Not the Godol Hador Archive

Science & Torah & Rabbi Carmy

2006-07-05T15:36:00.000-07:00

I saw a funny comment on Hirhurim today. Dilbert wrote, regarding R Carmy’s rather vague article on Science & Torah:

Rabbi Carmy's editorial was disappointing to me on a number of fronts. I have long been an admirer of his, but this editorial was long on verbage, and short on substance. I don’t have it in front of me to quote specifically, but basically he wrote that he didn't agree with the ban, but understood and empathized with the rationale behind it. Even worse was his admission that he was not totally familiar with the specifics of the bans, not having read them all.

I would have hoped that the editor of the pre-eminent English language journal of Modern orthodox thought would have roused himself to a stirring defense of science co-existing with Torah. At the very least, defending the hashkafa that using science is a religiously valid view point. Or maybe even opining on the process by which the bans appeared. He did none of those. Instead, he basically said that one shouldn't think too hard about the difficulties that science poses, and that he understands, if not agrees with the motive to suppress these opinions. It was VERY disappointing.

Wow. Maybe R Carmy is smarter than I thought? No stirring defense of Science AND Torah? One shouldn’t think too hard about this stuff? Maybe R Carmy has been reading Not The Godol Hador!

It’s funny how my opinions have changed 180 degrees since last year. Originally I saw the Science & Torah reconciliation people as the guys with the answers. Now I realize that they have no clue. At best all they are really doing is trying to keep Orthodoxy open to the full range of Rishonim (which is not a bad thing in itself). Unfortunately all the Rishonim in the world aren’t going to help you with reconciling modern Science with Breishis, since the two stories are fundamentally different, and I don’t recall seeing any Rishonim say that Breishis 1-11 is mythology, or even that the Mabul was (gasp!) local. Dilbert, Y Aharon, Harry Maryles, Gil, Rabbi Slifkin and all the other ‘Science is okay!’ types are simply not facing reality. They want to have their cake and eat it, but it can’t happen. In fact, they seem to be as much about avoiding reality as the Chareidim are.

You guys want to accept modern science? Then it’s goodbye Orthodox Judaism, at least as currently defined. You have the cojones like R Louis Jacobs zt"l to go redefine Orthodoxy? No, I didn’t think so. So what do you expect? The Chareidim are unfortunately correct – modern Science IS incompatible with Orthodoxy, from any plausible viewpoint. Unless you want to tell me that Myth/Moshol is 100% A-OK? No, I didn’t think so. Oh wait, you have faith that the answers are out there, we just haven't found them yet.

Sure! Could be, could be.

Proof for Judaism?

2006-06-07T15:11:00.000-07:00

Seems that my last few posts got a lot of people rather upset, especially the way I just took it for granted that there’s no good evidence for religion, and our beliefs in religion are based entirely on faith (a.k.a. wishful thinking).

So why did I come to this conclusion? Didn’t I myself spend many months arguing with the skeptics, and writing mega chizuk posts which contained all sorts of arguments proving Judaism and the existence of God? Yes, I did. But ultimately I found my opponents arguments more convincing than my own.

However, you may decide differently. In the interests of fairness, I will present all those arguments again (in summary form only), together with their counter-arguments, and you can be the judge which is more plausible.

1. The Mesorah Proof

Argument
The beliefs of Judaism have been passed down father to son for three thousand years, in an unbroken and traceable chain of tradition. We know our fathers wouldn’t lie to us, therefore it must be true.

Counter Argument
Many (conflicting) religious traditions are passed down father to son, yet are untrue. Parents don’t deliberately lie, however people can be misled, and myths grow over time. To claim that the great Gedolim of each generation passed these beliefs down so they must be true is circular reasoning: If the beliefs are not true then the great Gedolim are not so great.

2. The Sinai Proof

Argument
Judaism is the only religion to claim a mass revelation, i.e. Sinai in front of 2.5 million Jews. How could anyone make such a story up, and convince people it happened to their ancestors? And if it was possible to make up such a grand story, how come no other religion tried to do this, but only have revelation stories in front of a small group of people?

Counter Argument
It’s true that Sinai is a fairly unique claim. However myths form over many centuries, and it’s entirely possible that the claim grew over the years. We don’t know why other religions didn’t try the same claim, but that’s no proof of anything, except for the fact that the Jewish claim is the most audacious. Also, claims of miracles tend to decrease over the millennia, as people get wiser and less superstitious. Possibly 3,000 years ago you could make a mass revelation claim, 2,000 years ago you could make a resurrection claim, and 500 years ago you could make a Maggid claim. Nowadays you can’t even claim a talking fish without Rabbi Adlerstein publicly announcing his skepticism.

3. The Brilliant Talmud / Rishonim / Acharonim Proof Type A

Argument
Once you see the brilliance of the Gemarah / Rishonim / R Akiva Eiger, you will see how such a system can only be divine.

Counter
None of this is all that brilliant, it’s just years of complexity added upon complexity, creating a confusing mess which finely trained minds like to ponder. Objectively speaking, Science is way more brilliant and profound. Only people brainwashed in the system think it’s so brilliant. Muslims think the Koran is mindblowing too, and Mormons think the Book of Mormon is incredible.

4. The Brilliant Talmud / Rishonim / Acharonim Proof Type B

Argument
Chazal / Rishonim / R Akiva Eiger / R Moshe were all amazingly brilliant people. They believed in Judaism, so it must be true.

Counter Argument
Smart people exist in every faith. Smart people are good at justifying their childhood indoctrinated beliefs with smart aguments. Some very smart people throughout history believed some very strange things. There are plenty of smart religious people in Christianity and Islam too.

5. The History Proof

Argument
Jewish history is unique. We have survived thousands of years, incredible persecutions, we are always on the news, and we are a tiny percentage of the world’s population. In addition our contribution to society and effect on civilization has been amazing. All this has been noted with wonder by many people (including quite a few anti-semites) over the last two thousand years. Our survival and success is inexplicable, God is the only answer.

Counter Argument
Jewish history is unique, but so is many other people’s history, in other ways. We have survived many adverse circumstances, but a combination of culture, laws, non integration into society and other factors can explain our survival. Also our emphasis on education has paid enormous dividends. Our survival can be explained in natural ways.

6. The Experience Proof

Argument
Once you experience Shabbos (or Learning, or Kugel) you will see that it must be true.

Counter Argument
All religions offer great experiences, as do drugs and alcohol. Experiential emotions prove nothing, except that whatever you are experiencing has the power to create deep emotions.

7. The God Proof

Argument
We can prove there must be a First Cause i.e. God. Judaism was the first religion to promote this idea, and it has since spread worldwide. God would want us to know about Him and his mission, therefore it makes sense that Judaism is the one true religion. Also, all the other religions are just derivative of Judaism, or else don’t make any major claims about God at all, or are just idolatry. Judaism is the original and still the only pure monotheistic faith.

Counter Argument
God’s existence has not been sufficiently proven. Even if you hold it has, it doesn’t follow that Judaism is from God. Jews may have intuited God’s existence correctly, but the rest of the religion could be man made. God might even be displeased with the religion, for focusing on the wrong things, and incorrectly claiming unique status.

8. The Halachah Proof

Argument
Halachah works amazingly well to create decent people and communities, and always has done. Such an effective system can only have come from God.

Counter Argument
Only religious Jews are convinced that religious Jews are so great. Everyone else sees a community like any other, possibly with lower crime levels and stronger family ties, but that is easily explainable sociologically. Plus when you factor in the increased racism and intolerance, and all the other problems endemic in Chareidi society, including behavior of the Gedolim, it doesn't look so great.

9. The Prophecy Proof

Argument
The Torah correctly foretells the various churbanot and tragedies. It must be true.

Counter Argument
Depends when it was written. If it was written during or after the first churban, this is not so amazing. Could also be a lucky guess, many ANE texts contain dire warnings and curses.

10. The Discovery Proofs

Argument
Various clever and non intuitive proofs involving codes, the shmittah year, camels & hyraxes or whatever.

Counter Argument
Most (all?) of these don’t really work if you look into them. Others are just sophistry.

11. The Convergence Proof

Argument
While none of the above taken by themselves are strong enough proof, when you add them all together it tells a very powerful story. The original monotheistic religion survives against all odds, has many prophecies fulfilled, makes an incredible contribution to society and is still front page news 3,000 years later. So amazing it can only mean one thing. It’s all true.

Counter Argument
None of these proofs on their own amount to anything. Zero plus zero is still zero. There’s nothing here.

Conclusion
Personally I do actually find a few of these somewhat convincing, and taken all together they do tell a good story, certainly a better story than all the other religions.

But is that proof enough?

In my next post I will present a summary of all the proofs against Judaism, together with their counter arguments. Then we can judge which set of proofs are more convincing, all from a strictly rational perspective of course. If you have faith, then none of this is in any way relevant.

Are Kiruv Workers Evil?

2006-03-31T11:54:00.000-08:00

One of the Lakewood chevrah emailed me recently to complain that some of the skeptics are evil, since they intentionally try and ‘convert’ people from Orthodoxy to Skepticism. Not only that, but death threats against these kind of skeptics are a good thing (presumably he meant fake ones), because the 'kiruv' skeptics deserve some harassment.

WITHOUT getting into the discussion of whether this accusation is actually true or not about certain skeptics, I wondered if his claim that it was ‘evil’ behavior is valid. So let’s discuss this.

We all support and approve of (Orthodox) Kiruv organizations. We actively go and try and mekarev people to Orthodoxy. We do Outreach.

Is this evil?

We assume the person will be happier if they are Orthodox. We assume they will have a more fulfilled life. And of course we assume that they will get a better olam habah. On the other hand, I personally know of BT’s who are miserable, who don’t like being Orthodox and are now stuck (usually because their spouse is Orthodox). So, we can’t necessarily guarantee a happier life. We can’t really guarantee Olam Habaah either, since only God can do that. In fact, we can’t actually guarantee anything at all, since we all agree that fundamentally our religion rests on faith. Without proof, nothing can be rationally guaranteed.

Not only that, but making someone religious will require them to keep Halachah. This includes Yehoreg v’al yaavor on Giluy Aroyos and Avodah
Zoroh. Hence we could be influencing someone to give up their life instead of bowing down to an idol or something like that. Yes, I know this is far fetched, but the possibility is there. In fact, a simpler example would be someone who gets religious, gets Zionistic too, and goes off to live in the West Bank, thinking they are fulfilling God’s wish of a greater Israel, and then they get blown up by terrorists.

If Judaism is true, then of course this is all correct and good. However if it isn’t, then this is all bad. Very bad indeed if you get blown up for no good reason.

Now let’s look at the (theoretical) 'kiruv' skeptics. Their belief is that religion is all bogus. Sure, it can give you a nice lifestyle, but ultimately it’s all fake. They believe that the world would be a better place without religion, and they believe that each individual would lead a truer, more fulfilled life without religion. They believe that religion has perpetrated many evils. Hence they do ‘kiruv’ to their version of the truth.

If the claims of the skeptics are true, then this is all correct and good. However if it isn’t true, how bad is it really? They are not persuading people to go risk their lives for their religion, or for a distant country. They are not advocating anyone to give up their lives instead of bowing down to an idol. Yes, they advocate dropping Torah & Mitzvot, but they still advocate morality, which is of course one of the most important things anyway.

So who is really evil here?

An objective assessment leads me to conclude that if the skeptic 'kiruv' workers are evil, then the Orthodox kiruv workers are doubly so. Do we really want to conclude that kiruv workers are evil? And if (fake) death threats against skeptic 'kiruv' workers are okay, then are death threats against Orthodox kiruv workers more okay?

What if your non religious child was mekareved by Aish, ended up in Israel and ended up dead. Does that mean that Aish killed your child, by filling his head with nonsensical beliefs (from your perspective) ? Should Aish be charged with second degree murder? I guess so, according to the Lakewood chevrah.

How can anyone possibly claim that skeptic 'kiruv' workers are evil, yet advocate Orthodox kiruv? The mind boggles.

Update:

The skeptics respond:

You want to talk about problems with kiruv, talk about how they sell it as the solution to people's emotional problems, which rarely actually get fixed. Talk about how they dishonestly portray the plausibility of their claims in regards to evidence. Talk about how they don't talk about the stigma BTs have in the frum world, despite many people joining specifically for the emphasis on marriage. Talk about how they don't discuss the very high ex-BT rate, and the difficulty people have recovering from being a BT. Don't talk about Aish getting someone blown up. That's just stupid. If a newly skeptical ex-Orthodox Jew gets killed in a car accident on Shabbat do you blame Spinoza?

Weekly Mussar, Machshavah & Chizuk Drashah for the Orthodox Conservative Chareidi Kehillah

2006-02-26T00:53:00.000-08:00

Rabbosai, last week, some of us felt our emunah slipping away as we contemplated the upcoming Teaneck Gedolim Show, starring Rabbis Feldman, Salomon and Shachter. Each of these had recently written (or signed their names to) announcements of quite stunning stupidity, and of questionable ethics too.

How could it be that the Gedolim, the ones who learn the most Torah, the ones who know the most Halchah, could be so clueless? Isn’t that strong evidence that the whole concept of Torah is flawed? Isn’t that strong evidence that the whole of Orthodoxy is flawed? Isn’t that strong evidence that the whole of Judaism is flawed?

I wrote the following to a respected acquaintance of mine:

Of all the things that bother me (DH, Science etc) the Gedolim bother me the most. If Torah is the best and learning Torah is the best then these people should be the best. Not perfect, but the best. But I just can't see it.

His reply came quickly:

It used to bother me too, but that was before I realized that "the gedolim" is propaganda and crap.

As for learning Torah and being the best, in my book unless you know a lot of madda then you don't know a hill of beans about Torah. If you're learning Kodashim, for example, and you don't know animals, then you're just zugging tehillim. A lot of these great talmidei chachomim wouldn't know a Bavel from a baseball, so they're just great zuggers/ memorizers. They're like Bar Ilan CDs.

All the true greats--all of them--know a lot more than how to misapply maamarei chazal. R' Yaakov Kamenetzky quoted Christian David Ginsburg in Emes L'Yaakov. The rest of this bunch? Feh.

The Rambam is very clear in Moreh Nevuchim that one cannot be a Godol without an understanding of Science and Philosophy. When I first learnt that, a couple years ago, I was skeptical, I have to admit. I felt the Rambam was just trying to justify his own love of philosophy. Why on earth should a Rosh Yeshivah or Godol need to know Science?!

But in the last year or so, my whole attitude has changed. I started to read Science books and journals, and saw the most amazing things in there, the most incredible chochmah. I know personally what a tremendous amount I have gained from debating the skeptics, and thinking critically about all sorts of issues. These kind of critical thinking skills and philosophical ideas are simply not taught in the Yeshivah world. It’s no wonder that our Gedolim are deficient, from the Rambam’s point of view they are missing a key foundational building block.

To the right of us are many people with juvenile, even infantile, unsophisticated and quite frankly backwards conceptions of the world and how it works. They may be Gedolim in Torah and Halachah, but they are Ketanim in Maddah and Sechel. But it's more than that. As the Rambam said, the lack of knowledge in Maddah produces a weaker understanding of God and religion too. The two concepts of Torah and Maddah are equally important. Torah without Maddah is defficient. And nothing has more clearly illustrated this than the events of the past year.

Those to the right have strayed so far from reality that they actually ‘pasken’ that reality is kefirah. But worse than this, the right is being merachek some of our smartest thinkers, people who simply cannot tolerate such stupidity. The Rambam spent his life trying to reconcile the science of his day with Torah, yet these people declare the science of our day to be kefirah!

But this is not evidence against Torah. This is not evidence against the Mesorah. This is the most incredible evidence for how right the Rambam was. Writing over Eight Hundred years ago, before real Science had even been invented, the Rambam understood the truth.

I’m not saying that every Godol needs a PhD in Physics and Chemistry, of course not. But at least they need to understand the basics! Otherwise they will look like fools. In fact, they do look like fools.

But this drashah is not about bashing the Gedolim. Really.

Let’s look in the other direction, to the left. What do we see?

We see some very smart people, some very knowledgeable people, who have become very disillusioned with Orthodox Judaism. They have discovered that Breishis can’t be literally true. They say that parts of Shemos and the Neviim can’t be true. Their whole lives they have been fed the extremist fundamentalist conception of Judaism. They were told Modern Orthodoxy is treif, and that the Rambam was wrong in the Moreh Nevuchim for trying to reconcile Science and Torah. When these people finally realize that a global flood is not possible, or that there were many people alive 10,000 years ago, they just can’t comprehend it. Bit by bit they slip away, rejecting one core principle of Judaism after another. Eventually many of them become hard core skeptics, rejecting all of Judaism. Some even end up as Atheists. Think about this for a second: We have graduates of our finest chareidi yeshivot ending up as atheists! This isn’t 1850 with the rise of the Haskalah and emancipation. This is 2006, with a kosher pizza store on every corner. Is this not mind-boggling?!

These people have become ‘Gedolim’ in Maddah and Sechel, but in the process they have become Ketanim in Torah and Mitzvot. Do they have any answers to how the Universe was created? What’s the fundamental basis of current reality? (It’s turtles all the way down!). Can they explain consciousness, free will or why anyone should be moral? Do they have any mehalch in life, any reason to do anything other than ‘eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we will die’? Because they have discovered some untruths in Orthodoxy, they end up throwing everything away.

Some of these people end up being Orthoprax by choice. They keep the Halachah, not because they believe in Torah MinHashamayim, but because of the positive benefits it can provide. This is looked down upon by the Orthodox world. Ironically, these people may be closer to the truth than the right wing, who think that the Halchahot were given by God ‘just because’. The Rambam has very strong words on the subject:

THERE are persons who find it difficult to give a reason for any of the commandments, and consider it right to assume that the commandments and prohibitions have no rational basis whatever. They are led to adopt this theory by a certain disease in their soul, the existence of which they perceive, but which they are unable to discuss or to describe. For they imagine that these precepts, if they were useful in any respect, and were commanded because of their usefulness, would seem to originate in the thought and reason of some intelligent being. But as things which are not objects of reason and serve no purpose, they would undoubtedly be attributed to God, because no thought of man could have produced them.

According to the theory of those weak-minded persons, man is more perfect than his Creator. For what man says or does has a certain object, whilst the actions of God are different; He commands us to do what is of no use to us, and forbids us to do what is harmless. Far be this ! On the contrary, the sole object of the Law is to benefit us. Thus we explained the Scriptural passage," for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day" (Deut. vi. 24). Again," which shall hear all those statutes (hukkim), and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (ibid. iv. 6). He thus says that even every one of these" statutes" convinces all nations of the wisdom and understanding it includes. But if no reason could be found for these statutes, if they produced no advantage and removed no evil, why then should he who believes in them and follows them be wise, reasonable, and so excellent as to raise the admiration of all nations ?

But the truth is undoubtedly as we have said, that every one of the six hundred and thirteen precepts serves to inculcate some truth, to remove some erroneous opinion, to establish proper relations in society, to diminish evil, to train in good manners or to warn against bad habits.

I can’t think of any attitude in contemporary Orthodoxy which bothers me more than the ‘We do the Mitzvos because we are commended to’ attitude. What a ridiculous notion! How any intelligent adult can believe in this nonsensical attitude is beyond me. Could there be deep mystical effects behind the mitzvos, rather than anything rational? It’s possible, but I doubt it. Sure, there is great value in the mystical tradition, and even value in thinking of mystical symbolisms when performing the Mitzvot. But this is not the core of the Mitzvot. They are not magic tricks. Davening isn’t magic spells. If you don’t understand why you are doing something then it has very little value.

The Rambam was probably one of the most (if not the most) influential figures in Judaism in the last two thousand years, possibly three thousand. Even in the backwardness of the middle ages, the Rambam was a shining beacon of rationality. Of course he was handicapped by the science of his times. But even with that he was still so far ahead of his time that even today his works are still fresh. If anything, interest and respect for the Rambam has grown over the centuries rather than diminished.

When one reads the Moreh Nevuchim one can’t help but be astounded by what the Rambam was attempting to do. Reading the Friedlander or Pines translations can be difficult, and I certainly wouldn’t give much credence to any Feldheim or Artscroll books which may contain interpreted snippets of the Rambam’s thought.

Recently I have been reading ‘Maimonides: A Guide For Today’s Perplexed’ by Kenneth Seeskin. This books is AMAZING. OUTSTANDING. It’s a small, inexpensive work, by a (Jewish) philosophy professor, but it reads like the most moiradick sefer I have ever seen. If I translated this book into Hebrew and published it as a Sefer written by a Rav you couldn’t tell the difference (except maybe with some of the ‘heretical’ bits). It’s that good.

(Holy Hyrax and others: BUY THIS BOOK. READ THIS BOOK. NOW!)

The Rambam didn’t have a mesorah for most of his philosophy. He even admits as much himself. He figured it out by thinking hard. He even say’s he got ‘flashes’ of inspiration, in a process ‘similar to prophecy’. I think I know what he is talking about.

To me, its clear that God exists. And if God exists, then there is a reason He created us. It is also clear to me that the current, standard official ‘Orthodox’ theology is not all true. I debated with a skeptic last week who insisted on saying that ‘Orthodoxy is NOT true’. But that’s a very negative way of presenting things. Certainly, not everything in Orthodoxy is 100% true. But that’s a long way from saying Orthodoxy is not true.

I am grateful that I experienced life in Chareidi Yeshivot and in the Chareidi world. Instead of seeing the Chareidim as beings from another planet, I can relate to them and their culture. I know what a true shabbos feels like, or learning shtark for hours at a stretch. There is truth in there. Maybe not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but certainly some truth.

I am also grateful for all the debates I have had with the skeptics, even the militant anti-religious skeptics. They have taught me so much.

It’s clear to me that both Science and ‘Torah’ are true, or rather that both contain truth. They both come from God, they MUST reconcile. But that doesn’t mean that I’m going to kvetch unlikely peshattim in Breishis, or come up with ridiculous scenarios in Shemos.

Is it possible that the Scientists are wrong? Yes, I suppose it’s remotely possible. Is it possible that God doesn’t actually exist? Yes, I suppose it’s remotely possible. It’s also remotely possible that we are all just brains in a jar, or maybe just you are. But one can’t live one’s life worrying about the remotely possible. The Truth is right there in front of us. We only need to open our eyes to see it.

We have a very difficult task ahead of us. It’s nothing less than the deconstruction and then reconstruction of Judaism to make it fit with the latest knowledge. And of course, as the latest knowledge is continually improving, that means it’s a continuous process of deconstruction and reconstruction. There is no other way. A static Judaism worked for 1,500 years of exile, but only in a static world. In a dynamic world, Judaism must be dynamic also.

Even though the Rambam lived 800 years ago, his approach still resonates today, perhaps even more than ever.

On Thursday nights I attend an advanced Rambam shiur. This week we studied how the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim interpreted the Maaseh Merkava as an allegory to Aristotelian Metaphysics. At first, this depressed me greatly. If the Rambam could go to great lengths to invent such a bogus peshat, what credibility could he have? But after thinking about it later (and due in no small part to my Rebbe’s reply), I realized that I was again falling into the fundamentalist inspired trap of only thinking in black and white. Of course not every word in the Moreh Nevuchim is 100% true. But that doesn’t mean it’s all false.

Some people might question how any of this is different from Reform or Conservative Judaism. Didn’t those movements have exactly the same goals? And even worse, haven’t those movements proven to be abject failures? This is a tough question. You could claim the Rambam was a Reformer. Some people claim that Chazal were huge reformers. There is nothing wrong with reform per se, as long as it’s Leshem Shamayim, and performed due to a desire for the emmes. Certainly, some of the original leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements had the right motivations. Some of these people could even be called ‘Gedolim’. But the vast majority of the laity was interested for other reasons. They wanted out of the Ghetto and wanted to be rid of the restrictions of Halachot. I believe that many of the skeptics here and elsewhere are not looking for that. What they are looking for is a passionate Judaism that they can believe in.

I don’t think the Rambam has all the answers, but reading Seeskin’s summary of the Moreh Nevuchim has convinced me that he’s on the right path. Right now, it’s more of a ‘flash’ than something I can articulate clearly. It’s a sense that behind every simplistic understanding of Judaism (e.g. God dictated every word of the Torah to Moshe), there’s a different, much more subtle, yet equally inspiring reality, that is not in conflict with the facts at all. It’s clear that the Chareidi world is unable to accept such a reality. It’s equally clear that much of what the Rambam says in the Moreh Nevuchim couldn’t be accepted by the Chareidi masses either. But that’s not a flaw in Judaism per se. It’s the unfortunate consequence of 1,000 years of ghetto-ization.

Rather than complaining about how distorted Orthodox Judaism has become, we must start building a new version of Orthodox Judaism, based primarily on the Rambam, but also on other contemporary thinkers such as Rav Kook, RYBS and similar. We will not shirk from any established fact. We will not stoop to apologetics or kiruv clownliness. I think we can build something which makes sense. I think we can become Gedolim in Science AND in Torah.

That’s our goal and that’s our mission.

Scoff, be skeptical, call us heretics; we don’t mind. We need the criticisms and the debates from both the right and the left, because that’s the only way to grow. While stinging and uncomfortable at times, the comments of Mis-nagid to the left and Anonymous to the right are equally valuable to us. We also need the advice and insights from those few people who are on the same path as us, especially David G. Boruch Hashem for all these people, I don’t know what we would do without them. It’s also clear to me that I’m not just a student in this endeavor, but in fact a teacher. One of my ‘talmidim’ last week told me that it’s because of me that he’s still frum.

There really is no other option for us. It’s impossible to ignore science and history. But it’s equally impossible to become atheists or deists. We are heirs to a three thousand year old tradition. A tradition that changed the world. A tradition that has an incredible amount of truth in it. Does Buddhism contain truth? I’m sure it does. But I’m not a Buddhist! God put me on this earth for a reason, and placed me in an Orthodox Jewish setting for a reason. My goal is to take the tradition that I have been handed and make the most out of it.

The fundamentalists who refuse to budge from their infantile perceptions don’t trouble me so much. In fact I pity them and their lack of comprehension. I also greatly admire their commitment and passion. We have much to learn from them in this regard.

The skeptics who have thrown everything away don’t trouble me so much either. It saddens me that they couldn’t hang on to anything at all. I admire their commitment to the truth, but fear that they have gone too far, many to the point of no return. They threw out Orthodox Judaism, and then they threw out Judaism, and then they threw out God. They didn't just throw out the baby with the bath-water, they threw out everything with the bath water. But the saddest thing of all is that they didn’t have anything to replace it all with. They are now lost and adrift, in a sea of pop culture and nihilism. Who are they going to look to for inspiration and guidance?

Fellow seekers and talmidim, we are fortunate to have guidance and inspiration in our quest. Maybe not from the current crop of ‘Gedolim’, but certainly from a host of other sources, both ancient and contemporary. Our guiding lights in this endeavor will include the following:

First and foremost, and without equal, the Rambam.
Second, and almost without equal, Rav Kook.
Third, the Rav and his talmidim.

Fourth, other recent and contemporary thinkers, including:

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Rabbi Umberto Cassutto
Rabbi Eliezer Berkovitz
Rabbi AJ Heschel

… and many others.

Is this a dangerous quest? Maybe. But there is no other option here. Can this be done in the public eye, without being branded as heretics, or ‘not Orthodox’? I’m not sure. We’ll have to see. It’s certainly not our intent to induce any emunah doubts in anyone. If you are comfortable where you are, but are concerned that you might get emunah doubts, then the OCCK is not for you.

We are looking for a mehalech in life. We are guided by 3000 years of Torah, but also by 3000 years of Maddah. There is no other way. Which one takes precedence in any particular issue? The question is flawed. Since God created both, it’s not a question of one taking precedence over the other.

It’s a question of what the emmes is. And we’re on a mission to find out.

Have a shavuoh tov.

Skeptical about Shemos? Read on…

2006-02-19T22:27:00.000-08:00

Warning: This post is a potential emunah threat. This post is not for small children or naïve people from Lakewood. If you have no doubt that all of Breishis is literally true, then you can read on, because clearly nothing anyone says is ever going to affect your emunah in any way. On the other hand, if you have been persuaded that Breishis is not quite literally true, but think Shemos is fine, then maybe you should go read Hirhurim or Cross Currents instead. This post is only for those who already have doubts about Shemos.

Clearly, it would be remiss not to talk about Shemos. I have been putting it off for a number of reasons, including:

• I am not as fluent in history and archeology as I am in basic science
• It’s much more fun to argue about global floods and dinosaurs
• The stakes are way too high in Shemos

But we can’t put it off any longer. Last week, Rabbi Neil Gillman’s ‘dvar torah’ in the Jewish Week basically laid out the skeptical approach to Shemos: There is some basic element of truth to it, but as the story got retold and retold over the generations the facts became rather exaggerated'. I guess that’s what most Conservative Jews hold, but as Mis-nagid says, Joseph Smith probably did wear a hat, so that view of hisory isn't very useful.

So, let’s investigate the issues with Shemos. First, let’s discuss them purely objectively from an impartial perspective, and at the end we’ll talk about Faith. The basic assumption for this discussion is that God exists and that He interacts with the world. If you are an atheist or a deist, then clearly the key religious elements of Shemos are not possible, whether the rest of it is historically accurate or not.

There are five main topics to discuss:

1. The Plagues
2. The Escape of 2 million people
3. Kriyat Yam Suf & Other Miracles (Man etc)
4. Revelation at Sinai
5. Conquest of Canaan

(Yes, I know the conquest is not in Shemos, but we might as well address it now.)

1. The Plagues
There have been numerous attempts to explain the plagues in a naturalistic way. Indeed, the plagues themselves are mostly the typical kind of thing you get in Egypt, and even the ones that aren’t, can seemingly be explained fairly simply. For example, the Nile turns red each year due to algae, so maybe ‘dam’ means blood red rather than actual blood. Most explanations falter at the last plague, but I have even seen a naturalistic explanation for that too. For a believer in God though, the issue with the plagues is not so much how they could have happened, but whether history records them as having happened. We have no problems with miracles, as long as the miracle is as recorded in the Torah, and you don’t have to invent a bunch of very strange ‘after the fact’ miracles to explain away the total lack of evidence, or even opposing evidence, as with the flood. So, is it feasible that these plagues happened to Egypt and left no evidence? There is the famous ‘Ipuwer Manuscript’ which seems to talk about the plagues, and it is understandable that the Egyptians did not write about them much. Plus, the plagues would not really have left much geological or archeological evidence.

In summary, the emunah threat from the plagues is (relatively) low. You could go with either a naturalistic explanation or a miraculous one, and be okay.

2. The Escape
The Torah recounts that all the Bnei Yisrael, including an Erev Rav escaped from Egypt. Shortly afterwards the Torah counts the males as being about 600,000, which would imply a total population of around 2 million. This means that about 2 million people (ex slaves + hangers on) left Egypt suddenly. This is highly unlikely. First of all, this would have been a gigantic number by the standards in those days. The entire global population was much less than today. Secondly the movement of such a large number of people strains credibility. The Torah mentions many miracles, but it does not seem to imply that the movement of 2 million people out of Egypt is one of them. Even worse, such a gigantic event would surely have been recorded somewhere (besides the Torah), yet there is no trace of this anywhere else in recorded history

There is really no good way around this problem. From a rational perspective, the Torah’s account here is not very credible.

In summary: Emunah Threat very high

3. Kriyat Yam Suf & Other Miracles
I don’t really see any problems here, apart from the impossible numbers. God can do miracles if He wants to. There are also naturalistic explanations for the kriyat yam suf, the manna, and most of the other miracles too, though that approach would still require you to kvetch the text rather a lot.

In summary: Emunah Threat medium.

4. Revelation at Sinai
For a believer in God, it seems natural to assume that God could and maybe would communicate with His creation. Or, at the very least, would enable His creation (i.e. man) to intuit or become Divinely Inspired to figure out the goal in life, and the way to reach that goal. The story of Sinai does sound like a typical volcanic eruption story though, which is a little troubling. Then again, none of the other volcano stories finished up with the 10 commandments being given, so that was definitely a first.

In summary: Emunah Threat low.

5.Conquest of Canaan
Archeological evidence does not corroborate the Torah’s account of a massive invasion and conquest of Canaan. Archeologists debate about how much truth there is to the Biblical account, but as the Torah’s numbers are impossible anyway from a rational perspective, nobody takes a huge scale invasion of 2 million people very seriously. The evidence here seems to be strong, but archeology is kinda fuzzy, plus the full details of the conquest are in Nach, not the Torah, so I’ll just rate this one a low emunah threat.

Summary
Overall the shemos story loses credibility for two primary reasons:

1. The number of people involved is in itself not credible, considering population sizes at that time and the issues surrounding moving 2 million people quickly out of Egypt.
2. The scale and magnitude of the events would have left some record somewhere, in either archeological or other historical documents. There is none. The Torah and even more so the Midrashim only make this problem worse by implying that the whole world knew of these events. Maybe you can say Egyptians didn’t record anything because they had been defeated, but why didn’t any other nations record something?

Approaches
There are a number of approaches to these problems, mostly pretty similar to the approaches in Breishis, but with some twists.

1. Ness/Nissayon
Everything in this story that is not explainable by (or is in conflict with) Science, Archeology, History etc. was/is a Ness and a Nissayon. This doesn’t work as well here as in Breishis, since with Breishis the Ness/Nissayonists have some slight crutches to lean on – the Gemarah that Adam was created fully formed, the notion that the Mabul waters were ‘magical’ and thus didn’t leave normal traces. With Shemos however, why would there be no evidence of such a monumental set of events? Did Hashem remove all traces of documentation or whatever davkah as a nIssayon? Seems very strange.

2. Myth/Moshol
We can say that all these events, whilst having a kernel of truth are basically mythology. However this is very difficult. While it may be acceptable in Breishis, it’s much harder to say this in Shemos, since the Torah was supposedly given right after these events occurred, so the Bnei Yisrael would surely have know what actually happened. How would they have accepted a mythological/moshological account of the current events? Unless they knew it to be exaggerated and they didn’t mind. Not a very credible peshat here, unless you say the Torah was written many years later, when people had forgotten the original events. Of course this doesn’t do much good for the Kiruv Clown Kuzari Proof.

3. Kiruv/Kvetch
The kvetchers would say that we can take the account non literally in places. For example, some people say that ‘eleph’ in the census does not mean thousand, but instead means a family clan, or maybe an army troop. Kvetching actually works better in Shemos than it does in Breishis. I am strongly opposed to the whole ‘local flood’ theory in Breishis, since that is clearly not the sense of the Noach story. A story about a man, a small boat, some pets and a local flood is not the story of the Mabul. However in Shemos it’s a bit different. A story about 20,000 slaves escaping from Egypt and then having a revelation from God at Sinai is still one heck of a story. So while kvetching would seem to be somewhat disingenuous, it doesn’t do as much violence to the overall story here.

Conclusion
There is of course much more to be said on this subject. From a rational perspective, the story in Shemos is not credible, by normal standards that we all use in other areas of every day life. It’s not just a problem of absence of evidence. Clearly, the absence of evidence is enough here to be counted as evidence of absence. The big question is, how strong is the evidence against the story? Strong enough to counter faith or not strong enough? The answer to this question will be different for each person.

My own point of view is that I will have faith as long as there is not hard evidence against it. I think there is hard evidence against the 2 million number, and so I cannot really accept that at this current time. Once you downsize the numbers, the problem of lack of evidence goes away, since a small escape would not have had global ramifications. The rest of the story (miracles etc) is basically okay (with a few tweaks). Of course the text still has to be dealt with. What I do with the text is the subject of another post. (Hint: It’s not kiruv kvetch.)

Mussar Shmmoze
I would like to end off this piece of skeptical thinking with a mussar shmooz.

Rabbosai, the Ribbono shel Olom put us on this Earth for a reason. We may not have all the answers, and everything may not add up. But if God exists (and we believe it’s likely that He does), then it’s unlikely He just created us and walked away. This implies that He is watching and listening to everything that goes on over here, or at least He might be. Imagine if you really, really felt this. I mean really, really, really felt this. Could you be mevatel even one second? Could you be rude even one time to your spouse, or to your parents? Could you do one averah? Even if you are an agnostic or weak atheist, if this really was a possibility could you possibly ignore it? I don’t think so. In fact, if you really, really, really, really felt it, you would probably be paralyzed with fear and wouldn’t be able to do anything at all, never mind any aveiros. As many even very frum yidden are quite comfortable doing at least some aveiros, it’s clear that very few people even amongst the maaminim really feel God’s presence, certainly not all the time. May it be God’s will that we feel His presence, if not all the time, at least some of the time.

Another mehalech in Noach?

2006-02-17T09:34:00.000-08:00

There is another option with Noach, for those who really like to think that Noach actually existed. I suppose you could say there was someone called Noach, who was miraculously saved from a devastating flood by God. Why is the Torah interested in the story of Noach? I guess because he was the ancestor of Avraham. Or maybe for some other lessons.

Of course to fit with science, the drama of the whole Noach story is totally gone. It was just a flood like many others, many survived and many did not. Plus there probably were not many animals on the boat, unless he had his pets and maybe some livestock with him. Probably also was a very very small boat, not something with more square footage than a Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier. Also the 120 years worth of building is not likely, considering that nobody in those days lived much past 70.

According to this interpretation, you get to keep Noach as a real person. However you have to say that the Torah totally exaggerated the story beyond all proportions. Which is worse? Saying the Torah contains mythology to teach some ethical lessons, or saying the Torah contains exaggerated stories?

According to the Mahartzu (as quoted by R Gil), there is an opinion that Breishis was actually written by the Avos (and Noach and whomever) and then included into the Torah by God (or Moshe on command of God). So I guess you can say that Noach was guilty of the exaggeration. And maybe we shouldn’t really blame him, because from Noach’s perspective, you can imagine things looked pretty bad. Maybe he was suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

But if God knew the whole story was an exaggeration, caused by Noach’s PTSD, why didn’t He edit it out? I guess the answer is obvious – How can you question the mind of God?

And if you believe any of that, I have a furry lemur here who has something very important to tell you.

Noach Lo Hoyoh Veloh Yihyeh

2006-02-16T00:42:00.000-08:00

The folks over on Avodah are still debating the Mabul. One guy has just discovered that there may have been a local flood in Mesopotamia about 6000 years ago! Yippeeee! So it must all be true then. Shame that the story of Noach actually describes a global wipeout, with every living animal on a boat, and then complete repopulation of the world afterwards.

Do you know how many words Noach speaks in the Chumash? 24. That's it. Just the blessings and the curses for his sons, right at the end of the story. There is plenty of God speaking to Noach, but Noach gets no lines at all. Plus, if you would actually bother to read the epic of Gilgamesh, the paralels are striking. (Kiruv Clowns: See! Noach must be true!).

When are you guys going to get it?!

From a rational perspective, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

There was no boat. There were no animals. There was no Noach. There was no global wipeout. The evidence is clear. And guess what? Believing Noach existed is not actually one of the ikkarim. I just checked. Twice.

Now, if you want to claim the whole thing is a ness, and God cleaned up all the evidence and then planted false evidence just to test our emunah then fine. Go ahead.

Personally, I would say it's just as logical to claim that Zoboomafoo planted all the evidence. But if you want to have faith in a bizzarre set of miracles then go right ahead. But at least admit it's all faith. There's no reason anywhere to be found.

Classic Mail Jewish 1994

2006-01-04T13:25:00.000-08:00

From: Marc Shapiro
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 22:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Science and Torah

I have read with interest the recent discussions re. Science and Torah. It is, however, somewhat unusual that people who appear to be so called modern-Orthodox are presenting Haredi-fundamentalist positions. I would therefore like to share with people what I believe is the Modern Orthodox approach on some of the issues being discussed. I am led to do so after a conversation I had with someone a few weeks ago who confessed that he could no longer be religious since he didn't believe. I asked what he meant when he said he didn't believe and he said that he didn't believe that the world was some 5000 years old and that the entire world was destroyed in the Flood. As he put it, there are hundreds of species of animals and insects in Australia, New Guinea and the rainforest. Did they just get on a boat and sail from Mt. Ararat to their current domiciles? Not to mention the fact that they could never have lived in Noah's area to begin with.

What I said to this man, and what I say now, is what I believe to be the proper response. It is also the one shared by all of the so called Modern Orthodox scholars and intellectuals I have spoken to concerning this question.

This approach is presented in their lectures on Bible and history at the various universities they teach at. If you go to the Association for Jewish Studies convention, where over half the attendees are now Orthodox, you will get the same answer from just about anyone you ask. I am not saying that everyone who is considered a Modern Orthodox philosopher, Bible Scholar or historian shares this view, but certainly the overwhelming number do and everyone I have spoken to agrees. I mention this only to point out that although Modern Orthodox people on this line seem to be advocating one position, the so-called intellectuals of this community have a different position. Understanding this will both broaden the horizons of Modern Orthodox Jews and also allow many of them not to feel intellectually dishonest or consider the Bible simply a collection of fairy tales.

If you ask these Modern Orthodox scholars about the flood (and the Genesis story) you will be told that they are not to be taken literally. Obviously the world is more than five thousand years old and there was never a flood which destroyed the entire world, although this doesn't mean that there was never a localized flood. Of course, by now there is no dispute among Modern Orthodox that the world is billions of years old and I would say that to deny this would ipso facto mean that one can no longer be considered "modern". However, my major purpose here is to discuss the flood since this was not dealt with adequately on Mail Jewish. Most people are probably aware that a number of rishonim took the whole garden of Eden story allegorically and R. Kook writes that it makes no difference for us if in truth there was no Garden of Eden Can this insight be applied to the Flood?

Well the answer which is offered by Modern Orthodox scholars is that the Flood can only be understood by comparison with the Gilgamesh epic and it is in comparing the two that we see the real significance of the Torah's story, which is not trying to teach us history but important lessons about God and his relationship to man. Understood in this fashion, what is significant is the inner meaning of the Torah and not its outer texture which was never meant to be taken literally, and was able to be appreciated much better by the early Israelites who were aware of the Gilgamesh story. The exact point about the inner meaning being important, and not the so-called history, is made by all scholars who have discussed the allegory of the Garden of Eden.

When the flood story is understood in this light (and I cannot elaborate on all the details here) it is obvious that questions such as how the kangaroo got to Australia miss the point.(Although medieval scholars did not discuss the flood in this way, it is perhaps possible to see a precedent for the Modern Orthodox approach in the comments of Joseph ibn Caspi on the rabbinic phrase "The Torah speaks in the Language of Men." His comments are analyzed by Isadore Twersky in his article "Joseph Ibn Kaspi: Portrait of a Medieval Jewish Intellectual," in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature vol. 2.

It is further interesting that in adopting this approach, Modern Orthodox scholars are doing something they usually don't do. Usually they argue that their insight into secular subjects allows them to have a better appreciation of the Torah than otherwise would be the case. However, with regard to the Flood story, they are saying that it is literally impossible to understand what the Torah is talking about with knowledge of Gilgamesh. Obviously, the traditional commentators are of very little help in this regard. Now why is it that Modern Orthodox scholars cannot take the story literally? The answer if very simple and I'm sure most people know what I'm going to say. To believe that the entire world was destroyed some four thousand years ago and that we and all the animals are descended from Noah and those in his ark (similarly to believe that we are all descended from a first man named Adam who lived 5000 years ago) is not merely to dispute a certain historical fact, or to deny the existence of say Alexander, Caesar or George Washington. On the contrary, it is this and much more. One who believes in the flood story literally (or in the five thousand year history of the world) rejects the entire historical enterprise. He denies history itself and places himself outside of time. It is pointless to even discuss, never mind argue; with someone who adopts this view since there can be no point of reference between the fundamentalist and the historically minded. Indeed, it makes no sense for the fundamentalist to even attempt to show the historical veracity of what he believes, since as I said above, his very position is a rejection of the validity of all historical meaning. As such any discussion is pointless.

Since Modern Orthodoxy has always accepted the value of history, it is no surprise that the flood story is seen very differently in its scholarly circles than in Haredi circles. If people ask the professors at Bar Ilan's Bible department or history or philosophy departments about the flood and other things the answers will obviously be very different than what is given at traditional yeshivot (I've spoken to a number of the former about this and other issues, primarily about how best to present this material about the flood when teaching undergraduates) Of course, this will not surprise anyone who has studied at this or similar institutions.

To give an illustration which might be helpful, At Bar Ilan's Bible department it is acceptable to engage in Higher Criticism of the Prophets and Hagiographa whereas this is considered heresy at the yeshivot. I think the average Modern Orthodox Jew would also regard this as heresy and Prof. Uriel Simon (currently at Harvard) recently recalled to me the controversy such study created in the early years of the University when members of other faculties wished to ban it as heretical.. I mention this only to point out that there is a difference between what the so called Modern Orthodox intellectuals are doing and what the so called Modern Orthodox laity believe. It seems to me that this needs to be brought more into line.

Marc Shapiro

From: harry.weiss@24stex.com (Harry Weiss)
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 11:39:12 -0700
Subject: Flood

I found Marc Shapiro's posting about the flood upsetting. If there was a legitimate basis to question whether the flood actually happened it would have been discussed thousands of years ago. This was the case regarding the book of Job.

It is not a question of being Modern Orthodox vs. non modern. Denying the truth to a part of the Torah is denying the Divinity of the Torah which is absolute K'firah (heresy). These views are not Orthodox in any way. Being Modern Orthodox means fully accepting 100% of the Torah and Ol Malchut Shamaim (the reign of Heaven), while living as a part of modern society.

That fact that Shapiro (or I) cannot fully understand all of the facts behind the flood does not in any way lessen their accuracy. It just indicates our lack of knowledge.

I also question whether denying the Truth of any part of the Torah belongs on this list.

Harry

From: Marc Shapiro
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 22:42:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Flood

In response to a couple of private letters, I would like to clarify a few things I wrote in my posting re. the flood, and I hope this will obviate the need to deal with this further, unless there is a significant need.

First, I do not deny that God could, if he wanted, have created the world 5755 years ago, created the fossils, signs of civilization etc. For that matter, he could have created the world 30 years ago and put memories into our minds and created earlier books, buildings etc. However, the best of our religious thinkers have taught us that we need not think in this fashion. We need not adopt Tertullian's credo quia impossible -- I believe because it is impossible. (Actually Tertullian really said certum est quia impossible est -- It is certain becaaue it is impossible).

It is precisely because of this that great sages interpreted the Garden of Eden story allegorically and refused to take literally aggadot. Judaism doesn't require us to leave our intellects at the door. E. g. Obviously it is possible for God to lift Mount Sinai over the head of the Israelites, but must we believe this literally? The whole endeavor to allegorize aggadot is based on the fact that God (and the world) do not behave in a completely outrageous fashion. We don't understand God, but we have an idea about how he interacts in this world, at least that's what Maimonides and his followers thought. Why else reject demons, astrology and other superstitions. Couldn't God have made the world this way? Obviously yes, but the real question is, is it likely that he did so and must we believe this. Maimonides answers no, and I think modern Orthodox Jews agree, although Haredim probably do not.

In my original posting I stated that believing in the truth of the flood (and a 5000 year old world) is more extreme than denying the existence of George Washington. Someone asked me if it isn't the case that we have more evidence for George Washington than for denying the flood. The answer is obviously no. We know about Washington because of one type of evidence, historical, and we have a great deal of this. However, the entire received body of knowledge in just about every field of human study is dependant on the fact that the world is not 5000 years old and that there was not a flood. These facts are the fundamentals of biology, physics, astronomy, history, anthropology, geology, paleontology, zoology, linguistics etc. etc. etc. Belief in a 5000 year old world and a flood which destroyed the world 4000 years ago is a denial of all human knowledge as we know it. It is a retreat into a world of belief, rather than one based on any sort of fact, and one who believes can believe anything he want to. The fundamentalist is not able to prove that Washington lived, only to say that he believes that Washington lives. It is because Modern Orthodox do not wish to live in a world in which the entire accumulated knowledge of all civilization is to be thrown out the window that they cannot take this literally. Pay attention to what I am saying, it is impossible to make sense of anything in this world, in any field of science and many of the social sciences by adopting fundamentalist position. If people wish to live this sort of existence, fine, but one can't pretend that there is any sort of compelling reason for anyone else to. They certainly shouldn't try to put forth all sorts of pseudo-science to convince people of the correctness of their view. I think that when it comes to science, history etc, people would prefer the stated views of the great scholars (and the not so great scholars) at every university in the world. Since none of these people are fundamentalists, doesn't it make sense for the fundamentalists not even to try and touch these areas?

It is worth noting, I think, that although fundamentalism in this country has always been accompanied by anti-intellectualism, this has not been the case in the Jewish world. In fact, with the exception of some Hasidic trends, anti-intellectualism has no roots in recent Jewish history. The people advocating fundamentalist positions are the most intellectual we have. People often say that they can hold the positions they do because they are ignorant of science and history. This is incorrect. It is not that they are ignorant of all these fields; it is rather that they reject them. There is a difference. The proper word to describe this is obscurantism. And I for one don't think it will last forever. One can only go against the obvious facts of our day for so long. Rabbis could declare that Copernicus's views were heretical for only so long before the weight of evidence ran over them. That will happen with fundamentalism, because if they don’t change, no one with any education will still be listening to them.

One final point which is also relevant, since every thing I have been saying touches on how one is to study the Torah. It appears to me that the traditional approach of Bible study is in many respects immature, at least in our day. What was adequate 50 years ago is now no longer so. I remember from my high school days that to study a text in more depth meant to read more commentators. That is, one increased the information intake, but the method of analysis and the forms of questions asked didn't change. When I got to college and studied the same sources again, I was amazed at how the text could come alive, and questions and issues were dealt with that never even entered my mind in high school. I remember speaking to a number of yeshiva students and they were so excited since in Yeshivah Bible was taught in such an immature, sometimes juvenile, fashion whereas Dostoevsky et al were critically analyzed by the new approaches in literature. It was only when they reached college and happened to take the course we did (offered by Reuven Kimelman) that they saw the depth and beauty of the Biblical stories. I realize that it is probably impossible to implement these approaches in high school but wouldn’t it be great if we could apply the same rigor to the Torah (I am referring to the narratives) that we do to western literature? We need not be stuck holding onto only medieval forms of exegesis. The world of exegesis hasn't stood still, and the same insights which modern theories of literature and modern ways of reading text offer us about the great works, will assist us in understanding the Torah. I think in many respects this was Hirsch's message, that Torah, and everything about it, need not be considered shallow when compared to secular studies. This was also R. Hayyim's reason, or one of them, for his analytic method, to show that Talmud study is just as rigorous as secular study. Unfortunately, we need a new Hirsch and a new R. Hayyim, since traditional Bible study in our day does not have the rigor of academic disciplines and we will not be able to attract the best minds if we do not do something about it. Either they will prefer Talmud study, which remains rigorous, or they will choose to study Western literature (or other fields), and Bible study will be left for the less skilled, who are only able to tell you about one more commentary and one more peshat, those who cannot see the forest because of the trees, that is, those who miss the big picture of the Torah.

Marc Shapiro

RYGB gets destroyed. It's a shame.

2006-01-04T00:04:00.000-08:00

The comments on the post I referenced previously from RYGB is really interesting. I don't think I'm being biased if I say that Saul Shajnfeld totally destroys RYGBs arguments. RYGB is an intelligent fellow, so what's going on?

The answer my friends is simple. If you are defending the Torah's account of pre-history, you are doing so out of faith. You are certainly not doing so out of Scientific or Historical accuracy, because if you knew diddly squat about either of those two concepts you would realize that Breishis could not possibly be literally correct.

Defending Breishis out of faith is all very well and good, but if that's your position here is some advice:

Don't get into arguments about facts and reasons! You can't possibly win. Don't be stupid. If your position is based on faith then admit that and move on. Holding a position based on faith, contrary to all evidence, and then trying to argue your case based on evidence is the height of stupidity.

Best closing lines:

RYGB: Indeed, the *only* uninterrupted, ongoing, no reconstruction necessary, no interpretation necessary, chronology of world history is our mesorah.

Saul: With all due respect, I find your responses absurd and an insult to your readers' intelligence, and regret to inform you that you appear to be brain-dead.

OK, so the ad hominem was a bit much, but you can see his frustration building up. I guess some advice for Saul is in order too:

There is no point in getting frustrated when arguing with hard core fundamentalists about Breishis. They are not interested in facts. As RYGB says clearly, their starting (and finishing) position is that Breishis is literally (or maybe slightly semi literally) true. Science and History must conform. No other options are acceptable.

Still, sometimes it can be funny watching the fundamentalists squirm to try and answer all the difficult questions. Very occasionally you can get a breakthrough. However it's often a hollow victory, because usually all that happens is that their entire emunah crumbles and they become a kofer, which was not the intended purpose of the debate. Well, at least not my intended purpose.

It's just a flesh wound local flood!

2006-01-03T14:03:00.000-08:00

The ‘Local Flood’ chevrah make a case for re-interpreting the word ‘Kol’ to mean ‘all the local’, rather than ‘global’. And I guess they do the same when it says ‘all the heavens’, ‘all the animals’ etc etc. Even though this is not at all implied from the text, let’s give them that poetic license (otherwise known as kefirah) for the moment.

However this still doesn’t help for a number of reasons:

1. The posuk says that from Shem Cham VeYefes ‘all the world was populated’. Even interpreting ‘all’ as meaning ‘all local’ this is very strange. Why would other survivors of the flood, and people from the surrounding unaffected areas not have repopulated the flood zone? Why just three sons of Noach?

2. Even from the perspective of the Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai, and even from the perspective of ‘Israelites’ at the time of Noach, or Avraham, the globe was larger than Mesopotamia. People knew of the Mediterranean, Egypt and the Far East. There were well established trade routes, and these civilizations, especially Egypt, have long fairly continuous histories and it’s clear that they were not all wiped out by a global flood 5000 years ago. So why would anyone have understood ‘all’ to mean ‘all local’ and found it convincing, or even true from their perspective? It was never true, even from their perspective.

3. God promises ‘never to destroy the entire world again’. However as we know now, there was only a small local flood. It would have appeared devastating to the local population, but wouldn’t have affected anyone in Egypt, southern Mediterranean, the UK, USA and Australia. Plus, since then there have been many devastating local floods, with the Tsunami last year killing 280,000 people alone. So what exactly was this promise about, and did God even keep it?

4. There is a hypothesis that the flood is a myth based on severe flooding circa 8000 years ago in the black sea. Another theory is that it is based on the end of the Ice Age. Of course neither of these theories fit with the dating or genealogies of the Torah, which was one of the big criticisms of Myth/Moshol, so you haven’t gained much by going with these theories. Also the Noach story can’t fit with the end of the Ice Age, since the boat technology and other technologies and social systems mentioned pre-Noach didn’t exist then.

Am I opposed to the existence of a guy called Noach in a boat with a few animals being saved by God? Of course not! However, after looking at all the available evidence, it just seems highly unlikely that the story of Noach is anything more than Myth/Moshol. Once you reinterpret it to fit with Science, about a small local flood with a guy in a boat with some animals, the story doesn't quite make so much sense anymore (not to mention not fitting with the text).

Of course some people say that about Sinai too, so maybe I should just keep quiet.

Local flood? Don't make me laugh

2005-12-31T21:23:00.000-08:00

Some people, even some intelligent people, insist that the story of Noach is scientifically compatible with a small, local flood. Many small floods happen all the time all over the planet, and these people claim that the flood of Noach was some small flood that happened in Mesopotamia 5000 years ago or thereabouts. Of course the surrounding countryside and population was fine, and presumably all the people at the edges of the flood zone survived, but one man in the middle of the flood zone (Noach) was miraculously saved in a boat, with a few animals.

Some also claim that the flood covered the entire area of population at that time, and thats why the Bible says 'all the earth'. However we know the flood didn't cover Egypt, which was certainly well populated at that time. And furthermore, the people in Mesopotamia would have been well aware of what happened in Egypt, as the biblical stories make clear. There were trade routes and traders travelling all round the region. So certainly no one would have been under the impression that 'all of civilization had been destroyed' had a flood just happened in Mesopotamia.

Apart from the fact that this is not how the story was traditionally read, or that this almost completely kills the drama and intent of the whole story, it doesn't fit with the text anyway. Here is the story of Noach. I have bolded the relevant words. How anyone can claim this story is describing a local flood is beyond me. Ness/Nissayon is almost more believable than that.

Genesis 6

1 And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah: 'The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; with rooms shalt thou make the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. 15 And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. 17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish. 18 But I will establish My covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.' 22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Genesis 7

1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation. 2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee seven and seven, each with his mate; and of the beasts that are not clean two [and two], each with his mate; 3 of the fowl also of the air, seven and seven, male and female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.' 5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. 6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the ground, 9 there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah. 10 And it came to pass after the seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 14 they, and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind, and every fowl after its kind, every bird of every sort. 15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh wherein is the breath of life. 16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God commanded him; and the LORD shut him in. 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bore up the ark, and it was lifted up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh perished that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth, and every man; 22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was in the dry land, died. 23 And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven; and they were blotted out from the earth; and Noah only was left, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8

1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; 2 the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually; and after the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters decreased. 4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. 6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made. 7 And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. 8 And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth; and he put forth his hand, and took her, and brought her in unto him into the ark. 10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11 And the dove came in to him at eventide; and lo in her mouth an olive-leaf freshly plucked; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; and she returned not again unto him any more. 13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dried. 14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry. 15 And God spoke unto Noah, saying: 16 'Go forth from the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. 17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee of all flesh, both fowl, and cattle, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may swarm in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.' 18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him; 19 every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, whatsoever moveth upon the earth, after their families; went forth out of the ark. 20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'

Genesis 9

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all. 4 Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man. 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; swarm in the earth, and multiply therein.' 8 And God spoke unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying: 9 'As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the fowl, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.' 12 And God said: 'This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow is seen in the cloud, 15 that I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.' 17 And God said unto Noah: 'This is the token of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth.'

18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth from the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These three were the sons of Noah, and of these was the whole earth overspread. 20 And Noah the husbandman began, and planted a vineyard. 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him. 25 And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said: Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be their servant. 27 God enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be their servant. 28 And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Nuts on Bechofer's Blog

2005-12-29T20:47:00.000-08:00

I couldn't believe this comment from some anonymous commenter on RYG Bechofers blog to 'Saul', who presented some reasonable arguments about Egyptian chronology and the Mabul:

Saul, you talk of mabul as moshol. Our entire plane of existence is only moshol. You and I certainly are only moshol as nothing exists except Hashem. The form of revelation given to "us" is a guide to apprehension of Emes - in particular Ichud Hashem. Your search is all in the wrong direction.

And please do not think that a "frum egyptologist" could ever prove anything about the truth of Mabul or Mitzrayim, which are truths regardless of papyri - regardless of video, if you could produce some - it only proves something about you.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes: I accept the mesorah as superior to my own senses and judgments.

Saul writes: "In case it is unclear, I am not arguing that the Torah is wrong. I am simply trying to encourage a proper interpretation of the Torah." What is clear to everyone besides you, Saul, is that you are arguing that the Torah has to fit the conclusions of other disciplines - history, science, whatever. But the Torah does not have to and never will. You think that you honor Torah by struggling to find a way to make it reasonable for you - but you are not honoring Torah, you are dishonoring it - you are honoring yourself, your intellect, your reason.

Saul writes: "They are following their own eyes and sense. Some of these people actually work in these fields and see the evidence for themselves. They do not have to hear it from others. You are telling them that they cannot believe what they see." Yes - that is precisely what I am telling them. Woe to those who have been misled by modern day school education or by "kiruv" - do you not know that the nature of our belief is to know that the Emes lies in our Mesorah and not in what you see? V'lo sossuru acharei levavchem v'acharei aneichem asher atem zonim achareihem. Saul, Saul - just sacrifice the ego of your own infallibility, relinquish your death grasp on your intellect, embrace emunoh.

I promise you: the observable world will always appear to be in conflict with Torah - v'idach peirusha.

The mind boggles.

Good Noach Kashye

2005-12-29T20:35:00.000-08:00

[Hat tip: S]

Saul Shanjfeld asks RYGB, concerning a literal understanding of the Noach story:

And how did Noach's sons, who knew how to make metal, read and write literature, evolve into illiterate bushmen with bones through their noses who beat on tree stumps?

The answer is poshut! When everyone magically flew through the air to the various regions of the world after the Tower of Bavel incident, the tremendous air pressure and g-forces caused them to forget everything they once knew, and they turned into ignorant bushmen. Or maybe it was kinda like a Blue Lagoon or Castaway situation - one or two people got sent to a remote location and they didn't have the smarts to pass on reading or writing to their kids. Or maybe they had kids but then they died shortly after that and so the kids were not educated. Or maybe the kids were the ones who were transported to the remote locations, and then they didn't have the education to begin with. See, it's not such a kashye at all! Either that, or it was a nes that Hashem specifically created to test our emunah.

And if you believe any of that, you need your head examined.

What The Gosse-Goons Don't Realize

2005-11-08T15:51:00.000-08:00

Here is a short list of serious problems with Gosse Theory i.e. That the world was created looking old. (Note that Gosses original theory that the world was created in a mature state isn't enough to answer the kashyes on Breishis, it needs to be supplemented by a whole bunch of weird miracles to make it work.)

It requires us to believe that G-d planted huge amounts of fake evidence.
It doesn’t actually fit with the text of Breishis anyway.
It doesn’t answer many of the questions regarding the Mabul, Migdal Bavel etc, or why the order of Creation is wrong.
It has no real basis in the Mesorah, and in fact the notion of G-d deceiving us in such a way runs counter to normative Judaism (Navi Sheker is different).
It kills any chance of rationally proving Sinai, since the nesayon theory can trump Sinai too.
It raises serious philosophical questions regarding rationality and reality, and makes rational reasoning very suspect, if not impossible.
It says, G-d would never lie to us in the Torah, but totally faked us out with his Creation, yet we know for a fact that only He was responsible for the Creation, yet there are many other plausible explanations for the Torah (e.g. Non Literal). In effect, you are more comfortable saying that G-d is a faker than saying that the fundamentalists are wrong. Weird priorities.
It will make me ridicule you mercilessly.

The problem with Gosse is not just that it makes G-d to be a faker (though that is bad enough). The problem is that it's an entirely arbitrary, unprovable solution, specifically invented to answer a contradiction, using the kind of reasoning that can be used to resolve any contradiction, at any time, ever. I can just as well use Gosse type reasoning to prove that Sinai didn't happen, or that Zoboomafoo is really our creator.

In other words, it's worthless.

Pottery & Paintings

2005-11-08T12:29:00.000-08:00

[Artwork courtesy of Hakodosh Boruch Hu]

Let's talk about pottery and paintings. There are many different pottery and painting styles from all over the world, and from many different eras. Australian aboriginal art is quite unique for example.

According to Gosse, Gosseleib and Gosse Student, any pottery and paintings pre 5766 are fakes, planted by G-d in the newly created world to make it appear old, presumably to test us. Any pottery and paintings post 5766 are real.

But wait a minute, the Torah recounts how the dispersion only occurred after the Migdal Bavel incident. So any pottery from say 5766-4766 years ago in Australia must also be fake. Did G-d create that fake pottery at the moment of creation? Or maybe later? I guess at the moment of creation, but it was faked to look younger.

But, isn't it strange that the real Aboriginal pottery which came later exactly matches the style of G-d's fake pottery which was buried in the ground from before? I guess G-d with His foreknowledge knew what style the Aboriginees would pick and davkah planted the appropriate pots in the right places. Or maybe the Aboriginees dug up the old pottery and copied the styles?

This means that not only is G-d in the business of dictating books, but also He designs pottery and paintings! I like the paintings in the caves in France, some very nice brushwork there.

And what about the global flood, for which there is evidence it never happened? I guess G-d cleaned up all the evidence, another ness of course. This one isn't really Gosse theory, but you need it all the same. Why would G-d make it look like the Mabul never happened? To test us of course! It all fits like a glove. Or maybe a straight-jacket.

And what about all the ancient civilizations which show continuous evidence of being around for 8,000 years or more? Were they created with false memories of history? Many of them only got their start after the Migdal Bavel, and certainly only after the Mabul. How did Noach's new descendants who branched out after the flood pick up all the pieces of the earlier destroyed civilizations and re-create them in the correct image? Thats a pretty cool trick. Those migdal-bavelians who were magically flown to the Americas successfully re-created Native American culture. Likewise those migdal-bavelians who were magically flown to Australia. How did they know what to do? I guess they dug up all the fake stuff and tried their best.

Oy vey. I am starting to sound like one of those skeptics. Do you see, all you Gosse-Goons, see what effect your insanity has?

Gosse Student

2005-11-08T11:08:00.000-08:00

Oy Vey!

R Gil Student has clearly lost his mind. Maybe it was me tagging him as Conservative Chareidi in my previous post that did him in.

R Gil says (regarding Gosse):

Does this contradict the way God is supposed to work? I don't know. My general response is simply "Could be." Can the world have been created looking old? Could be. Would God make this elaborate fake-out to fool us into thinking the world is older than it really is? Could be. Hey, I don't claim to know how God works.

To which the only rational response is:

Does this contradict the way Zoboomafoo is supposed to work? I don't know. My general response is simply "Could be." Can the world have been created with fake evidence of Sinai? Could be. Would Zoboomafoo make this elaborate fake-out to fool us into thinking that Judaism is real? Could be. Hey, I don't claim to know how Zoboomafoo works!

R Gil, I like you, so listen up and listen well.

You cannot throw rational thought away with such wild abandon like that. It's insane. You cannot just create arbitrary theories to explain away contradictions. You undermine the basis for everything once you start doing that. Even the Gedolim have not endorsed Gosse. There is no mekkor ANYWHERE in traditional Judaism for the idea of G-d creating fake evidence.

Maybe you could find some support for the idea of the World being created at a certain age, like Adam. But certainly not for fake cave paintings, or clean up of a global flood. That's nuts. Gosse is not only insane, but a distortion of traditional Jewish values too. So maybe the mythology peshat is not so traditional either, but at least it's not insane.

Once you discard evidence for non rational arbitrary theories, there is no more room for rational discourse. I could make up anything at all and say 'Could be, could be'. Well anything could be, even the holy Zoboomafoo.

The point is NOT what 'could be'. The point is, 'What is most likely to be'.

Why Gosseleib doesn’t work

2005-11-08T09:40:00.000-08:00

I’m not sure everyone gets why Gosseleib is so wrong. Let me try and explain one more time.

Gosseleib starts from a position that he can convince any reasonable person of the truths of Judaism. He has a long, well researched essay where he shows that given the evidence of the claim of Sinai, plus the history of the Jewish people, any reasonable person will conclude that the Sinai claim is the most reasonable hypothesis.

In other words, his methodology is that a reasonable person, looking at reasonable evidence, will reasonably conclude that the evidence is good.

Yet, when it comes to Scientific evidence, which at the very least is certainly as strong as the evidence for Sinai, and really anyone reasonable will agree it is significantly stronger than the evidence for Sinai, suddenly he claims that’s no evidence, because its trumped by a literal reading of Breishis. So he invents this ‘Nes-Nisayon’ theory (or rather copies it from a Christian. I assure you that this theory has NO solid source in traditional Judaism).

So really, what we have is two sets of conflicting evidence. One set, for Sinai, and one set for Science. Reconciliationists like me do not find these two sets to be in conflict, and we can come up with some reasonable answers. But according to Gosseleib, it’s impossible that both sets are actually true. So he trumps Science with Sinai, and comes up with his wacky peshat that the scientific evidence is all fakery.

But if we can discount the very reasonable scientific evidence as fakery, in order to preserve the Torah, why not discount the Torah as fakery, to preserve the Science? If anything, that is a much more reasonable approach, since the Scientific evidence is so much stronger. And you can’t claim that the Torah must be true, because that’s the very thing he sets out to prove in the first place!

It makes no sense, and a supposed ‘logician’ as he claims to be should be ashamed to spout such nonsense. I still maintain that he’s just not that stupid, so it’s a shame that the power of the extremists is so strong, and his moral fiber so weak, that he caved in. It’s really quite pathetic, and a rather sad reflection on the state of things today in the frum world.

How can we answer the claims of the skeptics and disaffected BT’s when some of the supposed Kiruv Experts show themselves to be so foolish? What a bizzayon. Not only have I lost confidence in the Gedolim, but also in the ‘stars’ of the Kiruv Industry.

Is there no one out there with any sechel? (and still frum?)

Gosseleib

2005-11-07T14:52:00.000-08:00

Gottleib has a long article on why its rational to believe in Sinai. He brings all sorts of rational proofs about how it couldn't have been made up. It's somewhat convincing and well presented. But now I see that when it comes to Breishis & Science, all of a sudden the whole thing is a miracle. This is an extremely non-rational approach.

So why believe in Torah? Maybe some other diety, lets call him Zoboomafoo, davkah created false evidence that the Torah was given on Sinai, as a nisayon to believe in him? Is there any difference between these two claims? Lets say that Zoboomafoo has engineered most of history as one gigantic nisayon. Whose to say otherwise?

Once you succumb to this kind of insane, non-rational reasoning all bets are off. There is no more capacity for logical thought, or rationally proving anything. Maybe all the Gedolim are one big nisayon from Zoboomafoo? Maybe the Torah is a nisayon? Maybe we were all created yesterday? Everything becomes one crazy game of justifying impossible beliefs. I cannot believe that Gottleib is that stupid. He surely realizes this. I can only conclude that he is an intellectually dishonest coward, who has given into pressure from the Gedolim and the Kannoim.

A very sad day for Judaism, for Kiruv, and for Gottleib himself.

Gottleib endorses Gosse!

2005-11-07T11:38:00.000-08:00

WARNING: Emunah Threat

[I'm really dissapointed in R Dovid Gottleib. I have been having a correspondence with 'Mark', a friend of his, and he was almost to the point of convincing me that Gottleib was a sensible guy. Then I saw this bunch of nonsense, where Gottleib endorses Gosse Theory (Ness/Nissayon).]

THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE
The age of the the universe according to science is approximately 13 billion years; the Jewish date is 5755 years since Creation. There is a direct solution to this “contradiction”. The real age of the universe is 5755 years, but that it has misleading evidence of greater age. The bones, artifacts, partially decayed radium, potassium-argon, uranium, the red-shifted light from space, etc. - all of it points to a greater age which nevertheless is not true. G-d put these things in the universe and they lead many to the false conclusion of a much greater age.

Let's first understand that G-d certainly can do this if He wishes. There is no logical impossibility in imagining such indicators of false age. Furthermore, something like this is part of the naive understanding of Genesis. Adam was created as an adult. Observing him a few minutes after he was created, we would assume him to be at least twenty years old: he was created with misleading symptoms of greater age than he possessed. The trees created in the Garden of Eden presumably had tree rings. Tree rings usually indicate the age of the tree, but in this case the rings are misleading evidence of age the trees did not possess. So the idea is not inherently absurd.

The usual response to this idea is: "Why would G-d do that? Why would He want to mislead us in that way?" Now strictly speaking we don't have to answer that question. Knowing why G-d would do it is not a prerequisite to asserting that He did it. Often we don't know why people do various things; that does not lead us to doubt that they did them! Nevertheless, even though we don't need to answer the question, we can. Briefly, the purpose of the physical world is to hide G-d's presence so that we can exercise free will. In fact, the Hebrew word for "world" - olam - means "hiding". So evidence which hides the true age of the universe since Creation would be part of the general policy of hiding G-d's presence.

Some people [GH: Me!!!!] are surprised by the idea that G-d would create evidence that would mislead people. Perhaps He will not give us overwhelming evidence of the truth, they think, but He would not create evidence that will lead to false beliefs. But this is a mistake. First – not having enough evidence of the truth can also lead to false beliefs. Second, G-d’s constant providence is hidden by the appearance of nature. The world looks as if it runs blindly, automatically. The truth is that events are guided by G-d. The appearance of nature leads us to miss this truth.

Of course, G-d does not condemn us to ignorance. He TELLS US the truth! And the same holds for the age of the universe. The misleading physical evidence leads to the false belief in billions of years. He reveals to us that this conclusion is wrong. [GH: This is insane]. A more sophisticated objection to the second solution is this. Can we not defend any arbitrarily chosen age for the universe by this logic? If we said the universe is 50,000, or 500,000, or 5,000,000 years old, we could always say that the evidence of greater age was due to misleading evidence put there by G-d! Doesn't this trivialize the whole project? It means that there is no objective standard at all for deciding how old the universe is!

The answer to this objection is as follows. Indeed, if we were to use this logic without any limits, it would trivialize all investigation in the age of the universe. But we are suggesting that it be used to resolve a contradiction between two generally reliable sources of information. Under these conditions it is wholly appropriate. I will give you an analogy. Suppose George is accused of murder, and we have his fingerprints at the scene of the crime, the murder weapon at his premises, and he has a motive. Suppose the only argument put forward by the defense is that George is being framed. That will surely not be taken seriously. To take it seriously would undermine almost all attempts to convict, since almost always it is possible that the defendant is being framed. But now suppose we have a witness who claims to have seen George 100 miles from the crime at the time when it occurred. Now we have a contradiction in the evidence. Now it surely would be appropriate to suggest the possibility of a frame-up and to investigate that possibility. After all, frame-ups do sometimes happen. Our case is strictly parallel. To suggest that G-d hid the true age in defense of any arbitrarily chosen age is wrong. But to use that suggestion to solve a contradiction in the evidence is perfectly appropriate.

Of course, this solution assumes that the Jewish tradition does have enough evidence to be regarded as generally reliable. I believe that this is true, but defending it requires a much larger effort. [See for example my Living Up to the Truth, at http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/publications.htm.] In the mean time, given that premise, the analogy with prosecuting crime holds. Therefore it seems to me that this second solution is perfectly adequate to reconcile the two ages of the universe: the Jewish date gives the real age, while the scientific estimate is the result of reading misleading evidence.

[GH: I have lost all respect for him. If someone so respected in Kiruv can be so foolish, what does that say? Further damage to my emunah in these people.]

Was Noach a real person?

2005-11-03T10:51:00.000-08:00

People often come to me and say ‘Hey Godol, do you believe there was a flood?’, and I say ‘Of course I do!’, and they walk away happy. What I don’t tell them is that the flood in question ruined my basement and I had to replace all the carpets. I considered the idea of trying to find a carpet guy called Noah, but this proved too difficult, plus the lady at Carpet Depot thought I was a bit strange.

There are literally hundreds of flood stories (myths) from many different cultures around the world. Here is a compilation. On hearing this, a typical fundamentalist response is 'See, Noach must be true! All these other stories confirm it'. However a global flood is pretty much impossible according to Science. Of course it could all have been a ness, except that the evidence shows it never happened. Of course maybe the ness also included cleaning up all the evidence afterwards too, but then that starts to get a little wierd. Hayim claims that maybe the flood water was magic water which left no mess. A mess-less ness! Could be, could be.

(Here are some difficulties with the concept of a global flood.)

Some people claim the flood was local to Mesopotamia, and when the Chumash repeatedly says 'all' (all the earth, all the heavens, all the animals etc) it just means 'all the local'. This is possible, but then what's the point of the story? A guy survives a small local flood on a boat with some animals. People on the edge of the flood were not affected, and while it might have been a big deal for that one guy, it certainly wasn't for the rest of the world. That doesn't really fit with the story, and you really have to stretch and kvetch a lot.

Another approach is Cassuto/Sarna, which I termed Myth Moshol. Flood mythology was very prevalent in the ancient near east, and the Israelites would certainly have been aware of it. However rather than accepting the Sumerian mythology of Utnapishtim, Gilgamesh or whatever, where the gods bring the flood because people were getting too noisy, the Torah turns the flood story into an ethical monotheistic morality story.

According to this, it turns out that Noach wasn't too real. This is upsetting to many people (me too), because we like Noach, even more than Adam. Also, it is jarring, since the Torah records some specific details about Noach's life and progeny, and accepting it as mythology makes the Torah look a little suspect.

Ultimately, there is no really satisfying answer to this problem (from an Orthodox perspective, if you are not Orthodox, it's not a question). I suppose I can sympathize with Rav Mattisyahu Solomon, who claimed we should all just say Taiku and wait for Moshiach. Meanwhile the flood story continues to inspire countless generations including mine, and at the last count we have the following:

Flood themed crib set
Noahs Ark painting
Flood wallpaper border
TevahTzedakah Box
Tevah Menorah
Fisher Price Noah's Ark Set

So what do I really think? I think there was cdertainly some major flood in Mesopotamia, probably about 8000 years ago. It's possible that there was a guy called Noach on a boat with a bunch of animals, who was saved miraculously. But somehow I doubt it. Still, believing in Noach is not one of the ikkarim, and saying that Noach was mythical is certainly NOT kefirah, contrary to the lunatic rantings of people like ZooShoteh (keshmo ken hu) and FKM (Freaking Kiruv Maniac).

Warning: Category 5 Emunah ThreatReconciling Breishis with Science is good, clean fun. It doesn’t rea

2005-09-25T19:55:00.000-07:00

The idiots on Avodah can't seem to give up their Bittul Torah discussion on Evolution and the age of the Universe. This weeks prime offender is Simcha Coffer, the guy just doesn't give up, which is a shame, since the position he is not giving up is a moronic one. Here is a great quote from Coffer, clearly showing his lunatic opinions:

If you're going to contradict the scientists, you may as well go the whole way (i.e. the correct way IMO) and say that in truth they really have no evidence at all. Once you come to this realization, the necessity of reconciling vast periods of time with [Maase Breishit] becomes obsolete.

But some blame must go to Micha Berger too, for actually engaging this guy in serious discussion. Micha, is there really any point? Don't you have anything better to do? Don't you realize that Coffer (and Ostroff) are crazy fundamentalists? They are not interested in reason. They have their pre-formed ideological opinions and all the evidence in the world is not going to change their minds. Arguing with these fools is like arguing with mental patients.

In case you missed it, here is some advice for you Avodah guys. (This advice also applies to Rabbi Slifkin and the Kiruv Clowns too). A basic assumption of your mehalech should be that you accept established science. That's it. No discussion, not argument, no proofs required. You accept it and then you move on from there. If you need to explain why you accept it, then you are probably talking to the wrong audience.

Creation and Evolution Are A Problem

2005-09-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

Warning: Category 5 Emunah Threat

Reconciling Breishis with Science is good, clean fun. It doesn’t really matter at the end of the day if Adam and Noah were actual people or not, and it’s fun to speculate and debate wondrous peshatim about miracles and dinosaur extinctions and the like. One commenter here, Chaim, is convinced that if he can just put together the right collection of miracles, everything will work out. Currently he has figured out that the flood water wasn’t regular water, but was of course miraculous water, the kind of miracle water that doesn’t leave any damage to buildings or rock, though it does remove all traces of human life. We haven’t got to the end of his theory yet, but I assume at some point we will get to the miracle of the kangaroos magically hopping from the Ark all the way to Australia. When I told him he can’t just make up miracles like that, he responded ‘Yes I can, to answer questions’. All good fun, and highly entertaining too, especially for the Geek Orthodox. Even the Gedolim are not too bothered by all this.

A much bigger problem though is reconciling the rest of History with Orthodox Judaism. Starting with Yetzias Mitzrayim and ending around the year 500CE, there are two entirely different accounts of what actually happened. Most frum Jews are so shielded from academic scholarship that they take the entire OJ story for granted. They are aware that of course Reform and the Goyim don’t believe in Sinai, but they think that’s about it. Unfortunately modern scholarship dates what we now think of as Orthodox Judaism to the period of 0-500CE, in other words Chazal pretty much made up Torah sheBaal Peh as they were writing it down. One scholar even suggests that Rabbinic Judaism was created as a reaction against Christianity.

This is a much more difficult subject to get into. The Science around the creation and evolution of the world is well documented and well understood, and mostly accepted by all the world’s scientists. However the theories around the creation and evolution of Rabbinic Judaism are just that: mostly theories. It’s hard to determine what is fact, and what is theory. Each side is dogmatically entrenched in their own positions. Plus, this whole debate is mostly of interest only to historians interested in the evolution of Judaism. Orthodox Jews themselves mostly ignore this area of study, as they are content to just believe the standard frum account. This is in contrast to the Science & Torah issues where there has been a lot of interest over the years from all sides.

So what to do? This is below the radar of most kiruv organizations (which is probably a good thing), and I haven’t seen any material on it. I don’t even know where to start, and probably shouldn’t go there. But your fearless Godol will now go and read up on all this kefirah so you don’t have to. Book suggestions are welcome (but don’t tell the Rebbetzin).

New! Myth/Moshol V2.0

2005-09-21T15:16:00.000-07:00

Skins are great. You can take a boring, out-of-the-box interface such as Mozilla Firefox and add a cool skin to it, one which makes you feel much happier about using the product. In the same spirit, I now present Myth/Moshol Theory V2.0, now with skins!

Brisker Skin
Replaces the words ‘Myth/Moshol’ with ‘Halachik Construct’

Talmud Skin
Replaces the words ‘Myth/Moshol’ with ‘Aggadatah’

New Age Skin
Replaces the words ‘Myth/Moshol’ with ‘Breishis contains Spiritual Truth’

Humanistic Skin
Replaces the words ‘Myth/Moshol’ with ‘Breishis contains Moral & Ethical Truth’

Skeptical Skin
Replaces the words ‘Myth/Moshol’ with ‘Breishis contains a bunch of made up stories’

Cassuto Skin
Replaces the words ‘Myth/Moshol’ with ‘Jewish Mythology to counteract Sumerian Mythology'

In other words, skin it (or spin it) any way you like. But don't take it literally.

Brisker Myth/Moshol Theory

2005-09-21T13:36:00.000-07:00

[Guest Post]

The approach that Torah is not a history book has always left me feeling a bit uncomfortable. However, after reading a significant portion of RYBS Ish Hahalachah, I now have a new perspective on the science/history vs religion issue. One needs to make a “brisker” type of distinction between “al pi din” and “metzius”. The object one sees through a prism is no less real than without a prism. Just as when we look at something through our eyes and a “visible spectrum” of light it appears different than if we could see the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Is any one view right or real? No just different perspectives. Halachah and Judaism looks at the world through its own prism, while science has its own view. Is any one view right or is either one real? No, they just use different perspectives.

Halachah expects us to view things through its own perspective. It has its own set of rules and regulations. Thus, salting meat will “remove” the blood, carrying an object 4 amos in a public place “removes” it from one domain to another domain, a bliah in a kli will make the food it comes in contact with imbued with a taam of the bliah if it's less than 24 hours old and the taam will be pogum if its more than 24 hours, an animal with a sign of treifah can not live etc. For an Orthodox Jew, the boundary provided by a “tsuras hapesach” is no less real than a solid wall. All these halachik constructs are not necessarily factual from a “metzius” perspective but they are 100% factual from a halachik perspective.

Mathematics is considered the “purest” sciences. Yet to a mathematician, so called “imaginary numbers” are no less real or useful than so called “real numbers”. The square root of a negative number is no less “real” or useful than is the square root of 4. Non-Euclidean geometry can be just as real as Euclidean geometry. Is any one view right or real? No they just use different perspectives. No wonder why, the Gra, one of the greatest Talmudic minds appreciated math so much. (I understand that R Moshe Feinstein z”tl also enjoyed solving complex calculus problems).

Similarly, the Torah wants us to view Breishis, Noach etc as if they were factual no less than any other halachik construct. They are no more mythical than imaginary numbers or laws of kashrus. Thus Shabbos IS the “seventh” day, Adam and Chavah WERE the first two people etc. By adopting this perspective we attain a Torah viewpoint of life. This perspective is important when considering the value/need to observe Shabbos, the value of a single human life etc. The question of “what really happened” is no more relevant [GH: I assume he means to Judaism, obviously it is relevant to Science] than what is the red stuff that exudes from a piece of salted meat. Halacha considers the liquid as “juice” and considers creation as having taken place in 7 days. When studying science we wear a scientific “hat” when living our lives as moral/halachik Jews we view things from a Torah perspective.

From time to time there may appear a seeming conflict between these two viewpoints. Of course, halacha has some flexibility in it, so an 8 month baby is now viable and the metzius/halacha has changed. Sometimes the halachah allows for a convergence of the metzius and the din sometimes they remain distinct. When that should happen is for the poskim to debate.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

[GH: I think you are basically saying that it's a myth/moshol, but you don't want to use those words. And also that there are 'halachik' (or rather 'hashkafic') reasons why the Torah portayed things the way it does i.e. There are deep moral and spiritual lessons in the Torah's version of events, which is exactly what Myth/Moshol Theory says too. So I think this is ultimately the Myth/Moshol theory with a Brisker/RYBS spin on it. In other words, I like it!]

Real Questions... Fake Answers

2005-09-20T09:50:00.000-07:00

[Note: This post is not serious. Of course all these questions are very difficult ones. What bothers me about the Artscroll ad is that it makes it seem they have good answers, when of course they mostly don't. These are issues that we all struggle with every day, yet Artscroll makes it seem that we just need to buy this set of 6 CD's and all will be answered. Well, I will buy the set, but I don't have high expectations, except for lots of raw material to post about].

Real Questions... Real Answers
Answers to The Most Frequently Asked Questions About Judaism - A 6 CD-Rom Set (Windows only)

[6 CD's !!! I could do it in a few lines! See my comments below]

List Price: $59.99
Online Discount: 10%
You Pay Only: $53.99
Binding: Cd-Rom
Published: September 2005 by Association for Jewish Outreach Programs

Description:
Never in history have so many Jews had so many questions about their religion, their heritage and their identity. Good questions, honest questions, real questions. This unique CD set brings together twelve of the most highly regarded individuals in the Jewish world - people who for years have been addressing literally thousands of questions posed by thousands of real people, with real questions.

This interactive CD-ROM puts a wealth of expertise at your fingertips. Without a doubt, you too have been asked many of the questions dealt with - at the office, by a neighbor, friend or relative. You have done your best to answer, and now you can do even better. Real Questions, Real Answers will enable you to do just what you want to do - respond thoughtfully and effectively when an inquiring person asks you a good question - a question whose answer just might open up a whole new world to a questioning Jewish mind.

Prominent figures featured include HaRav Shmuel Kamanetzky, HaRav Noah Weinberg, Rav Mordechai Becher, Rav Beryl Gershenfeld, Rav Rueven Leuchter, Rav Yerachmiel Milstein and more...

Sample Questions:

Isn't the idea that we are the Chose People elitist or even racist?
[Elitist]
Why does a man say the blessing of "shelo asani isha" while a woman says "sheasani kirtzono"?
[Because Davening reflects the social norms of the 1st millenium (or earlier) when women were regarded as inferior]
How can I believe in G-d when there is so much suffering in the world? How could G-d have allowed the Holocaust?
[There is no answer except that we assume G-d evens everything out in the next world]
What is G-d's attitude toward the non-Jew?
[Presumably he loves them too. But traditional Judaism doesn't so much]
Why should I marry a Jew?
[The Halachah says you have to]
Do you believe that Orthodox Judaism is the only valid form of Judaism? Aren't Conservative and Reform Judaism also valid expressions of the Jewish religion?
[Judaism has had many sects over the years. Orthodox Judaism is a descendant of Rabbinic (Pharisee) Judaism which arose around the time of the destruction of the 2nd Temple. OJ believes that its form of Judaism is the most accurate.]
Hypocrisy: Am I not worse off if I know and don't do than if I simply remain ignorant?
[Yes, you will be worse off.]
Why must women dress modestly?
[To stop men staring at them and getting bad ideas]
Won't Judaism stifle my individuality and creativity?
[Orthodox Judaism might, other branches won't]
How do I know the Torah was really given on Sinai?
[You just have to have faith]
How can observant Jews do bad things?
[Very easily]
Why did G-d choose the Jewish Nation?
[According to the Jewish tradition, because G-d liked Abraham, though it's not very clear why. Presumably because he recognized G-d and had superior morals.]
What is wrong with Christianity and Islam? What is the fundamental difference between them and Judaism?
[According to OJ, their claims of revelation are lies, while our claims are true.]
What if my partner intends to convert?
[To what? Judaism?]

'Better' DNA out of fossil bones

2005-09-19T16:38:00.000-07:00

Map shows first migratory routes taken by humans, based on surveys of different types of the male Y chromosome. "Adam" represents the common ancestor from which all Y chromosomes descended

Neanderthals evolve about 250,000 years ago
Their range extends from Europe to Central Asia and the Middle East
Modern humans leave Africa about 60,000 years ago and arrive in Europe around 40,000 years ago
By 27,000 years ago, the Neanderthals are extinct
Possible reasons include climate change and competition with modern humans

Research based on DNA testing of 10,000 people from indigenous populations around the world

Source: The Genographic Project

By Alison Ross
BBC News

Improved technologies for extracting genetic material from fossils may help us find out more about our ancient ancestors.

Scientists in Israel have just developed a new technique to retrieve better quality, less contaminated DNA from very old remains, including human bones. It could aid the study of the evolution and migration of early modern humans, as well as extinct populations such as our close relatives, the Neanderthals.

Many researchers would dearly love to get their hands on DNA samples from hominids further back in time - from those that lived 100,000 years ago or more - to find out how they were related to people alive today.

But fossil studies this far back in time have long been hindered by contamination with foreign genetic material and the problem of recovering long, intact DNA sequences.

The new method provides hope, however.

What's real?
"DNA gets everywhere. So when we're dealing with a sample and you find it's got human DNA in it - is that DNA from the fossil, or is it actually DNA from the person who unearthed it?" says Professor Chris Stringer, the head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, UK.

Also, DNA falls apart over the course of time. "It breaks up into very small fragments so it is quite technically complicated to put it all back together again," explains Dr Robert Foley, the director of the Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies at the University of Cambridge, UK.

Freezing provides the ideal preservation conditions. The most widely accepted oldest DNA yet isolated comes from 400,000-year-old plants found in ice in Siberia. But most specimens are not excavated from such places.

An improved technique for retrieving DNA from fossil bone, just published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), may help.

Dr Michal Salamon, from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, and colleagues, showed that "crystal aggregates", small mineral pockets formed during fossilisation, can preserve DNA better than the rest of the bone.

They compared DNA extracted from these crystal aggregates with genetic material taken from untreated, whole-bone powder. The samples were taken from eight different modern and fossil bones.

They found better preserved, less contaminated DNA could be recovered from the isolated crystals. This approach, "significantly improves the chances of obtaining authentic ancient DNA sequences, especially from human bones", they told PNAS.

Commenting on the latest research, Dr Michael Hofreiter, from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who helped decode 40,000-year-old nuclear DNA from a cave bear earlier this year, said: "It's possible; but there need to be more studies on more samples, and they need to show that you don't get human contamination of animal bones.

"Then I would believe that it is a breakthrough for ancient DNA research."

The big split

Scientists are hopeful the new technique will help them get at the DNA in the chromosomes of a cell - the nuclear DNA.

Ancient DNA research has so far mainly focused on mitochondria, the tiny "power-stations" of the cell. These exist outside of the nucleus and have their own DNA. And, although this information is very useful, it is more limited in its scope than that which could be obtained from nuclear DNA.

It is partly a question of sensitivity. "There's about 1,000 times more mitochondrial DNA than nuclear DNA in our cells, so it's much easier to pick up," explains Professor Stringer.

The mitochondrial DNA is inherited only through the egg - through females. This means it is a useful marker for tracing a line back into the past, as it has never been mixed with DNA from males.

"One of the most important discoveries from studying ancient mitochondrial DNA is the estimate of when humans diverged in evolution from the Neanderthals - around half a million years ago," according to Dr Foley.

Professor Stringer adds: "We've now got about 10 Neanderthal specimens of around 40-50,000 years old that have yielded DNA that is clearly distinct from anyone alive today."

This means scientists can be sure that it is ancient, not just modern DNA from contamination. It has also given them a measure of how different Neanderthals were from modern people. Neanderthals are three times as different from us as we all are from each other," says Professor Stringer.

Species debate

But there remains the hotly debated question of whether Neanderthals were a completely separate species to us. Professor Stringer says that they are if that assessment is based on studying their bone anatomy.

However, the evidence from mitochondrial DNA is somewhat ambiguous. "The mitochondrial DNA on its own can't tell us if we're a distinct species," he explains. "It depends what mammal you take. There are some species where the difference in mitochondrial DNA between us and Neanderthals would say they were a different species. "Whereas in chimpanzees, our closest relative, you could contain the variation between us and Neanderthals in a single species alive today in Africa."

Scientists need to recover better DNA from our fossils, especially the nuclear DNA. "Each gene has a separate evolution so to understand Neanderthals properly we will need different bits of their DNA to see if they're all telling us the same story," he adds.

Population movements

The male sex chromosome (the "Y") is useful for tracking male inheritance, since males inherit their Y chromosome only from their father.

Using both mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA from people alive today, complex pathways have been mapped for how modern humans got to where they are - but there are problems.

Dr Mim Bower, an ancient DNA researcher at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge, UK, gives an example.

"Using modern DNA we see a different pattern of settlement in the Pacific islands between men and women - the mitochondrial DNA patterns show a different migration pattern to the Y chromosome DNA."

Studying the DNA not of modern humans but of their distant ancestors could help answer such questions.

"At the moment we can't follow that into the past as it's very difficult to get nuclear DNA," Dr Bower says.

This is especially problematic for the Y chromosome, which is nuclear.

2005-09-19T16:05:00.000-07:00

Dalai Lama has more sechel than the Gedolim?

[Hat tip: I don't think he wants one!]

New York Times
September 18, 2005

'The Universe in a Single Atom': Reason and Faith
By GEORGE JOHNSON

It's been a brutal season in the culture wars with both the White House and a prominent Catholic cardinal speaking out in favor of creationist superstition, while public schools and even natural history museums shy away from teaching evolutionary science. When I picked up the Dalai Lama's new book, "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality," I feared that His Holiness, the leader of Tibetan Buddhism, was adding to the confusion between reason and faith.

It was his subtitle that bothered me. Spirituality is about the ineffable and unprovable, science about the physical world of demonstrable fact. Faced with two such contradictory enterprises, divergence would be a better goal. The last thing anyone needs is another attempt to contort biology to fit a particular religion or to use cosmology to prove the existence of God.

But this book offers something wiser: a compassionate and clearheaded account by a religious leader who not only respects science but, for the most part, embraces it. "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims," he writes. No one who wants to understand the world "can ignore the basic insights of theories as key as evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics."

That is an extraordinary concession compared with the Christian apologias that dominate conferences devoted to reconciling science and religion. The "dialogues" implicitly begin with nonnegotiables - "Given that Jesus died on the cross and was bodily resurrected into heaven. . ." - then seek scientific justification for what is already assumed to be true.

The story of how someone so open-minded became the Tibetan Buddhist equivalent of the pope reads like a fairy tale. When the 13th Dalai Lama died in 1933 he was facing northeast, so a spiritual search team was sent in that direction to find his reincarnation. The quest narrowed further when a lama had a vision pointing to a certain house with unusual gutters. Inside a boy called out to the visitors, who showed him some toys and relics that would have belonged to him in his previous life. "It is mine!" he exclaimed, like any acquisitive 2-year-old, and so his reign began.

Once installed in Lhasa, the new Dalai Lama happened upon another of his forerunner's possessions, a collapsible brass telescope. When he focused it one evening on what Tibetans call "the rabbit on the moon," he saw that it consisted of shadows cast by craters. Although he knew nothing yet about astronomy, he inferred that the moon, like the earth, must be lighted by the sun. He had experienced the thrill of discovery.

Before long he was dismantling and repairing clocks and watches and tinkering with car engines and an old movie projector. As he grew older and traveled the world, he was as keen to meet with scientists and philosophers - David Bohm, Carl von Weizsäcker, Karl Popper - as with religious and political leaders. More recently his "Mind and Life" conferences have brought physicists, cosmologists, biologists and psychologists to Dharamsala, India, where he now lives in exile from the Chinese occupation of Tibet. He and his guests discuss things like the neuroscientific basis of Buddhist meditation and the similarities between Eastern concepts like the "philosophy of emptiness" and modern field theory. In "The Universe in a Single Atom" he tells how he walked the mountains around his home trying to persuade hermits to contribute to scientific understanding by meditating with electrodes on their heads.

But when it comes to questions about life and its origins, this would-be man of science begins to waver. Though he professes to accept evolutionary theory, he recoils at one of its most basic tenets: that the mutations that provide the raw material for natural selection occur at random. Look deeply enough, he suggests, and the randomness will turn out to be complexity in disguise - "hidden causality," the Buddha's smile. There you have it, Eastern religion's version of intelligent design. He also opposes physical explanations for consciousness, invoking instead the existence of some kind of irreducible mind stuff, an idea rejected long ago by mainstream science. Some members of the Society for Neuroscience are understandably uneasy that he has been invited to give a lecture at their annual meeting this November. In a petition, they protested that his topic, the science of meditation, is known for "hyperbolic claims, limited research and compromised scientific rigor."

There may be a political subtext to the controversy. According to an article in Nature, many of the petitioners are Chinese. But however mixed their motivation, they make a basic philosophical point. All religion is rooted in a belief in the supernatural. Inviting a holy man to address a scientific conference may be leaving the back door ajar for ghosts.

Adam & Eve Horishon & their pet snake Nachy

2005-09-19T15:30:00.000-07:00

[This post is dedicated to Dude. ]

Some people who are a little more conversant with Science say the following peshat in Breishis:

It’s true that there were many human type creatures all over the world dating back hundreds of thousands of years. But when the Torah talks about Adam & Eve it’s really talking about a new modern breed of humanity, and of course there were other people around then too of the older variety.

Adam & Eve were the first of this new breed, and were created by G-d in some fashion, either directly, or maybe through the addition of a special neshamah/intellect. There is no Scientific proof for neshamot even today, so claiming Adam & Eve had the first modern neshamot makes no difference to Science.

Some people even try and link this in to the story of the ‘Sons of the gods' marrying the ‘Daughters of Man’, and claim that this story is about the intermarriage between the descendants of the ‘godly’ Adam and the descendants of the older (but less godly?) 'Neanderthals'. (By the way, both the Malbim and Cassutto dispute this, and R Menachem Kasher notes this in Torah Shelemah.)

The motivation for this strange peshat is to try and preserve Adam & Eve as real people. Clearly, the motivation cannot be preserving the ‘mesorah’ or a literal reading of the text, since this peshat doesn’t fit the text very well without kvetching, nor is it the standard mesorah anyway (though there are certainly indications that Chazal were comfortable with the idea of previous worlds e.g. 974 of them).

So, is it worth saying such a peshat?

I think not, (but I can't prove it). Firstly, to posit that Adam & Eve were two specific people who had more developed neshamot (or brains), who then went on to fertilize the world is scientifically problematic. What about the aboriginees and other far flung peoples? Are they less developed because they don’t have the new Adam & Eve neshama/ genes in them?

Secondly, this still doesn’t help with all the other ‘facts’ in Breishis, like the impossibly long ages or global flood, or incorrect order of creation. So you end up taking many things non literally anyway, and this whole peshat is hardly the same as the traditional mesorah.

I think that it is probably not a co-incidence that the Torah goes back 6000 years, and so does modern civilization.

About 6000 years ago a marked shift occurred and humans became more urbanized. About this same time frame farming and animal husbandry became more popular, and recently some Scientists even talked about changes in brain development 5800 years ago. But this correlates to Breishis mythology for obvious reasons. You could read the story of Adam & Eve as a metaphor for the birth of modern civilization, and it works quite well.

If you really want to insist that there was an actual couple called Adam & Eve Horishon, who lived in a special garden in Iraq, and they had a special neshamah, then of course Science can’t disprove that and neither can I. But don’t forget their pet snake, Nachy. I hear he could tricks.

(And don’t marry off your kids to any Aboriginal Gerim – Pure breeds would still presumably be lacking that special neshamah/gene and you wouldn’t want your grandchildren to be ‘half-neshamas’. They might not get into the good yeshivas.)

Is Jonathan Ostroff a complete moron?

2005-09-19T00:04:00.000-07:00

He can't be, as this list of his publications is quite impressive. Yet I never cease to be amazed by the stupidity of his posts on Avodah. There is a long debate going on currently as to whether Rav Dessler rejected evolution or not. I could give some carefully reasoned arguments showing why Rav Dessler is completely wrong. But why bother? Is Ostroff interested in well reasoned arguments when such arguments conflict with his own moronic ideology? I don't think so. So instead I will just make the obvious argument, hurl some insults, and hopefully I will feel better.

Whether evolution happened all on its ownsome, or whether it needed a little extra supernatural help from G-d makes no difference at all. Either way,a true maamin will see the hand of G-d in the fact that 15 billion years ago there was nothing, and now we have intelligent human beings (but not so much on Avodah).

Rav Dessler's alleged contention that "anyone viewing the world within the context of evolution over millions of years as opposed to seeing the yad Hashem in the beria is a tipesh and a porek ol" (according to Simcha Coffer) is utter nonsense nowadays. In fact anyone saying such a thing is a 'tipesh', and were Rav Desller alive today I would like to think that he would have enough sechel to realize his mistakes. Sure Rav Dessler was a talmid chochom, but his views on evolution are outdated, incorrect and entirely irrelevant.

Rav Dessler also says that "Geology is actually proof that the world unfolded rapidly, in a short period of time, as opposed to the evolutionary time frame." Do you honestly think that Rav Dessler knows Geology better than all the worlds geologists currently dedicating their lives to the study of Geology? GET A FRIKKIN CLUE PEOPLE. This stupidity is mind boggling. I could understand it if it was some Bnei Brak hocker who has never been exposed to Western Civilization. But the guys on Avodah speak English! They seem educated. Almost intelligent. Yet they are also complete morons. Amazing!

When will the idiots on Avodah realize that they are wasting their time? It is abundantly clear that the world is significantly older than 6000 years, and it is abundantly clear that there were many intelligent humans walking around in many parts of the world 10,000 years ago and more.

These two facts alone are enough to finish off any notion that the Adam & Eve story in Breishis is literal. Once you realize that, you will also realize that there is little gain in debating evolution. You neither lose anything or buy anything. G-d is quite capable of working though 'natural' evolution, in fact this is a greater chochmah than creating man out of thin air (or dust). Leave the details of Evolution to the Scientists, it makes no difference at this point, Breishis has already been proven to be non literal.

Denying scientifically 'proven' theories while stubbornly insisting on Sinai type proofs is the height of hypocricy and absurdity. When intelligent and frum Jews go through such mental gymnastics to try and twist the truth to fit their own narrow minded warped agendas, it really makes you think. How can these people have any credibility? How can they expect to be taken seriously? Is their Torah worth anything at all when they will stoop to lies and distortions to further their own stupidity?

Avodah should come with an 'Emunah Threat Level High' warning. The sight of so many frum Jews spouting such utter idiocy is enough to turn anyone into a kofer. Krum as Bagel told me about the latest stupidity and now I'm back in the dumps again. Just before Rosh Hashanah too.

Here is some advice for the idiots on Avodah:

When it comes to Science and Torah, the views of Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim (and 90% of present day Gedolim) are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. I know you all love to quote Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim on every subject under the sun, but THEY HAD NO CLUE ABOUT SCIENCE. How could they? It hadn't been 'invented' yet. Of course today's Gedolim could have a clue, but they chose not to. Shame on them.

Does insulting an idiot like Ostroff make me feel better? Not really. But realizing that Ostroff is into Formal Methods and the OMG MDA does. It proves that the guy lives in a fantasy world, I should have guessed. Here is special message for Ostroff:

DO YOU REALLY THINK RAV DESSLER WAS AN EXPERT IN GEOLOGY OR EVOLUTION? DO YOU REALLY THINK ALL THE WORLDS SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG BUT THE GEDOLIM KNOW BETTER? IF SO, YOU ARE A FOOL. DO YOU REALLY THINK FORMAL METHODS WILL EVER BE USED OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA? IF SO, YOU ARE A DELUSIONAL FOOL. GET A FRIKKIN CLUE MAN. YOUR TORAH IS DAMAGING TO NORMAL PEOPLE. I SUGGEST YOU STOP BEFORE YOU TURN US ALL INTO KOFRIM.

Mythology in the Torah II

2005-09-07T13:39:00.000-07:00

Some people objected that the Myth/Moshol peshat is 'not Judaism'. I guess Chief Rabbi Hertz and Rabbi Gedalyah Nadel were not Jewish then. In BeToraso Shel Rav Gedalyah, p.99, Rav Nadel says:

The description of the formation of man from the dust is by way of allegory and parable. The Holy One did not take a spoonful of dirt and knead it with water, as children do in kindergarten. The "dust" here is raw material, from which animals were also formed.

In other words, Evolution. Also noteworthy is the fact the he uses the word 'allegory' and 'parable', in other words 'Mythology'.

And I'm pretty sure that Rav Nadel was practicing Judaism, since he even got a glowing hesped in the Yated, and they don't do that if you aren't Jewish. Strangely, the hesped doesn't mention anything about Rav Nadel's somewhat unorthodox views regarding Evolution and the Age of the Universe.

Chakira had three posts on Rav Nadel:

1. Allegory
2. Age of the Universe
3. Flood

Another choice quotes from Nadel:

Maimonides said “don’t be perplexed! Read the verses in a way of figurative language, the way of language and melitzah…and this is the correct interpretation, the truth of Torah. There is no doubt that the verses didn’t mean anything contradicted by the sekhel. Thus we say “there are many varied demonstrations, with exactitude that can be tested by experiment…that show that millions of years have passed. There are radioactive tests, fragments of rocks that have been found and there are geological tests…It is a mistake to believe that all of this is false. In the realm of saving lives, the most serious part of the Torah, we rely on scientific knowledge. When a doctor applies medicine made with scientific knowledge…you rely on him. You have no suspicion that he might be lying. Also with regard to the age of the world, there is no reason to say that the scientists are lying…If the sekhel needs it and the language can accommodate it, you are required to allegorize.

Again, notice what he says and does not say. He does NOT say, 'If the sekhel needs it then twist the language to mean something it doesn't.' He DOES say 'and the language can accommodate it, you are required to allegorize'.

So my objectors will no doubt kvetch and say its okay to allegorize certain phrases and words, but not whole chapters. Why not? Maybe 'Adam' is an allegory for 'Mankind', makes sense. And 'Gan Eden' is just an allegory for 'The Fertile Crescent (or wherever)'. The bottom line is that the sekhel requires that we allegorize almost all of Breishis 1-11, so we do. Maybe those people who don't allegorize just don't have the sekhel to require it.

Here are some scanned excerpts from Rav Nadel's sefer.

Here is a copy of Rabbi Hertz's essay.

Cassuto: Introduction to From Adam To Noah

2005-09-06T19:31:00.000-07:00

§ 1. The purpose of the Torah in this section is to teach us that the whole world and all that it contains were created by the word of the One God, according to His will, which operates without restraint. It is thus opposed to the concepts current among the peoples of the ancient East who were Israel’s neighbors; and in some respects it is also in conflict with certain ideas that had already found their way into the ranks of our people. The language, however, is tranquil, undisturbed by polemic or dispute; the controversial note is heard indirectly, as it were, through the deliberate, quiet utterances of Scripture, which sets the opposing views at naught by silence or by subtle hint.

§ 2. All kinds of wondrous stories about the creation of the world were wide-spread throughout the lands of the East, and many of them assumed a literary form in epic poems or other compositions. In the course of our exposition we shall have repeated occasion to refer to a number of matters found in these sources and to translate several verses from their texts. Here it will suffice to indicate briefly their general character.

They began, as a rule, with a theogony, that is, with the origin of the gods, the genealogy of the deities who preceded the birth of the world and mankind; and they told of the antagonism between this god and that god, of frictions that arose from these clashes of will, and of mighty wars that were waged by the gods. They connected the genesis of the world with the genesis of the gods and with the hostilities and wars between them; and they identified the different parts of the universe with given deities or with certain parts of their bodies. Even the elect few among the nations, the thinkers who for a time attained to loftier concepts than those normally held in their environment, men like Amenhotep IV the Egyptian king who attributed the entire creation to one of the gods, the sun-god Aten—and his predecessors (the discoveries of recent years prove that he was not the first to hold this doctrine), even they pictured this god to themselves as but one of the gods, be he the very greatest, as a deity linked to nature and identifiable with one of its component parts. Then came the Torah and soared aloft, as on eagles’ wings, above all these notions. Not many gods but One God; not theogony, for a god has no family tree; not wars nor strife nor the clash of wills, but only One Will, which rules over everything, without the slightest let or hindrance; not a deity associated with nature and identified with it wholly or in part, but a God who stands absolutely above nature, and outside of it, and nature and all its constituent elements, even the sun and all the other entities, be they never so exalted, are only His creatures, made according to His will.

§ 3. Among the Israelites, too, there existed, prior to the Biblical account, narrative poems about the creation and the beginning of the world’s history. Although these poems have not come down to us, having perished in the course of time, evidence of their existence is to be found both in this section and in other parts of Scripture. Frequently the prophets and the Bible poets allude to matters appertaining directly or indirectly to the creation of the world that are not mentioned in our section at all, for example, the story of Rahab, the prince of the sea, who rose up in revolt against God, and in the end God subdued him and slew him (see below, on i 9); but the brevity of these references leaves the impression that the authors were touching on topics that were well-known to the people they addressed. At times the Scriptural allusions closely resemble what we are told in the legends of the non-Israelites; yet it is difficult to imagine that these particular myths influenced them directly. Generally speaking, it is inconceivable that the prophets and poets of Israel intended to seek support for their views in the pagan mythological works, which they undoubtedly detested and abominated; nor is it thinkable that they mentioned the heathen legends as something that the Israelites knew and accepted.

Furthermore, whilst these allusions show certain resemblances quite striking, at times to the sagas of the Gentiles, they also exhibit distinct differences: the actions credited to the various deities in the pagan literature are attributed in the Hebrew Scriptures to the God of Israel, and are portrayed in a form more in keeping with Israel’s religious conscience. It follows that we have to assume the existence of intermediate links in the chain of development, which bridged the gap between the poems of the non-Israelites and the myths alluded to in the Bible. It seems that the intermediaries between the heathen peoples and Israel were the groups of Sages, the exponents of international ‘Wisdom’, who, it is known, were prone to obscure the religious elements peculiar to each individual nation. It may confidently be surmised that the said links included epic poems of Israel, Israelite cycles in which the ancient Eastern tradition took on a form that was generally in harmony with the national spirit of Israel and its religious convictions. I have dealt at length with this subject in my Hebrew essay on ‘The Epic Poetry of Israel’, which appeared in Keneseth, dedicated to H. N. Bialik, Vol. viii, 1943; I shall not, therefore, repeat what I have written there. Here I shall refer only to matters that concern our section as a whole, and in the course of my annotations on the individual verses, I shall mention the points that have a bearing on those verses in particular. Allusions to the creation-story that are unrelated to our section are found, for instance, in Job xxxviii 4-7:

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

There is a clear indication here of a tradition concerning the creation of the earth on a bright morning, whilst the stars and God’s angels sang a paean. Undoubtedly, the author of the book of Job did not fabricate these details. Nor did he invent such concepts or terms as lay the foundations, measurements, line, bases, cornerstone. Similarly, we read in Isaiah xl 12, 21–22:

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand and marked off the heavens with a span,
enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure and weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to dwell in.

The two passages probably derive from a common poetic source. It may be noted in regard to the root ? yasadh [‘lay the foundations’], which occurs in both texts in relation to the earth, that it is used a number of times in the Bible in this sense, although it does not appear in our section at all. The same applies to the verb ? nata [‘stretch out’] in connection with the heavens, which is found in Isaiah ibid., and in another passage of Job (ix 8); this word, too, occurs frequently in Scripture but not in our section. At times, moreover, both expressions to lay the foundations of the earth and to stretch out the heavens are found in juxtaposition. It cannot, therefore, be doubted that we have here an ancient literary tradition, and apparently this tradition has its roots in Israel’s epic poetry. There are also other literary characteristics that appear to belong to the vocabulary and phraseology of the ancient poetic tradition regarding the creation, and serve to prove the existence of such a poetic tradition among the Israelites: for instance, the expression spread forth the earth; the simile of a tent-curtain, or some synonym thereof, employed in connection with the stretching out of the heavens; the figure of chambers or upper chambers, signifying the heavens in relation to the earth beneath them; the verb ? hameqare [‘who hast laid the beams’] in Psa. civ 3, which corresponds to an Akkadian expression (see below, on verse 6); the root ? kun [‘establish’] followed by the words ? bal yimmot or bal timmot [‘shall not be moved’]; the verb holel in the sense of created; the adverb ? terem [‘not yet’] or the conjunction beterem [‘before’], used with reference to the pre-creation period (a similar usage is also common in non-Israelite writings), and many more examples of this kind.

As far as our own section is concerned, a poetic construction like ? ? hayetho ’eres [‘beasts of the earth’] (i 24) next to the corresponding prose form hayyath ha’ares (i 25, 30); or verses with poetic rhythm like i 27:

So God created man in His own image,
in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

and a number of other poetic features, which we shall discuss in the course of our exposition, also point to a poetic tradition among the Israelites anterior to the Book of Genesis. The metre of the verse, So God created man . . .tetrameter, which is also found in other verses of our section, is the most usual in the epic poetry of the Eastern peoples of antiquity, and was probably employed to a large extent in the epic poetry of Israel, too. There is no necessity to assume that the Torah took these verses verbatim from an earlier epic poem. Admittedly this is possible; but it is simpler to suppose that wherever, in the course of the Biblical story, which is mainly in prose, the special importance of the subject led to an exaltation of style approaching the level of poetry, the thought took on of its own accord, as it were, an aspect conforming to the traditional pattern of narrative poetry an aspect, at all events, that was in keeping with ancient poetic tradition.

§ 4. Although the epic poetry of Israel gave the traditional material, as has been stated, a form that was generally in harmony with the spirit and conscience of the nation, it nevertheless retained certain elements in which echoes of their origin in a foreign environment could still be heard. The saga, for example, of the revolt of ‘the lord of the sea’ against God belonged to this category. The same applies to the reference in Job xxxviii 7, to the morning stars that sang and to the sons of God who shouted for joy when God laid the cornerstone of the earth. It is not surprising, therefore, that the attitude of the Torah to these elements was not sympathetic. The prophets and the Biblical poets, who were accustomed to clothe their ideas in poetic garb and to elucidate them with the help of similes, and generally to employ the familiar devices of poesy, were not, to be sure, deterred from using what they found to hand in Israel’s epic poetry. But the Torah, which is not written in verse but in prose, and employs as a rule simple, not figurative, language, and weighs every word scrupulously, was careful not to introduce ingredients that were not completely in accord with its doctrines. Nay more, whenever necessary it voiced, in its own subtle way, its objection in principle to concepts suggestive of an alien spirit as, for instance, the myth of the revolt of the sea against its Creator (see below on i 6, 9, 14–15, 21).

Nevertheless, the Torah did not refrain from taking over other components of Israel’s poetic tradition, in so far as these did not militate against its spirit. We have already seen above that here and there the style of our section assumes an elevated poetic form, and that it is precisely the metre of epic poetry that is reflected in some of its sentences. This applies also to the content of the story, which has likewise absorbed certain elements of Israel’s ancient poetry. The truth that the Torah wished to convey in this section, to wit, that the world in its entirety was created by the word of the One God, could not be stated in abstract terms, simply as a theoretical concept. Semitic thought avoids general statements. Particularly in the case of a book like ours, which was not intended for the thinkers and the elect few only, but for the people as a whole, including also its common folk, it was proper that its ideas should be embodied in the language of concrete description. Hence, the Torah made use of the concrete traditions that found expression in the ‘Wisdom’ literature and in the ancient heroic poetry of Israel, and drew from them material for its structure. Choosing only what it deemed worthy, it refined and purified the selected matter, and moulded the entire narrative to a pattern of its own a pattern befitting its purpose and educational aim. In the light of this hypothesis, the parallels between our section and the traditions current in the ancient Orient become perfectly clear.

§ 5. The structure of our section is based on a system of numerical harmony. Not only is the number seven fundamental to its main theme, but it also serves to determine many of its details. Both to the Israelites and to the Gentiles, in the East and also in the West but especially in the East it was the number of perfection and the basis of ordered arrangement; and particular importance attached to it in the symbolism of numbers. The work of the Creator, which is marked by absolute perfection and flawless systematic orderliness, is distributed over seven days: six days of labour and a seventh day set aside for the enjoyment of the completed task. On the significance and use of the number seven see the works I have listed in Tarbiz, xiii, p. 207, notes 31 32, and my remarks ibid., pp. 206–207 [Hebrew], as well as the examples that I have cited there from Akkadian and Ugaritic literature, which prove that a series of seven consecutive days was considered a perfect period [unit of time] in which to develop an important work, the action lasting six days and reaching its conclusion and outcome on the seventh day. Possibly the Torah perceives in the importance attributed to the number seven by non-Israelites a kind of indistinct echo of the story of creation.

It is worth noting in this connection that in the case of actions lasting the above-mentioned length of time, it was customary to divide the six days of labour into three pairs, and to relate the story somewhat as follows: on the first day and on the second suchand- such a work was done; so, too, on the third day and on the fourth that work was done; likewise on the fifth day and on the sixth the same work was done. Thereafter, when the work had been completed on the sixth day, came the seventh day, a day of conclusion and change of situation (see the Akkadian and Ugaritic examples that I quote ibid.). In our section the division of the days is, as we shall see later, rather different, to wit, two series of three days each. But the prevailing pattern is implicit in the rabbinic saying: ‘It (the Sabbath day) has no partner: there is the first of the Sabbath [i. e. week], the second of the Sabbath; the third, the fourth, the fifth, the eve of the Sabbath; but the Sabbath itself remains unpaired’ (Bereshith Rabba, xi 8; for the different readings and parallels see Theodor’s edition).

In view of the importance ascribed to the number seven generally, and particularly in the story of Creation, this number occurs again and again in the structure of our section. The following details are deserving of note:

(a). After the introductory verse (i 1), the section is divided into seven paragraphs, each of which appertains to one of the seven days. An obvious indication of this division is to be seen in the recurring sentence, And there was evening and there was morning, such-and-such a day. Hence the Masoretes were right in placing an open paragraph [i. e. one that begins on a new line] after each of these verses. Other ways of dividing the section suggested by some modern scholars are unsatisfactory.

(b-d). Each of the three nouns that occur in the first verse and express the basic concepts of the section, viz God [ Elohim] heavens [ shamayim], earth [eres], are repeated in the section a given number of times that is a multiple of seven: thus the name of God occurs thirty-five times, that is, five times seven (on the fact that the Divine Name, in one of its forms, occurs seventy times in the first four chapters, see below); earth is found twentyone times, that is, three times seven; similarly heavens (or firmament, raqia?) appears twenty-one times.

(e). The ten sayings with which, according to the Talmud, the world was created (Aboth v 1; in B. Rosh Hashana 32a and B. Megilla 21b only nine of them are enumerated, the one in i 29, apparently, being omitted)that is, the ten utterances of God beginning with the words, and. . . said are clearly divisible into two groups: the first group contains seven Divine fiats enjoining the creation of the creatures, to wit, ‘Let there be light’, ‘Let there be a firmament’, ‘Let the waters be gathered together’, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation’, ‘Let there be lights’, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms’, ‘Let the earth bring forth’; the second group comprises three pronouncements that emphasize God’s concern for man’s welfare (three being the number of emphasis), namely, ‘Let us make man’ (not a command but an expression of the will to create man), ‘Be fruitful and multiply’, ‘Behold I have given unto you every plant yielding seed’. Thus we have here, too, a series of seven corresponding dicta.

(f ). The terms light and day are found, in all, seven times in the first paragraph, and there are seven references to light in the fourth paragraph.

(g). Water is mentioned seven times in the course of paragraphs two and three.

(h). In the fifth and sixth paragraphs forms of the word ? hayya [rendered ‘living’ or ‘beasts’] occur seven times.

(i). The expression it was good appears seven times (the seventh time very good).
(j). The first verse has seven words.

(k). The second verse contains fourteen words twice seven.

(1). In the seventh paragraph, which deals with the seventh day, there occur the following three consecutive sentences (three for emphasis), each of which consists of seven words and contains in the middle the expression the seventh day:

And on ? God finished His work which He had
done, and He rested on ? from all His work which
He had done.
So God blessed ? and hallowed it.

(m). The words in the seventh paragraph total thirty-five five times seven. To suppose that all this is a mere coincidence is not possible.

§ 6. This numerical symmetry is, as it were, the golden thread that binds together all the parts of the section and serves as a convincing proof of its unity against the view of those—and they comprise the majority of modern commentators—who consider that our section is not a unity but was formed by the fusion of two different accounts, or as the result of the adaptation and elaboration of a shorter earlier version. According to the prevailing view, the division of the work of creation in the original text differed from that found in the present recension, eight—or ten—creative acts, or seven days of work (man being formed on the seventh), or some other scheme being envisaged; only in the last redaction, it is assumed, was the division into six days of work introduced and the idea of the Sabbath added. The final edition is attributed by most scholars to the source P; the different theories concerning the source of the first version need not detain us here. I have already dealt with this matter fully in the second part of my essay, ‘La creazione del mondo nella Genesi’ (the creation of the world according to the Book of Genesis), published in Annuario di studi ebraici, Vol. i (1934) pp. 47–49. The reader who wishes to delve more deeply into the subject will find there the requisite details as well as a bibliography; here a summary account of the position must suffice. Following are the main arguments advanced by the scholars referred to:

(1). Internal contradictions: the existence of day and night before the creation of the luminaries; the presence of plants before the sun came into being.

(2). Signs of inconsistency and the absence of a unified system in the phrasing and formulation of the account: sometimes the expression and it was so is used, sometimes a different wording; on most of the days we are told it was good, but not on the second day; the acts of creation are described in different ways (at times God issues an order and His order is carried out; at other times it is He who creates or makes; on other occasions still He commands the elements to form the creatures).

(3). The distribution of the acts of creation over six days is not balanced, for the works of the first three days do not properly correspond to those of the last three days. Thus we have: 1. Light 2. Heavens 3. Earth (including vegetation) and sea 4. Luminaries 5. Fish and birds 6. Living creatures on land, and man

(4). The use of antiquated words and concepts. Not one of these contentions, however, is tenable in the face of critical examination. On the problem of the existence of day and night and plant-life before the formation of the luminaries, see below on i 14. With reference to the variations in phrasing and formulation, I have shown (in Tarbiz, xiii, pp. 205–206, sec. 2, [Hebrew], and subsequently in Keneseth, dedicated to the memory of H. N. Bialik, viii, pp. 126–127, sec. 15 [Hebrew]) that, in contrast to the style of epic poetry, which is prone to word-for-word repetition, it is a basic principle of Biblical narrative prose not to repeat a statement in identical terms; with fine artistic sense, the narrator likes to alter the wording or to shorten it or to change the order of the words when reverting to any subject (except when dealing with technical matters like the work of the Tabernacle, the sacrifices of the princes, or the genealogies). Concerning the expressions and it was so and that it was good, see below the detailed annotations on the verses where they occur or are omitted. As for the three different ways of describing the acts of creation, it should be noted, firstly, that, quite apart from the point made previously regarding the characteristics of narrative prose style, these linguistic variations could serve to prove the existence of different versions only if it had been possible to employ each type of wording in all instances; in such circumstances the choice of one mode of expression in preference to the other two could be construed as typical of a given recension. Actually, this is not the case. In regard to the light, which was but an immaterial phenomenon so long as it was independent of the luminaries, neither the second nor the third form of wording was applicable, and so the Bible had necessarily to use the first form. Similarly, in respect of the gathering of the water into one place, which represents only movement and not the creation of a new element, the first mode of expression had, perforce, to be chosen. Furthermore, the three ways of portraying the creative process cannot be considered of equal value. On the contrary, that which God creates or makes is of a higher order than what is formed by the elemental forces of nature. Bearing all this in mind, we cannot but conclude that throughout the section the three different modes of expression are used according to a systematic plan. When referring to non-material things, such as the creation of light or the gathering of the waters, the first mode, as stated, is inevitably chosen. In depicting the fashioning of new material entities, the second or third type of phrasing, according to the category of creation, is employed. Thus the second type—to wit, the creation or making by God—serves for the highest forms of being, namely, the firmament, the luminaries and man (there is a difference of degree even between making and creating, as we shall see later on verses 2–3); the combined second and third forms of expression are used for living creatures (fifth and sixth days); the third by itself is applied to plant-life. As to the distribution of the acts of creation over six days and the culmination of the process on the seventh day, reference to the ancient examples of similar schemes in the literatures of the East, to which I alluded above (at the beginning of § 3), will suffice to convince us at once that there are no grounds whatsoever for attributing the division adopted in our text to a later redaction. Regarding the parallelism between the first three days and the last three days, it will be clear from my commentary that only the version before us provides a completely harmonious balance, viz: 1. Light 2. Sea and Heaven 3. Earth (with its plants) 4. Luminaries 5. Fish and Fowl 6. Land creatures and Man In so far as the archaic expressions and concepts are concerned, they are fully explained by our hypothesis regarding the Israelite tradition of epic poetry that antedated the Torah account.

Myth/Moshol or Non Literal?

2005-09-06T13:16:00.000-07:00

A debate is raging in some of my prior posts about whether one can say Breishis 1-11 is Mythology. It's an interesting debate, because I think all sides basically agree that a literal interpretation of Breishis is obviously incorrect, and that the world is clearly very ancient.

The position of the 'Non Literal' crowd is that we must save the basics of the stories, even while reading most of the words non-literally. So for example we can switch around the Breishis account to accord with the facts, but Adam & Eve must be real people. They insist on this for the following reasons:

1. Chazal always assumed that Adam & Eve were real
2. It's a slippery slope once you start mythologizing

However neither of these reasons hold up. Chazal also assumed that Breishis was a factual literal account in many places, and that the flood was global (execpt for Eretz Yisrael according to one authority) so the Non Literal crowd are going against Chazal's assumptions anyway. And 'Non Literal' is just as much a slippery slope as Mythology. Maybe the 10 commandments are non literal?

No, I don't buy into these reasons. The real reason is as I have stated: They are emotionally attached to the idea of Adam & Eve being real. So if it makes them feel better, lets assume that there really was a couple called Adam & Eve Horishon, who lived in a nice garden in Iraq 6000 years ago. Oh, and they had a pet snake, who did tricks!

Seriously though, taking things 'Non Literally' approaches 'Mythology' very, very quickly. Remember, Mythology does not mean Fairy Tales. It means important truths wrapped up in story form.

In order to fit Adam & Eve with the facts, the Non_literal crowd have to say that there were other people around, but only A&E had some special kind of neshamah. But that gets you into all sorts of problems as to whether Aboriginees have neshamot. So then they say, maybe all people got neshamot at the same time as A&E. So what was so special abut A&E? So then they say, maybe A&E were not literally individual people, but really were representative of mankind as a whole, maybe its the story of modern man replacing neandertahl man. By the time you get to this point you know where you are?

Its called Mythology.

Correction: For 'Mythology' read 'Aggadata'

2005-09-06T09:40:00.000-07:00

Ralph Spoilsport defies his name and suggests that instead of 'Mythology' I should use the word 'Agadata'. What a great idea! Of course the fundamentalists will still have a problem since they tend to take all Agadata literally anyway, but at least the rest of us will understand.

What is not in Chazal and/or Rishonim is not Judaism.

2005-09-05T21:29:00.000-07:00

Der Alter seems pretty convinced that if Chazal or Rishonim didn't say it, then it can't possibly be 'Authentic Torah True Judaism'. Hence my peshat in Breishis 1-11 cannot possibly be correct. By the same logic no peshat which states the world is older than 5765 years, or that Adam & Eve were not real, or that there was no global flood can possibly be Torah True.

Now, I have the greatest respect for Chazal and Rishonim, and for Der Alter too, especially in this month of Ellul, prime Mussar season. Mussar is supremely important and I think its a crying shame that we all don't learn more of it. R Yisroel Salanter is one of my heroes for re-emphasizing the ethical, moral and spiritual aspects of Judaism. So far be it from me to bash the heilige Chazal, Rishonim or Mussar Greats.

But I must respond with this: WHAT A LOAD OF NONSENSE.

First of all, there is plenty that Chazal and Rishonim said which is not part of Judaism (think bogus medicine and spiritual moons). Der Alter claims these were never part of Judaism itself, just external items which were deemed 'compatible with Judaism'. OK. Then think about all the new stuff which was invented after the Rishonim (think Ari's Kabalah). Der Alter claims these were all based on previous authentic strands of kabalah. Whatever.

The fact of the matter is this: It doesn't matter one whit what Chazal or Rishonim thought was peshat in Breishis, since CHAZAL AND THE RISHONIM HAD ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE HOW OLD THE UNIVERSE WAS OR HOW HUMANITY EVOLVED OR WHETHER A GLOBAL FLOOD HAD HAPPENED. Sorry, but it's true. And this is no disrespect to them AT ALL. THEY COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE KNOWN, SINCE NO ONE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET KNEW THESE THINGS before about the 18th century. Isn't this BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH THE REMOTEST DEGREE OF SECHEL?

This being the case, ANY UNDERSTANDING WHICH CHAZAL AND RISHONIM HAD IN BREISHIS IS ALMOST ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT. I say 'almost' because any moral, ethical or spiritual lessons they learned are 100% relevant. But the fact that Chazal and the Rishonim assumed the world was only a few thousand years old, or that Adam & Eve were real, or that the flood was global is irrelevant. They assumed it was literal because they had no reason not to assume that. But we HAVE EVERY REASON IN THE WORLD TO KNOW IT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE LITERAL.

So, we are left with a choice. Either kvetch like crazy and come out with some bastardized peshat in Breishis which barely conforms to reality and turns Breishis stories into a joke, or recognize that it's Mythology and learn the correct lessons from it. Again, MYTHOLOGY DOESN'T MEAN FAIRY TALES. MYTHOLOGY MEANS IMPORTANT INFORMATION ENCODED INTO SIMPLE STORIES.

Go read some books on mythology, especially this one. There may even be kernels of true events encoded in the Breishis stories. But you won't get at any of this with kvetchy peshat and bogus science. A far better approach would be to read up on ancient Sumerian Mythology and compare and contrast. Read Cassuto: From Adam to Noah, or Sarna: Understanding Genesis. Or see the notes at the end of Breishis in the standard Soncino Chumash.

The funny thing is that this MYTHOLOGY/MOSHOLOGY peshat is standard amongst educated MO Jews and even some LW UO Jews (don't make me name any names!). It's only sheltered Chareidim who are shocked to hear of it. For goodness sake guys, it's been in the Soncino Chumash since 1936! And Rabbi Hertz was the Chief (Orthodox) Rabbi of the British Empire!

I love Judaism and I love Mussar, but I cry for both.

Kannaim: Moon Landing Was a Hoax

2005-09-05T15:30:00.000-07:00

Reliable sources in Israel tell me that one of the kannaim, part of the group behind the Slifkin ban and intent on delegitimizing the Kamenetzky family (which is what the drive behind the Slifkin ban was actually all about), has been showing people a Foxtel documentary proving that astronauts never landed on the moon and it was all faked by NASA!

What the heck??

Well, this is in reference to the famous account of Reb Yaakov Kamenetzky z"l who watched the moon landing and concluded that Rambam was not correct in describing the moon as a spiritual being. The kannoim hope to show that Hollywood fooled Reb Yaakov into being a kofer. Evidently they will go to any lengths to try and prove this. What a bunch of maniacs. How can the Gedolim be so stupid as to listen to these people?

In fact the kannaim are not even following their own retarded ideology. I blogged about the fake moon landing months ago. The kannoim are forgetting the obvious peshat: The moon used to be a spiritual body, but then nishtaneh hatevah (actually nishtaneh hayareach) and now it's made of granite. So the Rambam wasn't actually wrong (in his time) at all. And why not? You think that's any more ridiculous than using nishtaneh hatevah to explain why lice have babies, whereas 2000 years ago they spontaneously generated?

Sometimes, I can understand why the skeptics just want the heck out of here. How much stupidity do we have to endure? Even otherwise sensible people have been spouting nonsense recently, in reference to my mythology post. Here is a sampling:

1. You have too much faith in science. You have more emunah in science
than in Torah.

(No, I have emunah in proven facts.)

2. Science changes all the time. All this will change too.

(Right. Ultimately scientists will realize that the world is exactly 5765 years old after all! Sure.)

3. The scientists disagree between themselves, so why should we listen to them.

(Right. One scientist says the world is 10 billion years old and another says 20 billion. So you see they can be wrong by billions of years! Maybe they are wrong by 10 to 20 billion years and the world is 5765 years old after all. Sure.)

4. Science can only document the present, it cannot 'predict' the past.

(Nonsense. Unless you invoke bizarre miracles.)

5. Science by definition can't accept G-d, so obviously they don't agree to Breishis.

(Nonsense.)

Other people kvetch and kvetch and kvetch. Well day doesn't mean day. And vegetation (created before the sun) doesn't really mean vegetation. It just means the potential for vegetation. And the sun didn't fully form until after earth was created, so maybe that's what the pasuk means when it talks about the creation of earth before the sun. And maybe Adam & Eve were just two special people. And maybe the flood was just a local flood. And when it says 'all the animals' it just means all the local animals. And maybe in the tower of bavel story everyone knew different languages already but they spoke a common one too, and then G-d made them forget the common one. And on and on and on.

I think it would be useful for the kvetchers to stop and rethink what they just turned Breishis into. A story about 2 people with slightly different neshamas? A story about a small flood and one guy who survived it? And a failed building project?!. What's the big deal?

I think the problem is that people don't understand what Mythology is. Mythology doesn't mean bube mayses. Mythology doesn't mean fairy tales for children. Mythology doesn't mean urban myths.

Mythology means great truths encoded in the form of an easy to remember story. Myths typcially formed before writing was invented, and hence had to survive oral transmission for hundreds or even thousands of years. Even Mythology created after writing was invented still had to be easy to remember and interesting and exciting to hear, guaranteeing that it would be passed down from generation to generation without being forgotten.

Breishis being Mythology does not mean it is all a waste of time. There are great and serious lessons in Breishis. But this does not mean Breishis is literally true, nor does it mean you should twist and bastardize basic peshat to try and get it to fit with current Science. The stories told in Breishis do not fit with the Scientific explanation of the world. Period. Making them fit by twisting the Science or by twisting the Torah is the wrong mehalech.

Can the Torah contain Mythology?

2005-09-01T14:42:00.000-07:00

In the previous post I showed how Breishis does not in any way conform to the accepted scientific account of the Universe’s creation and subsequent history. What’s quite amazing is how frum Jews, even well educated ones, often have no clue as to the extent of the incompatibilities. I will even admit that I was exactly the same. In the frum world, people just don’t think about these things with any rigor.

Most frum people are dimly aware that Scientists say the world is billions of years old, man evolved ‘from’ monkeys, and dinosaurs existed, but that’s about it. They assume the answer to Breishis questions is that ‘day’ isn’t literal, ‘taninim gedolim’ means dinosaurs, and that evolution is treif. When you point out to them that a global flood and subsequent repopulation of the entire planet’s human and animal life from one small boat is completely impossible, they say it was all a ness and that there is no evidence it didn’t happen, just lack of evidence that it did.

Well, actually there is plenty of evidence it didn’t happen, making the ‘ness’ theory somewhat theologically troubling. Also, you can’t discount all of evolution without taking a large part of our biological sciences down with it.

Some people insist that Science can’t tell us anything about the past, only about the future, because the past may have had a different set of scientific laws. Well, thats kinda crazy. Why would the scientific laws just change like that? Is G-d just playing with us? And maybe they will all change again tomorrow? Better not get on that plane tonight! I would regard those kind of answers as too crazy, and I am not going to entertain them here.

So, most sensible educated people take it for granted that at least the first 11 chapters of Breishis are mythological. Sure, there could have been a naked couple in Iraq six thousand years ago called Adam and Eve, and there could have been a guy in a boat called Noach, but once you accept the Scientific account of the history of the world, stubbornly clinging on to these characters when their surrounding stories can’t possibly be true doesn’t seem to make much sense.

After all, if Adam & Eve were just a couple living in a particularly nice part of Iraq, then what’s the point? And if Noach was just one of thousands of flood survivors from some small local flood, then what’s the big deal about Noach? And if the Tower of Babylonians really was not the cause of the many different languages, then why that story?

So, let’s think about the alternative. What are the problems if we say that Breishis 1-11 is Mythological? Let me present a few issues, and some solutions. If you think this all sounds somewhat apologetic, well duh!

1. Divine Authorship
Many people feel that once we say something is mythological, it is a threat to Divine Authorship. After all, why would G-d write mythology? Surely G-d would only write the truth? There are a few different aspects to this question:

1. Who actually wrote Breishis ?
2. Does G-d allowing Breishis in the Torah mean it must be true?
3. Would G-d write Mythology, and if so why?

In terms of the first question, we find that it seems to be quite acceptable to hold that G-d was NOT the original author of Breishis, but that Breishis was written under ‘Divine Inspiration’, just like the books of Nach. Rabbi Gil Student writes:

We find the following in Shemot Rabbah 5:22: "And Moshe said before the Holy One, blessed be He, (Exodus 5:22) 'Why have You done evil to this people...' I opened the book of Genesis and read it and saw the acts of the generation of the flood..." As R' Zev Wolf Einhorn points out in his Perush Maharzu, it seems like Moshe had some sort of book of Genesis well before he descended from Mt. Sinai. …. The answer is simply that our forefathers Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov, and even those who preceded them like Adam and Noach, wrote down personal histories and theological works that were kept by their descendants. As prophets, their writings were sacred and treated like holy books. They were studied by their children and handed down from generation to generation. Rashi on Gittin 60a says that first the scroll of Creation was written, then the scroll of Noach, and then the scroll of Avraham. … Rashi seems to say that it was written at different times, scroll by scroll. Or, perhaps Rashi is not talking about the book of Genesis at all. Rather, he is telling us that all of these people wrote their own scrolls. Adam wrote a book about his life and what happened during his lifetime. He was a prophet and, naturally, this was an inspired book. ….Throughout the stay in Egypt and the desert, the scrolls of the forefathers were treated as sacred books and studied. These books, which were written under prophetic inspiration, form the basis of the book of Genesis. Granted, they were highly edited so that the book would not be too long….

According to R Gil, Breishis was written by the Avos, and even Noach and Adam (unlikely since they probably didn't exist), and then ‘edited’ by Moshe under G-d’s command. So Breishis being written by others besides G-d is not the actual problem. The main problem is, if Breishis stories were Mythological, why would G-d have included them in the Torah. Isn’t that very misleading? Why is that any better than faking up the post-flood evidence, or creating a fully formed world complete with fossils? How could G-d have let such a situation arise, when many people, even great Gedolim, don’t realize its all mythology?

I would suggest the following answers:

Man has free will. It’s not G-d’s fault if we can’t spot Mythology when we see it. After all, 2 billion Christians believe in Jesus. Is that fair? Why not wonder about that? Or don’t goyim count? And what about Skeptics? How could G-d have let a situation arise when so many people in the world don’t believe in Him? Of course the answer is that man has free will. Nothing in this world is absolutely clear. We have to do our best to understand it. But don't blame G-d.

2. Does G-d allowing Breishis in the Torah mean it must be true?
Many Gedolim, including Rav Kook, Rambam etc are okay with taking Torah non literally. Rambam explains the Bilaam episode as a dream. Why are these not misleading? Or even the cases of anthropomorphism? We have a klal, that dibrah torah keloshon bnei odom. So the Torah contained an account which was suitable for the people of the day to understand and that’s all. Nowadays, G-d expects us to use our sechel to realize that. Just because something is in the Torah does not mean it has to be literally true.

3. Would G-d write Mythology, and if so why?
The point of the Torah is to teach Moral and Ethical lessons, not Science, or even history. In fact the very first Rashi on the Torah confirms this. This can certainly be done using mythological stories. In fact, it can more effectively be done from mythology, since with real life you are constrained to only write about what actually happened, which may or may not contain any valuable lessons.

2. Slippery Slope
Many people are concerned that we have a very slippery slope here. If Breishis 1-11 is Mythological, why not 11-24, or Shemos, or the whole of Tenach? Where do you do draw the line?

I would suggest the following answers:

Many of our beliefs can be discounted through arguments. Torah MiSinai and many other ikkarim don’t hold up to serious skepticism. But we have emunah all the same. On the other hand, Science is clearly reliable and we trust it all the time in our everyday lives. So what to do?

The most sensible approach is as follows: Where we have proven Science which contradicts a belief or a pasuk in the Torah, we need to listen to the facts. If there is no proven Science, only theories and speculations, then that’s a different story.

Breishis 1-11 is ‘pre-history’ from a perspective of the Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai, or even from the Avos’s perspective. There is no reason why such ancient history would have been reliably known. However the stories of the Avos, and certainly Yetzias Mitzrayim itself would have been more recent history or even current events. In other words, the rest of the Torah could have been written at the same time as the events actually occurred, but the stories of Breishis 1-11 not so. Also, there is no proven Science against the stories of the Avos, and the Maccot and Har Sinai are clearly miracles, which would not have left much if any evidence.

There is certainly a problem with the huge numbers of people supposedly leaving Mitzrayim, and the almost complete lack of archeological and historical evidence for such a huge event. Some people like to claim that ‘Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence’, but that’s not so great. It’s definitely a question, and I don’t have my full answer fully fleshed out yet (soon). However, it’s still not quite as strong as the ‘proven’ science which contradicts Breishis 1-11.

Finally, I would say it is a slippery slope. However we already have questions and are already on the slope. So we might as well make the most of it.

3. Connectivity
There is a problem in that the Mythology stories are connected to the story of Avraham, by way of the geneologies. There is no clean separation there. The only answer I have is that the Torah was edited to make it into a seamless story, so it had to be done that way.

4. Emotional Attachment
Many people have an emotional attachment to Adam & Eve, or Noach. This probably stems from having learnt Breishis in kindergarten, or having a Noach blanky and crib set when they were younger. I have noticed a sliding scale here, some people can’t give up on the idea of any of them being real. Some people are okay with Adam & Eve being myth, but draw the line at Noach. Some people are willing to let Noach sink into oblivion (excuse the pun), but draw the line at the Avos. Personally I remember being quite upset when I realized Noach probably wasn’t real, but I got over it.

I would like to keep the Avos, since we daven about them quite a bit every day. Adam & Eve and the Mabul rarely appear in davening, except ‘Hashem LaMabul Yoshov’ which isn’t so serious. I recall some piyutim on Yomim Tovim, and of course you have the long Breishis description in the Avodah on Yom Kippur, but that’s not the end of the world either (nor the beinning haha). However I would be more upset to lose the Avos, certainly. There is no Scientific evidence against the Avos currently except for the Sedom story. People used to complain about the camels but I believe that has become a non issue now. So I think we can keep the Avos.

5. Mesorah
Finally, many people object that the Mesorah has always held Breishis 1-11 to be true. Well, I guess. But not Mesorah as in Halachah LeMoshe MiSinai, just mesorah in terms of natural assumptions, which is understandable. But it's time to change our natural assumptions. By the way, the mesorah also assumed the earth was flat and the sun went round the earth, so maybe mesorah (small 'm') is not so great.

Breishis & Science

2005-09-01T11:44:00.000-07:00

Does Breishis fit with Science?

I'm glad you asked! Let’s see by looking at the text. I shall ignore Midrashic explanations which tend to be even more fantastical than the basic text and just focus on the basic text. Let’s go chapter by chapter through the beginning of Breishis and see what happens. I shall focus on the aspects of the Breishis story that are relevant to Science, and ignore other details that are not. Contradictions within the text itself shall be ignored, as shall obvious similarities to other ancient texts.

1. Breishis 1
Creation starts approximately 5765 years ago with Water. Next comes light, and then the first day ends. Second day, G-d creates Heaven and Earth, by separating the Waters. Third day, G-d moves around the lower waters, and thereby creates dry land and seas, and then creates vegetation on the earth. On the fourth day, G-d created the Sun, the moon and the stars. On the fifth day, G-d created all aquatic creatures, including Sea monsters, and also all birds. On the 6th day, G-d created animals, insects and then finally man and woman.

1. Science
Creation (of the current Universe) starts approximately 15 billion years ago with a Big Bang of energy, no Water. The energy could conceivably be called ‘light’. There is no separation of water into Heaven and Earth. For the next 10 billion years, various galaxies, stars and planets are born and die. Finally, about 4-8 billion years ago, our solar system is formed. The sun forms first and then the surrounding planets. Many stars obviously precede the earth’s formation, and vegetation obviously does not come before the Sun. Life starts in the seas about billion years ago, and then slowly spreads to the land first, and then to the sky. Dinosaurs rule the earth from about 300 million years ago to about 65 million years ago. Man (and of course woman) appear in some form about 2 million years ago. For the next 2 million years, Man (and woman) slowly evolve from primitive ape like beings to modern Homo Sapiens. Language appears about 100,000 years ago (if not earlier). Cave Paintings appear about 30,000 years ago. Man migrates out of Africa (or maybe India) and spreads across all 5 continents. 10,000 years ago we have intelligent man living in North America, Australia, Africa, Europe in many places. Pottery, art, language, even some basic farming are commonplace.

1. Conclusion
No match.

2. Breishis 2
G-d created a man, called Adam, and then placed him in the Garden of Eden, somewhere near present day Iraq/Iran. G-d tells Adam to eat from any tree. But not the tree of Good & Evil. Adam names all the animals but doesn’t have a mate. G-d recognizes that this isn’t good, so G-d makes him sleep, and then takes one of his ribs and creates a woman. They are both naked, and are not ashamed.

2. Science
The area described as Gan Eden is quite lush and fertile, and civilization does blossom there. As well as many other places in the world. Women and man both evolve from earlier forms.

2. Conclusion
No match.

3. Breishis 3
A talking snake convinces the woman to eat the forbidden fruit. G-d is unhappy and banishes the man and woman from the Garden. He punishes the snake by making it crawl, women are punished by being subservient and having childbirth pains, and men in general punished by having to work the ground for food. G-d creates clothes for Adam, and Adam calls his wife Eve.

3. Science
Snakes don’t talk, and fruit is fruit. Biologically, childbirth has been difficult for at least 100,000 years, since babies have large heads which are difficult to fit through the birth canal. Snakes have also been crawling for millions of years. Early man started to farm (as opposed ti hunt) about 10,000 years ago. Farming was always difficult. Clothes were invented at least 100,000 years ago.

3. Conclusion
No match.

4. Breishis 4
Adam and Eve have two sons, Cain & Abel. Cain kills Abel and G-d marks him so that he won’t be killed by other people (which other people?). Cain has children. And 7 generations later he has Yovol and Yuvol and Tuval-Cain, originators of nomadic life, musical instruments and brass & iron respectively.

4. Science
• 29,000–25,000 BCE - First ceramic appears
• 3rd millennium BC - Copper metallurgy is invented and copper is used for ornamentation
• 2nd millennium BC - Bronze is used for weapons and armour
• 1st millennium BC - Pewter beginning to be used in China and Egypt
• 16th century BC - The Hittites develop crude iron metallurgy
• 13th century BC - Invention of steel when iron and charcoal are combined properly

4. Conclusion
Partial match.

5. Breishis 5
Adam lived 930 years. Seht lives 912 years. Enosh lives 905 years. Kenan lives 910 years. Chanoch lives 365 years. Lamech lives 777 years. Noach is 500 years old, and has 3 children.

5. Science
Average lifespans tend to rise and fall depending on the region of the world and time perod, but generally fall into the range of 30-80 years. Maximum human lifespan would seem to be 120-150 years. All ancient bodies dug up (5000-10000 years old) are within the 30-80 range, usually at the low end. Living past 200 years might be possible in the future, but not in the past.
5. Conclusion
No match.

6. Breishis 6
Sons of gods (rulers?) steal daughters of men. G-d is unhappy, and limits human lifespan to 120 years. Nephilim (giants?) roam the earth. G-d is unhappy with the violence on the earth, and vows to destroy all mankind. However Noach finds favor, so G-d commands him to build a boat, and gives him detailed instructions. G-d tells Noach to take 2 of every kind of animal into the Ark, and food.

6. Science
There are no sons of gods (at least according to Judaism). There are also no giants. Boats are commonplace about 4,000 years ago.

6. Conclusion
Partial Match.

7. Breishis 7
Approximately 5,000 years ago, G-d says he will cause it to rain and blot out every living being on the earth. The fountains of the deep were opened, as well as the storehouses of the heavens. All the high mountains under all the heavens are covered in water. Every single animal, fish and insect dies, only Noah is saved.

7. Science
There were many local floods throughout the world. An ice age ended about 20,000 years ago in Europe causing massive flooding. There was also potentially a major flood in the Caspian see area about 8,000 years ago. In all cases, only the local populations and animals were affected. No mountains were ever covered in water. That much water does not exist on the planet, nor could the planet sustain so much water. There are no ‘fountains of the deep’, nor ‘storehouses in the heaven’ of such vast quantities of water. Geological and archeological evidence from a variety of sites all over the world show uninterrupted human habitation and development for at least the past 30,000 years, and show that a global flood never happened.

7. Conclusion
No match.

8. Breishis 8
The flood eventually ends and Noah and his wife and sons leave the Ark. They repopulate the earth with animals, fish and birds, since everything was wiped out. There are no other humans besides them.

8. Science
Archeological and zoological evidence from all over the world show an uninterrupted development of human and animal life all over the planet. Some species have been indigenous to their areas for tens of thousands of years.

8. Conclusion
No match.

9. Breishis 9
Noah and his family repopulate the earth. Noah dies at 950 years old.

9. Science
Population and genetic studies, not to mention archeological data, show that the population of the earth with humans was unbroken and happened 30-50,000 years ago. There was no repopulation of humanity only 4,000 years ago from a single family.

9. Conclusion
No match.

10. Breishis 10
Geneology of Noach’s sons, showing how they repopulated the Earth.

10. Science
Same as above.

10. Conclusion
No match.

11. Breishis 11
The whole earth speaks one language, approximately 4,000 years ago. They buld a tower to heaven which displeases G-d. G-d scatters the men and causes them to have different languages. Men spread across the face of the earth. A geneology is decribed linking shem to Abraham

11. Science
Linguistic evolution shows language developed in many parts of the earth over the last 50 to 100,000 years. Human populations too.

11. Conclusion
No match.

Conclusion
Clearly, 99% of the Science of the first 11 chapters does not match accepted Science. The only thing that came close was the invention of metal working. So, what are we to do?

Obviously you can claim that all Science is the work of evil atheist reshoim and therefore unreliable, or alternatively everything is a Ness. However Science is clearly reliable, and nothing is a Ness unless the Torah explicitly says it is (following the mehalech of the Rambam).

This leaves us with 2 options.

1. Kvetch like crazy to come up with far out Scientific theories, take many of the words non literally, ignore many difficult passages and create a story which is entirely far fetched, does not really match the accepted scientific account and destroys much of the meaning and impact in the text

2. Explain the whole thing as mythology which was included in the Torah for the important moral and spiritual lessons it teaches us.

I call option 1 the ‘Kiruv Clown’ option.

Cassuto: Breishis as Counter-Mythology

2005-07-22T11:58:00.000-07:00

Long time readers of my blog will know that while I don't claim to have THE answer to all those Science vs Torah questions, I have always strongly felt that the most correct mehalech was not Schroeder or Slifkin (and obviously not Rav Shternbuch, Shapiro and Kiruv Clown friends), but was in fact Umberto Cassuto's mehalech.

Was Cassuto frum? Well, he had semichah, according to this:

Born in Florence, Italy, he studied there at the university and the Collegio Rabbinico. After graduating in humanities and receiving his rabbinic diploma, he took up teaching positions in both institutions. At this time his main research was on the history and literature of the Jews of Italy. From 1914 to 1925 Cassuto was chief rabbi of Florence and then in 1925 became professor of Hebrew language and literature in the University of Florence and then took the chair of Hebrew at the University of Rome. Here he began to catalogue the Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican but the 1938 anti-Semitic laws forced him out of his positions and he continued his academic career at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He edited a Bible with Hebrew commentary that has remained an Israel school classic. His interests focused on Bible exegesis in which he contested the documentary theory of Wellhausen on the origin of the Pentateuch, postulating its redaction to a school around the 10th century BCE. Cassuto also made important contributions to Ugaritic studies.

Wikipedia has this to say (it needs some editing if you want my opinion):

He studied there at the university and the Collegio Rabbinico. After getting a degree and Semicha, he taught in both institutions. From 1914 to 1925, he was chief rabbi of Florence. In 1925 he became professor of Hebrew and literature in the University of Florence and then took the chair of Hebrew language at the University of Rome La Sapienza. When the 1938 anti-Semitic laws forced him from this position, he moved to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Umberto's son Nathan was also a rabbi in Florence. He went into hiding during World War II, was betrayed and perished in the Nazi death camps. Nathan's wife and children were saved and emigrated to Israel. One child, the architect David Cassuto (born 1938), played a key role in rebuilding the Jewish quarter in the old city of Jerusalem. In the 1990s he was for some years deputy mayor of Jerusalem.

Basically, Cassuto's mehalech, like Nahum Sarna in Understanding Genesis (also frum), and also like Chief Rabbi Hertz in The Soncino Chumash (also frum), see the stories in the first part of Breishis as a response to the prevailing Canaanite/Sumerian Mythology, which doubtless the Israelites would have been aware of. Each myth is taken, stripped of its polytheistic and other nefarious content and replaced with pure monotheistic content. I am not sure if Sarna and Hertz were influenced by Cassutto or not, it seems likely.

Is anyone aware of any other frum (or traditional) scholars who had a similar mehalech? Please let me know. I am not aware of any, so I was gratified to see Hirhurim link to this article on the Gush Virtual Bet Midrash site by Rav Chaim Navon. Rav Navon explicitly condones the Cassuto mehalech, at least with respect to the Taninim mentioned in Breishis.

Cassuto argues that the Torah does not totally reject this mythological tradition; but rather it modifies it. "New ideas were attached to it in consonance with the conscience and ethos of the Hebrew people" (U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. II, p. 98). According to Cassuto, the Torah continues to use the Tanin and Leviathan as symbols of the forces of evil against which God contends. The Torah eradicates the idolatrous meaning of these myths and turns them into a symbol of the war against the forces of evil and suffering.

Also interesting is that Rav Dovid Gottleib in this article talks about Cassuto's book on the Documentary Hypothesis, but adds the following disclaimer:

[[Cassuto’s book does not represent the position of Traditional Judaism. Some of his remarks would be considered false textually, and objectionable religiously. Nevertheless, his critique of the methods and results of “Biblical Criticism” are devastating and deserve to be known. – D.G.]]

So was Cassuto frum? Well, there is a street in Bayit Vegan named after him, but I'm not sure if that proves it definitively. Either way, I continue to maintain that this is the most correct peshat in Breishis. As for those people (like Boruch) who counter 'Why would G-d write mythology in the Torah?', my response is that it's really no more of a kashye than asking why would G-d write long (and boring?) geneologies and travel itineraries in the Torah which don't seem to add much value. And the answer to those kashyes?

I don't know, go ask the Author, not me.

When They Severed Earth From Sky

2005-06-30T15:10:00.000-07:00

An interesting book on mythology, and why it’s not all just a bunch of crazy stories. The authors show how ancient myths were often really descriptions of important events, passed down through oral transmission amazingly unchanged for sometimes thousands of years, until they were eventually written down.

If you think about it, in the really ancient world there was less ‘news’ to talk about. Technology, Politics and Global Events were mostly non issues. The most newsworthy happenings would all have been natural: Floods, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Eclipses and Comets. So when an event such as these happened, it was important to describe it in such a way that the story could survive through many generations, without being written down, since writing hadn’t been invented yet, and nobody was sure when it would.

Why was it important to the ancients to preserve these events? It could have been for a few reasons: Either to warn their descendents about it, e.g. Not to live in a volcanic area, or just for the historical record, or maybe they attached some religious significance to the event.

The key to their success was in the encoding of the myth. The message was often repeated in various ways, so that even if one part of the message got messed up, the key point would still be there. Also, memorable details were often added to make it more interesting.

Using some examples of fire breathing giant myths from the Native Americans, they show how these myths are actually accounts of volcanic activity in that area.

The book in general has two explanations for why these events are depicted as fantastical tales of fire breathing giants and the like. Either these additional details were invented to try and explain the volcanic phenomenon, since the human mind naturally tries to find explanations for things. Or alternatively the ancients knew there wasn’t really a fire breathing giant inside the volcano, but they added that detail just to make the story more interesting and therefore more likely to survive through the ages.

They also show how other myths, such as dragons, came to be. Basically, grave diggers used to dig up ancient burial mounds and the methane gas inside would catch fire. Early dragon mythology such as Beowulf was really about fire breathing serpents, which again was either an extra detail added, or an explanation of where the fire came from. The dragon myth isn’t about dinosaurs, and are certainly not proof that dinosaurs and humans once existed together.

They briefly mention Har Sinai as a typical volcano myth. However, it seems to me there is one significant difference. In all the other volcano myths, the fire breathing giant never delivered a message of ethical monotheism.

Denial & Delusion Theory

2005-06-10T11:01:00.000-07:00

The Rebetzin Hador has a very good policy for dealing with unpleasant truths; she calls it ‘Denial and Delusion’. In other words, just ignore the problems, pretend they don’t exist and they magically disappear. Of course it can always come back to bite you later, so I wouldn’t necessarily recommend the D&D policy for dealing with worn-out break pads. But, it can come in useful, especially for dealing with unpleasant realities which are never going to change, for example a husband who doesn’t like to do laundry.

This policy is actually a variant of HaRav Dovid Adam’s (zt”l) famous vort 'Somebody Elses Problem' (HHGTTG Chelek Shlishi), so kudos to the Rebbetzin for being mechaven to such gadlus.

I was reminded of this on reading Gil’s latest post on Yetzias Mitzrayim. This post really surprised me, and not just because he linked to me. (Yay ! Gil linked to me.) He brings up quite a serious problem, that of the historicity of Yetzias Mitzrayim. In some ways, this issue is worse than the Breishis questions, which can be explained in a variety of ways.

Frumteens, as is typical of fundamentalists, provides a misleading and inaccurate answer. Gil thinks it’s better to be honest and say there is no good answer. I have mixed feelings on this, but it strikes me that here we have another approach to dealing with all those Science and Torah issues: It’s the Denial and Delusion Theory.

Basically, this theory works as follows. Firstly, deny there are any questions. Quote bogus scientists, or simply make things up. Pretend that many scientists do agree with the Torah’s account. Then add a good dose of delusion. Say that Scientists, Archeologists and Historians are always changing their minds anyway, so who knows ? Maybe in the future they will all agree with the Torah’s account.

Its the Denial and Delusion Theory for Life the Universe and Everything !And if that doesn't work, just try changing the topic. A discussion of fish and chairs seems to work quite well.

Odom Horishon: Man or Myth ?

2005-05-05T12:28:00.000-07:00

In this post, I would like to explore how compatible the story of Odom horishon is with modern science. Some people are under the impression that the two stories can fit. They basically give a peshat that although there were humans before Odom, and although the world is billions of years old, these humanoids were lacking some kind of soul, and so the Torah is not interested in them. Odom was the first person to have a neshamah, and that’s why the Torah talks about him as the first man. So lets see how well this fits. I shall skip the first perek of Breishis because its very general and could be explained any which way, Odom could mean mankind, so its inconclusive. So lets go straight to the second perek.

ה וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה

The Torah says clearly that there was no man to till the ground until Odom Horishon. This is strange, since farming developed more than 5765 years ago. maybe the story of Odom happened, lets say 10,000 years ago ? Only if you take the text non-literally. Perhaps the Torah is talking about advanced farming techniques which developed about 6,000 years ago. Only Odom knew these.

ז וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה

The Torah is describing how G-d created Odom. I guess even though there were plenty of people around all over the world, we could say there was a Nes and a new type of person was created specifically by G-d.

ח וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר.

So this new type of person is placed in a special garden, somewhere in the East. Although there were plenty of other people around, maybe they were not allowed into the garden ? A little strange.

יח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.

Although the other humanoids all had female companions (obviously), this new type of human didn’t, so G-d created one. A little strange.

כה וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ

Although everyone else around is wearing clothes, for some reason this new type of human doesn’t realise he is naked. A little strange.

א וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, אַף כִּי-אָמַר אֱלֹהִים, לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן.

Snakes outside of Eden at this point did not speak, but inside the Garden we have a speaking snake. Also strange. Maybe all snakes spoke up till that point ? Or was this a special garden variety of talking snake, indigenous to Gan Eden but not found anywhere else ?

כג וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִגַּן-עֵדֶן--לַעֲבֹד, אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח, מִשָּׁם.

So Odom and Chavah get banished from Gan Eden, and have to go out into the world. There, I guess for the first time, they come into contact with the other humanoids, who don’t have the special souls. The other humanoids are intelligent though, and have pottery, paintings, social life, etc etc. But they don’t know how to farm the land. I guess they were all carnivores.

א וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם.
ב וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ.

This strange story is often taken to mean that the sons of Odom (called Bnei Elokim) started to marry the humanoid daughters (called bnos ho’odom), which was bad, because they didn’t have souls. It’s a little confusing. Also, the first posuk talks about man spreading across the earth, however the humnaoids had already spread across the earth a long time ago, it was really the Bnei Elokim, the descendants of Odom HaRishon who were now spreading. I guess we could just switch back to the Artscroll translation here and Bnei Elokim just means Sons of the Rulers, and this story is really about the ruling class grabbing wives from the working class.

Other difficulties with this mehalech are many. If only Odom and his descendants had souls, what about the native Americans and Aboriginess who didn’t come into contact with modern man until relatively recently ? Do they not have souls ?

Some people like to answer that in fact from Odom onward, then everybody got a soul at the same time. If so, why are Odom and Chavah unique ?

Also, this is such a dochek way of explaining the text, its worse than saying it’s a moshol. The Torah is clearly describing the very first man and woman. Its not describing two special people in a special garden, who are then released into an already populated world.

I think its abundantly clear that even without science, this story is a moshol / myth. With science, kal vechomer it is. How people can possibly believe that its describing actual events is beyond me.

Radical Skepticism vs Common Sense

2005-04-20T13:49:00.000-07:00

Some people just don't get it. I have explained this so many times, and they still don't get it. Please, please, please try to understand, before one of us dies. (Bonus points: Who said that ?)

Nothing can ever be absolutely proven 100%. You can always be a radical skeptic. There might be a global conspiracy to lie to you. We might all be brains in a jar. The whole world might be an illusion. However, we have to live our lives according to what is extremely probable, not what might, in some bizarre way, be remotely possible. It might be possible that Science is all wrong, but that doesn't stop us from getting on a plane or taking medicine.

It might be possible that my spouse is really my sister. Does that mean I can't go home ? It might be possible, so surely I wouldn't want to be oyver on Giluy Arayos ! Clearly, this is ridicluous. Even when it comes to yehoreg ve'al yaavor, we hold by common sense and chazakah. Since there is no reason to assume otherwise, its not Giluy Arayos.

Similarly, if the global majority of experts hold of something, and there is no reason to assume any pre-conceived bias or incorrect assumptions, then its only secheldick to agree. Its not a case of having "too much faith in Science". Its not a case of having "Emunah Peshuta in Science". Its not "trusting the Scientists more than the Gedolim". Its basic, common sense. Its the only reasonable way to live life. If you jettison common sense, then nothing makes sense.

Thats what it boils down to. This basic and fundamental premise precedes everything else, it has to. If you can question reality, you get nowhere. Once you have this assumption, then you realize that parts of the Torah must be re-interpreted. Those people who come up with bizarre nonsensical Nes-Nisayon theories, or who say we can't believe the Scientists, are making a very fundamental mistake.

Of course some parts of Science are less proven. Some parts are based on assumptions that we discount. For example, some aspects of evolutionary theory are based on the assumption that there was no preconceived plan for life. If you hold G-d did plan life, you might argue on this.

However, those parts which are proven, which are not based on any faulty assumptions, but simply on honest experimentation and evaluation of the evidence, need to be accepted. Of course its always possible that in some bizarre event of extremely low probability, something might be disproven. Nu, if it happens, then it happens. But you can't live your life or construct your ideology based on what might possibly happen.

If you do, you might need to be committed to an asylum.

New, improved Nes Nissayon V2.0 !

2005-04-19T11:11:00.000-07:00

Wow, I can't believe it. A Hirhurim commentator has just come up with a brand new version of the Nes-Nissayon (NN) Theory ! Amazing. For the sake of simplicity, I shall call it NN-V2. This new theory is way more sophisticated than NN-V1, as the author explains, NN V1 is 'childish, self-indulgent, solipsistic delusion' whereas NN-V2 is not.

In the words of the author, Euonymus Alatus :

We all know that time is subjective and does not apply to the creator. If so, creation ex nihilo clearly included the subjective future. It is equally true that the moment of creation included the past, which, nunc pro tunc, actually existed. The moment of creation, i.e., the moment that past and future came into existence, can be any point in the continuum. For all we know, we, and all of our pasts, were created a moment ago. It is only after that creation that the past exists. The Torah tells us that the moment of creation was 5765 years ago. Please don't dumb this down into "He created an old world." It is utterly different. Yeshivaleit call this "mikahn ulehabo lemafrei'a." Furthermore, see Meshech Chochmo in Breishis who brings R' Eliezer Shittah in Yoma 54b,Sotah 45b,and Rosh Hashanna 26a regarding creation of geographic, spiritual, and temporal structures from the center, not beginning or end.

If I understand this correctly, NN-V2 is not saying that G-d created a universe which simply looks old, as that would be childish. No, NN-V2 is saying that 5765 years ago, G-d created an actual 15 billion year old universe ! Not childish at all !

Unfortunately this theory doesn't explain the Mabul, or evolution, or anything else though. Still, it does preserve the notion of 5765 years, which as every man, woman and child knows, is one of the fundamental ikkarim of Yiddishkeit.

For some strange reason, the phrase 'childish, self-indulgent, solipsistic delusion' springs to mind. But I have no idea why, or what solipsistic means.

Do I Worship the God of Science ?

2005-04-18T15:26:00.000-07:00

Some people have criticized me saying that I worship the 'God of Science'. Well Science is certainly amazing, so lets think about this question for a few minutes.

Nothing in the field of human endeavor has had the same impact as Science, and it seems likely that nothing ever will. If you really stop to think about it, the level of success in the Scientific endeavor has been absolutely amazing. No other human endeavor has been so phenomenally successful in achieving its goals. We take so much of it for granted that we don't even realize just how incredible it all is.

Some people like to quote the saying "hafoch boh dkuloh boh" (everything is in the Torah) to show how Science is in the Torah. However, this phenomenal Scientific success did not come from the Gedolim learning Torah. It came from Scientists following their (non Torahdick) process.

Clearly, when "Hafoch boh" was said, Science in its current form did not exist. Nor did anything like it. Should we really take this phrase literally ? Of course not. In ancient times, Tenach was quite a good repository of 'wisdom', as the ancients defined it. Of course, some truths are eternal, and so the Torah's views on life, religion, morality etc are as good today as they ever were. However, when it comes to Science, there's nothing in there. Nothing. Hafoch Boh cannot possibly apply.

We should be incredibly grateful to the Scientists, and we should show the appropriate hakoras hatov. With all due respect, the Gedolim didn't find out the cures for cancer, the Scientists did. Slandering Scientists when they find something which appears to contradict some fundamentalists viewpoint is the height of ingratitude and bad middos. Would we prefer to live without modern technology ? Without modern medicine ? Without modern travel ? (Actually yes to the last one but that's different !)

The incredible chochmah of Science is not really due to the Scientists though. They are simply reporting what they see, and trying to figure it out, slowly and painfully, one step at a time. But we realize that the true chochmah comes from somewhere else. This was stated 2500 years ago, in another well known phrase, which I do take literally. That phrase is "Moh Rabu Maasechoh Hashem, Kulom Bechochmoh Asisa."

Rav Herzog had this to say about Science:

It is unfortunate that while science is progressively conquering worlds and discovering all sorts of secrets, although it too errs at times, we like ostriches bury our heads in sand. It is imperative that we encourage the ablest students of the yeshivot also to be educated as men of science in each discipline, so that we should not need to turn to others in matters of physiology, chemistry, electricity, etc. concerning things that relate to our sacred Torah. ...

So do I worship the God of Science ?

Absolutely. Three times a day, four times on the weekend.

Don't you ?

'Proven Science'

2005-04-14T12:57:00.000-07:00

Many people have commented that science changes all the time. Some people have said that even Category 1 (C1) 'Proven' Science (as I have defined it) can change.

For now, there are only 3 major points of science that I am interested in. I find it very hard to believe that any of these will change. The science behind these facts is substantial.

F1. Age of the world is significantly older than 6000 years
F2. Many intelligent humans living all over the world 10,000 years ago.
F3. No global flood, or anything close to it.

These three facts by themselves, are enough to force large parts of the first 11 chapters of Breishis to be one of the following Theories:

T1. Nes / Nisayon
T2. Myth / Moshol
T3. Not literal / Imprecise / Darshen

Personally, I haven't seen anyone do a good job at T3 while still conforming to F1,2 & 3. I would be very intersted in someone doing that. 'Yom' meaning 'Period' is only one small piece.

Emunas Scientistim

2005-04-13T15:11:00.000-07:00

We spoke about Emunas Chachomim (good but not in the extremists), Emunas Kanoim (always bad), and Emunah Peshuta (sometimes ok). Now its time to talk about Emunas Scientistim.

In a previous post, I divided the world of science into 3 broad categories:

1. Proven Science.
These are theories that the majority of the Scientific Community accept are ‘proven’, (to the extent that anything can be ‘proven’).

2. Debatable Science
These theories (or some significant aspects thereof) are the subject of much debate within the scientific community, as to wether they are proven, (or even correct).

3. Theoretical Science
These theories are held by the majority of the scientific community to be theoretical, unproven and conjecture at this point.

I stated that I will argue Science vs Torah from catgeory 1. I will occasionally debate category 2 but not usually. I don’t go near Catgeory 3 to the best of my knowledge.

This stimulated much debate. I discerned three major questions.

Q1. You just have Emunah Peshuta in Science !

A1.1 Yes for Good Reason.
Its true, I have EP in the scientific community and process. This is for a number of reasons. The scientists come from a wide range of backgrounds, cultures and religions. The scientists employ an open process. The scientists encourage new experimentation and discussion of opposing views. There are many textbooks and popular books on science, explaining in great detail all the theories. Few scientists insist that you must have emunah peshutah in their theories, but then refuses to explain their reasoning ! Do I have a science phd ? No. Have I read all of science ? Of course not. However I have read enough of it to see its convincing. Therefore I have emunah peshutah, as long as the majority of the scientific community are in agreement.

A1.2. No, its not Emunah Peshuta
EP implies a faith in something for no good reason, other than that one needs to have faith. However my faith in Science is for all the good reasons stated above. Am I ultimately trusting the scientists ? Yes, in exactly the same way that I am ultimately trusting that everyone I have ever had any contact with since the day I was born has not been lying to me as part of some great, global conspiracy. That’s not emunah peshutah. That’s common sense.

Q2. If you believe the scientists, then you should believe the Documentary Hypothesis too !

A2.1 The Premise of DH is Wrong
The DH assumes that the Bible was man written, and the question is how many men wrote it. G-d writing the Bible is not entertained as a credible alternative. Even though general science also has this assumption, its not directly relevant there, since even G-d believers understand that there is a scientific mechanism to how the world was created and subsequently operates.

A2.2 DH is not ‘Proven’
Alternatively, DH may be in category 2, or even 3, not category 1. I am finding it difficult to figure out. Some people claim that not a single serious (non fundamentalist) Bible scholar in the world disagrees with the multiple authorship theory. Others say the theory is outdated 19th century scholarship which has been debunked.

A2.3 DH is not Science
I could also say that DH ‘Science’ is not in the same category at all as the other sciences (physics, biology etc). Its more of a soft science, which relies on conjecture and theories, rather than provable or observable expirements. My emunah in science is only in the hard sciences.

Q3. What if Science disproved an ikkar like Sinai, then what would you do ?

A3.1 It could never happen
I have emunah that science could never disprove a real ikkar (e.g. Sinai) since Science is true and Sinai is true, so one could not ever disprove another. Therefore the question is theoretical, could never happen and is not worth thinking about. You might as well ask, what if all the Gedolim said Sinai didn’t happen !

A3.2 The Truth is the Truth
I could also answer that if a category 1 science theory did actually disprove Sinai (and I mean mamash disprove, no doubt at all whatsoever), then it would show Sinai never happened, and that would be a fact. Truth is truth, and is surely the highest value. It would be a great shame, but there’s no point in denying reality.

A3.3 I would have emunah
Alternatively, I could say that if it came to something really fundamental, like Sinai, then I would not listen to the scientists. However, I don’t like this approach as much, because then the whole debate with the extremists just becomes quantative. i.e. We all have our limits as to when we will ignore reality, they just reach theirs sooner. However I think its qualatitive, they are nuts and I am not.

Machshavah Cholent

2005-03-31T11:29:00.000-08:00

It seems to me, based on my limited reading in such subjects, that machshavah, pnimiyus, jewish philosophy, hashkafah, kabalah etc, are all basically a similar phenomenon. Attempts by man to go beyond the mundane and create some kind of super-natural system of thought, either as a means to get closer to G-d, to understand G-d, or maybe just because its interesting.

Examples I can think of include the works of the Maharal, Rav Kook, Nefesh Hachayim, R YB Soloveitchik, AJ Heschel, all of Chasiddus etc. There doesn't seem to be much of this pre 12th? century though. Chazal did this a bit, but usually it was real short, just a pasuk and a quick 'homily'. Did no one before the Rishonim ever engage in this ?

Maybe some or all of this is somewhat divinely inspired, but its still a human creation. That doesn’t mean it doesn't have value, I just don't believe any of it came down from Sinai that’s all. When Rav Moshe Shapiro gives an awesome machshavah shiur for example, I am sure its valuable, but at the end of the day, its his invention, its not Torah Min HaShamayim. Take what appeals to you and leave the rest. (Maybe thats obvious ?)

The base side of this same tendency is all the stupid gilgulim / shaydim / kabalistic trickery / dibukim / superstition / mekubalim nonsense, which is also expressly forbidden by the Torah in my opinion, and has no value at all. Its amazing that the UO world is still so steeped in this. Are they still using pigeons in Eretz Yisrael to cure hepatitis ? Wasn't the whole point of Judaism to steer us away from all these kinds of things ?

The problem in the UO world is that they seem to be unable to distinguish between the good stuff and the bad stuff. The whole lot of it gets mushed together into one huge UO ideological cholent, and if you don't believe in any part of it, you are a kofer, or worse, a modernishe (chas vesholom).

Well, my advice is don't eat too much of that cholent, it's after effects can be quite, shall we say, unpleasant.

My views on science

2005-03-31T10:31:00.000-08:00

Some people have accused me of having emunah peshutah in science. 'Not all science is proven' they say. 'Scientific theories change all the time', they say. 'You have more faith in Science than in Torah' they say. 'You are a fool for believing Science' they say.

I say, you haven't been paying attention.

Lets roughly categorize all of science into 3 groups of theories.

1. Proven
The first group we shall call "proven". This is simply a convenient name, so don't go getting all philosophical on me about how nothing can ever really be proven blah blah blah. I don't want to hear it. This group of theories are those that are accepted as true by the majority of the scientific community. The fact that some quack scientists or Kiruv Clowns might dispute these theories is irrelevant. Some simple examples (or rather ramifications) of 'proven' theories:

The world and the universe are many billions of years old
There were many thousands of intelligent human beings roaming the earth, in the US, Australia, Asia etc, 10,000 years ago
There was no global flood within the last million years.

Of course we can debate which theories belong in this group. However my measure is what the significant majority of scientifics think, not what you, I or the Gedolim think. If you think scientific opinion is all hooey, this blog is not for you.

2. Debatable
The second group we shall call "debatable". This group of theories is the subject of some debate within the scientific community itself, or alternatively, the scientific community itself accepts that these are not yet proven. Some examples of 'debatable' theories:

Some aspects of evolutionary theory (which aspects are debatable is itself debatable)
Possible lifespans of ancient humans

3. Theoretical
The third group we shall call "theoretical". These theories have been proposed, but there is no way of knowing (yet) if there is any validity to them or not. The mainstream scientific community accepts this. Some example of "theoretical" theories:

Multiverse theory
Some aspects of string theory (which aspects are theoretical is debatable)

My arguments regarding Torah have all been from the 'proven' group. This groups is to all intensive purposes established fact. Its not a question of faith, but of fact. If you disagree and have a well reasoned argument, I would be interested in hearing it. If you are simply a fundamentalist who rejects science out of hand, this blog is not for you, please leave.

I have never to my knowledge argued strongly against Torah in defence of a 'Theoretical' theory. If I have, I was mistaken. Sometimes I might debate the "debatable" theories, but not very often. This blog is about religion, not science, and I don't have much interest in debating scientific theories per se.

Scientific theories change all the time. However the fundamentals usually don't. They get refined, bits get added, bits get taken away but I think we can be secure in saying the world is round, gravity will always be, the world is very old, and things like that. To say that all science is hooey because it changes is the same as saying all halachah is hooey because it changes.

Another common fallacy is to take a genuine scientific debate and use it to void all opinions. A classic example is the debate over the age of the universe. Some scientists say 10 billion, some say 20 billion. Aha ! Say the fundamentalists. You see the scientists can't agree. One side could even be wrong by 10 billion years ! So maybe they are both wrong, and the world is only 6000 years old ! If you think this is a logical argument then again, this blog is not for you, please leave.

I hope I have made my views clear. Please do not clutter up the comments with silly statements about science. Thanks.

Tired-Taiku Theory

2005-03-25T11:36:00.000-08:00

We munched on Myth-Moshol. We noshed on Nes-Nisayon. We wallowed in Weird-Wacky. Now its time to talk about Tired-Taiku.

Tired-Taiku (TT) is really more of an approach than a definitive answer. Teiku is actually roshei tevos for "Tishby Yetaretz Kushyas Ushailos" (Elijah will answer all questions). I have heard various discussions about what that means exactly, but in a contemporary setting, when someone says "Taiku is the answer", they generally mean one of the following:

We have some reasonable answers, but no way of knowing which is correct, so lets just leave it.
Any hope of finding any answer seems remote, so lets just leave it.
I don't know enough about this topic, so lets just leave it.
The obvious answer is clear, but we really don't like it, so lets just leave it.
I can't be bothered to discuss this anymore, so lets just leave it.
I don't want to to discuss this at all, so lets just leave it.
This is not worth discussing, so lets just leave it.
For some unrelated reason, I don't wish to answer right now, so lets just leave it.

For example, your average yeshivah bochur, after only a few moments on a science vs torah discussion will lose patience and say "Why do you bother with all this stuff anyway ! Just go learn a daf Gemoroh and forget about it, It has no practical halachic ramifications anyway. Lets just say taiku !". (True Story). Probably a 5 or 7 above.

When Rav Mattisyahu Solomon says "Taiku is an answer", he probably means to say that "I don't really know enough about it, the science seems pretty strong but I cannot possibly take Torah non literally, so lets not go there" i.e. Number 2 above. He may also mean 3 above, or maybe 6.

So is Tired-Taiku the correct answer to questions of Science & Torah ?

Taiku V8 !

More on Nes-Nisayon

2005-03-24T21:42:00.000-08:00

Some people like to suggest nes-nisayon theory for the creation of the earth. In other words, even though everything appears to be 15 billion years old, it is in fact only 6000 years old, but was created fully formed. As to why G-d would pull such a stunt, the answer is that it makes logical sense that the world would be created fully formed. There is even a makor for this in the gemarah which tooks about adam being created as a 20 year old. Many people have a problem with this approach, because they don't like to think of G-d playing tricks and creating fakery, such as fake dinosuar bones, fossils and cave paintings.

Nes-nisayon gets even more shverre when you get to the mabul. The scientific evidence for there being no possibility whatsoever of a global flood, and no local flood covering more than a relatively small area, and for the fact that there has been continous human habitation of many varied areas of the earth going back 10 or 20 thousand years (if not more), and that biologically we cannot possibly be all descended from one person 5000 years ago, is solid. Not to mention the impossibility of all animals fitting in a small boat, and then being dispersed across the globe.

Therefore, to propose nes-nisayon as the answer to the mabul, requires us to say that not only was the flood in itself a completely miraculous event, but also that after the flood had finished, G-d miraculously wiped away all evidence. But even more than that, after the evidence was wiped away, G-d changed signs of human habitation, geology, biology and a host of other things to make it appear beyond a shadow of doubt that no such flood ever occurred.

Now, I can understand why G-d might want to create a completed world, there is a certain logic to that. But why would G-d remove all evidence showing that a flood had occurred ? And not only that, but go so far as to also plant fake evidence to show beyond a shadow of doubt that no flood ever did occur ? This has no relevance to any 'completed world' theory, and would have to involve an incredible amount of 'fakery' to create such an unbelievable nisayon.

The nes part I can understand. We have always thought of the mabul as a nes.

But this would truly be a strange nisayon.

The Clever-Clever Theory

2005-03-08T15:12:00.000-08:00

There is another theory as to the conflict of Science and Torah. It says that there is some really clever answer, but I, or we, or maybe humans in general, are just not clever enough to figure it out. I call this the Clever-Clever Theory.

Clearly, humans don't know everything. Well, the Rebbetzin Hador does, but that’s a different topic of discussion. A few hundred years ago, or even more recently, many humans could not conceive of a theory of relativity. In fact most people still can't. Likewise in the religious sphere, we don't know everything. For example, the problem of evil, or understanding G-d, or G-ds omniscience vs free will, are all out of bounds of human intellectual ability, (at least according to our tradition).

Even in everday life, there are some things we just cannot figure out. Like why did I dream I was being chased by a deranged chimpanzee the other night ? Strange.

So, some people claim, given our inability to understand certain things, isn't it possible that there is some amazing answer to the conflict of Science vs Torah, we just either haven't found it yet, or maybe its beyond our ability ever to grasp ? Maybe an answer that only G-d could give ?

Well, maybe. However I don't think its likely. The Torah clearly implies that the universe is 6000 years old (taken literally). Science clearly implies the universe is 15 billion years old, give or take. 6000 vs 15 billion is a fairly easy concept to grasp. Although time is relative, in the context of the earth itself, it was either 6000 or 15 billion. It can't logically be both.

The Rambam says that the class of things which are logically impossible (e.g. 1+1=3, or G-d commiting suicide), are impossible for G-d too. Other Rishonim argue and criticize the Rambam for 'limiting' G-ds powers so to speak. They say its foolish to assert that there is something G-d can't do. I guess according to those Rishonim, it would be possible for G-d to have some answer as to how it could be both 6000 and also 15 billion. However I still don't think its likely.

But, just like Nes-Nisayon, this one is impossible to disprove.

Weird-Wacky Theory

2005-03-07T23:18:00.000-08:00

Apart from Nes-Nisayon, Myth-Moshol and Emunah-Peshutah, you also find various weird and wacky theories or answers as to the conflict of Science and Torah. They are not worth a full blog each, so here is a compendium.

Science is physical truth, Torah is spiritual (or moral) truth
Personally, I think this is baloney. Breishis either happened like it says or it didn't. If it didn't, then just admit its a myth-moshol and stop trying to be so clever.

Torah is truth, Science is Poetry
The geniuses at Yated came up with this one. Amazing. Amazingly dumb that is. An instant classic.

We are not worthy
We don't know everything about science. We also have only the barest understanding of Torah and Chazal. So don't ask any questions. Basically emunah peshutah with a bit of mussar thrown in for good measure.

There is no conflict but I can't explain why
Torah and science both come from G-d. So there can be no conflict ! Sorry, end of discussion. Basically emunah peshutah with a bit of a pro science attitude thrown in for good measure.

Science & Medrash Geek Theory
Lots of afficianados here. From Gerald Schroder to R Dovid Brown. Its the magical mystery tour of arcane science, arcane midrashim and bad logic. With some clever physics, or possibly some bogus physics (who can tell), and with some clever midrashim, or possibly some bogus midrashim (who can tell), every word in Breishis fits perfectly with science. Parshas Breishis that is. The Science geeks get off the ride at that point. But there's no stopping the medrash geeks. They're going all the way.

The Emunah-Peshutah Theory

2005-03-02T15:30:00.000-08:00

We navigated Nes-Nisayon. We mulled over Myth-Moshol. Now its time to ponder Emunah-Peshutah Theory (EPT).

This one's quite simple to understand really.

Age of the Universe: There is no good answer. Just have emunah peshutah.
Evolution: There is no good answer. Just have emunah peshutah.
The You Know What: There is no good answer. Just have emunah peshutah.
Statements of Chazal contradicting science: There is no good answer. Just have emunah peshutah
Actions of our leaders: There is no good answer. Just have emunah peshutah.

Like Nes-Nisayon Theory, this theory is quite convenient, as it answers pretty much every question very neatly.

Clearly Myth-Moshol has been banned in the Fundamentalist world. However, do they advocate Nes-Nisayon or Emunah-Peshutah Theory ? I was pretty convinced they were going with NNT, but now it seems it might be EPT.

Perhaps there is a split between the US and the EY Fundamentalists. The US guys, who are a little more cognizant of science, prefer EPT. The EY guys who are less familiar, are happier with NNT.

Faith & Reason Part 1

2005-03-02T14:29:00.000-08:00

Finally, someone with some sechel talks about Faith and Reason. Pity I don't understand a word of it. (From Hirhurim Comments)

I am glad to see a collection of different positions to shed light on the Greek-based dichotomizing of Judaism known as "fact vs. faith", where Yahadut is posited as "scientific" and "rational" (neither of which are hebrew terms), as opposed to being Divine in origin and outside imposed temporal dichotomies. Many who try to use the "faith v. fact" dichotomy (Kiruv often), adopt whole-heartedly materialist definitions for both terms, implying that the two exhaust all possible modes of knowing, under the pretentions of "fighting the enemy on their battlefield".

It is far too easy in such a intellectual skirmish to fall victim to the Cliffordian maxim of an unconditional demand for empirical evidence (terms needing tradition-bound definition), for ANY and all beliefs at all times, despite the obvious impossibility of such a life. It's likewise too easy to be pressured into an ultimately Fideistic trap of "I simply believe", despite reason and reality.

EVERY doxastic system to be systematic must posit a fundamental Given which is reasoned FROM not reasoned TO; this holds for "secular" systems as well as (explicitly) religious systems. Roy Clouser gets into this in his "Myth of Religious Neutrality" and a little bit in his "Knowing With The Heart" (KWTH is more xtian polemic and argues on other peripheral issues). Kelly James Clark (xtian) argues against the fallacious nature of the Evidentialist "fact v. faith" approach and the Cliffordian Standard in his "Return To Reason". R. Eliezer Berkovits is a Jewish source who'd written very briefly around similar themes in parts of his "God, Man and History". (N Paulovic)

I think I was doxastic once, but then I took some tylenol and felt much better.

At times like these I really wish I had listened to what my philosophy teacher told me.
Why, what did he tell you ?
I don't know, I didn't listen.

Seriously though, I think I get what he is saying. That all systems rely on some givens, which cannot be proven, and that either extreme of ultimate rationalism or simple faith is bad.

Bored with Breishis ? Nonplussed with Noach ? Leery of Lech lechah ? Vacillating about Vayerah ? Had enough of Hayei Soroh ?

2005-03-02T14:15:00.000-08:00

Lets jump straight to Yisro, because that’s what its all about.

There is no scientific evidence which can prove that matan torah didn't happen. Lucky break there ! Archeological evidence deems it unlikely that millions of people fled Egypt and camped in the desert for 40 years with no evidence. However we all know they ate mon, so there were no empty plastic bottles or McDonalds boxes for the archeologists to find.

Seriously though, the numbers by matan torah could be exaggerated, in those days certain numbers were 'idealized' e.g. the number 6. In our days it’s 42. So its quite possible that many thousands of people left Mitzrayim, had a revelation at Sinai, and there would be no scientific or archeological evidence to disprove this.

As to what the revelation actually consisted of, now that's a whole different question.

Cultural Misunderstandings

2005-03-02T13:16:00.000-08:00

If R Solomon really did say pygmy, we should not criticize. Clearly, different cultures use words differently. In order to avoide future scandals, and people making fun of things, I have compiled a useful dictionary. Simply translate all speeches from the right wing using this dictionary, and you will feel much better:

Right wing to English Dictionary

Daas Torah: Political power
Gedolim: Political leaders
Godol Hador: The leader of the party
Kofrim: The opposition party
Kefirah: The ideology of the opposition party
Pygmy: Honorable gentleman of the opposition

With this dictionary, R Solomon's speech was quite acceptable. He was merely stating that he does not agree with the politics of the honorable members of the opposition party. Nothing worse than anything you will hear in the Senate or the House of Commons.

And positively pareve in comparison to the Knessett !

Its official: We are no longer kofrim

2005-03-02T12:38:00.000-08:00

Reb Mattisyahu Solomon has officially declared that people who try and reconcile Torah and Science are no longer to be called kofrim.

No. From now on, they shall be called pygmies instead.

There is nothing to be made fun of here. He said it, I reported it. End of story.

However, in other news, Atheists are now to be called cannibals, Modern Orthodox shall be named bushpeople, and Heretical Hasidim shall be called small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

UPDATE

It seems likely that the word was midgets, not pygmies. Also, this was only one small part of the Siyum Hashas, so nothing to get to worked up about.

Avraham Avinu and Emunah Peshutta

2005-03-02T11:01:00.000-08:00

Ford, a highly intelligent being from another planet (well he is a yekke), makes an interesting point. He says that Avraham Avinu (founder of the Jewish religion) was not content with the simple emunah peshuttah (in idols) of his day. He constantly asked questions, until he came to a new and better understanding.

Douglas Rushkoff in his book 'Nothing Sacred' makes a similar point. He says that Judasim was founded on iconoclastic behavior (i.e. Avraham), therefore we must all be iconoclasts, to be true to Judaism.

It sounds like a good argument, though it can be taken too far. For example Rushkoff takes it to mean that we have to completely re-invent Judaism and form a new religion, because after all, thats exactly what Avraham Avinu did.

Not sure that I want to go there, however the point about Avraham and emunah peshuttah is worth thinking about (but not too deeply, just in case). Shouldn't we investigate, like Avraham, or is it too dangerous ?

Is there a correlation between those who investigate, and those who went off the derech ? In other words, did everyone who investigated end up going off the derech, and those who are still here didn't really investigate much ?

We have heard a lot from those who investigated and left. Can we now hear from someone who investigated and stayed ? Anyone ? Anyone ? Bueler ?

Anyone ?

New: FDA approved Emunahpeshuttia !

2005-03-02T10:19:00.000-08:00

Indications

Struggling with doubts and questions
Unable to face life
Not sure what its all about
Overly concerned with questions on Science and Torah, Faith and Reason or the you know what

Directi0ns:
Take 3 doses a day , for the rest of your life. In case of nagging doubts, you may take additional doses. Do not exceed 6 doses in 24 hours, or brain death may occur. May be taken together with Viagara and Daastora.

Side effects:
Patients may experience nausea, lack of critical thinking skills and disinterest in solving life's problems.

Suitability:
Emunahpeshuttiah may be taken by any adult or child over the age of 6. Emunahpeshuttiah is generally not required for small children or infants. Not suitable for patients with a history of ModernOrthodoxitus, Atheisiphalis or HasidicHereticus.

Don't Think It, Just Believe It !

2005-03-02T10:07:00.000-08:00

Well, it was inevitable. Once the dust cleared, and the enemy had a chance to regroup, we are now getting the counter attacks. No, I'm not talking about the terrorists in Basra, I'm talking about the fundamentalists in Bnei Brak.

Reports say that Rav Mattisyahu Solomon at the Agudah convention talked about developing an emunah peshutah based on the concept of teiku. Or to put it english for those of you whose hebrew / aramaic is poor:

We don't have any answers, so don't ask us any questions !

Gil cites plenty of support in the Rishonim for simple faith. Well, its one thing to have faith in something without being able to prove it, for example the existence of G-d. However its another thing entirely to be faced with difficult questions, and instead of searching for answers, we just fall back onto simple faith.

Actually its worse than that. Not only do they not provide any answers, but they ban people who attempt to provide answers. Is this an admission that there are no good answers at all ?
I find it hard to believe that we are endowed with such amazing brains (well some of us at least), and yet we are not supposed to use them, at least not along certain avenues. Is the brain just another nisayon, a physical aspect of our existence to be shunned ?

Lets not think, because that might cause us emunah problems.
Lets not investigate, because we might not like what we find.
Lets not analyze, because the analysis might not agree with us.

I have no doubt this attitude goes back to the Rishonim, some of them were fundamentalists too you know. It’s a shame that this is what it all ultimately boils down to.

I think I liked it better when they were pushing the Gosse theory. At least they gave the illusion of actually having an answer. I almost believed it some days. I mean, it is possible isn't it ! Now they admit that there are no answers.

I had a debate with a talmid of Rav Moshe Shapiro. He claimed that Rav Moshe, who knows all secular wisdon, has been struggling with these issues his whole life, and is therefore an authority on the matter. Well, in that case I asked, how come Rav Moshe doesn't write a good book on the subject ?

I guess the answer is that "I don't have any answers, just believe in Daas Torah and take two does of Emunah Peshuttah a day for the rest of your life" wouldn't make a very good book. Thats why he hasn't published yet.

Though I think that perhaps Artscroll could publish it. With a nice picture of Rav Moshe on the cover (similing sweetly of course), 20 pages of "Donated In Memory" stuff at the front, a 15 page introduction by R Zlotowitz and you could make it look like it has something to say. Especially if they add a nice leather binding and make it coffee table size.

Update: Thanks to Gil for pointing out this article.

Emunah Peshutah vs Chakirah Amukah

2005-03-01T12:23:00.000-08:00

Rabbi Adlerstein on Cross Currents says:

Secondly, our fallback position in so many areas has to be emunah peshutah. None of us is smart enough, or well read enough, to answer all the questions.

This is quite true. This is why I get on a plane. I have no idea how the darn thing stays up in the air, nor do I have the time to find out. I have emunah peshutah in the legions of engineers who designed and tested it.

Likewise, if the Torah vs Science question has been dealt with properly, with expert inquiry into all areas, I would have emunah peshutah in this too.

Can someone therefore please point me in the direction of a sefer which seriously explores all these issues, and comes up with some credible peshat ?

The only Sefer I found so far (with haskamas of course, and also which hasn't been banned) is R Dovid Browns 'Mysteries of Creation'. I give R Dovid credit for dealing with the tough issues, even the ones no one talks about (Hint: My 2 year old's blanky deals with it). Unfortunately some people dismis his sefer as having no basis in reality, science, mesorah or indeed common sense.

Secondly, there seems to be a correlation in the confidence and ability of leaders to address difficult questions, and the reliance on emunah peshutah.

For example, in medieval times, the Rishonim were a pretty cool bunch of guys. They took on the difficult issues and tried to address them. I guess they were confident (rightly or wrongly) that they had some good answers. Nowadays, we don't get good answers, or even good attempts at explanations, but rather rhetoric, bans and appeals to emunah peshutah.

I guess the confidence level nowadays in actually being able to answer any of these questions properly is quite low.

One Text, Two Meanings

2005-02-27T22:27:00.000-08:00

Its remarkable how the same text can sometimes be read in two entirely different, even opposite ways. Here are two examples.

In last week’s parshah, the following pasuk appears:

כט) ויאמר משה מלאו ידכם היום ליקוק כי איש בבנו ובאחיו ולתת עליכם היום ברכה

29 And Moses said, “Dedicate yourselves to the Lord this day—for each of you has been against son and brother—that He may bestow a blessing upon you today.”

The simple meaning of the verse is that the tribe of Levi, because of their dedication to G-d, displayed by their willingness to kill even a son or a brother, were rewarded by being given a special role, that of the priesthood.

However an alternative explanation gives quite the opposite meaning. That due to the bloodthirstiness of the tribe of Levi, that they were eager to even kill son or brother without even signs of remorse, G-d felt it necessary to remove them from the activity of war, and have them only active in the priesthood. Hence the tribe of Levi was exempt from the conquest of the land. According to this explanation, being given the priesthood was actually a punishment, a sign that they were not capable of living an ordinary life, but needed to be separated from the community and involved only in spiritual activity. This would echo Yaakov’s negative comments to the tribe of Levi in Veyechi, because of their bloodthirstiness with Shechem.

ה) שמעון ולוי אחים כלי חמס מכרתיהם
ו) בסדם אל תבא נפשי בקהלם אל תחד כבדי כי באפם הרגו איש וברצנם עקרו שור
ז) ארור אפם כי עז ועברתם כי קשתה אחלקם ביעקב ואפיצם בישראל

5 Simeon and Levi are a pair; Their weapons are tools of lawlessness.
6 Let not my person be included in their council, Let not my being be counted in their assembly. For when angry they slay men, And when pleased they maim oxen.
7 Cursed be their anger so fierce, And their wrath so relentless. I will divide them in Jacob, Scatter them in Israel.

Another interesting example is the song I quoted in the previous post. A fundamentalist reading, looking just at the verses as they are, might come to certain conclusions. However a different reading, and especially one which identifies the original source texts of the verses, might come to an entirely different conclusion as to the intended meaning.

The TRUTH behind the Koton's demise

2005-02-27T00:34:00.000-08:00

Here are the real reasons behind the Koton's demise:

I thought the Koton was quite funny, and so did a lot of other people. It was just a joke after all. However some people were shocked and appalled, since the butt of many of his jokes were people who should not be made fun of. Some of the people who were shocked are people I respect.
The point was also made that it is more effective to argue from a rational perspective, rather than just ridicule someone, which is rather a low form of communication. This is a good point. Though ridiculing someone or something can be extremely effective, I guess its not playing fair. We should have genuine discussion, rather than descend into name calling.
Also, it was pointed out that people were using the Koton as ammunition. For example, one Rabbi in Jerusalem read out a section of the chas vesholom letter in his shiur to prove his point. A few other rabbis wrote me to say they thought it was funny. However I did not want to be responsible for causing any trouble.
Finally, some guilt (OK I lied), I don't really want to be famous for making fun of people. I started the Koton blog as a 'safe' way to vent some feelings that I would not dare to say in public. Ironically, the vents reached far more people than I would ever have in person.

This whole episode taught me a few things:

I have lost my emunas chachomim. And this did not come from reading banned books, but rather from observing the actions of those 'chachomim', ironically in the banning of books they feared would cause people to lose their emunas chachomim. They appear to be misinformed and misguided. I guess I do not have the level of emunah required to be impervious to the facts that I observe.
There are some nasty goings on in the far right wing. They need to clean up their act. In particular certain Rabbanim with less than clean records should be ousted. I don't see any effort to do this at all. However I was encouraged that certain Rabbis stood up and made themselves heard.
The far right wing seem to be winning the fight for the heart and soul of ultra-orthodoxy. Witness Rav Aharon Feldman's somewhat failed attempt to get some kind of retraction from R Eliashiv. This is a shame for the more moderate elements in the UO sector. Either they will just give in, or maybe they might combine with the RW MO's and form a new center (unlikely in the near future).
MO society tends to ignore the RW UO's, except at friction points, or where there is some other type of connection. Most people at the MO shul I frequent could not care less about RW UO (and probably vice versa). If the actions of the RW UO's bother you, just become MO. In a few weeks it won't even cross your mind.
I was previously undecided as to which group to throw my lot in with. The LW UO's or the RW MO's. Considering that the LW UO's seem to be losing out to the RW UO's big time, I think I will more firmly join the RW MO camp.
Seeing how easily the RW UO's dismissed various parts of our mesorah, or how patently false some of their arguments were, makes me wonder about what else is fake. Are we authentic or have we gone down the wrong path ? I will have to study a lot more before I can answer that question.
One thing the RW UO's are 100% correct about: Critical thinking is dangerous to their ideology, since so much of their ideology does not hold up to scrutiny. In the interests of self-preservation it makes perfect sense for them to ban critical thinking of any type, which is exactly what they do. Can' t really blame them for that I suppose, but the truth always wins out in the end.

I shall continue to blog, hopefully not all my readers were here just for the funny stuff. Maybe I can figure out a way to be funny without it being at anyone's expense, though I have the suspicion that by definition all humor is always at someone or something's expense.

I never listen to the radio in the car, only CD's. As I was driving the other night, I turned it on, and this song came up. It seems appropo.

Take my photo off the wall
If it just won't sing for you
Cause all that's left has gone away
And there's nothing there for you to prove

Oh, look what you've done
You've made a fool of everyone
Oh well, it seems likes such fun
Until you lose what you had won

Give me back my point of view
Cause I just can't think for you
I can hardly hear you say
What should I do, well you choose

Oh, look what you've done
You've made a fool of everyone
Oh well, it seems likes such fun
Until you lose what you had won

Oh, look what you've done
You've made a fool of everyone
A fool of everyone
A fool of everyone

Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated

2005-02-25T14:33:00.000-08:00

Rabosai,
The Koton Hador has passed, its true. He will be sadly missed and fondly remembered. But the Godol is still alive and kicking. AddeRabbi has a eulogy for me, and Rashi's Daughter now has a link to the Godol Hador z"l. I am alive ! Don't write me off just yet.

I installed the page hit counter last Friday, and today it is showing close to 5,000. Next week I shall be hosting a special "Koton Hador Study Week", lzecher haKoton oloveshalom. I shall take the counter score at the end of the week, and then we will have a statistically reliable measure of how many people prefer letzonus to Torah.

I would hate for letzonus to win out, so please: visit often and invite your friends too (with a seperate browser).

Please do not disappoint !
Good Shabbos.

The Myth-Moshol Theory

2005-02-25T11:03:00.000-08:00

In contrast to the Nes-Nisayon Theory (NNT), stands the Myth-Moshol Theory (MMT). Whereas NNT assumes that all Torah must be read as literal truth, MMT posits that often the Torah contains allegorical passages. The supporters of NNT tend to believe that the Torah must not be allegorized, whereas the supporters of MMT tend to believe in the scientific evidence, and are uncomfortable with the ideas of nes and the fake 'old' earth that NNT requires. MMT is widely held in more broad minded orthodox institutions, but quite likely would be regarded as heresy in more fundamentalist environs. Orthodox Jews of limited exposure tend to be quite ignorant of MMT, and its widespread acceptance in the more broad minded areas of Orthodoxy.

For example, MMT would say that the stories in the beginning of Breishis are clearly mythological, desgined to counteract the prevailing Babylonian / Summerian mythologies of their day. The theory is explained by Nahum Sarna in his book 'Understanding Genesis', and Umberto Cassutto in his books 'From Adam to Noah' and 'From Noah to Abraham'. Cassutto brings a particularly detailed explanation, showing pasuk by pasuk how prevailing Summerian notions were dismised by the Torah, and replaced with monotheistic ones. It is probable that Sarna got this theory from Cassutto, though its also clearly written in the popular Soncino Hertz Chumash, in the notes section at the end of the book of Genesis, which dates back to the 1930's. (Its likely that Rabbi Hertz got this from elsewhere too, maybe Christian bible scholars. More research is required here).

There is also a parallel to this in the Rambam, with the Rambams well known views on the Korbanos. The Rambam holds that the korbanos were only created to wean away the Israelites from their own idolatrous practices, and was but a temporary phenomenon. Similarly, the stories in Breishis could have the same purpose.

Although both Sarna and Cassutto seem to imply human authorship of the Torah, from a religious perspective, their theories need not be dismissed out of hand. It is possible to say that ancient Israelite scrolls were passed down to Sinai, at which point, with a few edits and changes, they were incorporated into the Torah under G-ds direct command. A more liberal reading of the Rambam ikkarim would still fit. There is even some midrashic support for this latter view, see this article by Rabbi Gil Student. However, in order to reconcile Science completely, it clearly would not be feasible to say that Noah or Adam actually wrote these scrolls, since according to NNT it is highly unlikely that these characters actually existed (at least in the form that we imagine). More likely they written by others, perhaps with some level of divine inspiration.

A more orthodox twist to this theory is one that I call 'moshology' as opposed to 'mythology'. According to this version, the stories in Breishis were not designed just to give the Israelites their own monotheistic mythology in contrast to the polytheistic mythologies of the day, but in fact (or also) contained deep eternal truths about G-d and the universe, and G-ds relation to man. In this view, these stories were absolutely 'written' directly by G-d, but still need not be literally true. This would be similar to the Zohar's view, which says that the Torah is just a shell, and only fools do not delve behind the external form. Its probable though that the Zohar did not mean to imply that the basic simple peshat of the pasuk was wrong, just that there were additional deeper peshatim. However according to MMT, the simple peshat would be quite wrong. Either way, it seems that many of these deep secrets have been lost, or at least are not accessible to the average man.

There are plenty of sources in the Rishonim for taking Breishis allegorically, not least of which is the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim in his famous passage on the creation story. The Rambam says that he would have explained Breishis as not meaning that the creation was at a point in time, but only refrained from doing so because he did not believe the eternal universe theory (prevalent in his time) was accurate. Fundamentalists would however reject this approach, and consider this line of reasoning to be foreign to our (current) mesorah.

The Koton Hador RIP 2005-2005

2005-02-24T15:52:00.000-08:00

I regret to inform the olam that The Koton Hador passed away this morning. His talmudic doctor, Doctor Babba Kamma, tried an emergency infusion of spontaneously generated lice, but even this could not save him. Doctor BK suspects an overdose of letzonus is to blame. Koton had become increasingly agitated in recent days, and was seen wandering about the neighborhood, desperately trying to get his point across the only way he knew how. He will be missed. His blog, and all his letzonus from this site have been buried together with him. Please pay your condolences here.
Thanks.

Charedim, who they are and what they think

2005-02-02T22:51:00.000-08:00

Here is a brief, semi satirical but still quite true take on the charedi viewpoint.

Here is how I define the orthodox world. Of course any categorization is always open to criticism, its a continuum with many shades of gray. However we need to have some terms to discuss.

Charedi / Ultra Orthodox

I would split into 3 camps

1. Left wing / more modern Charedim
Includes Ner Israel, maybe Chaim Berlin and possibly some small number of RW YU types, though I am not sure about them. Also includes people who identify with Charedim but are out there in the world e.g. Many doctors, lawyers etc.

2. Centrist Charedim
Main body of Lakewood, Philly, Telz etc. Identify with the Gedolim, though due to American upbringing are not completely closed minded.

3. Right Wing Charedim
Extreme RW members of lakewood, most of Gateshead, Boro Park, Stamford Hill, Ponovitz, Bnei Brak etc. Includes Chasidim, though maybe not Lubavitchers. Actually Lubobs have to be categorized under alternate religions anyway.

Likewise, I would categorize MO into 3 camps

1. Right Wing MO
Shtark YU types. Maybe Mercaz Haravniks too, though they can be a little unique. Charedi Dat Leumi - Chardalniks.

2. Centrist MO
Mainstream baal ha batish Teaneck.

3. Left Wing MO
Very liberal MO, the ones who are nominally orthodox but don't care all that much. Also the ones who really push the borders. Blu Greenberg etc. Actually these are very 2 different groups. One is disinterested. The other very intensely interested, Really not fair to lump them together at all. Sorry.

The Slifkin Ban

RW Charedi viewpoint

1. The Gedolim know best.
2. See 1.

Centrist charedi viewpoint

1. The Gedolim know best.
2. The Gedolim seem to be a bit wrong here.
3. I guess the Gedolim know best though.

LW Charedi viewpoint

1. The Gedolim know best.
2. The Gedolim are clearly wrong here
3. Aaaargh. Conflict ! System breakdown.

Right Wing MO viewpoint
1. I will prove Slifkin correct from all these rishonim and acahronim. Then the gedolim will change their mind when they see my superior lamdonus.

Centrist MO viewpoint
1. Those Gedolim are being ridiculous again.
2. More proof why MO is better.

LW MO Viewpoint
1. Who cares. These people are not Gedolim anyway.

Different Worlds

2005-02-02T22:33:00.000-08:00

Its amazing to me how frum people these days inhabit entirely different worlds without even realizing it.

Here are two conversations I had recently, both with seemingly similar frum people. Both had beards, wives with sheitels, learn regularly, and would be fairly indistinguishable from each other in general. The main difference was that one had a YU type of background and one had a Yeshivish background. Both were reasonably intelligent. Lets call me A, the YU guy B and the chareidi guy C. I am paraphrasing both conversations extensively, but they actually did happen like this.

Conversation with YU guy
A: So you heard about the latest ban ?
B: (Surprised) No, what was banned ?
A: Books which said the world was millions of years old.
B: (In all seriousness) Whats wrong with that ? Of course it is.
A: Well the fundamentalists take Breishis literally you know.
B: (Astonished) But what about dinosaurs and things like that ?
A: Well thats all fake, you know that peshat. (proceeds to explain Gosse)
B: (Astonished and shocked) What ?! Are you nuts ?

Conversation with Charedi Guy
A: So you agree with the ban ?
C: (Surprised) Of course, all the Gedolim signed it
A: So you believe the world is really 6,000 years old
C: (Shocked) Of course I do. Doesn't everyone ?
A: Not really, the scientific evidence is overwhelming for many people.
C: (Very Shocked) Science ! But the Torah says its 6,000 years old !
A: Well, many people don't take that literally.
C: (Astonished and shocked) What ?! Are you nuts ?

Of course people have different opinions, there is nothing suprising about that.

However what struck me was the genuine astonishment and shock of B that anyone in their right mind could possibly hold that the world wasn't billions of years old, and the equal and genuine shock and astonishment of C that anyone frum could possibly hold that it was.

The Nes-Nisayon Theory for life, the universe and everything

2005-01-31T19:45:00.000-08:00

Revised.

If we are to take Breishis literally, and the universe is 6,000 years old, then how does this reconcile with science ? It seems to me that people are no longer claiming that science is total bunk, since the scientific evidence for most things is pretty solid. Nowadays it seems that Jewish fundamentalists are content to go along with the famous Gosse theory. In this post I shall explore this theory.

The Gosse Theory
Phillip Henry Gosse, who was somewhat of a naturalist/scientist, could not ignore the geological evidence for an old universe. However being a born-again fundamentalist Christian, he could not ignore Genesis either. His solution was to accept the evidence, but claim that G-d created the world 'complete', in a fully formed state. Hence all the things you would expect in a fully formed earth, for example old rocks and fossils were all created directly as is. Here is some good information on Gosse and his life. He published his theory in the book Omphalos in 1857. You can buy Gosse’s book here, and here's an interesting article on why Gosse’s theory did not get much support when it came out. In the introduction to Omphalos, Gosse himself said he got the idea from some pamphlet he saw 20 years earlier, but that he was unable to find any trace of this pamphlet at the time of writing.

Lubavitcher Rebbe
The Lubavitcher Rebbe picked this theory up and from there it spread to the frum world. As to where the Rebbe got it, he may have heard it while he was in university, or maybe he figured it out himself. Most likely he heard it from someone else.

Sources In Gemarah
Some claim that this theory has its basis in the Gemarah. Rosh Hashanh 11a and Chullin 60a talk about animals being created fully formed. There is also a Gemarah where it says that Adam was created as a fully formed 20 year old, so you do see the concept that some things were created fully formed.

Issues
There are a number of issues with the theory. Objections fall into two general categories:

1. Theological
2. Philosophical

Note that there are no scientific objections to this theory, since the theory accepts all the science as being accurate from our vantage point, but just that G-d created everything this way.

1. Theological Objections
Most theologists (or is it theologians) have an issue with G-d creating a “fake” old earth. This would be misleading in the extreme, and would almost be a form of deceit, or sheker. Plus Judaism has always had the concept of G-d working within Derech Hatevah, and not subverting it.

Spme people seem not to be bothered by this, for the following reasons:

a) Its all a nisayon to test our emunah. It’s okay for G-d to trick us as long as it’s a nisayon.
b) The alternative is to say Bereishis in (literally) untrue, which also seems somewhat deceitful. So faced with a choice of calling the universe deceitful or the Torah deceitful, they will choose the universe.

Others object to this reasoning:

a) There is no tradition in Judaism of G-d creating fake metzius. The Gemarah about Adam is not to be taken literally. Alternatively, even if it is literal, there is a big difference between creating something fully formed, and creating lots of fake evidence, e.g. Fake cave paintings and buildings.

2) Taking the Torah nion-literally has a mesorah, especially the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim.

I haven’t seen this much discussed, but I have the feeling that there are other objections too. When you think about it, it’s not really such a clean theory. Just saying G-d created an ‘old’ world in 6 days, complete with fossils and all, doesn’t really solve the problem. For example, there are continuous records of civilization in certain places. Also, buildings or other remnants in the US, Australia and other remote regions, even after creation, must be fake up to a point (maybe dor haflagah) because man did not live there. So G-d created a 'complete' world, but in addition created lots of fake artifacts which looked younger than they really are, as opposed to older.

Either way, this whole line of reasoning has nothing much to do with science at all, since the scientific evidence is being accepted as real. Everyone agrees that G-d could certainly have created the world fully formed, had He so desired, and also done as many nisim as required. So it ends up being an argument about theology, not science. Would G-d have done this or not ?

2. Philosophical Objections
From a philosophical point of view, this theory presents a problem too. If the world is fake, then maybe it was all faked up last Thursday, and everything before then is a false memory. This has been called “Last Thursdayism”, I think by Bertrand Russell.

Some people are not bothered by this, probably because

a) They haven’t really thought about it
b) Its not a kashye. Sure everything could be fake from 5 minutes ago, but the Torah says the world was created 6000 years ago, so we know the emes.

Does taking Breishis literally mean accepting Gosse as the standard peshat ? Does it matter that this peshat most likely came from a Christian source ?

Nes
In addition to the Gosse Theory, you also need a major dose of nes (miracle). For example the Gosse theory does not help out with the fact that a global flood is a scientific impossibility, or that there is plenty of scientific evidence that there was no global flood. To answer these questions, you need the concept of nes. The flood was a nes, and the clean up afterward was too. Likewise the dispersion of dor haflagah, the dispersion of animal species from the Ark, and many other similar events.

Some people object to this liberal dose of Nes, because traditionally Judasim has tried to limit nes. For example the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim.

Similarly, you need nes to answer all the strange science and animal descriptions in the Gemarah, for example spontaneously generated lice. Once lice were seen to be born like other creatures, a new chiddush appeared, called 'nishtaneh hatevah' (nature has changed). Clearly, from a scientific point of view this is impossible too (as are any changes due to a global flood), so you must say this is a nes too. It is unclear when exactly the tevah changed according to this theory, but it must have been some time after the Gemarah, and before the first recorded event of someone looking into a microscope and seeing that lice had babies.

If you read some of the Christian fundamentalist literature, they go to great lengths to show how all of Bereishis could be literally true. For example, how could Adam have named all the animals in one day ? The answer is he ran really fast since he had superhuman powers, being a direct creation of G-d. To their credit (I think ?), the Jewish fundamentalists don’t bother with all this nonsense, they just call it all a nes and be done with it.

The bottom line is that with a combination of the nes and nisayon explanations, all of Bereishis, and in fact all other scientific objections can be explained away quite neatly. Obviously, the Jewish fundamentalists can’t call it the Gosse Theory (or the Menachem Mendel Theory).

I therefore propose that from now on we call this the “The Nes-Nisayon Theory for Life, the Universe and Everything.”

GH Classic: Gedolim vs Ketanim

2005-01-24T19:42:00.000-08:00

A lot has been written recently about the Science vs Torah conflict. Suprisingly, very few have written on the Gedolim vs Ketanim conflict. Let me be the first ! Here I faithfully reproduce a debate between two imaginary personalities of mine, I mean to say two good friends of mine.

Representing the gedolim, we have Moshe Shmuel Meshuganeh, of Kollel Ayn Torah in Bnei Beserk. On the other side, representing the ketanim, is Rabbi Leatherkippah, of Congregation Modern Orthoprax of Oyvayizmere.

The Debate

MSM: Judaism has always had a very strong notion of trusting the great gedolim. This idea can be traced way back in our mesorah.

RLK: Yeah, all the way back to the first gedolim who said that we have to trust the gedolim. Isn't that a circular argument ?

MSM: Every movement needs leadership. A movement without leadership will collapse. And who is best suited to lead this movement ? Clearly the people who spend all day studying its laws, its history, its ideology. The greatest sages of the generation.
RLK: Yes, but these are also people who waste no time on other matters, cloistered in their own small world without any real connection to the rest of the world.
MSM: We have to trust the gedolim. That's how orthodox Judaism has always been and will always be. Its a fundamental belief, and you can't change it. If you don't like it, fine, go start a new religion, but it won't be orthodox Judaism.
RLK: But the gedolim are out of touch with a major segment of their own constituency. Many, many formerly quite charedi people have bee turned off by this latest ban. If this is the case, surely something is wrong ?
MSM: The only people who are turned off are those whose yirash shamayim and emunas chachomim is suspect anyway.
RLK: But the slifkin ban has shown them to have a complete lack of knowledge about accepted concepts such as science. Statements such as "science is poetry", "science is not metzius", "science is the roof not the foundation" are commonplace.
MSM: First of all, the gedolim have no need for science. Second of all, through learning Torah, they understand all of science anyway.
RLK: But they ban without due process. The whole way this ban was conducted was unfair. They ruined someone's life without even agreeing to talk to him. How could they be so unfair ?
MSM: They are the gedolim. They know what they are doing. You have to trust them.
RLK: They seem to spend a lot of time disagreeing with each other and other parts of klal yisroel. Why do they spend so much time fighting ?
MSM: You have to fight for what you believe in don't you ? That's a mitzvah.
RLK: Their actions don't seem to be the actions of gedolim. Gedolim are supposed to be super saintly people, we see little evidence of that here.
MSM: What do you expect them to do ? Go run soup kitchens ? They are busy leading klal yisroel. They have no time for petty gemilus chasadim. Any anyway, if you read their biographies you will see they are all very saintly.
RLK: They seem to be more concerned with bugs, wigs and heresy than with the major issues of the day. Shouldn't they be worried about Tsunamis, the Middle East, Atheism or some real issues ?
MSM: What do you mean ! Bugs, wigs and heresy are the major issues of the day ! You are just a kofer. You are banned !
RLK: And you are a narrow minded buffoon. You are banned !
Thus this scholarly debate ends.
However I am still conflicted. RLK seemed to have some good arguments, didn't he ? However we can't ignore MSM, can we ? I came up with a few potential answers:
Its not them, its their shomrim.
The gedolim are in actual fact very good, holy and learned people. However they are totally sheltered by their shomrim, who mislead and deceive them. They are so naive as to not realize the true situation. Hmmm.
I am a katan. I will never understand.
I am a katan. I am biased by treife external influences, lack of yiras shomayim, yetzer horah, and general katnus. I can't trust my instincts, or my thoughts, I have to surrender my ability to think. Hmmm.
These are not the real gedolim
The real gedolim are not the ones who signed the ban. They are the ones who didn't sign the ban. The ones who kept quiet. The ones who are still keeping quiet even in the face of a major injustice. Hmmm.
Its just a power struggle in the chareidi world
The whole thing is just a power struggle between the more fundamentalist EY gedolim and the more liberal US gedolim for dominance over the charedi world. Its not for MO consumption and doesn't apply to the MO community. The gedolim have to engage in these kind of power struggles by nature of their leadership. Hmmm.
There are no true gedolim these days
The era of the true godol has long passed. The current crop of gedolim are really just people who have played the game right and are now heads of various institutions, but are not particularly saintly people. Chazal, the Rishonim and the Acharonim are really the true gedolim. Hmmm.
So what do you think ?

GH Classic: Moral Relativism - Another message from the ACAKW

2005-01-15T20:41:00.000-08:00

In our untiring quest for apologetics, we have found a great new approach ! Yes, dear kiruv projects, its our old friend "Moral Relativism". You remember that from your not so frum college days right ? Remember how you used to argue that Israel is no different from South Africa, they are both apartheid states ? Those were the good old days. Everyone and everything was all the same. America was just as bad as Russia. Sleeping around and doing drugs was no different than holding down a good job and building a family.

Well we have good news for you. In your quest for frumkeit, you don't have to abandon this concept at all ! No, in keeping with the jewish tradition of taking from the secular world and making it holy, we can take the concept of Moral Relativity and apply it to charedi apologetics.

Here's how it works. Lets say some books gets banned by the charedi world. Lets say even that the author was given no chance to defend his views. Lets even say that the author has impeccable traditional sources. Well, so what ? Don't we ban holocaust revisionism ? Don't we ban hate-inducing literature ? Don't they claim to have impeccable sources ! Its all the same ! We ban, they ban, its all the same ! So you see dear friends, the charedi world is not that different from the outside world after all.

No, wait a minute, what are we saying ! 'The charedi world is not that different from the outside world' ! Thats not the message we want to convey at all. Of course there is a difference, there has to be ! Yes, the charedi world is very different from the outside world. In the outside world, there is much discussion and debate, possibly even a court hearing before something is banned. However in the charedi world, there is no due process, we just ban ! See, we are different after all ! Boruch Hashem.

GH Classic: Some changes at this blog

2005-01-15T19:40:00.000-08:00

Carefully astute readers of this blog may have noticed some slight changes. I have cut out all the letzonus, especially when gedolim are involved. It was funny, but wrong. If you have some of these posts in your possesion, please do not distribute them.

Well, maybe not all letzonus. I still spoof the ACAKW, but thats because :

(a) They are not gedolim (maybe I am wrong)
(b) They seem to enjoy it
(c) They are so spoofalicious I can't help myself.

Note: if the ACAKW would like me to remove those posts too, just let me know.

Thanks.

GH Classic: Wot no lamdonim ?

2005-01-14T23:37:00.000-08:00

Do no lamdonim read my blog ? Only atheists and letzim ?

I post a blog on the Vilna Gaon - no comments.
I post an inciteful piece on Azaria Dei Rossi - no comments (well 1 comment but it was peripheral)
I post a beautiful yet provactive moshol comparing orthodox judasim to a ship which has hit an iceberg - no comments (well 1 comment but that was from an Atheist)
However I post letzonus, and everybody says what a talented guy I am. Oy vey.

Don't you know that I am a Gilbert Studious wannabee ? I guess that means I will have to learn a lot more though. As much as my wife hates me wasting time blogging, she doesn't like it too much when I go off and learn every night either. Don't get me wrong, she is a saintly woman, (if you can call someone who is addicted to the OC saintly), but she needs help with the kids. I say, lock em in their room and they will be okay. Wot, they need toys ? They need attention ? Nonsense. When I was a kid they used to stick me in a paper bag in the middle of a swamp for days on end and I turned out okay.

GH Classic: And one more thing

2005-01-14T22:37:00.000-08:00

I know you all think my profile is very clever. However there is no place for comments on my profile. So here is your own very special place for those comments. (Yes, I am a middle child, give me some attention !!! Maybe thats what happens when you spend your childhood in a paper bag in the middle of a swamp).

Here is my profile again, just in case you missed it:

prax: haredi/modern
dox: haredi/modern/heretical
sox: blue/gray
box: married/children/suburbia

GH Classic: Godol Hador - Banned !!!

2005-01-14T20:34:00.000-08:00

In a surpising turn of events today, the Godol Hador was banned, ironically by Rabbi Slifkin himself !

"While I enjoy a good laugh, this event should not be turned into an opportunity for letzonus" said Rabbi Slifkin. "Youre banned !!!" he exclaimed, before going out for a walk with his pet iguanas round Ramat Chayot.

In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with the good Rabbi, there will be no more letzonus from now on. Slightly humorous quips are still okay. However spoofs are right out.

Although nobody has yet claimed to have been offended in any way, and in fact some of the spoofees have stated publicly that they have enjoyed my posts, I am concerned that there may be people out there who were indeed offended. To those who may have been offended, I sincerely apologize. My intent was just to inject some humor into the situation, as many people (on both sides) including myself were getting rather stressed out about the whole thing. I had tried to make the letzonus so over the top that this would be clear, but maybe it wasn't.

It was never my intent to make any real fun of any choshuv people (chas vesholom). Whilst we may not always agree with the Gedolim, they are still the Gedolim, and I am no Godol by comparison. In fact I am not even a koton by comparison. I am a flea on the koton. Actually, not even that. I am the dust on the shoe of the flea on the koton. Or maybe I am the flea on the dust on the shoe of the flea on the koton.

Thank you and keep smiling.

Note
To all you gullible conspiracy theorists out there. I was not pressured. I was not threatened. Rabbi Slifkin did not really ask me to stop, I am sure he has better things to do than read my blog. The truth is I am not really too keen on letzonus, thats all. What started out as a silly comment on someone elses blog turned into a worldwide phenomenon which must be stopped.

GH Classic: Derech HaBlog

2005-01-14T19:31:00.000-08:00

Here are some blogs I read, in no particular order. I would link to these guys ... if I could only figure out how the frikkin *%*&%$#&^$ heck to do it.

A Hasid and a Heretic - Yet another "I'm a Chosid who can't escape" blog. Fascinating, but I guess I just don't get it. Suicide is an option, but moving to Teaneck - thats totally out of the question.

Chakirah - Very funny. TorahMaddaChick is cool too.

Cross Currents - A bit boring actually, but the contributors are very choshuv. I even know some of them (my fellow Gedolim).

Dov Bear - Very creative, enjoyable reading. Don't care for the politics though, not my cup of tea if you know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink. Whats that you say - Its in the Tiferes Yisroel ?

Mis-nagid - Passionate believer in the Atheist religion ; ^ ) Rude, crude but a good read nonetheless. Just don't look at those rude words. Keeps you on your toes. And yes, I am trying to get some time to read my critical thinking books.

Yoinoson Schreiber – Who is this guy ? I think I know him or he knows me. Good blog.

Daas Yachid - Not sure why this rabbi hates himself, his blog is good stuff. Do I know you too ? You sound like my rabbi, but he claims to have no blog.

Hirhurim - Very scholarly (and pretentious). Great for when you want to be serious and actually learn a little. I wish he wouldn't delete my comments though.

House of Hock – More great stuff here. Very intelligent.

Daas Hedyot – A good read here. This guy has his head screwed on straight.

Failed Messiah – Good posts, but please change your template. Its awful.

OrthoSceptic – An english guy who is also a skeptic. Who would'av thought it ? Terrible, whats the world coming to. I don't know. As long as youve got yer health.

RenegadeRebbetzin - Very interesting. But too much chick talk. If I wanted to hear chick-talk, I could just start listening when my wife speaks.

* A clever test to see if she reads my blog.

GH Classic: The Encyclopedia Slifkinnica

2005-01-13T19:26:00.000-08:00

Published by your friends at the ACAKWNew !

A 60 volume encyclopedia of the Slifkin Ban.

When this “affaire” started, we were conflicted. Boy, were we conflicted ! Slifkin is such a great guy, many of us are his friends. On the other hand, the Gedolim have spoken. The Gedolim ! How can we disagree with the Gedolim ! On the other hand Slifkin, he’s such a good guy ! But what about the Gedolim ! On the other hand, what about Slifkin ! But the Gedolim ! But Slifkin ! Gedolim ! Slifkin ! Slifkin ! Gedolim ! Slifkin ! Gedolim ! Gedolim ! Gedolim ! Slifkin !

This calls for an unprecedented response.

We couldn’t just write a small article on the general thrust of this case. No ! The general thrust is not good enough here. We had to examine every detail, every angle, every nuance. We had to anticipate every kasheh, every shailoh. From the creation of the universe, to last night's blogs, its all in here ! This monumental work will leave no stone unturned, no question unanswered. After reading all 30 volumes, you will finally have the answer you have been waiting for – What do Cross Currents really think about the Slifkin ban ?

Here are some of the incredible topics covered in this work:

Who are the Gedolim ? – 5 volumes on the life and times of Rav Wackedfoibles. What does he really think ? What language does he really read ? What did he really eat for breakfast last Tuesday ?

Who is Slifkin ? – 10 volumes on this lovable rogue of a torah true heretic. Is he really a heretic, or just a kiruv worker trying to make a decent living ? Is it true he shares his house in Ramat Chayot with two Iguanas and a Dinosaur skeleton ? Traces his beginnings as just another zoo rabbi, includes detailed description of all the animals he kept as a child.

What is science ? A 2 page description for haredim. Includes a debunking of all current theories of cosmology, evolution and meterology.

The Media – 3 volumes. Volume 1: "What's the difference between the New York Times and the Yated Neeman". Volume 2 “What's the difference between Bill O Reilly and Rav Elya Weintroub". Volume 3: "What's the difference between ‘Late night with Conan O Brian' and 'Rav Mattisyahu Solomon’s Mussar Shmoozen’.

The Bloggers - 20 Volumes of Slifkin blogs. 15 volumes from Rabbi Gilbert Studious alone ! Hear every blogger weigh in with his opinion.

BONUS !Order now and you will receive a special additional volume – “The Haskamas”. Available in unique 3 ring binder format. Ideal for retractions.

EXTRA BONUS !Order within the next twenty minutesa and you will also receive a 20" by 30" ban poster. Each poster is individually signed by all the Gedolim. Sure to become a treasured heirloom.

GH Classic: Will the real Shabbos please stand up ?

2005-01-12T23:55:00.000-08:00

Something that has bothered me since I was younger. Clearly, even according a haredi history, some funny things have happened to our calender over the millenia. This being the case, how do we know Shabbos is really Shabbos ? Maybe its actually Wednesday, as josh narins mentioned in a comment.

Alternatively, if the universe really is 14.5 billion years old (give or take a few billion), when is Shabbos exactly ?

I guess the answer might be that it doesn't matter which day it is, as long as its one out of every seven. Or alternatively, Hashem has always worked behind the scenes to ensure that Shabbos is actually held on Shabbos.

Also, once I realized that the universe is quite old, kiddush friday night started to bother me. But then I realized, our havanah in vayechulu is pretty basic anyway. I mean, what does "Shovas " mean. Hashem is tired after a long week of universe construction ?

GH Classic: Will the real Vilna Gaon please stand up ?

2005-01-12T23:22:00.000-08:00

I read two statements about the Gaon recently:

1. "If the Gaon says that he could bring down kol galgal hachamah on this table and show it to Aristo - do we have a safek that what Chazal HaKedoshim said is emes?" Rav Uren Reich Rosh haYeshiva of Yeshiva of Woodlake Village in Lakewood

2. Baruch Schick, who published several works on mathematics and astronomy, wrote in his introduction to his translation of Euclid (Amsterdam, 1780) that he had heard the Gaon state that "in proportion to a man's ignorance of the other sciences, he will be ignorant of one hundred measures of the science of the Torah."

GH Classic: Azariah Dei Rossi – Banned !!!

2005-01-12T21:19:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I am a bit late with this news, about 500 years too late actually. But the parallels are interesting. Here is what the Encylopedia Judaica has to say:

Probably the most important part of Imrei Binah is that devoted to the study of Jewish chronology. In a very detailed study, Rossi proved that counting the years from the creation and basing a calendar on this count is a relatively recent Jewish usage; none of the ancient sages in the talmudic or geonic period, and certainly not in the Bible, used a calendar reckoned from the creation. Even in the early Middle Ages more ancient calendars were used, especially one based on the conquest of Palestine by Alexander. Thus he exposed the fact that the calendar accepted in his day was not of ancient origin. In addition, he tried to prove that the Bible and the other ancient sources are insufficient for reconstructing the chronology from the creation to the present time. He thereby indicated that the calendar was not only untraditional, but that it also made a false claim.
These findings seemed heretical to his traditional contemporaries, and even his friends among the Italian Renaissance scholars could not accept such a radical point of view. In the same critical manner Rossi dealt with countless other subjects—archaeology, Jewish coins, the development of the Hebrew language and the use of Aramaic by ancient Jews, Hebrew poetics and poetry, etc. Although modern scholarship does not accept many of his conclusions, some are scientifically sound, and, in any case, there is no doubt that Rossi's scholarship was more than 200 years ahead of its time.
The advanced critical spirit and method of Me'or Einayim made the work a subject of controversy for a long time. While it was being printed in Mantua, rabbis who heard about its contents raised objections, some of which Rossi answered in the work itself. When the work was published, the traditional rabbis in Italy were shocked, especially by Rossi's attitude toward talmudic and midrashic legends and his denial of the validity of the chronology claiming to date from the creation. Even his friend and associate, Moses b. Abraham ProvenLal, fiercely criticized Rossi's attitude toward the calendar, as did Isaac Finzi of Pesaro.
In 1574, even before the printing of Me'or Einayim was completed, the rabbis of Venice, headed by Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen, published a proclamation of herem against possessing, reading, or using the book, unless one received special permission from the rabbis of his city. Rossi was not personally attacked, the impeccable conduct of his private life easily meeting Orthodox standards of behavior. The herem was followed by similar declarations in such cities as Rome, Ferrara, Padua, Verona, and Ancona, in which rabbis warned their congregations against reading the work. The controversy spread to other Jewish communities; in Safed a proclamation of herem was prepared for the signature of Joseph b. Ephraim Caro, the great halakhist, but Caro died before signing it, and the herem was published by the other rabbis of Safed. Judah Loew b. Bezalel of Prague, who defended the absolute truth of the talmudic legends and traditions, dedicated a major part of his work on the oral tradition, Be'er ha-Golah (Prague, 1598), to direct attacks against Rossi and his teachings. Even in Mantua, where the author was well known and where the book was printed, persons under 25 were forbidden to read it.
Before his death, probably in 1578, Rossi wrote a reply to his critics, Mazref la-Kesef (1845; "The Purification of Silver"), which deals especially with the problem of the calendar and chronology. Later, Mazref la-Kesef was printed together with Me'or Einayim. The ban on Me'or Einayim persisted for more than a hundred years, during which time few scholars dared to use or even mention the work. Renewed interest in the book was aroused only with the beginning of the Haskalah period late in the 18th century, when maskilim found in Rossi's work ideas similar to their own. The first modern printing of the work (after the Mantua edition) was published by the maskilim of Berlin in 1794.

GH Classic: Age of the Universe from the ACAKW

2005-01-12T20:16:00.000-08:00

Another message from the ACAKW.

Recently some questions have arisen as to the age of the universe. The Torah says its roughly 6000 years, the Scientists (imach shemom vzichrom) say its 15 billion. Of course a torah true jew knows not to listen to the scientists. However for all you Kiruv projects out there, we must present a more acceptable answer. Don't worry, its okay for you to hold of these answers whilst you are not yet fully frum. However upon your conversion to full frumkeit, you must immediately reject these for the torah true position.

Each answer is followed by its author / proponents.

1. The universe only looks old, but thats because Hashem created it that way, either as a nisayon or maybe it was some kind of divine short cut - Even G-d didn't want to wait 15 billion years for Adam to show up. (Philip Henry Gosse - Omphalos 1850, Lubavitcher Rebbe, my charedi sister-in-law)

2. The first 6 days were not human days. As it says in tehilim A thousand Years is like a second in G-ds eyes. Since there were no men before day 6, we must be talking about G-ds time. If you do the math and fiddle with the numbers, 6 days of seconds at a thousand years a second = excatly 15 billion years ! (Popular explanation)

3. The first 3 days before the sun was created were not regular days, because there were no sun. Therefore these were billions of years long. (Another popular explanation).

4. Time is relative, not absolute. Therefore it all depends on whose vantage point you are talking from. From a vantage point outside the universe, 6 days could have passed, whereas inside the universe, it was more like 15 billion. Comparable to 1 or 2 above, but with some decent science behind it. (Gerald Schroeder).

5. They were 6 real days. However time sped up during those 6 days, so that 15 billion years worth of changes happened then, even though it was 6 days. Comparable to 4 above, except with no science behind it. (Semi popular)

6. Nishtane Hatevah (The world has changed). After the flood, all the laws of science mysteriously changed. So carbon dating, galactic red shift and all the other "proofs" from science as to the age of the universe are in fact mistaken. (Popular - Bonus ! Also explains half-mouse-half-earth creatures and tremendous ages of Adam etc).

GH Classic: Le affaire de Slifkin, de la revolution, hors d-oeuvres, la marais, champs elysees la plum de ma tante, sacre blue et al

2005-01-12T19:14:00.000-08:00

An important message from the Association of Charedi Apologists and Kiruv Workers (ACAKW)

Members of the ACAKW

Rabbi Felt-hat
Mr Ballaboos *
Rabbi Rosy-glasses
Rabbi Menshlechkite
Rabbi Studious
Mrs Katz **

* Not a rabbi but we let him join to show how open minded we are
** A woman ! Boy, are we open minded or what !

You may ask why this blog ? And whats with the strange title ? The answer my friends is one and the same. We Charedim are not clueless and sheltered. We are out there in the world ! We know how to use a computer ! We can use foreign words too ! This is the message we at ACAKW must send out. Unfortunately, our Kiruv Projects have been asking us some tough questions recently. Whats with this Slifkin ban ? Whats our response ? Why do we remain silent on our blog ?

The answer is simple. A blog is clearly not the place to discuss ones thoughts about current topics.

But let me tell you Rabosay, we wholeheartedly support Slifkin’s book. Well, maybe not the actual content, but we certainly support the general thrust. Well, maybe not all the general thrust, but the fact that he wrote down some words and got himself published. We wholeheartedly support that. Well maybe not in his case , but we do support the general thrust of people writing books. As long as they are Torah true of course.

Now lets look at the ban. Again, the general thrust is very supportable. Well maybe not so much here, but the general thrust of Gedolim writing bans. Well maybe not bans, but the general thrust of Gedolim writing things is a good thing. So you see, if you look at the general thrust of things, Slifkin and the Gedolim are really on the same page. We must ignore all intellectual examination of the details. We must focus on the general thrust !

Let us finish by telling you a true Gedolim story. Once, two Gedolim were about to get into an argument, but they didn’t. They just walked away, without screaming names at each other. Mamesh amazing. So you see clearly from this maaseh shehoyoh, you see that there is really no machlokes at all in the Charedi world. And not only that, but our Kugel and Cholent taste great !

GH Classic: Its a leaky boat - but I'm not jumping ship

2005-01-11T19:10:00.000-08:00

"History isn't over. There's still time for Judaism to recover. We can trim the boat." DovBear

"There you go again, confusing Orthodox Judaism for Judaism. Orthodoxy died about 150 years ago, with the first major breakthroughs in true scholarship of the Torah. Orthodoxy descended into fundamentalism, and will most likely die down there. The positions that are Orthodox are no longer believable by anyone with a thorough education." Ms-Nagid

The boat of Orthodoxy does have some problems, its true. The recent troubles are only the tip of the iceberg. Looming up ahead through the mist are the forbidding peaks of Science and Biblical Criticism. So now the boat has holes in its side, somewhere down in the lower class compartments. Some passengers down there are panicking. Quick, we must do something ! We are top heavy with 2000 years accumulated flotsam and jetsam. Trim the boat ! No that won't help, too little too late, we must abandon ship !

However is that really an alternative ? Abandon ship ? Who can survive for long in this cold cruel sea ? Where are the people who jumped ship before ? For a while we heard their plaintive cries: "Come on in, the waters fine" they called out at first. Later we heard "Please, please, please join us". Were these cries for company, or cries for help ? After a while their cries receded into the long night, and they were never to be heard from again.

And look at the ship. What a marvelous ship this is ! The finest to ever sail the seven seas. What a beautiful edifice ! They don’t make ships like this anymore, or ever. It has survived storms, tornadoes, tsunamis. It has survived the steamboat era, the modern luxury liner era, and still it sails on. The first class cabins are the finest in the world. Sure the ship’s captains and officers are responsible for the collision in the first place. But they only had our best interests at heart, trying to steer us through unfriendly waters to reach our destination. Maybe some of them have been too long at the helm. Perhaps a mutiny ? No, they will soon retire, and a new generation will take over, more familiar with modern methods of navigation.

Meanwhile, the upper decks are unaware of the collision. “This ship is the safest in the world” they say. “Watertight compartments, at the first sign of any leak these compartments are sealed shut. A few holes in the side won’t cause any major damage.

So jump ship ? Not this passenger. I wouldn’t trade my luxury cabin for the ice cold waters outside. Mutiny ? No need. Trim the boat ? A good idea, perhaps with a lighter load it will be smoother sailing from now on. But we need to be careful. We don’t want to rock the boat too much, it may capsize.

So come on inside and let the band play on !

GH Classic: The Nes-Nissayon Theory

2005-01-10T19:06:00.000-08:00

A while back, I posted this explanation of the alternative "Nes-Nissayon" (a.k.a. Gosse) theory, which seems to be well on its way to becoming normative peshat in the RW UO world, if you insist that the world is 6,000 years old.

Many people mistakenly think that this theory means G-d created the world in 6 days, but created it in a mature state, just like the Gemarah says Adam was created as a fully formed 20 year old, even with a navel. (Though I assume without fake memories of a childhood). After the 6 days of creation ended, things continued as normal (though with some funny stuff around the time of the mabul).

However that doesn't work. There are continuous records of civilization in many parts of the world, going back 10,000 years. The "faking" and "planting" of evidence would have had to have continued, for a very long time after creation, at least until after the mabul, or more likely until have the dispersion of the dor haflagah. Otherwise how can you account for ancient building 5,000 and 6,000 years old in parts of the US or Australia ?

So its not just that you have to believe G-d created a world looking older than it is, but that He continually "fixed" things for many thousand of years after that just to keep it looking authentically old. Alternatively, you could say this was all planted before the 6 days ended, but the carbon atoms were arranged so that they would give off false "young" ages when tested later.

I guess if everything is a ness and a nissayon thats okay, but it all sounds pretty strange to me.

GH Classic: Nes-Nisayon Theory and Biblical Criticism

2005-01-09T19:03:00.000-08:00

AddeRabbi brings up a clever point. That Nes-Nisayon Theory (NN Theory) can also be used to answer the question of why the Torah looks like it was written by 4 authors and a redactor. And also I guess why some pieces appear to have been written late, about 500 BCE.

However I think you need to hold of NN-Theory even without the problem of Biblical Criticism. How so ? Let me explain.

If you were to compare my blog with Shakespeare, it should be pretty evident who is the better author (No, not me silly !). So, likewise, shouldn't the book that G-d wrote be the most amazing book you ever read ? However even the chazal / gedolim (there is a great quote from someone about the goyim having better books than the Torah - can't remember where) will admit that on the outside, it reads like a fairly typical work of that era. Obviously it has deep secrets etc. according to chazal, but I am just talking about the external form.

Now, why wouldn't G-d create a work, which was obviously the work of G-d ? The 'decision' to make it appear human made must have been a 'conscious' decision. Even saying that it really is amazing but we are not on the level to comprehend its amazingness doesn't really help, because Hashem could have created a book which we were able to comprehend as being amazing.

So the only answer is that it was written as a human style work as a nissayon. Because if it was obviously the work of G-d, we would lose our bechirah. So, even without the whole business of higher criticism, we still need NN-Theory to explain why the Torah just reads like an ancient babylonian text, and not the word of G-d.

And really, this whole question just reduces to the question of why doesn't G-d appear to us again, why is he hidden. Must be a nisayon. So you need NN-Theory after all. In which case, you might as well go whole hog and accept Gosse after all.

Oh dear. And Good Shabbos.

GH Classic: The Future of Orthodox Judaism

2005-01-04T18:57:00.000-08:00

Does Chareidi Judaism have a future ? Is Modern Orthodoxy on the way out ? I have heard a number of different opinions on this matter.

1. The UO viewpoint

The MO's will ultimately die out. The move to the right is inevitable. The whole maykil thing was only a temporary aberration after the war. We are now almost back to how it was before the war. The MO's will eventually all become disillusioned as they move farther and farther left.

2. The MO viewpoint

The UO's will ultimately die out. The move to the left is inevitable. The whole machmir thing was only a temporary aberration after the war. We are now almost back to how it was before the war. The UO's will eventually all become disillusioned as they realize the bunch of lies they have been fed.

3. The centrist viewpoint

The MO's and the UO's will ultimately die out. The move to the center is inevitable. The whole machmir vs maykil thing was only a temporary aberration after the war. We are now almost back to how it was before the war. The RW UO's and LW MO's will eventually all become disillusioned, leaving the RW MO's and the LW UO's to combine to form a stable center.

4. The Atheist Viewpoint

Orthodox Judaism will ultimately die out. The move to atheism is inevitable. The whole religion thing was only a temporary aberration while man could not understand how the world worked. Biblical Criticism and Scientific Progress will eventually render orthodox religion (maybe all religion) extinct.

I don't know the answer. I'm not even sure which one I hope for, I guess 3. However two things I learnt recently, based on a lot of events, some public and some private, give me food for thought.

GH Classic: The Global Factor

2005-01-03T18:53:00.000-08:00

Now here is where it gets interesting. I defined 6 categories of Orthodoxy. However things are different in the US, in Europe and in Israel.

The question is this: Do we say that RW UO in US is equivalent to Centrist UO in EU, or do we redefine the categories in each country / region ? My approach is to not redefine the categories but to keep them consistent. Bearing that in mind here we go.

UO

US

RW UO: A minority. Exists in small pockets. Serious. Maybe 10% (I'm not counting Chasidim in this survey. Thats a whole other can of worms).
Centrist UO: A major part of US UO. Split between serious and fakers. 45%
LW UO: Another major part of US UO. More serious than fakers. Also 45%

EU/ IL (not much difference EU & IL)

RW UO: Major segment. Split between serious and fakers. 45%
Centrist UO: Another major segment. Split between serious and fakers.40%
LW UO: Minor. 15%. Smaller in the EU than in Israel. Mostly serious.

Key Points

EU and IL are virtually identical here, maybe RW UO IL are a little more extreme
RW UO is much more significant in EU / IL than in US.
LW UO barely exists in EU / IL, but his huge in the US

MO

US

RW MO: A minority. Serious only. Maybe 15%
Centrist MO: A major part of US MO. Split between serious and fakers. 45%
LW MO: Another major part of US MO. Split between serious and fakers. Also 40%

RW MO: EU barely exists. Serious only. Maybe 5%.
Centrist MO: Another major segment. 40%. Split between serious and fakers. In UK this is United Synagogue.
LW MO: Another major segment, but mostly fakers. Serious LW MO not very big, maybe 15%.

RW MO: IL could be significant, if you count Chardalnikim. Mostly serious. Maybe as high as 30%.
Centrist MO: Another major segment. 50%. In IL this is Dati Leumi. Some fakers but more serious as fakers gravitate more to LW MO or Chilonism.
LW MO: An up and coming segment. Many fakers but also some serious. Probably 20%.

Key Points

US, EU and IL all different
RW MO in EU is rare.

GH Classic: The Hitch Hikers Guide to Orthodoxy

2005-01-02T11:37:00.000-08:00

In my previous post, I divided Orthodoxy into 6 groups. As Hedyot pointed out, and as I realized about 5 mins after posting, there is another huge differential that I didnt point out. I shall call it the Serious / Faker divide. In each group, there is a split between the Serious guys and the Fakers. Here I shall explain:

RW-UO

Serious - very, very frum indeed. The genuine article. Listens to the Gedolim without question. Would never chas vesholom do anythign cneged the gedolim, chas vesholom. Thing genuine kollel guy in bnei brak who really learns.Faker - Born into it but doesn't really believe. Maybe goes to minyan, but shmoozes at the back of shul. Very unhappy with his lot, but won't generally amit it. Think Hasid and A Heretic.

Centrist UO

Serious - Learns a lot. Very frum. Typical good Lakewood guy.Faker - Goes with the flow. Spent some years in yeshivah but was a batlan. Goes to minyan mostly but gabbles it off quick. Will hang out in sports bars and do other questionable activities, especially on vacation.

LW UO

Serious - Frum but wordly. Learnt in a good UO yeshivah eg Ner Israel, even the Mir, but also has a college degree. Is probably a professional. Charedi but normal.

Faker - Goes with the flow. Not too into charedisim, but spouse / parents / children / community means he just tags along. Not much difference between LW UO Faker and Centrist UO Faker.

RW MO

Serious: Very frum indeed. Learns a lot. Semicha program at YU. As frum as a Serious LW UO. Probably not as frum as a Serious RW UO. Comparisons to a serious Centrist UO are interesting and highly debatable / tedious. Think Top YU guy vs Top Lakewood Guy.Faker: Doesn't really exist IMHO. If you are not into it, there is very little pressure to be here.

Centrist MO

Serious: Does daf hayomi. Attends shiurim. Learns a lot but is also a professional and worldly. A fan of RYBS.Faker: Goes with the flow. Possibly Orthoprax though might not realize it. Goes to shul shabbos mornings. Keeps kosher and shabbos. Doesn't learn. Attends an Orthodox Synagogue but not much more.

LW MO

Serious: Reads Shapiro, Halivni and similar writers. Founded an egalitarian minyan on the UWS of Manhattan. Wants to redefine Orthodoxy.Faker: Similar to Centrist MO Faker. Is nominally orthodox and wants to stay that way, but couldn't really explain why. Goes to shul occasionally

GH CLassic: Grand Prize Contest !!! - Update

2005-01-02T09:36:00.000-08:00

Remember the competition to give the best answer why the Torah said 6 days ? Well, so far no winners.

Ford gave a good explanation of the Torah having many levels of explanation, and he did have a nice moshol to science whereby an earlier simpler meaning (e.g. Newtonian Physics) is replaced by a later more complex peshat (e.g Theory of Relativity) but that does not negate the simple meaning. However he didn't really have much to say on the symbolism of 6 days, execpt that it was to teach shabbos, which was no more than I said in my competition anouncement really.

ADDeRabbi had a well written post, covering the usual basics, torah as a moral message, breishis competing with ancient near east mythologies etc, plus some additional cool stuff, but didn't really address the 6 days either.

Other people quoted Rav Kook and Schroeder, which was hardly original. I don't think either of them are great. Schroeder uses too much science trying to make the text fit perfectly when it doesn't, and Rav Kook's answer is unconvincing. He says ancient man would not have been able to feel significant if he had known that the universe was vast or billions of years old. I don't see why. If man is the purpose of existence, then millions of years in the making, or millions of lifeless planets just add to the awe of his existence, and should make him feel more important, not less.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the rules of the competition. I want a convincing explanation of 6 days. If you are just going to answer that its to teach shabbos, then you need to beef that up a bit. Fundamentalist understanding is that shabbos is after 6 days because the universe really was created in 6 days. Since this is now untrue, there needs to be a better reason for why 6 days. Was it really because the Sumerians had Sabattu every 7 days, so the Torah took this pagan ritual and gave it some religious symbolism ? Or does six signify something cosmic or kabalistic ? Six eras ? Why six eras ? And why use the word yom if its not strictly a yom ? And why does the phrase go 'vayehi erev vayehi boker yom echod (sheni, shlishi etc)' ? Shouldn't it say 'vayehi erev vayehi boker vayehi tzohorayim yom echod' ?

GH Classic: Heretical Histrionics Handicaps Historically Hightened Hermeneutics

2005-01-02T06:31:00.000-08:00

Mis-nagid has a great post (Fabricating Fictions Fathers Further Fraud) about where the Torah came from and what went wrong in the process. WARNING: Don't read it if you don't like heresy, this one is the real deal (not like that slifkin guy). You have been warned. However if you are reading it to refute it, then thats ok, as in dah ma lhashiv leapikores.

I don't have a problem with the mis-nagid theory per-se. Its quite logical. Man wrote the Torah, and later generations added the divine myth. However I would make one or two important additions. I would add in a significant element of divine inspiration, and continue to hold of Torah miSinai as in Torah shebaal peh. I know this was not mis-nagids intention and he will no doubt have an absolute fit and tell me that baal peh is even more man made than bictav - my apologies mis-nagid !

This is similar to the Louis Jacobs theory in "We have reason to believe". His approach was that the Torah was man's record of the divine encounter, not G-d's record, but that there was a divine encounter / revelation nonetheless. I am not saying I believe this theory, but it has some logic to it. Though that got him kicked out of the orthodox rabbinate in the UK.

I suggested a similar idea to my rabbi a few months ago, and his reply was "Well there goes half the Talmud then". In other words, most of the talmud revolves around explaining every word in the Torah, so if its not the exact word of G-d, there's not much validity in the Talmuds line of reasoning. Personally I think he is wrong, you would lose about 90% of the Talmud. But seriously, I read some theory that when the Gemara tries to use pesukim, and darshans words and even letters, its all an asmachta, an attempt to recreate the torah baal peh by looking for clues in the bictav. However really baal peh was received through mesorah as is, and does not need baal peh.

I don't see why losing bictav means losing baal peh. Its interesting though that the major heretical movements (e.g. Kairites, Tzedukim etc) always got rid of baal peh and kept bictav. How come there were no heretical movements which kept baal peh but toned down the importance of bictav ? It would keep halachah intact but solve all those pesky Science and Torah and JPED problems. I guess if Bictav was just man made, people would not be able to take the whole baal peh thing too seriously. Plus rabbis wouldn't be able to make so many cool drashas.

Just some thoughts, no need to stone me. I'm not changing my dox, nor my prax, and changing my box is right out. I might change my sox though. I have decided that black is better than blue, because black goes with my black, gray and blue pants, whereas blue doesn't go with black pants really, so they are less flexible. Also a drawer full of black sox would be easier to match, which would make the rebbetzin happy, and thats much more important than my blog, or so she keeps telling me. Another test to see if she reads my blog. So far she doesn't. Why not ????? If my wife was posting stuff on the internet you'ld better believe I would be reading it. Unless it was just a load of chick talk in which case I get way too much of that already. Hee hee.

Anyways, does anyone have any authentic sources which might make this theory somewhat less kefiradik ? Or do you think a snowball would have a better chance in hell than finding any sources for this bunch of heresy, oh and by the way hell is exactly where I'm going for posting this ? Answers on a postcard please, or try the comments. Of course the real reason for this post was just to beat mis-nagid in the best aliteration blog post title competition. I win with 6 words versus 5.

GH Classic: Heresy Shmeresy

2005-01-01T20:25:00.000-08:00

Motley Minority Menagerie, (Modern / Medieval / Maskilim / Mis-nagid Mixture); Malevolently, Maybe Maniacally, Mamish Mistakenly, Maintains Much Maculation Mars Manifestly Moradik Miraculous Monotheistic Mesorah MiSinai !(Take that Mis-nagid. I win with 23 words and no spelling mistakes)

More heretical ideas about torah shebictav from a selection of thinkers:

1. Ibn Ezra talks about posukim being added to the Torah, famous “secret of the 12 comment” etc. I suspect some of his buddies had evev more radical views which they didn’t make public, or at least have been lost to us. Or maybe I’m just not that educated on medieval heresy.

2. Halivni in Revelation Restored suggests that the Torah was originally perfect from G-d but then got corrupted through the ages, and Ezra’s attempt to resurrect it led to what we have today, a maculate text.

3. Daat Mikreh mentions a peshat, based on the Gemoroh and also a midrash and an Acharon (can’t remember who) that the bnei yisrael already had the bereishis texts when they left mizrayim, and G-d commanded Moshe to include them as part of the Torah.

4. My MO rabbi says he was taught in YU that its okay to believe the Torah had 4 sources and a redactor, as long as the redactor was Moshe Rabeinu, working under the editorship of G-d.

5. My YU semichah buddy says he was taught in YU that the first 11 chapters of Breishis are clearly mythology (I call it moshology) designed to counter the prevailing babylonian mythology. Kind of like Sarna & Cassutto I think, but that G-d still was the author, or at least the redactor. (Was Cassutto frum ?)

6. I heard beshem Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook that until Abvraham its mythology, but after that its fact. Similar (or same) as above. My MO rabbi doesn’t like this however, as why draw the line there ? Also I worry about the sedom story. Does the geology of that area support a recent (5000 years old) upheaval ? Any geologists read my blog ?

7. Zohar says that the torah is just a shell to contain the true inner mystical meaning. Not sure if that means the Zohar took the shell literally in addition to the mystical meaning, or if that means the shell is somewhat irrelevant.

8. Louis Jacobs theory (mentioned below) that the torah is man’s account of G-ds revelation, not G-ds account.

Any others ? All these explanation help with Biblical criticism and Science vs Torah questions, however they take away a bit from the sense that every word is sacred

GH Classic: My 'Friend' Speaks His Mind

2005-01-01T18:50:00.000-08:00

A highly imaginary, err … I meant to say highly intelligent, friend of mine recently sent me the following letter. I have faithfully written it, err … I mean reproduced it, word for word.

>>>

Dear Rabbi Leatherkippa,

I wish to be Orthodox, but the two major groupings in Orthodoxy - the Modern Orthodox (MO) and the Ultra Orthodox (UO) both make me nauseous.

Let’s look at the UO first. The UO strike an occasional responsive chord within me.
But there are aspects of UO that give me pause. I find them too casual, and careless, about their ethics. They with their black hats, conspicuously UO, while still often presenting a Chilul Hashem with their behavior. All right, those are externals. But maybe the black hats are a statement: I am UO, the elite of the elite, and I don’t give a damn about the world outside.

More seriously, I find in the UO an emphasis on material trappings- just like in the majority culture. Have you ever been to Boro Park, Monsey, even Lakewood ? The houses, cars and sheitels are spectacular. While I agree that a Jew should have some gashmius, I think the UO tend to blur the narrow line between having some gashmius and yet resisting the vulgar values that permeate that world. Large homes, expensive clothes, vacations, with all their crassness, are all normal aspects of their daily lives.

Their inability to resist superstition and Rebbe worship shows itself, for example, in their flirtation with so-called “Kabalistic Segulas”, blind faith in aging and out of touch leaders, potential Messiah figures and frenetic attempts to imitate fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam. With one eye cocked on the extremist fundamentalist religion du-jour, UO seems to be today’s precursors of tomorrow’s Taliban movement.

Yes, they are technically observant, but it’s an observance that to me seems superficial, robotic, without passion. In many UO day schools, Torah study is the only subject. Talmud first period, Talmud second period, Talmud third period, etc. This is reflected in some UO lives. Although obeisance is given to Torah as the supreme value, the lack of any training in the spirit of the law, and in ethics and general menshlechkite is evident.

I don’t want to be super-critical, but this obscurantism shows itself in what seems like an unending search for chumros. When was the last time you heard of a UO kulla ? Their only religious passion is directed against those who are less ritually machmir than they are.
I would like to identify with them, but I am uncomfortable with the noxious fumes of non-tolerance that they exude.

Where then is my spiritual home? With the MO world ? Not really.

For starters, there is simply too much freedom of thought there. It is not only that everyone studies a wide variety of topics. (After 120 years, will you be asked if your read Kant or Shakespeare ? Is admission to heaven denied to those who can’t quote Robert Burns ?)
But it is not only their colorful studious habits that get to me, but also their colorful world view. In the UO world, there is black and white - there are the Gedolim and there is everyone else - but for the MO this dichotomy does not exist. I fully realize that many individual MO’s are kind, generous, charitable, but the group as a group comes across as much too tolerant of many viewpoints, even beyond the parameters of Gedolim.

Lately, for example, they have been criticizing certain bans about heretical books. If a Godol hints that all science is bunk, or – basing himself on a narrow range of Jewish sources - that the science of the greatest scientists of the last few centuries, is not congruent with contemporary fundamentalist UO ideology, his ban is criticized across the world. (Which turns humdrum bans into major news stories.)

Such behavior tends to remove some of the beauty and holiness from MO life. MO Jews should be sensitive to others who desire to burn books, whether with real bonfires or symbolic ones.
In general, MO seem to want to close themselves off from the world of superstition, obscurantism, intolerance - and one cannot blame them. After all, it was these cultural undercurrents of the last few centuries which paved the way for the Holocaust and the Islamic jihad.

I fully appreciate the sacrifice that having demanding, full-time careers involves - many luxuries and comforts are surrendered. But within their world, is there also room for genuinely intolerant people who also learn a little ?

Despite all this, the MO have been most successful, and have really defeated the UO on the battlefield of ideas. They have a charismatic leadership, a dynamic ideology, they are intensely Jewish, they sacrifice. There is purpose in their lives, spiritual strength, sanctity, self assurance - and these have attracted many Jews under their umbrella. Unlike the UO, they have little difficulty is retaining their next generation – (UO’s are leaving their restrictive communities in droves – witness all the blogs of ex-yeshivah guys).

I am both attracted and repelled by this MO world - as I am by the UO world.
My friends and I are in despair. Orthodoxy is genuine and authentic, and we belong there. But is this all that Orthodoxy has to offer these days – either intellectual curiosity or big black hats perched on top of your head - plus a disdain for other Orthodox groups? Is this the way of holiness?

>>>>

My imaginary interlocutor finished his inquisition. For a change, I had no immediate response. Instead, I am turning it over to the blogosphere for reaction. What would you tell him?

GH Classic: The Heresy Index

2005-01-01T18:04:00.000-08:00

her•e•sy (plural her•e•sies)
noun

1. religion unorthodox religious opinion: an opinion or belief that contradicts established religious teaching, especially one that is officially condemned by a religious authority

No doubt you have all heard of the FOG Index (a measure of how readable a given piece of text is).

Well now we have the Heresy Index, a measure of how heretical a given book is.

The index scores from 0 to 10

0: The Gedolim will have this on their bookshelf
1: The Gedolim won’t have it, but they would read it if you lent it to them2: The Gedolim won’t read it, but they won’t object to you reading it
3: The Gedolim will object to you reading it, but they won’t sign a ban
4: The Gedolim will sign a ban, but won’t call it actual kefirah
5: The Gedolim will call it actual kefirah, but the MO’s will say its fine
6: The MO’s will say its not normative Orthodox opinion but its okay to read it
7: The MO’s will say its heresy but the Conservatives will say its fine
8: The Conservatives will say its heresy, but the Reform will say its fine
9: The Reform will say its heresy, but the Atheists will say its fine
10: The Atheists declare it heretical

I am working on a comprehensive formula to automatically calculate the index based on the text itself, but that will take some time.

Of course you also have the divisions amongst LW, RW and Centrist UO, MO and Gedolim, and also differences between US, EU and Israel. So for example, Slifkin's 'The Science of Torah' rates a 4 amongst the EY Gedolim, but only a 3 with the American Gedolim. HaLivni's ‘Revelation Restored’ will rate a 7 amongst RW MO, but probably only a 6 amongst LW MO.

Coming Soon
Heretic Index: Rate your personal level of heresy by calculating the Combined Heresy Index of your entire bookcase!