PaRDeS and Berei**** 1:20-25

[TheKnight]

Thanks.

But is this not simply deflection and rationalization? The opening chapter of Torah proceeds to detail our origin - day by day - and you, no doubt driven by defects in the narrative, choose to assume that the point of this detailed creation narrative was not to provide a detailed creation narrative and, therefore, the defects don't really matter.

I don't see it as detailed. The Torah doesn't specifically lay out the exact method HaShem utilized in creating the world. It says He created certain things on certain days. The general understanding is that HaShem created the world. As far as chronology goes ( evolutionary theory tells us birds came after land mammals yet the Torah has birds on day 5 and land mammals on day 6) the entire thing becomes something of confusion. After all the first verse is "In the beginning the G-d created the heavens and the earth" and yet shortly after it reads "now the earth was formless and void" causing one to question at exactly what point the "earth" was created and what exactly did it describe because "land" wasn't created until the second day. The second chapter appears to be an entirely different creation story causing us to question how to the two fit together and if they do at all.

All that being said, the pshat is that God created the world and everything in it, but when we ask ourselves why the Torah has the creation of things ordered in a specific manner we move from pshat to something deeper. Why does the Torah list the birds as coming before land animals even though science suggest they did not?

Personally, I think the chronology outlined describes what was created in order from that which is least like man to that which is most like him framing the Torah as a story about mankind.

What bothers me most about this approach is that it flies in the face of rabbinic tradition. Look:For centuries our greatest sages struggled with every word of Torah, teasing multiple meanings out of every nuance and every anomaly. They transcended context proclaiming that there is neither before nor after in Torah and freely used bits and pieces from one place in the Tanakh as proof-text to explicated far removed bits and pieces of scripture. They massaged the vowels and played with numerical values. No piece of text was off limits. No piece of text was deemed unworthy of examination. No piece of text was simple dismissed as not reflecting the point of the narrative as a whole.

Does it really fly in the face of the Rabbinic tradition? You posted a link earlier in the thread that seemed to suggest that even pshat is not so easy a thing to determine. Just getting to pshat in the first verse is difficult, as Rashi points out "this verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further]. It teaches us that the sequence of the Creation as written is impossible."

What is pshat in a narrative written with language that doesn't make grammatical sense at face value? The entirety of the creation narrative brings up similar questions.

And that being said, the particular description given, while providing us with information about how we should view the place of things in this existence, is scientifically inaccurate. What shall we make of this? What are it's consequences?

We shall make what we have thus far made of it, an excellent opportunity to study the Torah deeply with one another and get to the bottom of this apparent inconsistency.

Can you imagine HaShem getting it wrong? Certainly God could have done a much better job. So, unless you have a better explanation, let's assume that the inaccuracy reflects human error. But if so, if we admit human authorship, why should we expect that every phrase, every word, every letter of this text to fruitfully lend itself to PaRDeS?

How can you possibly maintain that PaRDeS stands unaffected in the face of text which displays signs of fallible human authorship?

It seems the question at the heart of this debate is: can we maintain that the Torah has divine authorship when there are inaccuracies within it that a truly divine author would have been able to avoid.

That's a valid question, and I now understand more fully why you see my approach as "deflection and rationalization". However, I am not using this specific example to examine whether or not the Torah is divine. I accept it as divine already and thus if my understanding of this section would suggest it is not divine (as you're arguing it should), I must then weigh the evidence in this section against the evidence which causes me to believe the Torah is divinely authored in the first place.


My belief in the Torah's divine authorship is based on my trust in the Jewish claim of its divine authorship combined with the unique history of the Jews and the Torah's unique place among religious texts as one given via national revelation. In short, I believe the Torah is divinely authored because I believe that 3300 or so years ago G-d brought the Jews out of Egypt, revealed the Torah to them at Sinai, and gave them a method for transmitting what was revealed that would allow them and the Torah to persist throughout every generation. The evidence for this is the continued existence of the Jewish people despite the odds, and their continued proclamation (although it is not something they all proclaim uniformly) that the Torah was given to them by G-d at Sinai.

In truth I must admit, as a scientist, that without the Jewish people, I am unwilling to claim that there is evidence in nature of the existence of a deity in any form, and if there is a deity there is certainly no evidence that it cares about us. However, the continued existence of the Jews against all that has risen against them to destroy them, the contributions they have made to human progression amidst this struggle for survival, and their continued (and baffling) commitment to the Torah is what leads me to believe that there is a G-d and this G-d is the one described in the Torah. In fact, I believe it is the only evidence for anything divine within the world.

Thus, when I am confronted with a section of Torah suggesting that the Torah is not divine, I remember that I believe it is divine because of the improbable continued existence of the Jews. I then go check to see if the Jews still exist. If they do, and if they are still committed to transmitting the Torah that their ancestors tell them was given to them by G-d at Sinai, I conclude that any understanding that would have me accept the Torah as being the result of fallible human authorship is a misunderstanding.

The danger, of course, is that I might discount valid evidence against the Torah's divinity because I have convinced myself into a position wherein questioning the Torah's divinity is impossible to do so long as the Jews exist and claim the Torah was given to G-d by their ancestors at Sinai. Unfortunately, my intellectual faculties and reasoning abilities allow me to make no other conclusion. The sort of evidence I would need to convince me otherwise is on the scale of a mass redemption from Egypt and a national revelation accompanied by persistent improbable existence in the world over thousands of years.

Seriously?

Ahh, I missed it. Once again, I apologize.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But what is one to make of it if they can do neither? Some may say that "I don't know" is a weakness, but in science it's not considered as such.

So you don't know if birds came before non-aquatic insects. OK.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't see it as detailed. The Torah doesn't specifically lay out the exact method HaShem utilized in creating the world. It says He created certain things on certain days. The general understanding is that HaShem created the world. As far as chronology goes ( evolutionary theory tells us birds came after land mammals yet the Torah has birds on day 5 and land mammals on day 6) the entire thing becomes something of confusion. After all the first verse is "In the beginning the G-d created the heavens and the earth" and yet shortly after it reads "now the earth was formless and void" causing one to question at exactly what point the "earth" was created and what exactly did it describe because "land" wasn't created until the second day. The second chapter appears to be an entirely different creation story causing us to question how to the two fit together and if they do at all.

All that being said, the pshat is that God created the world and everything in it, but when we ask ourselves why the Torah has the creation of things ordered in a specific manner we move from pshat to something deeper. Why does the Torah list the birds as coming before land animals even though science suggest they did not?

Personally, I think the chronology outlined describes what was created in order from that which is least like man to that which is most like him framing the Torah as a story about mankind.


Does it really fly in the face of the Rabbinic tradition? You posted a link earlier in the thread that seemed to suggest that even pshat is not so easy a thing to determine. Just getting to pshat in the first verse is difficult, as Rashi points out "this verse calls for a midrashic interpretation [because according to its simple interpretation, the vowelization of the word בָּרָא, should be different, as Rashi explains further]. It teaches us that the sequence of the Creation as written is impossible."

What is pshat in a narrative written with language that doesn't make grammatical sense at face value? The entirety of the creation narrative brings up similar questions.


We shall make what we have thus far made of it, an excellent opportunity to study the Torah deeply with one another and get to the bottom of this apparent inconsistency.

It seems the question at the heart of this debate is: can we maintain that the Torah has divine authorship when there are inaccuracies within it that a truly divine author would have been able to avoid.

That's a valid question, and I now understand more fully why you see my approach as "deflection and rationalization". However, I am not using this specific example to examine whether or not the Torah is divine. I accept it as divine already and thus if my understanding of this section would suggest it is not divine (as you're arguing it should), I must then weigh the evidence in this section against the evidence which causes me to believe the Torah is divinely authored in the first place.


My belief in the Torah's divine authorship is based on my trust in the Jewish claim of its divine authorship combined with the unique history of the Jews and the Torah's unique place among religious texts as one given via national revelation. In short, I believe the Torah is divinely authored because I believe that 3300 or so years ago G-d brought the Jews out of Egypt, revealed the Torah to them at Sinai, and gave them a method for transmitting what was revealed that would allow them and the Torah to persist throughout every generation. The evidence for this is the continued existence of the Jewish people despite the odds, and their continued proclamation (although it is not something they all proclaim uniformly) that the Torah was given to them by G-d at Sinai.

In truth I must admit, as a scientist, that without the Jewish people, I am unwilling to claim that there is evidence in nature of the existence of a deity in any form, and if there is a deity there is certainly no evidence that it cares about us. However, the continued existence of the Jews against all that has risen against them to destroy them, the contributions they have made to human progression amidst this struggle for survival, and their continued (and baffling) commitment to the Torah is what leads me to believe that there is a G-d and this G-d is the one described in the Torah. In fact, I believe it is the only evidence for anything divine within the world.

Thus, when I am confronted with a section of Torah suggesting that the Torah is not divine, I remember that I believe it is divine because of the improbable continued existence of the Jews. I then go check to see if the Jews still exist. If they do, and if they are still committed to transmitting the Torah that their ancestors tell them was given to them by G-d at Sinai, I conclude that any understanding that would have me accept the Torah as being the result of fallible human authorship is a misunderstanding.

The danger, of course, is that I might discount valid evidence against the Torah's divinity because I have convinced myself into a position wherein questioning the Torah's divinity is impossible to do so long as the Jews exist and claim the Torah was given to G-d by their ancestors at Sinai. Unfortunately, my intellectual faculties and reasoning abilities allow me to make no other conclusion. The sort of evidence I would need to convince me otherwise is on the scale of a mass redemption from Egypt and a national revelation accompanied by persistent improbable existence in the world over thousands of years.

There is much here that I would take issue with, but I applaud its honesty and thoroughness, Yasher koach.

 

[metis]

So you don't know if birds came before non-aquatic insects. OK.

Yes, I do, and it's through the fossil record whereas this can be answered.

 

[CMike]

Suppose I accept your claim that the explanation of Devarim 17 is that it refers to a court system. Laws may be written, but courts have the authority to interpret them in such a way as to render their practical application wholly different from the plain meaning of the law. The Jewish legal system is no different.

Actually they don't.

Jewish courts are supposed to interpret them based on the intention of the author. (in this case G-D).

People have disagreements. The court system is based on setteling these disagreements in a lawful manner.

In a jewish court that manner is based on jewish law as given by G-D.

The Torah is a code of life.

 

[CMike]

I reject it neither because of its complexity or its failure to fit. I reject it because its incoherent and circular.


And that rabbinic tradition is fully predicated upon the presumption of holy writ.

Not "moreover" but "consequently."



You continue to play disingenuous word games. What, precisely, is meant by "no reason to believe Torah is an entirely human enterprise"?

• Is it a partially human enterprise? If so, which parts? What about Berei**** 1:20-25?
• Or, is it an entirely preternatural enterprise? If so, do you side with Torah and against scientific consensus when it comes to Berei**** 1:20-25?

Are you even willing to directly and unambiguously answer such questions? You've certainly shown no willingness to do so thus far.

As an aside …

Levite, your expositions are not rendered more valid by peppering them with such terms. Let me replace the term with something all might understand …
​

Therefore, perhaps the written Torah is not "entirely the literal dictated word of God, of which each part in all its facets must be accepted completely as Divine". Yes?

So, to be clear, you are suggesting that God revealed the content the written Torah to fallible prophets who, in some cases, erred in rendering the text. Put differently: Berei**** 1:20-25 got it wrong. But if this is the case, what use is PaRDeS applied to these verses? Is it not folly to insist on divining hidden meaning from a simple mistake? Is it really so hard to simple acknowledge the error?


No, it does not "stand to reason." It could simply be that the text is in error and reflects the ignorance and/or backwardness of its author.


A better term might be torturous. You struggle to apply PaRDeS because you insist that PaRDeS must be applicable even in the case of fallible text. It's a circular dance that cannot help but become difficult and exhausting.

< ---- break ---- >​

But you are certainly far more adept than I when it comes to PaRDeS, so I invite you to explain the plain and inner meaning of Berei**** 1:20-25.

Wow, who would have thought.

 

[TheKnight]

Actually they don't.

Jewish courts are supposed to interpret them based on the intention of the author. (in this case G-D).

And these intentions are readily apparent? The Torah is so simple that in every case G-d's intentions are clearly understood by all parties such that a court would only have to spend time resolving the dispute in question and not spend any time attempting to figure out the intention the author had?

I agree with you that a Jewish court should interpret the Torah based on the intention of the Author. Where I disagree is on the implication that the intention cannot possibly be contrary to how we (or a court) might read the Torah on its face.

 

[TheKnight]

There is much here that I would take issue with, but I applaud its honesty and thoroughness, Yasher koach.

Thank you

 

[CMike]

And these intentions are readily apparent? The Torah is so simple that in every case G-d's intentions are clearly understood by all parties such that a court would only have to spend time resolving the dispute in question and not spend any time attempting to figure out the intention the author had?

I agree with you that a Jewish court should interpret the Torah based on the intention of the Author. Where I disagree is on the implication that the intention cannot possibly be contrary to how we (or a court) might read the Torah on its face.

Anything is possible. We are all human.

However, the issue is supposed to be decided based on the intention of the author.

Every case brought before a court is slightly different. Therefore, the judges need to determine how to apply the law.

 

[Sleeppy]

But what is one to make of it if they can do neither? Some may say that "I don't know" is a weakness, but in science it's not considered as such. Why formulate a belief if the evidence is insufficient?

Am I wrong to keep asking the question: Why doesn't God appear in the same manner, as He did before, on the mountain? Wouldn't something like this solve at least most of the "I don't know" problem?

 

[metis]

Am I wrong to keep asking the question: Why doesn't God appear in the same manner, as He did before, on the mountain? Wouldn't something like this solve at least most of the "I don't know" problem?

I would assume so. Many feel that if and when the Messiah comes, all doubt will be removed because it will be abundantly clear to all that he is indeed the Messiah.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Am I wrong to keep asking the question: Why doesn't God appear in the same manner, as He did before, on the mountain? Wouldn't something like this solve at least most of the "I don't know" problem?

You're off topic. Please feel free to ask elsewhere.

 

[TheKnight]

However, the issue is supposed to be decided based on the intention of the author.

I agree on this, and yet still I don't think you've stated how a judge should determine the intention of the author.

Torah study could be described as the lifelong endeavor of determining the Author's intentions and seeking to implement its instructions in our daily lives. An endeavor in which every Jew should engage.

All that to say, the intention is often the point of debate, and there are methods within halacha for determining the intention of the text and the practical application. Sometimes the application and intention determined is different from what one might expect.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And one would think that all of this is entirely dependent upon correctly identifying the author.