[Avodah] R' Keller's JO article on evolution

[Meir Shinnar]

I don't have direct access to R Keller's article.  However, the article, as
described by the posters, and some of the posters, are asking (IMHO) the
wrong question in regard to the whole controversy.

After all, the ultimate question is not merely being right or wrong
understanding of hazal -but the statement that some things are so wrong that
it is forbidden to teach them (or even minut)

There are several different questions one could ask about the length and
duration of creation.
1.  What is pshuto shel mikra? That does depend on defining the notion of
pshat - but assuming that one is talking about the plain meaning of the
words (this is not necessarily the standard Jewish approach - and those who
have used it in the past have made statements that are not generally
accepted as representing ture"pshat" in the meaning of the actual meaning of
the text - even if it is pshuto shel mikra - eg, the rashbam's pshat
understanding that the day begins in the morning) , yes, days mean days (but
perhaps starting in the morning...)(sphuto shel mikra as being the literal
meaning is a very Christian argument - who lack torah shebealpe and drash -
, and as others have pointed out, many of the proliteralists are
recapitualing and regurgitating Christian arguments)

2.  How do hazal and rishonim understand the text?
Here again, one can come to different conclusions - as there are different
sources.  Yes, sources can clearly be mustered that there are rishonim who
view breshit quasi literally - and a day being 24 hours.  There are also
other sources.
Now, one can come to a conclusion, based on one's way of learning and
inclination, about what one thinks is the mainstream position .  My
understanding is that R Keller, in his article - tries to show that a
literalist position is the mainstream position - and that nonliteralists
have a high hurdle to climb.  All the citations brought seem to bring
specific textual issues that the nonliteralists may have to deal with.
Others have argued about the specifics of the texts and issues  However,
even if one is willing to concede that R Keller proves this point - (not
that I concede it)  - within the context of the argument, there are several
further steps to prove..

3.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that  there is mainstream hazal and
rishonim support for the literalist position, and that nonliteralists have a
high hurdle - does this prove that the literalist position accurately
reflects reality -  that is a direct reflection on the position we take
about aggadot hazal and their statements on history/science - not so pashut
(which is why some of the controversy has swirled specifically about this
position - and here mainstream hazal and rishonim is by no means clear -
(here also the rambam's famous statement about how breshit can be
reinterpreted - if the sole issue was the age of the world...) as even the
opponents agree- even if current mainstream haredi position is clear - which
is why R Feldman's article basically had to argue that the rambam's position
on science and hazal is now explicitly rejected and is even now  minut -
quite difficult for most to swallow...


4.  Is the understanding that one has of what is the mainstream position
normative - that is, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that one has
proven that the mainstream hazal and rishonim position is for a literalist
interpretation, and that this implies that it reflects a correct
understanding of reality and truth - does denying it put one out of the
fold?

Here, the problem is twofold;
1) that there are many rishonim and acharonim  whose credentials as members
in good standing has never been doubted who specifically reject the
literalist interpretation - (one only thinks of the tiferet yisrael,and
multiple others that others have cited).
Now, there are always disagreements about understandings of any text - and
one can argue that all these gdolim are wrong.  However, it is (at least it
had been) quite difficult to argue that, given their stature,  not only are
they all wrong - but that the texts are so clear and unequivocal that any
rational, knowledgable person with respect for hazal and the mesora would
have to agree that they are wrong -  essentially the position of those who
would ban.   Supporting the ban implies being mevaze baale mesora.

2)  there is a strong tradition (even amongst literalists like the kuzari)
that, even if one does not argue for the rationality of torah, torah does
not contradict reason - eg, the kuzari argues that there is no good, solid
evidence for a world older than 5000 years (his time) - but admits that if
there was such evidence, the position and argument would have to be
rethought - because nothing in the torah can contradict reason.
For most of us, the current scientific evidence is sufficiently strong and
irrefutable (let's not argue whether it is actually irrefutable - not very
fruitful - nor for the various reconciliations - just accept that there is a
large community of dati people who find the reconciliations proposed fatuous
at best - even if one thinks that they are wrong) - that accepting the
literalist position requires a position of credo quia absurdum est - which
we think (along with the pshat being understood as literal) as a very
Christian rather than Jewish position.

Meir Shinnar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061003/2b633b94/attachment-0001.htm>