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

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:20:06 -0700 (PDT), R Gershon Seif <gershonseif at yahoo.com> posted (and didn't reach the list until v2n13):
: On page 16 of the recent JO, Rav Keller brings proofs that when the Torah
: says a day in Mayseh Beraishis, it is literal. In one of the footnotes
: he quotes Rab Schwab, but it appeared as if it was longer.

It is interesting that R' Keller would quote R' Schwab. RSS has an essay
in Challenge 164-174. The thesis seems to be that RSS doesn't believe
that science has actually proven the theory of antiquity BUT even
if it had, it's irrelevant. RSS writes about ma'aseh bereishis being
measured by multiple clocks, clocks that need not run in sync. And in
fact explicitly states that 6 days could also be 15 billion (or 13.8 bn,
as per the theory de jour).

A quote (pg 69):
> Even if science could ever sustantiate its theory of longevity, it could
> never be construed as a contradiction to the Torah. /Billions of/
> /years during the era of creation are equal to 6 regular days today.
> [italics RSS's -mi]  If this statement seems startling, we may
> excercise our patience and withhold our objections until the end of
> the discussion...

This is a "the two are descriptions of the same duration" position similar
to REED's peshat in the Ramban, as opposed to Schroeder's variant.

: 1. Ein mikra yotzai midai pshuto. Since the Torah has definite lines of
: demarcation of time and evolution assumes one long continuum, it would
: be against this basic rule of learning Torah to twist mayseh Bereishis
: into an evolving creation.

Actually, current theories of evolution are not continuus. To learn more
about the subject, google the words "punctuated equilibrium".

: 2. The Ramban, Bereishis 1:3, and the Rashbam Bereishi 1:4 take this
: literaly.

This has been argued here at length. REED would not agree that the
Ramban's literal days excludes the time it also being something else. The
Rashbam (whose shitah we didn't belabor to death) is a pashtan to the
point of giving teitch even where he himself would say it contradicts
mesorah ("vayehi erev vayehi boker" meaning that days start at dawn is
an example that leaps to mind). So the Rashbam wouldn't try to explain
idiomatic or nimshal meaning.

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 07:42:49AM -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> 8. Shulchan Aruch (OC 229:2) is m'chayaiv us to recite birkas hachamo
:> once every 28 years, and it is on Wednesday, the day the sun ws created.

:                    ...  We also say Hayom harat olam, we also theorize that
: Rosh Hashanah was the first Shabbos, rather than the beginning of creation,
: we also theorize that the world was created in Nissan - there are lots of
: competing theories as to the correspondence of the calendar to the "moment
: of Creation" - none of which seem exclusively binding.

Actually, Tosafos ask this question. Beqitzur nimratz "haras" means
conception, not birth. So, we do not assert beri'ah in Tishrei.

:>  - He also writes that the Rambam agrees with a 6 day creation. He
:> writes the Rambam has beenmisquoted. All the now famous Rambam in MN
:> meant was that there are sodos of Kaballah that are lying behind the
:> simple meaning of the words.

:                                   ....  THE RAMBAM DIDN'T KNOW KABBALAH.
: All the "proofs" that he did were forgeries and wishful thinking, compared
: with his own statement in the Moreh that as far as he knew, the original
: esoteric meaning of maaseh bereshit was lost....

Not that it changes your point, but it's equally consistent to say the
Rambam knew enough Qabbalah to reject it.

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 05:53:24PM -0400, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: 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.

Actually, the statement is that the two could never contradict. Period.
The Kuzari and Rambam probably didn't entertain the possibility that
their shitos in Torah would need to be rethought. And if they did face the
apparant contradiction, it can not be proven that they would reinterpret
the pasuq rather than question the philosophical grounds of using science
to understand origins.


As for RZL's use of seifer ha'iqarim... I have no idea why one would
assume that the rules for understanding people would necessarily be the
same as the rules for understanding pasuq. Can you do a gezeira shava
or ribui umi'ut on the text of "Oliver Twist"? In contemporary idiom,
yom means day. In navi, Yom Yerushalayim wasn't just a day. Nu, meaning
changed impacting din. And if a person says in eidus "the day after the
Shabbos" do we assume he might mean the first day of chol hamo'eid?
And when eidim talk of hands, that don't mean it poetically, like
Yad Hashem.

Saying that a pasuq doesn't leave peshuto because eidus does not doesn't
necessitate that both have the same means of determining peshat. He
is speaking against pure allegorization -- ie saying that a pasuq
is ahistorical mashal -- but not necessarily idiom. (And even that
weaker position is subject to machloqes with the Meiri, who allows for
ahistorical allegory IFF we have a mesorah for it.)

Tir'u beTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             May it be His Will that Yosef Shelomo b' Devorah micha at aishdas.org        - among all our soldiers and all the residents of http://www.aishdas.org   northern Israel - return home soon, healthy in Fax: (270) 514-1507      spirit and body, to peace and security.