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 pshat doesnt 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 drash is not specifically from Meirat Enayim per se. Its 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 youre capable. That being said, since this is only one opinion based on one sefer, you should further consider that many gedolim and great mkubals hold this view to be lav davka and contradictory to Kabbalah of the Arizal if youre 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 didnt 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 youre going to use it try and argue against pshat.
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.
Thats 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 wouldnt 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.