between science
and Torah. We understand you to be an adherent of the Spero school -
you see precedent in the Ralbag?!

YGB 

RDE:
>The Meiri ... doesn't analyze the gemora to show that this view is
>wrong but simply argues from a metarule that Jews must have free will
>and that is why he rejects this view. Rambam does the same thing in
>rejecting the validity of any evidence against free will - which he
>acknowledges does apparently exist in various verses. He[ the Meiri]
>nowhere demonstrates where and how Shas rejects this view - but he says
>instead that *he* rejects this view. Thus he is not understanding Shas
>but has a preexisting view that prevents him from excepting certain
>views found in Shas. Anyone taking this approach to a sugya in gemora
>can not be said to trying to understand what the gemora is saying -
>he knew before he opened the gemora.

I think this is a serious distortion of the Rishonim's  positions.

1. Unlike RDE, the Meiri quotes Chazal that ein mazal lyisroel.

2. The Rambam does not believe that he is arguing with psukim. This is
an impossibility. There is the old yeshivish joke that the yeshivaman is
asked after 120 to state the Torah he has learned. He replies that he is
not so good at delivery. Let Hashem say a vort and then the yeshivaman
will shlogg it up. Of course, this is only a joke. One cannot argue with
dvar Hashem as expressed in psukim.

3. It is impossible to accuse the Rishonim of presenting their own
"preconceived notions", "personal" opinions against Gemaros. A Rishon is
a baalMesorah who helps us understand the daos of Chazal. The Rishonim
might hold certain ideas to be dictated by svara; but they are most
certainly trying to understand Gemaros. They might have sophisticated
ideas or remez or allegory[which then can be radically different from
the superficial understanding of any maamar Chazal] but certainly it is
all an attempt to understand Chazal.

Shlomo Goldstein

The gemora in Sanhedrin has a long discussion of this issue and concludes
that it's a mitzvah to offer the litigants pshara and din. I'm doing
research on kofin on lifnim mshurat hadin and think this may be a
related issue.

My question is related to earlier discussions of greyness/shivim panim
etc. - if the litigants say to the bet din - we want to do whatever
HKB"H feels is preferable - what would bet din tell them?

KT
Joel Rich

Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
>The Minchas Chinuch discusses the issue of Chaseros and Yeseros ( missing
>and extra words ) with respect to a ST and quotes the Gemara in Kiddushin
>that we are not choshesh for such a possibility because we are not bkiim
>in this din. The MC raises the issue of why this din isn't applied also
>to Tefilin and Mzuzuos. Anyone see any suggested answers?

I believe that chaseros and yeseros have to do with missing and extra 
LETTERS, not WORDS.

RMB
> It would surprise me to learn that RYBS said otherwise. Do you have a
> source, or is this rumor mill?

Previously discussed - see avodah vol 6 n49 

the citation is to Rav Mozeson's Echoes of the Song of the Nightingale,
where he brings down in the name of RYBS that in the gmara, there is
a third opinion - of Rav Eleazar ben Azaria - that in hakhel, nashim
ba'im lishmoa - and Tosfot (sota 21b) argues that the mitzva lishmoa is
kde sheyedu lekayem mitzva. There is no distinction made between torah
shebealpe or torah shebiktav.

The rama paskens that hayevet haisha lilmod dinim hashayachim leisha.
The Gra points out the tosfot in sota as the source.

RYBS therefore learns that for the rama, women have a hiyuv to learn
(including tora shebe'alpe) all mitzvot that apply to her - paskening
like rav eleazar ben azariah rather than rav eliezer.

The rav further argued that today, because of the changing nature of
everyday life, that implied that they had to learn most of the dinim of
the torah, in order to apply them to their daily lives.

I(n other places, I have heard in the name of RYBS that he extended it in
another direction, arguing that dinim hashayachim leisha varies with the
isha and her individual needs. A college educated women needs to have a
torah education at the same level, and therefore needs to learn torah
shebealpe at a "college" level. However, in this article, he focuses
purely on the more standard definition of dinim hashayachim leisha)

It would seem from this understanding of the rama that it is far simpler
for her to learn gmara shabbat about bishul than the ramban al hatora..

Meir Shinnar

RYGB tells us that he reconciles the billions of years with the Torah
via previous cycles of history. I would appreciate some elaboration,
as I have always found this explanation difficult to understand. When
did the events of the six days of Bereishis occur in relation to the
billions of years? Was the sun created 5764 years ago (as the Torah
refers to the current cycle), or 4.5 billion years ago? Were plants
created 5764 years ago, or 500 million years ago?

Nosson Slifkin

I am pleased that R' Jonathan Ostroff has retracted his incorrect
assertions concerning my positions. He has now asked me several good
questions about Adam HaRishon and Gan Eden. The truth is that my views
on these matters are currently not settled, primarily as a result of
two revelationary sources that came to light for me recently. One is
the Ralbag that I posted yesterday. The other is an extraordinary shiur
by Rav Gedalyah Nadel z"l of which I was privileged to see a transcript
today. Rav Nadel was a talmid muvhak of the Chazon Ish with impeccable
credentials as a gadol b'Torah. I was refused permission to distribute a
translation of the transcript, which will soon be edited and published
by the transcriber, but I can tell you of R' Nadel's basic approach,
which I have also heard of in the past (in his name) from several people
(and of which I heard snippets from Rav Nadel himself on one occasion). I
have been very careful to record his approach with great accuracy.

In brief, he stated that it is preferable that the Torah be literal, but
when one's intellect or evidence forces one to reject the literal meaning,
one can generally interpret things allegorically, and especially with
maase Bereishis. He also pointed out that the issues which forced Rambam
to allegorize things in the Torah are not the same as the issues that
confront us; we have new challenges from science that it is impossible to
simply reject. Nevertheless, the principles set out by Rambam regarding
allegory remain the same. Thus, even though the Rishonim understood the
six days of Bereishis as 24 hour days, we have reason to interpret them
differently. Rav Nadel z"l felt that it is foolish to reject that which
is proven from many branches of science. He further stated that when
the Torah speaks of Adam, it sometimes refers to one particular person,
sometimes to various people, and sometimes to mankind as a whole. He
also held that man was not literally created from dirt but rather evolved
from another creature. But he held that Gan Eden was a physical location.

Much of this doubtless sounds shocking to some people
and may lead them to question Rav Nadel's stature as a
great Torah scholar. I invite them to read his obituary at
<http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/archives5764/shelach/SHL64arnadel.htm>,
which, I think most of you will agree, places him beyond such questioning.
Rav Nadel's position certainly gives a lot of food for thought (although
he is essentially just giving the logical application of Rambam's
principles), and it seems that it would help answer a lot of questions
that have been raised here lately. Personally, I need to think about
his words a lot more, and I am far from resolving my own conclusions on
the matter.

Kol tuv
Nosson Slifkin

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]