Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 075

Saturday, February 5 2005

• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: A of the U
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Torah and Science and Jewish vs. Secular chronolgy
• Re: Age of U

Thanks for your quick response. That "you have to assume that Seder Olam
is not historical" is precisely what I'm getting at, and precisely why
I object to the RYGB "there is no gap!" position. RSSchwab posited one
way of explaining SOR and the reason for the gap, and there surely can
be more than one explanation, but ignoring that gap or insisting it
doesn't exist doesn't seem like a tenable option.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

At 02:37 PM 2/4/05, RMA wrote:
>Lisa says
>>This assumes that everything has been running like clockwork for 
>>thousands of years. And we know that's not the case. There are *enormous* 
>>craters on Mars, for example, which are large enough that the impact 
>>would have introduced uncertainty into any retrocalculations of that 
>>planet's position. It doesn't have to be knocked out of its orbit for a 
>>small change to make a big difference over time.

>So what you are saying is that these collisions changed the period of Mars 
>and all this occurred about 2300-2400 years ago. Is that correct?

Why 2300-2400 years ago? Oh..., I get it. You've confused me with
Immanuel Velikovsky. No, some of the biggest craters on Mars are a lot
older than that. And objects are hitting Mars and other planets all the
time. They're generally small, but they add up. Even ones that burn up
in the atmosphere still have an effect.

>This would mean that data on Mar's period attributed to astronomer's who 
>lived in the Babylonian period must be wrong - since the sidereal period 
>would have changed between then and now. Is that what you are contending?

I imagine it'd probably be fairly close. Planetary orbits are going to
fall -- on average -- into certain positions. Kepler's law and all that.
I'm just saying that retrocalculations going back thousands of years
are more wishful thinking than science.

>BTW - A straightforward calculation can determine the Total Kinetic Energy 
>needed to substantially effect the period of Mars. How did this release of 
>Energy occur without anyone noticing it on Earth? How did the period (and 
>by necessity apparent magnitude of Mars) change without anyone noting it?

Why "by necessity apparent magnitude of Mars"? The period and the orbit
aren't necessarily tied as tightly as that. And I disagree with your
statement about the kinetic energy needed to affect the planet Mars.
The solar system is not electromagnetically neutral.

>I think this explanation for the falsity of astronomical retrocalculations 
>is many many orders of magnitude less probable than simply saying all the 
>diaries are forged, which IMHO is pretty improbable to begin with.

Well, there you go. Don't you feel much better now that you've
successfully defended the paradigm? All's well with the world.

>>False dichotomy. It is Tevah itself which virtually ensures that 
>>astronomical retrocalculations going that far back in time are unlikely 
>>to be accurate.

>So astronomy and by extension Newtonian Physics ceases to be accurate 
>about 2300 years ago?

There's that 2300 years again. And more argument by intimidation.
"If you listen to this claptrap, you're denying Newtonian Physics".
Sheesh. That's just silly. I never suggested that Newtonian Physics
ceases to be accurate.

>What is your basis for that assumption, other than the fact that making it 
>helps bolster the SOR chronolgy.?

First demonstrate that I made any such assumption.

>The same thing should be true when it comes to astronomy. We can't even 
>solve the three-body problem, and there are a lot more than three bodies 
>flying around in space.

>Do you understand what you have just said? NASA has been solving the 
>"N-body problem" for decades.

No, they haven't. They've been making managable approximations within
a very small range. That's a lot easier.

>What that claim about the 3-body problem means is that you can't solve it 
>in terms of  elementary functions. That is true for the motion of a 
>pendulum as well. You need elliptic integrals to solve it exactly.However 
>accurate grandfather clocks have been around for a while. In point of fact 
>you CAN solve the N-body problem to any desired degree of accuracy, 
>provided you have enough computing resources.

>The recent success of the Saturn Titan lander is very dramatic proof of that.

Good thing it didn't take 2300 years to get to Saturn. It might have
missed. <grin>

>>And note: until a paradigm gets busted, those working within it will use 
>>arguments of intimidation like the above to try and cow people into a 
>>kind of intellectual paralysis. Not ouf of any conscious intent, but 
>>merely because it's scary to leave a paradigm, and it's scary to have 
>>other people leave it as well.

>So the established paradigm is that there were 10 Kings of Persia reigning 
>over a period of over 200 years and the new paradigm is that there were 3 
>(SOR chronology), reigning for 52 years.

Well, you can call it "new" if you like. And according to Dr. Heifetz's
revision, some of the kings in question reigned in parallel with the
Neo-Babylonian kings (Nebuchadnezzar & Co.), so it wasn't really 52
years for all of the kings. Just 52 years between the fall of Babylon
and the fall of Persia.

We know from Persian records that Cyrus was both the father and son
of kings named Cambyses, and a grandson of another king named Cyrus.
We know that while the archaeological remains of Cambyses II's campaign
into Egypt bear no resemblance to Greek accounts of that campaign, the
biblical account of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Egypt does match those
Greek accounts fairly well. And that Cambyses I was by all accounts a
contemporary, and probably a vassal, of Nebuchadnezzar.

Dismiss that, and you wind up with a false prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar
and Egypt, and a conflict between archaeology and the historical record.
Accept it, and you're well on your way to realizing that the chronology
of the period isn't quite as simplistic as it's been made out to be.

>The proof of the SOR chronology is that Chazal purportedly said it

"Purportedly"? <grin> Are you suggesting that SOR is a forgery?

>and meant what they said literally and that such knowledge was a religious 
>Kabbala from Anshei Knesset Hagodol

There's no internal evidence for them to have meant it in any non-literal
way. You just don't like that reading it at face value means not accepting
current conclusions in the academic world. And that's okay, really. Your
comfort has to come first, right?

>and the proof of the Conventional Chronology is the thousands of documents 
>which I mentioned above.

"Thousands." If you say so.

>However a rational thinker , not afraid of tenure constraints and ridicule 
>from his colleagues should immediately see the truth of the Occam's razor 
>defying SOR chronology. Is that what you are claiming or have I 
>misunderstood it.

Um... neither. It's not what I'm claiming, and I suspect that you didn't
misunderstand me at all. And Occam's Razor depends on context.

>>We might add that they aren't compatible with the text of the books of 
>>Kings, Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah...

>None of the documents I quoted pertain to the pre-Destruction period so I 
>am at a loss to see how they contradict Chronicles and Kings.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to confuse you. The same conventional chronology
that snaps the chain of Torah transmission between Baruch and Ezra also
adds an additional 30 years right smack in the middle of the most heavily
chronologized section of our history, and bizarrely requires reading II
Chronicles 5:26 as referring to a single king.

>Ezra/Nehemiah simply mention only 4 kings without saying anything which 
>would lead one to conclude that those were the only ones.

It also mentions Kohanim Gedolim in a way that makes the conventional
chronology impossible.

>Perhaps they were the only ones which those Neviim interacted with. The 
>Torah doesn't mention Darius (Daryavah). Does that mean the Torah 
>contradicts Ezra/Nehemiah.

Daryavesh, and you're being silly.

>In fact I don't believe any of the Nach you quoted can help one decide
>one way or another which is the correct absolute dating.

It's just a religious book anyway. Pish tosh.

>I should note that SOR does contradict the Poshut Pshat in Nehemiah/Ezra 
>when it claims that Cyrus,Daruis and Artaxerxes were one king. In addition 
>the majority of printed editions and manuscript editions of the SOR 
>actually write that the Persian reign was 210 or 250 years.  It is in fact 
>an interpretation of scholars, rabbinic and otherwise, which deem those 
>manuscripts to be in error.

I think you're wrong about "the majority" of editions. And the chronology
which we've all been calling the Seder Olam Rabba chronology is actually
the chronology that is necessary and consistent for all of the relevant
historical information in the Gemara. Seder Olam is just one book of it.

And Seder Olam doesn't claim that those three kings were all the same
king.

>>>Does anyone have any other hypothesis explaining how the conventional 
>>>chronology came to differ from the SOR chronology and why all reputable 
>>>modern historians believe it?

>>Yes.

>If you have a hypothesis would you be so kind as to state it.

Our culture is based on Greco-Roman culture. We all have to take Western
Civ in high school. Why on earth should they doubt it because a bunch
of Yidden say it's wrong?

As far as how the conventional chronology came about, a lot of it had to
do with poor historiography by the Greeks. For example, Herodotus claims
to have heard four completely different stories about the background of
Cyrus the Great. He only bothers to tell us the one he decided was most
likely (or most entertaining, I'd imagine).

Herodotus doesn't mention Nebuchadnezzar, despite the fact that he
covers his time and mentions Babylon. And he's known as "the Father of
History". Heh.

Darius's name in Persian was Daraya-wakhush. The first part of that
name is what the Greeks turned into Darius. The second part is what they
turned into Ochus. Except that they didn't get that it was one person.
So we have Artaxerxes III Ochus as a separate king. Achashveros's name
in Persian was Khshay-arsha. In Greek transliteration, that turns into
Xerxes. Arsha, though, a common shortening of the name, becomes Arses
in Greek. Arsha-ka, a common diminutive of the name, becomes Arsaces in
Greek. But the Greek histories show no sign of being aware of this.

Arta-khshatra, which was a throne name used by several Persian kings,
is not a given name. Khshatra just means kingship, and Arta is similar to
the Assyro-Babylonian melammu, which was sort of an aura of righteousness.
The name is like Malkitzedek. It's just a title.

Yossipon describes the story of Cyrus and Achashverosh in exactly the
same way that Xenophon describes the story of Cyrus III and Artaxerxes II.
And so on and so forth.

Shabbat Shalom,
Lisa 

At 03:21 PM 2/4/05, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
>Thanks for your quick response. That "you have to assume that Seder 
>Olam is not historical" is precisely what I'm getting at, and precisely 
>why I object to the RYGB "there is no gap!" position. RSSchwab 
>posited one way of explaining SOR and the reason for the gap, and there 
>surely can be more than one explanation, but ignoring that gap or 
>insisting it doesn't exist doesn't seem like a tenable option.

R' Schwab retracted that suggestion, which was never anything more than
a vague hava amina on his part to begin with.

Shabbat Shalom,
Lisa 

> R' Schwab retracted that suggestion, which was never anything more
> than a vague hava amina on his part to begin with.

WADR, the first part of your sentence is true, but the second part
is without basis and, frankly, irrelevant to the issue. Again, once
we say that SOR is ahistorical (Persian-Kingdom evidence aside, not
anything to be surprised about, as Torah Shebik'sav is by and large
not meant to be a history book, either), an explanation is in order if
we wish to understand why it (more precisely, NaCH, including Daniel,
Ezra/Nechemiah, and Esther) is; we have no requirement to explain why
NaCH makes short shrift of the Persian period, but we also shouldn't
ignore the phenomenon any more than we should ignore the Torah making
short shrift of much of the pre-Abrahamic times.

Have a good week!  All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

At 04:21 PM 2/4/2005, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
>Thanks for your quick response. That "you have to assume that Seder Olam
>is not historical" is precisely what I'm getting at, and precisely why I
>object to the RYGB "there is no gap!" position. RSSchwab posited one way
>of explaining SOR and the reason for the gap, and there surely can be more
>than one explanation, but ignoring that gap or insisting it doesn't exist
>doesn't seem like a tenable option.

WADR, I think that only a complete lack of emunas chachamim would lead
someone to consider the position of Chazal on ANYTHING "an UNTENABLE
option."

GV,
YGB 

Since Ms. Liel knows far, far more about this topic than I do, and has
responded separately and comprehensively, I will be very brief.

At 03:37 PM 2/4/2005, RMA wrote:
>So the established paradigm is that there were 10 Kings of Persia reigning
>over a period of over 200 years and the new paradigm is that there were 3
>(SOR chronology), reigning for 52 years.

Au contraire. The *established* paradigm (predating by far the secular
paradigm) is that of Chazal. The *new* paradigm (is it the 16th or
17th century? I forget) is the secular one.

>The proof of the SOR chronology is that Chazal purportedly said it and
>meant what they said literally and that such knowledge was a religious
>Kabbala from Anshei Knesset Hagodol and the proof of the Conventional
>Chronology is the thousands of documents which I mentioned above. However
>a rational thinker , not afraid of tenure constraints and ridicule from
>his colleagues should immediately see the truth of the Occam's razor
>defying SOR chronology.

Who said this is a "religious Kabbala?" It is Chazal relating the facts
of history.

BTW, Seder Olam is not MY main source - mine is the Gemara that states
that Bayis Sheni stood for 420 years. Period.

YGB 

RYGB replied:
>> ignoring that gap or insisting it doesn't exist doesn't seem like a
>> tenable option

> WADR, I think that only a complete lack of emunas chachamim would lead
> someone to consider the position of Chazal on ANYTHING "an UNTENABLE
> option."

CHaZaL didn't insist that the chronological gap doesn't exist. In a work
(SOR) not meant to fill in every chronological tittle, gaps are part
of the fabric -- for you to say they held there is no gap is entirely
another issue, and for me to disagree with you is unrelated to my emunas
chachomim, but thanks anyway for your concern.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< I would not assume RYbC was giving historical
information. But even if he were, would he be using the same clock as
our Jerusalem Standard Time? >>>

I presume the unstated portion of your question is that if RYbC *was*
giving historical information (which is my presumption, given that he
prefaced the sequence by defining the length of the day) then these
times ought to have been in terms of Gan Eden Standard Time, which I'm
guessing would be somewhat later (eastward) of JST.

These factors introduce an interesting complication to all this. Namely,
why do we presume the molad to be in terms of JST? The obvious answer
is that Yerushalayim is where the witnesses were interrogated and Rosh
Chodesh was declared. But doesn't this ignore the plain meaning of
"Hachodesh Hazeh Lachem Rosh Chadashim"?

If we suppose that Hashem showed that moon to Moshe and Ahron at the
precise moment of the molad, then our calculations should be based on
Mitzrayim Time, not JST. Because we're not just talking about that one
particular month -- Yerushalayim was centuries in the future! For all
those centuries, did the Sanhedrin consider the fact that the moon would
be slightly larger by the time it became visible westward in Sinai or in
Shilo? (Or smaller, when they were still in the east, in Ever HaYarden?)

OTOH, if we remember that the molad is only an average duration anyway,
and that Alexandria Time and JST are less than half an hour apart,
maybe it doesn't make much of a practical difference.

<<< In fact, RYbC may be telling you he's speaking of sha'os zemaniyos
when he starts "there are 12 hours in a day". It wasn't at the fall
equinox, so the 12 hours must be solar, not standard. >>>

Wouldn't it be interesting if it turned out that 1 Tishre of that year
*was* at the equinox?

Akiva Miller

At 08:45 PM 2/5/2005, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
>CHaZaL didn't insist that the chronological gap doesn't exist.  In a work
>(SOR) not meant to fill in every chronological tittle, gaps are part of the
>fabric -- for you to say they held there is no gap is entirely another
>issue, and for me to disagree with you is unrelated to my emunas chachomim,
>but thanks anyway for your concern.

You missed my remark in my last post. It is Chazal in BB 3a that state
that Bayis Sheni stood for 420 years is my main concern, and to deny
the veracity of that remark is the point I find most objectionable.

YGB 

RDE earlier wrote:
: RYGB's citations from the Torah Shleima were shown to one of the gedolim
: who had stated that asserting that the world is greater than 6000 years
: is kefirah. After reading the list he acknowledged that there are views
: of accepted authorities that the world is more than 6000 years. When
: asked to reconcile this with his previous statement that such views were
: kefirah, he replied that since today it is accepted that the world is
: less than 6000 years old - the alternatives are no longer legitimate.

Later, on Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 03:13:47PM +0200, RDE elaborated:
: I assume he is following the view expounded by the Chasam Sofer. I am
: trying to find out more information. I also heard this explanation of
: delegimization in the name of a second gadol...

Mind you that this rationale was not how any of us understood the one
originally given. In the letters, the claim was made that the idea was
kefirah because it went in a different direction than that of chazal
and the mesorah. One email sent to me compared this to RYBS and R'
Hershel Schachter's position that finding new aggadic approaches for
non-aggadic reasons shows a lack of emunah in the 8th ikkar, a belief
that TSBP is ch"v incomplete or untrue.

This clarification, which I would have thought is an different position,
is about pasqening that a position that was formerly considered "wrong
but mutar" is now kefirah.

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 12:58:48PM +0000, Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk wrote:
: My understanding of the reason why when the majority of Torah authorities
: decides something, the alternatives proposed by other Torah authorities
: are no longer legitimate is because of "lo beshamayim he" and "achrei
: rabbim l'hatos" - the classic case of this of course being whether a
: tanur is tahor or tamei (ie does it need to be broken? do we need to go
: to the mikvah? can trumah be baked in it? etc).

: It is interesting that the above approach appears to extend this concept
: to something that I would have described as very much "b'shamayim he"....

And this speaks to the basic differences between the CS's case, of Rabbi
Hillel's lack of belief in a personal messiah, and nidon didan.

1- Rabbi Hillel's position was not rejected simply because "we all
believe otherwise", but also because a ra'ayah brought by R' Yoseif. Rabbi
Hillel said that Chizqiyah was the person the nevu'os referred to, but
Zechariah's nevu'ah, during bayis sheini (and therefore after Chizqiyah),
still speaks of a melekh hamashiach. But the CS seems not to make this
chiluq, so I will not stand on this as my ikkar objection.

2- As RDR notes, it's even unclear that "we all believe otherwise".

3- Rabbi Hillel was a daas yachid. Here we're trying to dismiss the
opinion of what is quite likely rov rishonim ve'acharonim, and certainly
rov mequbalim and at least a sizable mi'ut of baalei machashavah.

3- But my real point, which is based on the core of RnCL's complaint, the
matter is not what we all believe. The Rambam is quite clear that laws
of pesaq don't apply to beliefs. As RnCL points out, the justification
for acharei rabim lahatos doesn't even make sense in that context. RGS
writes about this in his review of R' Marc Shapiro's book and we've
discussed it here repeatedly.

The CS is talking about pesaq in halachah, defining who is a kofeir
(WRT stam yeinam, lo maalim, geirus, etc...) This is why he invokes
Edios 1:4, the discussion of why minority *pesaqim* are quoted in the
mishnah, as well as speaking of this idea in the context of *halakhah*
leMosheh miSinai.

So, unless the current generation of poseqim are uniquely assuming
the right to pasqen keneged rishonim, and actively make such pesaqim,
there is no parallel. The alleged preconsciously assumed position of
the hamon am which aggadic position to follow is not what the CS is
writing about. It gives more authority to our 1st grade melamdim than
to rishonim and acharonim!

Gut Voch!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

> It is Chazal in BB 3a that state that
> Bayis Sheni stood for 420 years is my main concern, and to deny the
> veracity of that remark is the point I find most objectionable.

I don't deny the veracity of "Bayis Rishon amad 410 [shanim] uBayis Shaini
[amad] 420 [shanim]" (first RaShY on BB 3b) -- neither did RSSchwab when
he proposed a timeline which explained what he saw at the time as a gap
in the period before Bayis Shaini was completed -- and never said I did,
nor do I recall that chronology coming up in this discussion. The issue
is the minimalist chronology of SOR and whether it is contradicted by
independent evidence, and I for one would appreciate our sticking to that
topic. I agree with Lisa that there is much within the Heifetz article
she mentioned with which to concur (FTR, I was a YRSRH student of Rav
Danziger's [see that article's note 4] who received his wisdom on the
matter, and I don't believe there's any question that "Achashvairosh" was
a title rather than a name), I already noted other articles (found on the
WWW) which question the conventional chronology, and I am an interested
observer of and, quite frankly, a grasshopper re any discussion on the
legitimacy of evidence which establishes the Persian period as far longer
than can be extracted from NaCH. Now, since I have your critical "emunas
chachomim" eye, RYGB et al., here's another example of minimalist SOR
chronology that IMHO one can debate the need to understand literally:
was Rivqah really no more than 3 years old when Yitzchaq married her
(RaShY on B'raishis 25:20), meaning that she was no older and may have
been younger (note the language of RaShY: "himtin lah") when she came out
to a well with a pitcher, filled it from a well, and spoke so properly
to Eliezer and assertively to her mother and brother (24:15-58)? The
reason for this chronology is the medrash which ties the Aqaidah event
to B'raishis 22:20, but that begs the question: need we understand that
Rivqah was born precisely at that time rather than understand the words
of CHaZaL, quoted by RaShY ad loc as "bisro hQbH," as saying that Avraham
found out about Rivqah then but she actually was born before then? If
the latter, we don't know how long before the Aqaidah she was born,
and it apparently doesn't really matter (given that the Torah doesn't
explicate), but we do know that SOR acted minimally in saying she was
born then because of the lack of Torah information on the topic and that
fitting such an age into her chapter-24 actions and words is tangential
to what we are meant to learn from the Torah.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

At 07:10 PM 2/5/05, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>WADR, I think that only a complete lack of emunas chachamim would lead 
>someone to consider the position of Chazal on ANYTHING "an UNTENABLE option."

Um... lice? Just for an example. Sometimes it is necessary to do some
fairly creative twisting and turning to rescue certain statements
of Chazal.

But in any case, "complete lack of emunat chachamim" seems to be fairly
prevalent these days. The Steinsaltz edition of Ketubot has a historical
note which accepts the view of Josephus that the later Herodians were
descended from Miriam HaChasmonait, despite the fact that Chazal say
otherwise. R' Aryeh Kaplan's "The Living Torah" has footnotes identifying
the various Egyptian kings in the Torah as specific historical figures.
I think every one of those identifications is wrong. I was told by a
woman I know that R' Aryeh Kaplan would never have included those notes
unless he knew them to be correct, and that it was offensive for me
to disagree.

I think Judaism is a bit different from, say, Christianity. We don't have
things that we can't "consider". We're entitled to use our minds, and
if it were to turn out that there is no tenable way to support Chazal's
chronology, then we'd have to deal with that. But it's not the case,
so that's moot.

Lisa 

At 06:55 PM 2/5/05, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
>>R' Schwab retracted that suggestion, which was never anything more than a
>>vague hava amina on his part to begin with.

>WADR, the first part of your sentence is true, but the second part is
>without basis and, frankly, irrelevant to the issue.

Well, it's almost without basis. If you don't count what he said himself
in his retraction.

>Again, once we say that SOR is ahistorical (Persian-Kingdom evidence 
>aside, not anything to be surprised about, as Torah Shebik'sav is by and 
>large not meant to be a history book, either),

Though that doesn't mean we should expect it to state out and out
falsehoods.

>an explanation is in order if we wish to understand why it (more 
>precisely, NaCH, including Daniel, Ezra/Nechemiah, and Esther) is; we have 
>no requirement to explain why NaCH makes short shrift of the Persian 
>period, but we also shouldn't ignore the phenomenon any more than we 
>should ignore the Torah making short shrift of much of the pre-Abrahamic times.

Very true. Although... I'm not sure whether it's better to address the
issue and conclude that Chazal didn't know what they were talking about,
or to ignore the issue. Clearly, neither of those is a great choice,
but given just those two, maybe ignoring it isn't the worst thing in
the world.

Shavua Tov,
Lisa 

At 07:45 PM 2/5/05, MPoppers@kayescholer.com wrote:
>>RYGB replied:
>>>ignoring that gap or insisting it doesn't exist doesn't seem like a 
>>>tenable option

>>WADR, I think that only a complete lack of emunas chachamim would lead 
>>someone to consider the position of Chazal on ANYTHING "an UNTENABLE option."

>CHaZaL didn't insist that the chronological gap doesn't exist.  In a work 
>(SOR) not meant to fill in every chronological tittle, gaps are part of 
>the fabric

I don't see that. Seder Olam absolutely meant to fill in a complete
framework of history. Not each and every year by description, but
lengths, absolutely.

>-- for you to say they held there is no gap is entirely another issue, and 
>for me to disagree with you is unrelated to my emunas chachomim, but 
>thanks anyway for your concern.

I'm not sure what's being referred to here by there being "a gap".
Does that mean a gap in the Seder Olam chronology, in the sense that
Chazal left out a period of time that actually happened, or a gap in the
conventional chronology which never really happened? Because I don't
think the former exists, and I don't think it's possible to say that
it does exist without basically invalidating all of Torah Judaism.
Our religion does not exist without the fundamental basis of the
chain of Torah transmission described at the beginning of Pirkei Avot.
The conventional chronology is at odds with that chain.

Lisa

In this necessarily brief message, I will attempt to analyze R. Hillel's
Shlita's statement and show that it arises from one specific tradition and
approach to Kabbala study among several. I caution any reader that these
words are intended solely in the spirit of 'lehagdil Torah uleheadira'
and for theoretical study only and not to be applied in practice to
any contemporary event or issue. I also ask that readers go directly
to the sources and do not rely on my reading or understanding of them,
for I am not yet 'bar hochi'.

A recent multi-volume commentary on Otsros Chaim by R. Y. Benzechry
published in Yerushaliam in 1998 with haskomah from R. Y. Hillel contains
an essay on what he presents as three different methods of Kabbala
study. These relate to the very basic question - how are statements of
Ari about left, right, above, below, above and beyond to be understood
when speaking of spiritual worlds where such concepts should not apply.

There are three approaches:
1.The way of moshol -- Kabbala is a moshol of either how Hashem runs the
world (R. Chaim Volozhin) or 2. as applying to real events, psychological
forces or physical structuring of the world in which we live (Besht). The
third way is that of the Sephardim who approach it in literal fashion;
we will come back to that later. Let us briefly discuss the first two
methods.

1. Moshol. This is attributed to the Gra in the name of R. Chaim
Volozhiner. The following comes not from R. Benzecry but from R. Chaim
Friedlander in his introduction to KL'CH Pischei Chochma, p. 11. He
quotes from a letter of one of students of R. Chaim that the Gra said
of Ramchal that he understood the nimshal in the writings of the Ari
and that the Gra was not sure if R. Chaim Vital understood it until he
saw in one place that he also understood it but decided to hide it.

It seems that Ramchal thought that the nimshal is derech hanhaga
(this is a subject in itself and requires delving into the writings
of Ramchal). There is also the idea that Kabbala is basically what
the prophet sees in a prophetic vision. Thus, it is not exactly
literal. R. Bezechry for some reason ascribes to R. Zadok Hakohen;
he does not mention(unless I missed it in this long essay) that it is
found in the writings of Ramchal, such as in Pesach 7 which is devoted
to the idea of sephiros as what is seen in prophetic visions. In our day,
R. Arye Kaplan taught this view.

2. Chassidus focused on the idea that man is olam katan and that the
4 phases of the neshama correspond to four olamos; therefore, much of
human psychology can be explained in kabbalistic terms.

3. The view of the Sephardim is that we must study the writings of
Ari literally and, if we are zoche, we will understand them in the
future world. Curiously, the strongest proponent of these views is
R. Elyshiv, author of Leshem Shva Vahlama. He strongly argues against
the inderstanding as moshol or as vision of prophecy, going as far as
labeling them close to kefirah, "Chalila, chalila to think that these
matters are grasped or understood by any creature whoever ... chalila
chalila to think that they are just a moshol, and anyone who says that
he is in my eyes as if he denies the whole wisdom of kabbala totally
and it is proper to thunder... (Derush Hoegulim, hakdama to anaf 2,2).

This question also comes up in regard to whether tsimtsum took place in
real space or mental representation of space; this is not the place to
delve into that.

Interestingly, R. Elyashiv claims that this is the tradition of the Gra,
despite what was reported above and also contradicting Gra's klalim
at the end of his commentary to Sifra D'Tsniusa (in regard to tsimtsum
not being literally in space). Mordechi Pechter in a very erudite and
worthwhile article proposes that there was an alternative mesora from
the Gra which R. Elyashiv follows (in Kabbalat Hagra b'Askalparia shel
shtei mesorot, Bar Ilan 2003).

It should be clear that if we cannot truly understand kabbalistic
statements, any attempt to draw analogies from them or to appy them is
doomed from the start. In addition, it is almost guaranteed to lead to a
misinterpretation and "destroy worlds". In consequence, those who follow
this shittah jealously guard the wisdom of kabbalah and are ready at
any time to be moche very strongly against such attempts. R. Y. Hillel,
for example, wrote a work against practical kabbalah and those who use
it practically (Faith and Folly, Feldheim). On the other hand, in one
sephardi yeshiva in the USA, I know that the art of reading ketuvot to
assist marriage counseling is taught as a part of semicha program.

In conclusion, .R Hillel Shlita represents a certain well-established and
legitimate tradition of Lithuanian kabbala, attributed to the Gra and a
part of the yeshiva world mesora. There are, however, other approaches
which although considered illegitimate and bordering of kefirah by those
who follow the former view, are, it seems to me (and I am not in the
class of R. Hillel by any means) are no less legitimate - just based on
a different tradition.

M. Levin

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


[ 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         ]