[Avodah] Moreh Nevuchim Part II Chapter 30.

[Zvi Lampel]

*From the thread, "Local, Non-Global or Global Flood."*

**

*ZL: > > *The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (**2:30**) invokes the unanimous 
position*

*> > of---*

*> > *[a]ll our Sages...that all of this [the creation of Eve from Adam, 
the*

*> > tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, and the account of the 
serpent]*

*> > took place on the sixth day.... None of those things is impossible,*

*> > because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed.**

**

*RMB: Neither is the concept of day possible because time wasn't created 
yet.*

**

*ZL: Time was not created before the sixth day?? This is actually the 
exact opposite of what the Rambam holds. The Rambam poses a /kushya/: If 
the sun was not created until the fourth day, how were days one through 
three measured? He gives a teyrutz: Despite how it seems from a simple 
reading of the pesukim, Chazal tell us that everything, including the 
sun and the sphere, was actually created the first day. The day-by-day 
appearance and placement of each component of creation was only a matter 
of drawing them from potential. So time, and the means to measure 
24-hour-type days, existed from the first moment of creation:*

**

Chazal have already explained in many places that the word "ess" is like 
the idea of "with," they meant by this that G-d created with the heavens 
everything that the heavens contain, and with the earth everything the 
earth includes. And you already know their clarification that the 
heavens and the earth were created simultaneously, as per its saying, "I 
call unto them, they stand up together" (Ps. xlviii.). Consequently, 
everything was created together, and all the things were separated from 
each other successively, so much so, that they made as an analogy to 
this one who sows various seeds in the earth at the same time: some 
spring forth after one day, some after two days, and some after 
three---although all the planting occurred at one moment. According to 
this undoubtedly true understanding, the difficulty is removed, that 
obligated R. Yehudah b'Rebbi Simon, to say what he would say, and 
created for him the problem of with what thing was the first day, and 
the second day, and the third day measured. [Indeed,] in Bereshis Rabba, 
our Sages said explicitly, regarding the light mentioned by the Torah, 
that it was created on the first day. This is how they phrased it: These 
[the luminaries mentioned in the Creation of the fourth day] were the 
very samelight-bearers that were created on the first day, but He did 
not suspend them until the fourth day. The meaning [of the first verse] 
has thus been clearly stated.

**

*By the way, *the Freidlander translation of the Moreh Nevuchim, which 
is what we both, out of convenience, cut and paste from, is a tremendous 
help in learning the Moreh, and I use it often. But there are sometimes 
errors in translation that change the Rambam's meaning. And this is an 
example of that. On*e word in the Friedlander translation of the passage 
in question seriously differs from both Ibn Tibbon and R. Kapach. And I 
suspect it has misdirected your reading of the rest of the Rambam. *

The clause I place in capitals ("these terms literally") is the culprit:

We find that some of our Sages are reported to have held the opinion 
that time existed before the Creation...Those who have made this 
assertion have been led to it by a saying of one of our Sages in 
reference to the terms "one day," "a second day." Taking THESE TERMS 
literally, the author of that saying asked, What determined "the first 
day," since there was no rotating sphere, and no sun?

The clause Friedlander translates, "Taking these terms literally," is 
rendered by Ibn Tibbon, "omeir zeh ha-ma'amar, ha-INYAN al peshuto." 
"Ha-inyan (singular) al p'shuto" does not translate "these terms" 
(plural)---referring to the terms "day one" and "day two." "Ha-inyan al 
p'shuto" translates, "taking the matter in its simple sense." Rambam is 
referring to the simple take of the pesukim that everything was created 
ex-nihilo on the attributed day, saying that this led to the mistaken 
idea that time always existed even before creation. This, he says, led 
some to wonder how there could be the first three days when the sun was 
first created on the fourth day. To this the Rambam explains---based on 
Chazal---that actually everything was created in potential form the 
first instant, including the sun and the revolving spheres, and thus 
there was a "day one," "day two" and "day three" before the fourth day.

If you re-read the entire passage of the Rambam, you will see how well 
the real words fit the context (and how incomprehensiblly it reads the 
other way).

This is why the Rambam wrote what you quoted:

*...I told you that the foundation of our faith is the belief that God 
created the Universe from nothing; that time did not exist previously 
[to the world--ZL], but was created: for IT DEPENDS ON THE MOTION OF THE 
SPHERE, AND THE SPHERE HAS BEEN CREATED [Ibn Tibbon reads: "v'ha-galgal 
nivrah"--meaning, "AND THE SPHERE IS A CREATED THING"--ZL].*

**

*>And [RMB continued: Note] the [passage that comes] after the one you 
quote:*

**

*There are, however, some utterances of our Sages on this subject*

*[which apparently imply a different view]. I will gather them from*

*their different sources and place them before you, and I will refer*

*also to certain things by mere hints, just as has been done by the*

*Sages. ...*

**

*RMB summarized: So, while it's not impossible, the Rambam finds hints 
in Chazal that*

*it's not what the Torah teaches.<*

**

*ZL: Another mistake. The Ibn Tibbon reads: "sheh-ad heinah lo hayyah 
tevah nach, V'IM ZEH K'VAR ZACHRU DEVARIM ASHMEE-AIM LECHA MELUKATTIM 
MI-MI-KOMOS'SAYHEM." The words Friedlander put in brackets simply do not 
exist and, as I will show, are curiously misdirecting. And one wonders 
why he translated the simple word "devarim" as "utterances," rather than 
plainly as "statements."And the translation, V'IM ZEH as "however" is 
also misleading.*

**

*I'll explain.*

**

*A. Up until now, the Rambam was citing statements from Chazal that he 
endorsed at face value, building with them his case to answer how time 
was measured before the fourth day.**

**

*B. After this, he tells us that there are, however, other statements by 
Chazal that cannot be taken at their surface meaning, but rather contain 
profound concepts too valuable to be openly revealed to the masses. 
Their surface meaning contradict pesukim, reasonableness, or 
over-arching principles.*

**

*Note that in the first category, the pesukim are not meant b'pashtus, 
whereas the Chazal is meant literally. In the second category, the 
Chazal is not meant literally, whereas the pashtus of the pesukim are.*

**

*The first category of statements by Chazal he used to show that, 
despite the impression one gets from the pashtus of the pesukim, Chazal 
taught us that creation ex nihilo happened only the first day of 
Creation, whereas the rest of the days there was a drawing out from 
potential as described in the pesukim. He draws this from combining five 
teachings.*

**

**The final maamaer Chazal that the Rambam endorses as universally 
agreed upon, and which he uses at face value, is the one saying that all 
the events in the Gan Eden episode took place on the sixth day* (which, 
as established above, was like all the other days defined by a single 
revolution of the sphere and/or sun). He explains that this Chazal is 
not implausible ("rachok"), because until now nature was not fixed.*

**

*The statements he take at face value (Category A) include what he 
dismisses as daas yachid views that go against basic principles---those 
about worlds and/or time existing before our world's existence. The 
rest, which go counter to those, he endorses and uses to build his 
thesis. These include (a) the Chazal that the word"ess" denotes that 
everything in the heavens was created together with the heavens, (b) the 
Chazal that everything on earth was created together with the earth 
(potentially, as he goes on to explain); (c) the Chazal that the heavens 
and the earth were created simultaneously; (d) the Chazal that compared 
G-d's creating the world to a farmer who plants many seeds all at one 
time, yet different seeds sprout on different days; and finally (e) the 
Chazal that the sun, moon and stars of the fourth day were identical to 
the Light created on the first day; that earth can mean both the planet 
and soil. All these together form the answer to the problem the Rambam 
posed.*

**

*He thentalks about the pesukim referring to the four elements and their 
characteristics, and then returns to citing the Chazal that teach that 
the "separated" waters were not our earthly type of waters, and the 
"shamayim" of the first day are not the sky; the Chazal that the grass 
and trees sprouted only after there was rain, to explain the sequence of 
creation, and then the Chazal that everything was created fully-formed.*

**

*THEN he says "sheh-ad heinah lo hayyah tevah nach, V'IM ZEH K'VAR 
ZACHRU DEVARIM ASHMEE-AIM LECHA MELUKATTIM MI-MI-KOMOS'SAYHEM."follows 
up by quoting the Midrashim about Chava being created simultaneously 
with Adam, attached to him; Samael riding upon the Nachash and other 
strange things about the Nachash; the gigantic measurements of the Tree 
of Life, and other MIdrashic statements from Chazal the Rambam tells us 
have profound meaning. So the context shows that the "things/statements 
(not "utterances") of the Sages the Rambam referred to are not in any 
way opposing what the Rambam said about the events occuring on the sixth 
day---which he had after all endorsed as "the unanimous view of the Sages."*

**

*RMB: And the Abarbanel on Bereishis:*

*... Thus the Rambam does not understand the word day to be a temporal*

*day and he doesn't read Bereishis to be describing the chronological*

*sequence of creation.... This is the view of the Rambam which he*

*considered as one of the major secrets of the Creation. In fact he*

*tried hard to conceal this view as can be seen in his words in Moreh*

*Nevuchim (**2:30**). In spite of his efforts the Ralbag, Navorni and*

*the other commentators to Moreh Nevuchim uncovered his secret and*

*made it known to the whole world.... However, despite the Rambam's*

*greatness in Torah and the apparent support from Chazal, this view*

*of the Rambam is demonstrably false....*

**

*ZL: True, the contemporaries, Abarbanel and the Akeidas Yitzchak, who 
communicated with each other, both attribute, in their commentaries on 
the first pesukim of Breishis, the Ralbag's view to the Rambam.*

**

*And, as you indicated, the Abarbanel vehemently condemns it. And, in 
his commentary on the Gan Eden episode (p. 85 in our editions), he 
switches track and reinterprets the Rambam:*

**

Abarbanel: "Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav (the Rambam) was 
not that all of ma'aseh bereishis was an allegory, rather, only a small 
part of it (some elements in the second chapter of Bereishis; and that 
(as for the first chapter,) all which is mentioned [in the Torah] 
*regarding the activity of the six days,* from the creation of the 
heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of 
Adam and his wife, up until [the passage of] "va'yichulu", have no 
allegory whatsoever for *everything was [understood as] literal to him* 
and therefore you will see that in this very chapter--#30 in the second 
section--in all which the Rav has explicated *regarding the activity of 
the six days,* he did not make [of ma'aseh bereishis] an allegory or a 
hint (pirush tzurayi or remez) at all."

*RMB: The Narvoni (as the Abarbanel notes) and the Shem Tov on the Moreh*

*understand the Rambam this way (that it's 6 steps in logical sequence,*

*not time), as does the Aqeidas Yitzchaq (Bereishis sha'ar 3), Ralbag*

*(Milchames Hashem 4:2:8),the Alshich (Bereishis 1:1) and RJBS.*

**

*And what would you say if I showed you that the Ralbag himself denies 
that the Rambam said this peshat? In the Rav Kook edition of the 
Ralbag's commentary on Breishis, it's on p. 51:

*

Herewith is completed by us the explanation that conforms to the truth, 
and to the Torah's language, concerning everything contained in Maasei 
Breishis....And it is proper that we should not be skimpy in expressing 
thanks to the previous commentators, for what they spoke concerning MB. 
For--even if they are found far from the intent that we found here, as 
can be seen from how HaRav HaMoreh explained in his honored work 'Moreh 
Nevuchim,' and the Chacham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra's Torah 
commentary--behold they were nevertheless a cause, in whatever manner, 
for us to establish the true way.

It should also be noted that the Ralbag in his commentary offered an 
alternative approach to Maasei Breishis. That approach is essentially 
that of the Moreh Nevuchim as I explained it. To me it is obvious that 
the Ralbag understood the Rambam as I explained him.

Likewise, Ralbag, Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, Part II, 
Chapter 8 (conclusion) states:

And you, the examiner, see how we have surpassed all who came before us 
in explaining this /parshah/ [in accordance with /Chazal/]. And this is 
in the aspect that whoever examines our words cannot doubt our words, 
for this parshah itself, both through its terminology and its sequence 
testifies on our behalf that this undoubtedly is its true intepretation.

(I inserted the words in brackets, "in accordance with Chazal," because 
otherwise one might think that the Ralbag is differing with Chazal, 
whereas reading his explanation one sees that on the contrary, he is 
citing Chazal as the basis of his interpretation. "Those who came 
before" him is referring to those in his era (namely, rishonim, 
including the Rambam) who preceded him.

Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101130/986780a1/attachment.htm>