• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Judaism and Evolution

yochai50

Member
And, speaking of science, Talmud, and infallibility:
I think we can all agree that one thing that clearly evolved was a religion with an amazing intellectual integrity and courage!


I'll look in that Sugya later as I'm not familiar with it. But, no one is saying that goyishe science is necessarily inaccurate and that science of Chazal is always 100%. But again, I'll have to look in the Gemara myself and see it in context.

However, you didn't understand what I was saying at all. It states clearly in the Gemara that the world was created fully mature. You can actually learn that out from scripture itself if you look carefully. It's certainly alluded to. Adam was 20 years old when he was born. Also, he ate from Eitz HaDaas. Ever see a 6 day old fruit tree give fruit? No tree, even from clone, provides fruit within 6 days. The tree was obviously fully mature when it was put there. You may wish to say that the story is metaphorical - perhaps you could argue that. But, considering since the Gemara states the world was fully mature when it was created, you can't say that it's impossible the world was not created in 6 literal days at the age of billions of years old.

Again, you're quoting the Gemara to state an opinion which claims the science of Chazal is sometimes wrong. I'm not disputing that. The claim I brought down, in order for you to refute it, you would have to bring proof demonstrating that this claim cannot be true. And the above claim does nothing to refute the claim of the Gemara in Rosh HaShana, since it's an isolated incident not discussing the age of the world. Rather it only suggests that sometimes Chazal can be wrong on science. But, that doesn't mean always. Therefor, in the particular case you and I are discussing regarding the worlds age, you have to bring down evidence implying that the world was not created 5772 years ago. What you posted was not evidence to the contrary since this is one isolated case. It does not imply that all science of Chazal is wrong. The statement is not specifically going on all science, it's going on THAT science.

I'll give you an example of why you can't use that claim to refute in this case. It says in the midrash that the word Shamayim means filled with water.

In other words, the skys are filled with water. The chochamim knew that the It says in the Midrash (and I'll have to dig up the source if you want to check it) that clouds are made of water. Not all goyim always held scientifically that the clouds were made of water, yet does that mean that science of Chazal was wrong? No. Therefor, you need a better proof than what you brought down to discredit the claim made in the Gemara. So, what's your claim?
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
But then the questions become: how long were those days? And who's "days" are we talking about?
 

yochai50

Member
But then the questions become: how long were those days? And who's "days" are we talking about?

Actually, the answer to the first question wouldn't matter so much due to the fact that the statement in the Gemara stating the world was already mature. So, really time isn't an issue regarding how long the days were since everything was mature as it was. Having longer days would only mean there are longer days and would be irrelevant. But, the statement of the Gemara alone does not rule out either of those questions you asked. It simply says it is very possible it could of been 24 hour days as we know it. But, there could theoretically be room for interpretation on this matter. I'll show you what does rule out the possibility of it being longer and what actually gives room to question the matter.

I suspect Levite would know of this as I've read some of his posts and he seems to know quite a bit, though I disagree with some of his conclusions. As a disclaimer, I am not a Kabbalist so I won't say anything with certainty on such claims. But, I will rely to you what I know of the other opinions. Aryeh Kaplan (obm), who is a Lubavitcher Chasid, brings down a source in his book from an obscure Kabbalah sefer. I can't remember what the name of the Sefer was called but with a little googling I could find it. Basically there is a ****a in Kabbalah stating that the world is actually 15.7 billion years old based on the calculation of Sabbatical cycles. I'm not off hand 100% sure how they work, but it's based off a posuk in Tehillim which says "A day to G-d is 1000 years". I can't quote with accuracy the logic as to how he derives 15.7 billion years, but I read this part from his book a long time ago and he makes an interesting case.

However, the Lubavitcher Rebbe disagreed with his statement that the world is davka 15.7 billion years old. While I'm those of you reading this probably find that to be typical rejection of science - you should not question the Rebbe's Torah credentials as he was arguably one of the most knowledgeable Talmud Chochams of all time. The Rebbe knew Kabbalah and nigglah (revealed part of Torah) extremely well and I would take his haskamah over Aryeh Kaplans - and I am not a Lubavitcher. Let's not talk about this too much because I don't want to insight a discussion of messianic cults or discuss politics. Also, do not quote me on the following words I will say as I am not qualified to verify 100% the statements of the Rebbe, Aryeh Kaplan, and the Kabbalah sources which he brought down to postulate the world was 15.7 years old. But, I don't think that anyone on this board knows Kabbalah well enough to formulate an opinion on the matter - myself included. So, I will go on to tell you what I know of this matter - just take it with a grain of salt.

The above is necessary to be mentioned as to why the Rebbe would not give his haskamah. Considering that Aryeh Kaplan was a Lubavitcher and a lot the book he brought down this idea down in is more or less a rehashing of Chassidus Chabad, and for that matter, Chassidus in general - the Rebbe basically said this Sefer (regarding the Kabbalah) which you brought down is not talking in a literal sense on the age of the world. Then he explained to him why it doesn't fit because it contradicts what the Arizal taught on certain matters, thus the text on hand cannot be literal. Especially if you're going to say this in a book relating Chassidus to Olam Hazeh and gashmius - since virtually all of Chassidus is a practical form of the Arizal's kabbalah. If I recall correctly, Aryeh Kaplan retracted his opinion on the matter publicly after the publicizing of his book. Again, take this with a grain of salt since this is what I recall the background information being which is not mentioned in the book.

The name of the book is called Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabalistic View

By Aryeh Kaplan


Whatever the case, I find it very interesting that you can find a ****a for this sourced in Kabbalah. Al col panim, the statement made by the Gemara is still non-falsifiable.
 

yochai50

Member
At this point our conversation is over.

The fact that the gemara you quoted makes a discernment between "the scientists of the world", aka goyim, and the scientists of Chazal is indicative of separating the two as different status in the first place. Otherwise, the Gemara would not need to write "וחכמי אומות העולם". It could of written it in a myriad of other ways and conveyed the exact same message. But, they did make a discernment in word usage between the two. And clearly it was not to degrade their scientific discoveries.

What I did by calling their science "goyishe science" was the exact same thing the Talmud did by saying "the scientists of the world". Obviously it's not referring to Jewish scientists. The reason why there are terms like "וחכמי אומות העולם" being used, is because when the Talmud was being copied down and disseminated the goyim were out burning and destroying them and looking for words like "goyim" so they could use it against the Jews by saying they felt they were superior to the goyim. Chochamei omos haolam is the exact same thing as saying me saying goyishe scientists of the world.

That's a low blow and you know it. That's yiddeshkeit 101 - goy is a neutral word. You can use it in a good way or bad way or neutral descriptive way. Whether you assign negativity to my statement or not is your choice, but that statement specifically had no negative conotation to it. Considering this is a Jewish discussion, I think it's fair to use Hebrew and Yiddish words whether your approve of it or not. So, if you find it too hard to deal with that I used Hebrew words than I'm sorry. Next time I'll put parentheses next to the word explaining what it means.

I hope you don't leave the conversation as you make it seem like you have a valid means to refute the position offered by the Gemara. You said it was wrong. Why?

If our conversation really ended when I said "goyishe science", then our conversation ended as soon as I said your view points are mistaken. Which was in the very beginning. I don't think you read a single word of anything I said because you don't like it when other people tell someone their views are off.
 
Last edited:

Levite

Higher and Higher
It's heretical to interpret science in a way that contradicts Torah and says G-d couldn't of created the world in 6 days. It says in Gemara Rosh Hashana that the world was created fully mature. This is fact is never stressed enough these days. Therefor, the world could theoretically of been created in 6 24 hour days according to the Gemara and evolution would not be in any way conflicting. Additionally, all the other stories which seem to place the sequence of events out of place according to the theory of evolution, could be compatible. This is without a doubt an approach that cannot be challenged. Simply because it makes the claim that the world is young but looks old. Therefor, if we maintain the world is 5772 years old, yet you say this rock is 30 million years old - we Jews say we're both correct.

Additionally, since reptiles were considered to be precursors to birds, yet they have found bird fossils older than any reptilian fossils, I would have to question anyways whether or not evolution has figured out the completely accurate order of events in terms of what came first. It's a theory that is not complete. Granted it does seem logical and quite likely is real. But, to agree with the statement of modern evolution scientists which say the world is billions of years old, then quote Rambam to explain how if science contradicts the Torah, and how we're interpreting the Torah wrong, thus postulating that this story must be metaphorical - that is a major chilul Hashem and a great misuse of the Rambam. There's Torah sources not written as apologetics on this matter, which say the world was created looking billions of years old and you say that Bereishis must be metaphorical and not literal because of an incomplete theory like evolution, despite the fact that the literal interpretation is not mutually exclusive of what scientists have said... Absolute non-sense.

We are bound not to directly contradict Chazal in matters of halachah. There is no such compulsion in matters pertaining to aggadeta. Understanding this is all the more important given that the Rabbanim often contradict one another's opinions in such matters, and the Gemara never resolves the conflicts, and never explicitly teaches that there was a majority belief one way or the other.

Sure, you can bring that Gemara in Rosh Hashanah. I can also bring the Gemara from Chagigah, that doesn't mention any such thing, but does speak about there being over ninety generations previous to Adam, or the midrash in Bere**** Rabba that there have been many worlds created prior to this one. You can bring a pshat reading of Bere****, and I can bring Ramban, who wants to read it more Kabbalistically (and the Meirat Enayim, who wants to read Ramban even more Kabbalistically, and explicitly teaches that the universe is around fifteen billion years old), or Ibn Ezra, who also wants to read it more metaphorically. You can bring whatever other rabbis you want to cite (and I'm sure there are a gracious plenty of them), and I can bring Ralbag and Rabbenu Bechaye and some others.

I think I was pretty clear that the Haredi view is not to accept scientific evidence, and believe in a literal account of creation. I never said otherwise, and of course there are plenty of sources you can bring to support that view. But there are also other views, not accepted in the Haredi world, and they are not just dismissable as non-Orthodox and non-traditional, because they have been around since before movements, and because they are often used by Modern Orthodox Jews as well as Conservative Jews.

If you want to call those views heretical, fine. Mazel tov, you'd hardly be the first to do so. But calling them apikorsut doesn't necessarily make them so, and if I get placed in the very august company of the rabbis who have so taught, then I consider it a brachah and a kavod.

If I brought Rambam and not everyone else, it's because this is a forum, not a teshuvah or a drashah on theology, and it was a convenient shorthand for me to do so. Because he is one of plenty of views to support what I think; and the science on evolution is extremely strong, not "incomplete." Using traditional sources that support a non-literal reading of Bere**** is well-established, and to do so while validating the effectiveness of science in the matter is not a chillul Hashem in my books, and if it is so in yours, then we will just have to disagree about that.

...My opinion is that Levites is heretical. You want proof it's heretical? Rambam's 13 principles....

There has never been universal acceptance of Rambam's 13 principles as precisely defining dogma in Judaism. There just hasn't. And in any case, what he says in Moreh Nevuchim and in some of his letters is often contradictory to what he says in his commentary on the Mishnah or even in Mishneh Torah. I'm not saying that we should be bound by the one any more than the other, only that you can't quote Rambam in one place as being definitive, and ignore what he teaches in the other place because you don't care for it. I am very clear, for example, that I will follow what Rambam says when he teaches that science and Torah must be viewed in compatibility, not in competition; and I will not literally take all 13 principles as defined and inflexible dogma, because I don't agree with his formulations as he sets them out.

People pick different ****ot to follow all the time; this is no different, and in fact, there's even more room for doing so, since all of this is founded in matters of aggadeta, not halachah.

This is not a modern interpertation of the Gemara. Be honest, have you even learned Gemara before in your entire life? I mean properly. Not from Soncino or Artscroll?

I have.
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
or the midrash in Bere**** Rabba that there have been many worlds created prior to this one.
Wait a minute. It says that? Really?
I had been saying this, mostly in private convos with my mother, for years proir to my conversion.

That is wicked cool:yes:

At least to me it is
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Wait a minute. It says that? Really?
I had been saying this, mostly in private convos with my mother, for years proir to my conversion.

That is wicked cool

At least to me it is

Yeah, ninth chapter, I think. Can't recall the full citation off the top of my head. But it's totally there.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
If you want to call those views heretical, fine. Mazel tov, you'd hardly be the first to do so. But calling them apikorsut doesn't necessarily make them so, and if I get placed in the very august company of the rabbis who have so taught, then I consider it a brachah and a kavod.
:clap
 

yochai50

Member
As somewhat of a disclaimer, please excuse the lengthiness of this post. But, if we're going to discuss such matters it does need to be thorough. So, anyways here you go. And Jayhawke, go fly a kite or say something useful.


Levite, I must say I like your input although on a lot points I disagree with you. You’re probably the only person on this board who brings or makes mention of sources to make a point. Before I post my corrections to you, I do owe you an apology for calling you heretical (well, your views more specifically). Today no one is considered an epicorous per se, though there are some haskalah leaders who have indeed earned the title. But, ultimately that doesn’t achieve much in the scope of this discussion to bring it up unless you’re going to quote haskalah sources. Whatever the case, please excuse my temperament. I’ll go through and show you where I have to disagree based on personal opinion and also show why what a few of things you’re saying are flawed. First and foremost, I’ll touch on this part.


Sure, you can bring that Gemara in Rosh Hashanah. I can also bring the Gemara from Chagigah, that doesn't mention any such thing, but does speak about there being over ninety generations previous to Adam, or the midrash in Bere**** Rabba that there have been many worlds created prior to this one. You can bring a pshat reading of Bere****, and I can bring Ramban, who wants to read it more Kabbalistically (and the Meirat Enayim, who wants to read Ramban even more Kabbalistically, and explicitly teaches that the universe is around fifteen billion years old), or Ibn Ezra, who also wants to read it more metaphorically. You can bring whatever other rabbis you want to cite (and I'm sure there are a gracious plenty of them), and I can bring Ralbag and Rabbenu Bechaye and some others. .

I am aware that there are many different interpretations of Bereishis and many of them are very lav davka. There is room to believe that to an extent. But, just because some of the interpertations are essentially just reading it as metaphorical, does not mean that the p’shat doesn’t exist. I myself have never done a real study of Kabbalah so I am not able to say anything authoritative on this matter. I am not at all versed in the Meirat Enayim enough to speak otherwise from first hand experience learning the sefer (nor am I bukeye in Ramban), however I do know that this d’rash is not specifically from Meirat Enayim per se. It’s actually from another Kabbalah sefer which calculates shemittah years to come to the number 15 billion. It is very fascinating and raises a lot of question.

But, you must consider the following. There has never been a formal study of Kabbalah and the content contained in it is very complicated and not to be studied unless you’re capable. That being said, since this is only one opinion based on one sefer, you should further consider that many gedolim and great m’kubals hold this view to be lav davka and contradictory to Kabbalah of the Arizal if you’re going to read it to literally apply to Olam Hazeh. This much I do know. The fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe didn’t give a haskamah to Aryeh Kaplan publicizing this view to reconcile evolution with Judaism speaks much for itself. Granted, the Rebbe is not the only one who knows Kabbalah in this world. But, he was indeed a huge makubal and though I’m not Chabad, there is no question about the fact that he was the Nasi HaDor. But, again I would stress the fact that almost no one holds by this ****a to be davka saying the world is 15.7 billion years old brings the view to question if you’re going to use it try and argue against p’shat. Unless you’re a m’kubal your self (if you are, please inform me), I don’t think this source should be relied on, again stressed that the makor for this idea is not Meirat Enayim. But, it is a none the less a very interesting thing and perhaps there is room for interpretation based on this. Especially considering it matches up with what some Nasa scientists have estimated the age of the universe to be. I’ll try to find you the sefer where this idea comes from, but as I recall the sefer doesn’t specifically state the world is 15.7 billion years old – it only gives you a formula which can be used to calculate that age. That’s the first thing to make note of and a very hard point to reconcile – unless you’re bukey enough in Kabbalah and Nigglah to argue against the gedolim on this ****a. No one to my knowledge hold’s by that ****a per se.

There has never been universal acceptance of Rambam's 13 principles as precisely defining dogma in Judaism. There just hasn't. And in any case, what he says in Moreh Nevuchim and in some of his letters is often contradictory to what he says in his commentary on the Mishnah or even in Mishneh Torah. I'm not saying that we should be bound by the one any more than the other, only that you can't quote Rambam in one place as being definitive, and ignore what he teaches in the other place because you don't care for it. I am very clear, for example, that I will follow what Rambam says when he teaches that science and Torah must be viewed in compatibility, not in competition; and I will not literally take all 13 principles as defined and inflexible dogma, because I don't agree with his formulations as he sets them out. .

Actually, that is only somewhat true. There never was a universal acceptance of the 13 principles alone, true. But, the reason why Rambam wrote the 13 principles was almost as a teshuvah so he wouldn’t be put in cherum by the all the gedolim since he was being accused of being an epikorus. At the time of the Rambam, no one did accept the 13 principles universally. One of the main reasons for rejection was not because they disagreed that these are 13 genuine principles of Judaism, much of the objection held against the 13 principles was because there were either more principles or some of the principles did not need to be distinguished because they would have been included in other principles. The Gedolim at the time said it was minimizing Judaism to a few small principles. That was the real objection. Not that it was invalid. Henceforth many people said there are more principles so they were not accepted as authoritative at the time. But, there was almost no objection to it, if any at all (if there was, show me where), which denied the resurrection of the dead, the acceptance of the oral torah, etc. Regardless, by the end of the Rishonim, nearly everyone saw the Rambam’s 13 principles as valid in the Jewish world. Though some later Rishonim did believe that some of the principles were already included in other principles the Rambam wrote or that there were just simply more. But, that’s all on the grounds of minimization and hair splitting. The principles themselves were still agreed upon as valid. That’s why it became the standard upheld by the achronim and later achronim.

And today all Orthodox/Charedi Judaism agrees with the statement by the Rambam stating Torah must be viewed in compatability with science, not in competition. The places where the differences emerge are because most Orthodox Jews quite simply don’t know enough about evolution and how to reconcile it with Torah because it does seem contradicting. However, if you ask a lot of frum people who learn Torah and disagree with evolution (due to lack of knowledge or otherwise), they will also tell you it doesn’t really matter if it’s true or not. There’s no reason why evolution disproves Torah she’bcsav because we have Torah sh’Baal pei. And there are a lot of things that in the Gemara and Midrash and Kabbalah which imply that it’s impossible for it to contradict. Namely, when talking about the age of the universe, the Gemara in Rosh Hashana stating that the world was created mature. So, one way or the other the discussion of evolution is moot – especially considering the Gemara stating this matter predates apologetics on the age of the universe by a long shot.


I'll continue a bit more in another post.
 

yochai50

Member
But, I’d like to return to something else you said.

Sure, you can bring that Gemara in Rosh Hashanah. I can also bring the Gemara from Chagigah, that doesn't mention any such thing, but does speak about there being over ninety generations previous to Adam, or the midrash in Bere**** Rabba that there have been many worlds created prior to this one. .

Actually, the Gemara in chagigah states 974 generations. Also, in Bereishis Rabba it says there are 974 worlds created prior to this one. It also says he destroyed them as well. It also says in the Gemara (I believe Brochos) that the secrets of creation were only taught individually to the best students. It also says in the Zohar that there are 7 planets called Earth and some of them have human populations. It also says in the Gemara Moed Katan that there is a planet populated with aliens called Meroz. The Gemara and Zohar and Midrash says a lot of fascinating things. The truth of the matter is, these are very cryptic statements that can’t simply be used to put the p’shat of Bereishis into the limelight for objection.

As for my knowledge specifically regarding the sources you quoted, there are a lot of mefarshim/m’kubals hold that these are spiritual worlds or metaphoric. And furthermore, if you hold that the theory of evolution is true – the human species has been around much longer than what 974 generations amounts to. Unless of course you’re going to say that each generation was around 1000 years old, like the ages given to many people before the flood. But, if you don’t accept the story of Bereishis as having literal meaning, why should one feel inclined to accept that people lived to be thousands of years old? Not to be chutzpadik, but it seems too dishonest to say otherwise. It makes more sense in my limited understanding of Kabbalah and Nigglah, to hold by what the gedolim and other mefarshim say on these matters. If you’re going to say that the view of evolution in Judaism is that the story in Bereishis is not literal, you have to have a very well thought out and learned argument against it if you want to argue your point from Torah sources. This reason I just mentioned is one of the biggest reasons why Aryeh Kaplan’s book wouldn’t get a haskamah from the Rebbe.




Also, you are obligated to accept the aggadah of chazal as true just as much as the halacha. If anything, there's probably more room to reject certain halachos of chazal - but not regard them as invalid. You might be able to say it's lav davka or metaphorical or something regarding aggadah - but you do have to consider it a valid opinion, though you don't always have to hold by it per se. It's really opening up a different discussion to go into this, though. I think it's more suited for another thread.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Levite, I must say I like your input although on a lot points I disagree with you.... I do owe you an apology for calling you heretical (well, your views more specifically)....

Thank you for saying so. I very much appreciate the sentiment, and I hope that I can show the same courtesy. I am a big believer in the idea that we are all Am Yisrael, and we're all trying to do the best we can; and ideally, if we can class our differences as "elu v'elu," so much the better; and if not, then b'ezrat Hashem (please God) we can at least avoid sinat chinam (baseless hatred).

I usually try to be clear-- especially in matters of halachah-- as to what is accepted in the Haredi world, what in the Modern Orthodox world, and what in the non-Orthodox world. And most folks here, I think, know my posting well enough to know that I have never claimed my opinions to represent Orthodoxy today. And especially when it comes to theologies of creation and afterlife, I have always cautioned that my opinions are quirky, though always founded in elements of the tradition, one way or another.

I am aware that there are many different interpretations of Bereishis and many of them are very lav davka. There is room to believe that to an extent. But, just because some of the interpertations are essentially just reading it as metaphorical, does not mean that the p’shat doesn’t exist.
The pshat (plain literal meaning) exists, sure. But even pshat isn't always p****a (simple and obvious) or even pashut (literal and clear). I think these days we deeply undervalue the principle of dibra Torah ki'l'shon b'nai adam (the Torah speaks as people speak). I really think that part of the purpose of having a Torah with infinite levels of meaning is that we can have something like the first couple of chapters of Berei****, that probably needed to be couched in that kind of language because of what our ancestors who first got the Torah were capable of understanding (they needed simple stories); but our Rabbis and our parshanim (commentators) and Kabbalists are able to uncover more metaphorical layers of meaning that point to the deeper truth of matters. Sometimes I would totally agree that the pshat is necessary, and sometimes just is what it is. But not always. Especially with matters of extreme complexity and nuance.

...I do know that this d’rash is not specifically from Meirat Enayim per se. It’s actually from another Kabbalah sefer which calculates shemittah years to come to the number 15 billion. It is very fascinating and raises a lot of question.
I am aware that the drash in question appears in several Kabbalistic works-- I confess I am not sure which one came first-- inlcuding Seder ha-Sodot, by the same author as Meirat Enayim. But the interesting thing is that the calculation of shemitah cycles not only goes far forward, but billions of years backward as well. It is more than a little interesting, I think.

But, you must consider the following. There has never been a formal study of Kabbalah and the content contained in it is very complicated and not to be studied unless you’re capable. That being said, since this is only one opinion based on one sefer, you should further consider that many gedolim and great m’kubals hold this view to be lav davka and contradictory to Kabbalah of the Arizal if you’re going to read it to literally apply to Olam Hazeh.
Not all Kabbalistic systems can be reconciled with one another. That is something that the few mekubalim I have been privileged to hear teach all seem to agree upon.

And in any case, though I have felt free to borrow some useful ideas from the ARI z"l in various theological situations, I don't hold entirely according to his Kabbalah. I don't hold 100% according to any one school of Kabbalah: I tend to use what works, and let go of what doesn't. As have some others, also. Lurianic Kabbalah is not entirely reconcilable with classical Zoharic Kabbalah, and that in turn reflects slightly different cosmological developments than the Yetzirah/Bahir school of thought, which is quite different than the cosmology and theology of Hechalot Rabati and Hechalot Zutarti. And the scholars of each of these schools all took some ideas from previous thought, and integrated them into their own, and left what they couldn't use.

Obviously, I'm not suggesting that I am on the level of one of the great mekubalim: I'm just a student of Kabbalah. But the fact that it has often been done, and that there has never been an accepted formalization of the different doctrines of Kabbalistic thought, makes me feel that I am not outside of the bounds of what is permissible in doing so.

The fact that the Lubavitcher Rebbe didn’t give a haskamah to Aryeh Kaplan publicizing this view to reconcile evolution with Judaism speaks much for itself. ...the Rebbe...was indeed a huge makubal...there is no question about the fact that he was the Nasi HaDor.
I question it.

I'm not saying that the Rebbe wasn't a talmid chacham (learned sage)-- he was-- or even that he might have been a tzaddik (righteous man). But as far as I am concerned, he was a rav like other rabbeyim, and there were times where I agreed with his teachings, and times where I disagreed. The fact that he didn't give a haskamah (formal agreement or approval) to Aryeh Kaplan makes no difference to me, unless it is to make me think he made a tremendous mistake.

Not only do I think he was not the unquestioned Nasi HaDor, I don't believe in such a thing as a Nasi HaDar, not any more. There has been no supreme authority for either halachah or theological matters since the days of the Gaonim at least, and maybe not since the ending of the time of the Sanhedrin Hagedolah. I don't believe there will be until the mashiach comes.

If a man is a talmid chacham, that makes me give his arguments some weight, and likewise, if he is known to be mumcheh u'veki (an acknowledged expert) in certain matters, that also is worth taking into consideration; but in the end, I firmly believe that, until such a time as the mashiach comes and reconstitutes the Sanhedrin Hagedolah, all rabbis have equal authority in halachah, and equal right to make theological interpretations.

But, again I would stress the fact that almost no one holds by this ****a to be davka saying the world is 15.7 billion years old brings the view to question if you’re going to use it try and argue against p’shat.
I'm not saying it's davka 15.7 billion years old. But definitely a lot older than 6000 years. And I will say that Bere**** is the paradigmatic example of dibra Torah ki'l'shon b'nai adam, and that I don't believe in taking the pshat as pashut there. Because doing so is not only against common sense and reason, it ends up becoming a distraction from the actual point of Bere****: precisely how and in what order God created the universe is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Hashem is the sole and true creator of the universe, and anything else that might exist, or that has ever existed, or will ever exist, and we should acknowledge that and praise Him for it.

That’s the first thing to make note of and a very hard point to reconcile...No one to my knowledge holds by that ****a per se.
When some of the gedolim say one thing, and others of the gedolim say another, I will decide for myself whose ****ah to follow. And if I need to make innovations, or even decisions contrary, I will if I think it absolutely necessary. The Meiri says that the dayanim (halachic judges) of every generation are the shofet asher yihyeh bayamim hahem, and though it is ideal if they can rule by the majority, if they must rule by the minority, they may, and if they need to rule by a daat yachid (solitary opinion) they may, and when they need to rule in new ways (subject to the limitations of post-Talmudic rabbinic powers) they may. And though he says this in reference to halachah, I take it that the same is true for interpretive authority in matters of theology also. In fact, it was davka out of respect for that authority that I chose to get smichah (rabbinical ordination) before making any of my opinions known in public.

There never was a universal acceptance of the 13 principles alone, true. But, the reason why Rambam wrote the 13 principles was almost as a teshuvah so he wouldn’t be put in cherum by the all the gedolim since he was being accused of being an epikorus.
It seems clear Rambam said several things (this among them) in order to pacify the gedolim of his times, things which I doubt that he would have said was nobody bothering him about his opinions. Do I think he didn't believe the principles in general: of course I think he did. But do I think he might have formulated them differently, perhaps left more room for interpretation, had he composed them freely and not in response to pressure? Yes.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
At the time of the Rambam, no one did accept the 13 principles universally...much of the objection held against the 13 principles was because there were either more principles or some of the principles did not need to be distinguished.... Not that it was invalid. ...Regardless, by the end of the Rishonim, nearly everyone saw the Rambam’s 13 principles as valid in the Jewish world. ...That’s why it became the standard upheld by the achronim and later achronim.
They have become a standard: not necessarily the standard. And while they may be widely accepted as a useful formulation, they are not necessarily universally accepted as binding doctrine, in and of themselves.

I understand that the mere fact of their wide acceptance by minhag (custom) is enough, in Orthodoxy, to elevate them to dogmatic doctrine. But I do not hold by the Orthodox interpretation of minhag Yisrael k'halachah hee.

Understand: I am not saying that I don't believe in all 13 principles. I am saying that I believe some of them have more room for debate and multiple interpretations than others.

And today all Orthodox/Charedi Judaism agrees with the statement by the Rambam stating Torah must be viewed in compatability with science, not in competition.
'Alevai (it should only be). But I've met many Haredim who would not say that. Some Haredi communities ban Moreh Nevuchim and others of Rambam's works from general study. In fact, one of my friends, who's currently at yeshiva studying for his smichah, says that one of his rabbis there is a former Satmarer, and that until he left the Satmar community, this rabbi had no idea that Rambam wrote anything besides the commentary on the Mishnah, Mishneh Torah, and one or two of the iggerot (rabbinic letters containing halachic or theological novellae).

And I have met many who likewise don't teach Ibn Ezra, or Meiri, and are very selective about which books of Kabbalah they teach, and some other things also.

The places where the differences emerge are because most Orthodox Jews quite simply don’t know enough about evolution and how to reconcile it with Torah because it does seem contradicting.
Again, 'alevai.

However, if you ask a lot of frum people who learn Torah and disagree with evolution (due to lack of knowledge or otherwise), they will also tell you it doesn’t really matter if it’s true or not. There’s no reason why evolution disproves Torah she’bcsav because we have Torah sh’Baal pei. And there are a lot of things that in the Gemara and Midrash and Kabbalah which imply that it’s impossible for it to contradict. Namely, when talking about the age of the universe, the Gemara in Rosh Hashana stating that the world was created mature. So, one way or the other the discussion of evolution is moot – especially considering the Gemara stating this matter predates apologetics on the age of the universe by a long shot.
In a sense, that argument can be de facto effective. But I think it just shies away from confronting how we read Bere****, and the complexity and lack of real universal agreement there has always been about the theology and the deeper truths of ma'aseh bere**** (the body of theological and mystical study concerning the creation of the universe). But that leads into a whole different debate about what's taught and held in the frum community today, which we probably shouldn't get into, at least here.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Actually, the Gemara in chagigah states 974 generations. Also, in Bereishis Rabba it says there are 974 worlds created prior to this one. It also says he destroyed them as well. It also says in the Gemara (I believe Brochos) that the secrets of creation were only taught individually to the best students. It also says in the Zohar that there are 7 planets called Earth and some of them have human populations. It also says in the Gemara Moed Katan that there is a planet populated with aliens called Meroz. The Gemara and Zohar and Midrash says a lot of fascinating things. The truth of the matter is, these are very cryptic statements that can’t simply be used to put the p’shat of Bereishis into the limelight for objection.

I understand that what you've said is the standard in the Orthodox world today, but I don't hold that way. And not everyone has always held that way.

After all, what exactly is the point of midrash and aggadah if it is not to offset and make space for reinterpretation of the pshat?



...If you’re going to say that the view of evolution in Judaism is that the story in Bereishis is not literal, you have to have a very well thought out and learned argument against it if you want to argue your point from Torah sources. This reason I just mentioned is one of the biggest reasons why Aryeh Kaplan’s book wouldn’t get a haskamah from the Rebbe.

And while I do work with traditional sources, and I try to establish positions based firmly on the positions of gedolim, I don't look at either the history of halachah or the history of Jewish theology in the way that Orthodoxy today does. And so there are things that I will argue differently from the way an Orthodox scholar would, because the world looks different to me, as does the system as a whole.

Also, you are obligated to accept the aggadah of chazal as true just as much as the halacha. If anything, there's probably more room to reject certain halachos of chazal - but not regard them as invalid. You might be able to say it's lav davka or metaphorical or something regarding aggadah - but you do have to consider it a valid opinion, though you don't always have to hold by it per se. It's really opening up a different discussion to go into this, though. I think it's more suited for another thread.

That's okay by me. Because there is a long history of not accepting all the aggedeta of chazal as true.
 

yochai50

Member
That makes things more understandable. However, I still would have to disagree with your points perforce based on my knowledge of certain things. And correct me if you spot any inconsistencies. Also, please excuse my lack of quotations on what you said, but I need to sleep soon so I don't think I can take the time to filter through and place what is directly in response to what. But, I think you'll see what points I did and didn't address. I'll probably write more the next time.

I think these days we deeply undervalue the principle of dibra Torah ki'l'shon b'nai adam (the Torah speaks as people speak).

While that is true, you should also consider that when Chazal or the Torah refer to “man” as “adam” it refers to the man in his highest state. There’s no denying that in every generation there is a yeridah in yiddeshkeit and how we learn Torah. The way Chazal learned Torah was on a much higher level than us today. There’s little comparison even amongst the Gedolim of today verses Rebbe Akiva or Rava. Yeridas hadoros is pretty hard to argue against. I’m not saying there aren’t different (in some ways much better) mylahs over being around 500 years ago. But, that’s really only b’goshmius. While it is true the Torah was written for man, it’s also true that in a lot of ways today man has to try harder to be a man. Back in the days people would love to study Torah even if they had no clue what it was talking about. Now days Jews don’t want anything to do the Torah and have no clue what the Torah even is. And it’s not a reaction to fundamentalism. It’s just a reaction to change. The more things are enjoyable b’goshmius, the less you want to do things b’ruchnius. That’s the most destructive yetzer hara today. Far far far more destructive than what Hitler could of even dreamed to have achieved, G-d forbid. So, you’re right. Torah was written for man. But, man is not a physical being. Ish is. Enosh ish. But not adam. Truthfully, that’s the reason why a lot of the halachas and hashkafah so many people question today weren’t necessarily explicitly written down in the past. A lot of things just weren’t done at all so there became a necessity to put things in writing. Not saying these halachas were specifically invented and made from thin air, but there was a necessity to put it down.

On a relatively unrelated note and primarily out of curiosity, have you ever learned much Chassidus Chabad? If you’re interested, you should check out Likkutei Dibburim by the Friedriche Rebbe. You could probably find it online. I think you might find that very interesting if you haven’t seen it already. It’s very different than all the other Chassidus I’ve learned, even from Chassidus Chabad and it is also very easy reading and not too complex.

But, back to what we were talking about. I hear what you’re saying, though. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying overall. I think it’s important to try and reassess our interpertations from time to time as well. But, only to the extent we don’t contradict what our chachim have said since it was their interpretations which lead us to a clear understanding in the first place. Many of their perushim were written with such Ruach HaKodesh that to contest their claims due to lack of reconciliation with what we know otherwise is extremely detrimental. Doing that can make us have two Torah’s. And that’s what has happened in the past 200 years or so. Haskalah started this crazy mess and might be responsible for as many Jewish lives lost as the inquisition. All because these so called “rabbeium” giving out hetterim to virtually everything from hashkafa in Hinduism to gay and interfaith marriages. That’s also a clear sign of a yeridah. I know and you know very well that if Chazal saw this they would be saying that this is clearly not Yiddeshkeit. You can’t really blame Charedim for rejecting evolution when they see who the Jewish adherents to the theory are for the most part, y’know? All that doesn’t seem to say much other than an apparent rant, but I did bring it down for an example. It takes work to be called adam. Today this is true more so than ever with shtuss like TV and “US Weekly”. You can’t bring the Torah down to people, you have to bring people up to the Torah. Which even for those of us who do learn is a very hard task to do and unfortunately (I can attest from firsthand experience) quite often in our attempts to bring people up to the Torah, we bring the Torah down to them. Look at Renewal Judaism. You know the story with Shechter I’m sure, right?
 

yochai50

Member
In other words, what I’m saying is this. There’s nothing wrong to say that Torah can be read metaphorically. And to read it as metaphorical is perfectly fine. The Torah isn’t specifically a history book, I think across the board everyone agrees with that although to different extents. But for as much as there is (or can be) a literal aspect to it, equally as much there can always be a non-literal aspect to it. Just because you can interpret it one way doesn’t mean it’s the other way. But, to say it IS metaphorical isn’t exactly p’shat if we’re talking about Bereishis here. Granted, pshat isn’t always pishuta, you’re right. But, to say it’s “just metaphorical” on any grounds with the thousands of years of mefarshim and sources saying otherwise… You get what I’m saying. I know you know exactly what I’m saying. But, the original case made wasn’t about rejection of a metaphorical interpretation per se. It’s more about the above point. There was a bit of digression in between saying this outright. To reiterate the point being made originally in my post, we should consider that although the “metaphorical” interpretation is one level of being true. The literal p’shat on Bereishis is actually from a standpoint of strict scrutiny much harder to falsify under any circumstances, thus more believable. As in the world was created fully mature. Simply because it makes a lot less assumptions that any other metaphorical implications and a lot less assumptions than evolution. All it says is the world was mature. Per force that is the most viable explanation of anything since that was what Chazal said in the first place. Which brings me to the next point.

When I said you are bound to view the words of Chazal as true, I mean it in the sense of valid. No one has ever said Chazal was wrong until Haskalah, even regarding aggadah. They may say that what they’re saying doesn’t apply or that it isn’t literal or what they said is not applicable. The only way you could say against Chazal is if the Gemara implies for you to think otherwise. In those cases the Gemara usually puts out relatively clearly if a Tanna or Amora was mistaken. Especially when you deal with baraisas and the such that becomes a more common theme. But never will anyone (that isn’t Chazal) say that’s not a valid mesorah. Unless you want to get into different girsas, but that really is a different discussion all together. If chazal seems wrong then we’re learning it wrong. But their rulings and statements are never overturned by modernist agendas and science, like some members of this board have implied.

Da’as Torah and minhag yisroel, more specifically Da’as Torah, are perhaps the foremost and greatest principles outside of simple emunah that has allowed Yiddeshkeit to function as one religion. Although you don’t believe in minhag yisroel, there is indeed a valid makor for it. And the proof is in the pudding when you see what’s happening today in real yiddeshkeit and what the outcome of haskalah. More so this goes on the haskalah side of the spectrum. Although I won’t deny that’s not the only place it’s happening. But, I bring that into light since having lost minhag yisroel and da’as torah, I kid you not there are “rabbis” ordained who openly claim not to believe in G-d. The unfortunate reality is there is a yetzer hara, the slippery slope argument does work. Not in a seriously notable way in one life time, but in future generations the damage done is almost irreversible chos v’shalom. Mendehlson was actually a relatively frum Jew, you know that right? He put on tefillin every day, kept kosher, and for the most part was actually shomer mitzvos. 200 years later look what’s happened. That’s why some gedolim say yevach shmo when they talk about him. I assume you don’t like to hear me go on a shpiel about the haskalah movement since you seem to have connections with the likes, nor do I think anyone else likes to hear it – but it is true. But that is somewhat of a digression and only partially is of any intellectual recourse to your hashkafa – which I do find myself surprisingly more in agreement than I’d of expected.
 

yochai50

Member
Also on an unrelated note out of curiosity, you got semicha on some kind of Masorti yeshiva or Modern Orthodox one? If it was a Masorti yeshiva there, I’ve always been curious as to what the seder is. Because I’ve spoken to some conservastive and reform rabbis and more times than not it comes off as they’re probably more well versed in Shakespeare than they are Shulchan Aruch. I looked up online once at the HUC thing just to see what they do actually learn and it said they did learn Gemara and stuff, but it didn’t say when lol.
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
While that is true, you should also consider that when Chazal or the Torah refer to “man” as “adam” it refers to the man in his highest state.

I disagree with this interpretation. I know it is common in the frum world. But I disagree with it very much. I think when chazal said it, they meant, stam, "people."

There’s no denying that in every generation there is a yeridah in yiddeshkeit and how we learn Torah.
I deny it, because I deny the idea that kedushah (holiness) is in any way generational: I think it is entirely dependent upon individuals, and their own spiritual work and relationships with God.

Yeridas hadoros is pretty hard to argue against.
I do, though. And more importantly, there is a wonderful book by Rabbi Menachem Kellner from Bar Ilan, called Maimonides on The Decline of the Generations and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority, wherein, in the process of showing how Rambam didn't actually hold by yeridat hadorot, he does a fine job of showing with many sources and good arguments that there is no good reason to believe in it.

The more things are enjoyable b’goshmius, the less you want to do things b’ruchnius. That’s the most destructive yetzer hara today. Far far far more destructive than what Hitler could of even dreamed to have achieved, G-d forbid.
With all due respect, I think that is very much over-dramatizing it, and (as I have seen is common in the frum community) overly romantcizes and idealizes how amcha (the average common Jews) behaved in previous generations.

Truthfully, that’s the reason why a lot of the halachas and hashkafah so many people question today weren’t necessarily explicitly written down in the past. A lot of things just weren’t done at all so there became a necessity to put things in writing.
Again, I understand that that's the commonly held belief in the frum world today. I disagree with it very much. I think it unrealistically idealizes the past and is used as an excuse to avoid having to examine why frum culture has become more chumradik in the past 100 years than it was in the 900 years previous to that.

On a relatively unrelated note and primarily out of curiosity, have you ever learned much Chassidus Chabad?
I've learned some Tanya. I have to say, I'm not a big fan. When it comes to chassidus, I like the Me'or Enayim and the Mei ha-Shiloach a lot, and I like a fair amount of Rebbe Nachman's stuff and the Kotzker's stuff (such as was recorded, anyway). The Eish Kodesh is often good, when he's not speaking too much out of his trauma. The Sfat Emet, of course, and the Beit Yakov also, though I don't always agree with either of them.

Many of their perushim were written with such Ruach HaKodesh that to contest their claims due to lack of reconciliation with what we know otherwise is extremely detrimental.
If you're talking about chazal, I grant you some of them may have had ruach hakodesh; but in either case, that's not why I accept the Talmud. My understanding of the tanur shel achnai sugiya (Bava Metzia 59a), much like most other Conservative rabbis, is that this is ultimate proof that we depend on the halachic process and the learning of human scholars, we don't depend on miracles and ruach hakodesh. I won't give any rishonim or acharonim extra weight to their arguments and ideas based on a suspicion they could maybe have had ruach hakodesh.

Haskalah started this crazy mess and might be responsible for as many Jewish lives lost as the inquisition. All because these so called “rabbeium” giving out hetterim to virtually everything from hashkafa in Hinduism to gay and interfaith marriages.
I think we disagree on somewhat on the Haskalah. And while I don't consider either interfaith marriage or Hinduism mutar (permissible), I do believe in the rights of gay Jews to be open and to be included in observance.

I know and you know very well that if Chazal saw this they would be saying that this is clearly not Yiddeshkeit. You can’t really blame Charedim for rejecting evolution when they see who the Jewish adherents to the theory are for the most part, y’know?
I think that chazal knew better than anyone what it means to be living at a time in the world when Judaism has to evolve or die.

Look at Renewal Judaism. You know the story with Shechter I’m sure, right?
I don't hold with much of what Renewal Judaism does, and I don't approve of radical syncretism. But Reb Zalman is a very old family friend, and a truly good neshamah. It grieves me a lot that he has embraced syncretic ideas I think are truly untenable. But he taught me my first chassidus and the first Chortkover nigun I ever learned, and he gave me for my bar mitzvah the tallis I still wear to this day, and I can't find it within myself to speak ill of him, any more than I have to in order to publicly disagree with him.

When I said you are bound to view the words of Chazal as true, I mean it in the sense of valid. No one has ever said Chazal was wrong until Haskalah, even regarding aggadah.

Rambam did. Ibn Ezra did. The Aruch Hashulchan and the Tzitz Eliezer did, about circulation of the blood. It's happened. The idea that no one ever questioned a single thing Chazal said until the Haskalah is, with all due respect, simply inaccurate.

Da’as Torah and minhag yisroel, more specifically Da’as Torah, are perhaps the foremost and greatest principles outside of simple emunah that has allowed Yiddeshkeit to function as one religion.

We are really going to have to agree to disagree here, because I vehemently do not hold with da'as Torah. I think it's a novel doctrine introduced into the frum community to quash unwanted questioning of authority, without any basis in tradition. What's more, I think it's actively harmful to Judaism. I understand that this is very much not the opinion in the frum world, so I won't seek to debate the issue.
 
Last edited:

Levite

Higher and Higher
Also on an unrelated note out of curiosity, you got semicha on some kind of Masorti yeshiva or Modern Orthodox one? If it was a Masorti yeshiva there, I’ve always been curious as to what the seder is. Because I’ve spoken to some conservastive and reform rabbis and more times than not it comes off as they’re probably more well versed in Shakespeare than they are Shulchan Aruch. I looked up online once at the HUC thing just to see what they do actually learn and it said they did learn Gemara and stuff, but it didn’t say when lol.

I got smichah at the Ziegler School, which is the Conservative rabbinical school in Los Angeles.

You get Gemara, of course, and halachah, as well as some advanced work with midrash and Tanach parshanut (commentary), and some Kabbalah and chasidut. But you also get theology and philosophy, Jewish history, modern Hebrew literature, pastoral counseling, and stuff like that.

I know some Conservative and Reform rabbis that are really learned and expert, and some that are shockingly ignorant. Like any program of study, what you get out of non-Orthodox rabbinical school depends a lot on what you put into it. Bright people who are motivated to learn come out having learned a lot. People who are not so much...less so.

I confess I kind of had a leg up with text, because my dad's an Orthodox rabbi, and I grew up frum. Modern Orthodox, but frum.
 

yochai50

Member
I got smichah at the Ziegler School, which is the Conservative rabbinical school in Los Angeles.

You get Gemara, of course, and halachah, as well as some advanced work with midrash and Tanach parshanut (commentary), and some Kabbalah and chasidut. But you also get theology and philosophy, Jewish history, modern Hebrew literature, pastoral counseling, and stuff like that.

I know some Conservative and Reform rabbis that are really learned and expert, and some that are shockingly ignorant. Like any program of study, what you get out of non-Orthodox rabbinical school depends a lot on what you put into it. Bright people who are motivated to learn come out having learned a lot. People who are not so much...less so.

I confess I kind of had a leg up with text, because my dad's an Orthodox rabbi, and I grew up frum. Modern Orthodox, but frum.

Lol, I know I said I'd get off and wouldn't write more but I've got ADHD or something and got distracted with something else. I will definitely respond to some of the other stuff you posted in an orderly fashion if I have time tomorrow. I still have to do cleaning for Pesach. I got the impression that you've been through the Orthodox yeshiva velt judging by some of the stuff your how fluent you are about certain things. Granted, it's true there are some astoundingly ignorant Orthodox rabbi's as well. Then again, some programs hand out semicha like nothing. Also it depends on what kind of semicha you get. I've got no idea what the halacha courses are actually consisting of in a conservative yeshiva. Now days in the frum world it's usually something like busser v'chalav, yoreh deah, teiruvus, etc. It doesn't go like that in Conservative yeshiva? I'm assuming since stam you just said halacha it implies not one specific thing and covering an overview of various teshuvas or something over the course of time?


I'll show you some sources though tomorrow which very much are indicative to the contrary of what you said next time I post. But I've got a lot of stuff to do tomorrow so bli neder. It might have to wait for a little. In the mean time, though I know you said you're more into Polisher type Chassidus and the such, I highly recommend you check out a little more Chassidus Chabad. I've checked out some of the other Polisher seforim, and as much as I enjoy stuff like Noam Elimelech and Sfas Emes - I've gotta say that the seychelldik approach to Chassidus Chabad is very unparalleled in learning Chassidus. Likkutei Dibburim is very very different than Tanya though. I'll sned you a link sometime if you're interested to the first Basi L'Gani. That's a g'shmuck maamar and well worth learning out very carefully. Let me know if you're interested. I'm only bringing it up as it pertains some degree of relevance to the conversation, though. Perhaps you may find it of interest.

Also, quick response to what you said about Rambam and Ibn Ezra, please reference me the sources for both of those specifically. I'd like to see in what context they were said. I don't question that people have disagreed, even Gedolim. But, I don't think they discredited their validity. I have heard this before about Rambam, though not specifically about this. I do recall a few other small cases where Rambam disagreed with Chazal on certain things, but I don't recall it being a mark of discrediting. I can't remember if I read it or heard it in shiur while I was on yeshiva. But, I don't seem to recall it being a claim of discrediting. Rambam might have said something to the effect of "The blood actually flows this way" and in context it could be that there's a different limud. So, I'd like to see the sources if you could provide me with specifically what you're referring to. I think something might be missing to just outright say that Rambam disagreed.

Now I'm going to sleep. Good night and if you don't hear back from me till after Yom Tov, pesach sameach!
 
Top