Cassuto: Introduction to From Adam To Noah

§ 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?

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'

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.

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

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?

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

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.