Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 098

Friday, September 10 2004

• RE: Non-literal explanations/Gan Eden
• RE: Non literal explanations
• Re: Reacting to the death of a rasha
• Re: Reacting to the death of a rasha
• Re: halcha vs agada
• Re: Teaching torah to women
• Re: Torah as Allegory
• Rambam and allegory
• Re: Non-literal explanations/ Gan Eden
• RE: Age of the Universe
• RE: The Age of the Universe (Rav Nadel zt"l on Gan Eden)
• RE: Non-literal explanations/Gan Eden
• Re: Rambam and allegory
• NYC Water and Pi
• RE: The Age of the Universe (Rav Nadel zt"l and Adam)

On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 18:32 -0400, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M.
Bechhofer wrote:
> >Nonsense -- there are Rishonim who hold the visit of the 3 malachim ONLY
> >took place in a dream. They obviously don't agree that "events must be
> >taken literally".

> A prophetic dream is reality. We've been through this before too.

then why can't one claim the text of bereishis in regards to creation
and the mabul (and anything else that seems extraordinary) was just a
prophetic dream of some sorts?  i.e. where's the line b/w "allegory" and
"prophetic dream"

RMS
>: I don't know any source in TSBK or TSBP that would be the source of the
>: rambam's position on this - do you have such a source?

RMB
> It thought I was quite clear. There is a straight mesoretic reason for
> saying it's nevu'ah. The implication of one part of the mesorah, it's
> description of mal'achim as non-physical beings, contradicts (in the
> Rambam's opinion) the notion that they were physically seen.

> Note, though, the differences:

> 1- Less significant to my point: The Rambam makes the event real, but
> observed prophetically rather than physically. He does not declare the
> Torah as relating an allegory, but as relating a real reception of an
> allegory by a navi.

> 2- The Rambam does not feel Torah is challenged by some other chokhmah,
> and therefore needs to be reassessed. He is trying to resolve a problem
> internal to Torah itself.

1) The contradiction between the description of mal'achim as non physical
beings and the notion that they were actually seen only occurs because
of chochmah - that in aristotelian physics those nonphysical beings
were seen. There is nothing in the mesora that I am aware of prior to
the rambam that implies or suggests that this is a problem. It is only
the challenge of the torah by use of this other chochma that leads to
the perceived contradiction.

2) Again, if we change something is an allegory to saying it is a real
reception of this allegory by a navi - would the literalists be satisfied?

...
> I am not arguing that one must take the answer from within mesorah. What
> I am saying is that mesorah must only be shaped by mesorah (and sevarah,
> of course, you have to be able to reason), not by accepting synthetic
> conclusions of other disciplines.

> I might again point out that RYBS makes this point WRT halakhah....
> The mesorah must be able to stand on its own.

You misunderstand me (and, I beleive, RYBS). Halacha, of course
is different - because it governs what we do - and here the mesora
governs us.

The question, however, especially in machshava and aggadta, is
understanding what the mesora actually says and commands - and the
conflict between us is the issue whether the mesora actually has a
specific understanding, eliminating some interpretations, in this realm -
or whether the mesora itself recognizes that in the area it is limited -
and that there is tremendous room (within certain ground rules - such as
requiring solid respect - but not the type of ground rules that everything
has to be internally derived) - for novel interpretations that reconcile
psukim, aggadta, and machshava with what we know from other sources. That
is the debate - RYGB is arguing that the mesora is extensive, andapplies
to this interpretative tradition, eliminating all allegories unless
specifically found within the mesora - and the other side arguing that
the mesora itself recognizes that it is limited in this area, and itself
sanctions reinterpretation to reconcile with knowledge derived from other
areas. The requirement that all such interpretations be based on specific
sources in the mesora is, according to this view (which, regardless of
RYGB, is simple pshat in the rambam) against the mesora - which accepts
as legitimate the "synthetic conclusions of other disciplines".

Meir Shinnar

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> So, which should be our response -- "rina" or "al tismach ... al yageil"?

Mordechai answered this question to Haman: 'hani mili beyisrael'
(Megilla 16a).

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:35:17PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>So, which should be our response -- "rina" or "al tismach ... al yageil"?

: Mordechai answered this question to Haman: 'hani mili beyisrael'
: (Megilla 16a).

Since we seem to be revisiting an old scj discussion we once had...

Megillah 10b:
Ma'asei yadai tov'im bayam, va'atem omerim shirah?

And while that's not the maskanah in Eirkhin (also 10b), it is the reason
given in Megillah and in the midrash. It's acknowledged in minhag, when we
limit the use of shirah trop for the pesuqim that do not describe the
Mitzriyim's demise.

The Meshekh Chokhmah (Shemos 12:16) distinguishes this from Purim by
saying that Purim is a celebration of our survival, not their demise.

The Netziv argues that we were only allowed to say shirah at the yam
because of the chiyuv de'Oraisa that applies beshe'as ma'aseh. Chazal
would not be mesaqein hallel on future generations celebrating the
demise of resha'im.

But then we have Chanukah...

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - anyonyous Dr, while a Nazi prisoner

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> 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....

Not circular, tautological; I'm trying to assert a definition. As I wrote,
my complaint is solely with your using the word "pesaq" on a matter that
lacks a nafka mina lehalakhah.

If you need a proof, the fact that the gemara looks for a nafka mina
should qualify.

But my point is far simpler than that. Yes, the Me'iri takes sides
in a machloqes on aggadita, and says the other side isn't worth
considering. I'm agreeing with your thesis.

However, if you call this kind of taking side a "pesaq" you are implying
that these other technical rules apply. I don't want that implication
drawn by the reader. It clouds the issue. For example, acharonim should
have no problem following a da'as yachid amongst rishonim on an issue
of aggadita. Say the word "pesaq", and someone will ask.

To my mind, resolving an aggadic question is more an issue of birur
than pesaq. When you ask a LOR a question, he employs both. But birur
is a determination of which is the metzi'us, or at least which we can
presume to be the metzi'us. A question of determining truth, not law. To
a pluralist like myself that's quite different than the mechanics of
pesaq. But to anyone, birur has different impact on future questions.

...
> 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.

Your definition may be valid, although personally I think it's not how the
word has historically been used. However, the thrust of my post is that
it's not useful -- it will cause more confusion that it will eliminate.

For a point as minor as mine, this ended up quite belabored.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - anyonyous Dr, while a Nazi prisoner

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:48:13AM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
:> It would surprise me to learn that RYBS said otherwise. Do you have a
:> source, or is this rumor mill?

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

That is not what was originally argued, the thing that would have
surprised me. The maskanah was no surprise. I believe RYBS was still
teaching gemara in Stern when I entered YU.

Rather, it was your claim that:
> Third, the equation of teaching torah to women with tiflut is one opinion
> in the gmara - and RYBS held that that the rama (and therefore ashkenazim)
> don't pasken by that opinion....

If the normal rules of his silence hold, the Rama holds that it is tiflus
-- but limits the application of the idea to exclude dinim she needs
to know. From that RYBS (and RMMS, for women coming from outside the
kehillah) concluded that nowadays, with so many women in higher education,
the need to know in order to be a frum woman is far broader. Torah should
be taught at a level where it's more beautiful than the other systems
of thought to which she is exposed.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In all the discussion so far there is an underlying question that has
not been directly addressed. If we have a Torah narrative that has not
been allegorized by any Rishonim that is directly contradicted by hard
physical evidence, what is one supposed to do? Is it better to suspend
belief in the physical evidence... or to say perhaps the Torah was meant
as an allegory?

I'm not sure we have reached that point yet in the case of the Mabul.
In that case the "proof" is in the LACK of any evidence. In that
sense I think it is foolish to believe that lack of evidence "proves"
that it didn't happen. The Gemmarah in fact corroborates that the
Mabul was not worldwide since it says that Israel did not experience
the Mabul. So one can in fact speculate and interpret that the Mabul's
occurrence was only in an area of the world but as far as the Torah is
concerned it was the whole world as it relates to us.

I suppose as believers we should say that such an contradiction is
impossible... That is to say, that if one believes in Toras Moshe it
will never happen that any scientific discovery will contradict the
Torah narrative.

But the fact is that science HAS proven certain undeniable facts (if you
take the postion that the world was not created to look old, as I do)
which forces us to take a second look at Maaseh B'Reishis interpretively,
at least in the sense of the existence of the universe being 15 billion
years old rather than 5764 years old. Rabbi Kaplan who was a genius and
a scientist of national ranking as well as an Orthodox Jew whose views
are widely accepted as legitimate by the entire spectrum of Orthodoxy,
went to great lengths to find a way to reconcile what he knew to be
scientific fact with the Torah narrative. He was able to find sources
that corroborate his view.

I suppose it is easier to take the philosophical approach that the
world was created to look old as does R. Zvi Lampel and others. That
solves all contradictions... past, present, and future. Then one does
not have to deal with the facts. Every scientificly discovered fact can
be explained away. But it does not solve the dilemma of those who trust
in proven scientific discovery.

R. Nosson Slifkin's opinion is that Metzius trumps the lack of
corroborative Rishonim and that every time science concludes that
something is a fact and contradicts the Torah narrative, we have
permission to allegorize. But that, too, is problematic for me
because that can undermine belief in Judaism itself. According to
RNS we can in this way theoretically allegorize the entire narrative
of the Torah. It seems highly unlikely to me that God would give His
people a narrative that is totally allegorical, especially when so many
Rishonim strongly indicate that the Torah narrative was literal in most
instances. Furthermore that would completely legitimize Conservative
Judiasm's allegation that the Torah was written in Bavel by Amoraim based
on their use of biblical criticism which uses archeology's lack of any
atifacts of any of the Torah narrative as a means of ascertaining "Truth".

So, I find myself in a theologically untenable situation. I cannot believe
as does RZL that the world was created to look old and that all evidence
proving an old universe is then just swept away. I cannot believe that
God would fool us in this way. OTOH neither can I accept the approach
that we can simply wash away any Torah narrative that is challlenged
by new scientific discovery, because of the slippery slope argument of
ultimately needing to allegorize the entirety of the Torah narrative. To
say that we can allegorize only if we have predecessors of sufficient
stature becomes insufficient in the wake of any new evidence that might
be scientifically discovered that is not touched upon by such Rishonim.

I suppose what people with this theological problem must do is to
ultimately resort to the realization of the imperfections of one's own
rational mind... and punt....OR to put it another way: Fuhn a Kasha
Shtarpt Min Nisht.

Please don't misunderstand. I am not saying that the question is in
any way resolved... to my satisfaction or anyone else's with this
philosophical conundrum. And if one is involved in Kiruv with someone
with questions like these, the task cannot be easy.

I know that there are answers. I just don't have them. And my current
theological difficulty will not stop me from pursuing them.

HM

Thinking of Avraham and the three mal'achim, it occured to me that it
*had* to have been a vision. The story starts with 'vayera elav Hashem',
and we have an explicit pasuk that that has to have been in a dream. So
Avraham is deep in a trance, speaking to Hashem, and three men show up. If
they showed up physically at the entrance to his tent, how did he see
them? It seems to me that we have no choice but to say that they showed
up in his dream, that the pasuk 'and he lifted his eyes and saw three
men standing before him' happened in his dream and not in the physical
world. Still, one could say that they were also there physically, and
we should read the story as if it had an extra line: 'and he woke up
and opened his eyes, and they were still there'; but what do we gain
by reading it like this? Once we have conceded that this extra line is
necessary in order for the story to have happened in the physical world,
what makor do we have for inserting it?

OTOH, how does the Rambam explain the next story of that day, when the
mal'achim showed up in Sdom? Did the rumour that Lot was harbouring
strangers, and the consequent riot outside his door, also only happen
in his dream? Or did all the people of Sdom have a collective vision of
the mal'achim, and then wake up and act as if it were real?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

At 04:46 AM 9/10/2004, [RNS] wrote:
>Yet again I must ask RYGB for a clearer answer, one that will not require
>me to ask more questions to clarify his view. What I am asking for (and I
>think this is obvious) is a history of the sun and moon - what did happen
>with them in Bereishis? ...                                If RYGB is
>adopting Rashi's approach that it means that Hashem "suspended them
>in place," then I would like to know what this means. Where were they
>before they were suspended in place? Please give clear answers.

I do not know where they were during the cataclysmic times between cycles 
of Creation. But the language here is asiyah, not beriah.

>RYGB answers my second question with:
>>Yes, there was no dry land for a period until the waters receded.

>Amazing! So according to RYGB, if I am understanding him correctly,
>there was not one but TWO global deluges in the last 6000 years in
>which all life was wiped out. Incredibly, all traces of these deluges
>have been unnnoticed or wilfully ignored by all scientists in the fields
>of geology, dendrochronology, geophysics, varve analysis, paleontology,
>archeology....

Yes, this is, in my opinion, the only appropriate approach. As to the
evidence - perhaps it has not yet been found, but ne'emanim aleinu
divrei Chazal.

YGB

At 05:58 PM 9/9/2004, you wrote:
>> As I have noted, the Rambam does NOT allow allegorization. No other
>> "reputable sources" have been cited.

>As many people have noted, the Rambam allegorizes the visit of the 3
>melachim. Therefore he allows it.

We have been through this before. He does not allegorize it. To 
allegorize  it would be to say AA was visited by refuoh, milchomoh and 
holodoh. But the Rambam quite literally says he was visited by malochim.

YGB 

[RNS:]
> 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. 

I am likewise pleased to hear that Rabbi Slifkin's views are not settled
as it leaves open the (admittedly remote)possibility that we may be able
to agree on previously disputed points.

Rabbi Slifkin wrote earlier
> I have a question for you, by the way:
> Where exactly is Gan Eden ...

I originally took this to mean that RSN did not believe in a historical
Gan Eden, but I hasten to add that I leave it to RSN to clarify for
himself.

Rabbi Slifkin now writes 
>But he [Rav Nadel zt"l] held that Gan Eden was 
> a physical location.

Rabbi Slifkin has access to the transcripts of Rav Nadel's shiur whereas
we do not.
Two questions come to mind.

1. Did Rav Nadel agree that, as a historical matter, Adam HaRishon was
expelled from Gan Eden approximately 5764 years ago?

2. Does RSN agree that there was a historical Gan Eden from which Adam
HaRishon was expelled approximately 5764 years ago?

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

At 11:29 AM 9/10/2004, you wrote:
>> A prophetic dream is reality. We've been through this before too.

>then why can't one claim the text of bereishis in regards to creation
>and the mabul (and anything else that seems extraordinary) was just a
>prophetic dream of some sorts?  i.e. where's the line b/w "allegory" and
>"prophetic dream"

The line is drawn between events that involve interaction between the 
material and spiritual and events that are material.

YGB 

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:15:51PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: OTOH, how does the Rambam explain the next story of that day, when the
: mal'achim showed up in Sdom? Did the rumour that Lot was harbouring
: strangers, and the consequent riot outside his door, also only happen
: in his dream? Or did all the people of Sdom have a collective vision of
: the mal'achim, and then wake up and act as if it were real?

That's the Ramban's question, and it's answered by the Abarbanel.
I again point the chevrah to my MmD article I already pointed to at
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mishpatim.pdf>.

The Ramban understands nevu'ah to be a vision by which man is relayed a
message in metaphor. The Rambam (according to the Abarbanel) understands
nevu'ah to be a perception of non-physical reality, which the navi's
mind then clothes in metaphor because senosry input is all it's used to.
(With the exception of Moshe's mind, which was able to deal with the
information directly.)

So, mal'achim really did come to Avraham. Through his trance, he was
able to percieve them. Because of his ties to olam hazeh, he saw three
people in the context of his serving them a meal.

That was RYGB's point that this is not an allegorization of the story
by the Rambam.

As for the question of whether we can ue this same answer WRT ma'aseh
bereishis -- which navi's nevu'ah is it describing? The stories of Avraham
and Bil'am have protagonists whose minds could have been cloaking nevu'ah
with mashal.

As it's a new peshat, I don't see why the issue of whether the new peshat
is saying it's an allegory or saying it's bederekh nevu'ah is all that
central. The question is how does one justify new peshatim. When is
something chiddush, and when is it changing the Torah?

Which lead to RHM's question:
> In all the discussion so far there is an underlying question that has
> not been directly addressed. If we have a Torah narrative that has not
> been allegorized by any Rishonim that is directly contradicted by hard
> physical evidence, what is one supposed to do? Is it better to suspend
> belief in the physical evidence... or to say perhaps the Torah was meant
> as an allegory?

Neither, IMHO the correct answer is RHM's conclusion:
> I know that there are answers. I just don't have them. And my current
> theological difficulty will not stop me from pursuing them.

Back to the mabul debate <shudder>:
> I'm not sure we have reached that point yet in the case of the Mabul.
> In that case the "proof" is in the LACK of any evidence....

WADR you are mistaken. There is positive evidence that is interpreted
to be an unbroken chain of human habitation, culture and development
in places that would have been destroyed by the flood. Besides, their
couldn't have been separate cultures yet.

Personally, I think any answer but "I am sure an answer exists even
though I can't see what it would be" requires either denying our ability
to collect evidence and reason about it, or denying the inerrancy of
the torah and the concept of TSBP.

Thus my need to use the quantum gravity metaphor when discussing the
subject with non-frum people.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
micha@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - anyonyous Dr, while a Nazi prisoner

Yesterday on Areivim, I quoted the OU's "Fact Sheet on NYC Water",
<http://www.ou.org/other/5764/fact%20sheet2.3.doc>, which says <<< All
of the types of copepods in our water are translucent. This makes it
virtually impossible to spot them in a cup of water. ... They are best
viewed in a shallow bowl of clear plastic, with black background behind
it. >>>

I suggested that Chazal did not go to that much effort to check their
water, and we shouldn't have to either.

R' Micha Berger answered that I was contradicting my own post (Avodah
13:90) where I opined that it is wrong to deliberately use a value for pi
which is known to be inaccurate, such as allowing the use of "exactly 3"
when we know the true value to be "a little more than 3".

Thus, he charged, <<< Wouldn't the same "as precise as possible" with
the naked eye, given today's tools and lighting, etc... also apply by
default? >>>

In other words, since we do know that the copepods are there, and are
visible to the naked eye when proper lighting is used, we ought to be
obligated to use the tools which are available. We can't hide from our
knowledge of copepods any more than we can hide from our knowledge of pi.

Or can we?

Maybe it's not a yes/no question. The way we should phrase it is, *how*
*much* effort are we obliged to put into this?

There are many places in halacha where we must make *an* effort, but
are not required to make an unusally difficult effort. Of course, the
"shiur" of required effort will vary from case to case, but here are a
few examples where a *reasonable* amount of effort will suffice:

 - If a melacha needs to be done on Shabbos, one of the factors which
determine whether or not I can do it myself with a shinui, will be
whether the nearest friendly non-Jew is next door or across town.

 - How often must the Eruv be checked? If every week, then how close to
Shabbos? Even a private eruv around one's backyard doesn't need to be
checked every single time that it is used over the course of a single
Shabbos.

 - How often does the mashgiach need to check the factory for kashrus
violations? An evil worker *could* adulterate the food with treifos or
poison, but it suffices to take *reasonable* precautions, and we don't
need *perfect* security. For example, we insist on certain assurances
that our milk is really from cows, but we'll trust anyone that the eggs
are from chickens.

How hard does something have to be to count as "too hard"? How sure do
we need to be in order to be "sure enough"? Usually, we just admit that
this requires an expert "shikul hadaas", and ask the Rav to decide. But
there are some cases where the level can be quantified and made into an
objective criterion. Take, for example, the case that R' Micha Berger
used in yesterday's Areivim post:

<<< ... There is no gezeiras hakasuv for using 1.4 as sqrt(2), and yet
RMF uses that approximation as square enough for tefillin. I'm just
bouncing ideas. >>>

And what a good idea to bounce! I don't know exactly where in the
Igros Moshe RMF wrote that (anyone have a cite?) but I suspect that the
following would be a reasonable interpretation of what he means:

Suppose one measures a diagonal line from corner to corner on his
tefillin. We know that if the tefillin are truly square, the length of
that line will equal the length of any side times the square root of two
(approx. 1.41421...). Rav Moshe is saying that if the diagonal is a tiny
bit shorter than that, and is only 1.40000 times the length of a side,
then it is close enough that to the eyes of Chazal, it WOULD HAVE LOOKED
SQUARE, and we don't need to be any more precise than that.

For example, suppose the length of one side of the tefillin is 40.0
mm, and the opposite side is 40.0 mm, and both diagonals measure 56.0
mm. Since this is exactly 1.4 times the length of a side, Rav Moshe says
that I can presume the tefillin to be a square shape 40.0 mm on each side.

Now, my calculator says that's wrong. According to my calculator, the
shape described above is not a 40x40 square, but it is a rectangle,
40.0 mm in one direction, and about 39.2 mm in the other direction. But
that is *close* *enough*, because to Chazal it looked square.

So too, in a perfect circle, the circumference will be about 3.14 times
the diameter. But in a *dented* circle, it will be somewhat less, and as
long as the circumference is 3 times the diameter, that is close enough.

In summary, I thank R' Micha for his post and his previous one, where
he wrote
<<< Who says we're required to use as precise of an estimate as
available? Perhaps precision to the nearest cheileq is right? >>>

Indeed, I now agree, and I retract my response. We're NOT required to
use as precise of an estimate as available. We're only required to get
*reasonably* precise.

We examine the esrog from a *reasonable* distance, even though this
means that we'd miss spots which are clearly visible if we'd hold the
esrog close to the eyes. And there's nothing wrong with saying that
Shlomo HaMelech's yam had a circumference of "only" 30 amos - that's
close enough! And I see no need to check water better than Chazal did.

After writing the above, I found a post from R' Eli Turkel in Avodah
13:72, titled "measurements":
<<< The question is not whether we can approximate or need to be
precise. The question is whether we need to be more precise than
chazal. i.e. if they thought some set of tefillin were square and with
a microscope we can tell the deifference in the lengths that does make
any difference. RMF states that sqrt(2) = 1.4 exactly to teach us that
we need not be more exact that that. It is not an approximation. The
halachah le-moshe mi-sinai is that Teffilin need to be square defined
as within 1/140 or about 1%. If so maybe using pi=3 for some halachot
falls into the same category. >>>

Perhaps what we're saying is similar to what engineers mean by "tolerance"
-- No one says you're allowed to approximate. You have to be accurate. But
*how* accurate do you need to be? For circles you need to be within pi/3,
and for squares you need to be within (sqrt2)/(1.4).

Akiva Miller

[FWIW, "tolerance" was exactly what this former Electrical Engineer
was thinking of. I would have use the term earlier if I were able to
explain it's technical usage this succinctly. -mi]

Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote 
> He [Rav Nadel zt"l] also 
> held that man was not literally created from dirt but rather 
> evolved from another creature. 

This does not have support in Chazal and the Rishonim (see the "aside"
below). 

Nevertheless I would like to clarify RNS's understanding of Rav Nadel.

1. Did Rav Nadel actually "hold" of this opinion, or did he merely say
that such an opinion is not "kefira"?

Rabbi Slifkin wrote
> Personally, I would add to Rav Nadel's "sufficient cause" of 
> prehistoric man. Having (somewhat) studied human anatomy, 
> there are many aspects of it that do not make much sense if 
> man was independently designed and created from earth, but 
> which make a lot more sense if his body was adapted from an 
> animal. ... Furthermore, I see no reason why 
> the idea of man's body coming from an animal is an 
> unacceptable Jewish belief. 

See the "aside" below.

> Putting these factors together, 
> it seems most reasonable to me that Hashem adapted man's body 
> from an apelike creature via a naturalistic process. Of 
> course, this must be qualified by saying that Torah 
> philosophy definitely requires that man is not just an 
> evolved ape, but that he possess a neshamah, that animals lack.

Current evolutionists state that moden man appeared at least 30,000
years ago and that "by 12,000 years ago, and possibly earlier, modern
humans had spread from northeastern Asia across the Bering Land Bridge to
northwestern North America, and hence rapidly throughout the Americas"
(Futuyma, 1998). I originally took this also to be the opinion of RSN,
but am awaiting his clarification.

2. Did Rav Nadler believe that Adam lived (having had biological hominid
parents) and died more than 12,000 years ago having evolved via common
descent over millions of years through various living transitional forms?

(As an aside, there is an unusual shita, mentioned in Torah Shlema
(1:738), for the special creation of Adam HaRishon from a clump of earth
on yom ha-shisi. G-d caused the clump of earth to rapidly move through
various stages, some of these stages similar to that of an animal,
until the final human was fully formed. This would be the flip side of
Darwin/Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and might perhaps
undermine parts of RSN's argument above. This human had no parents and
would not necessarily leave prehistoric fossils. I am assuming that
Rav Nadel did not mean this shita, but rather that of Darwinian common
descent over billions of years).

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

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


[ 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         ]