[Avodah] Local, Non-Global or Global Flood

[Zvi Lampel]

Fri, 19 Nov 2010Meir Shinnar <chidekel at gmail.com> wrote
>...one of the TORAH reason that I (and I think many
> rishonim) subscribe to is that ...[in] any apparent
> conflict... we must rethink our initial understanding of the two
> sources to reconcile them - and therefore, there becomes a TORAH
> reason to allegorize...

I am interested in seeing an example of a rishon who, based on
new information, changed, or posited that we should change, the
traditional/conventional way of understanding the basic nature of any
Torah narratives from historical to allegorical. As far as I can see,
any rishon who posits that a particular narrative is meant allegorically
maintains that this was the way Chazal understood it all along.

> ... Hashem will not willfully deceive
> us and lead us astray on these issues -and therefore, any apparent
> conflict, we must have misunderstood one of the two sources - and
> therefore, we must rethink our initial understanding of the two
> sources to reconcile them - and therefore, there becomes a TORAH
> reason to allegorize...

But this means that, in the example of the Mabul, Hashem did indeed
willfully deceive and lead astray all the Tannaim, Amoraim, Geonim and
rishonim and us about the fundamental nature of how to take its narrative
(and makes any belief in anything the Torah says only tentative).

>...Neither rashi nor rashbam saw a problem with ha"pshatim hamitchadhsim
> bekol yom" - why do we?

Rashi and Rashbam (as well as Rambam, Ibn Ezra and the others) worked
with their respective methodologies of determining peshat based upon
the meanings of the words, their context, directly and always observable
facts and logic, and overarching principles (not including a principle of,
"newly gained information shows that whereas before we thought passages
were meant literally, we now see they were meant allegorically) they
maintained were held by Chazal. They offer additional, non-conflicting
takes, but never oppose what they consider to be the consensus of Chazal
as to what thepeshat is. On the contrary, they support and validate their
interpretations by citing Chazal. The Ibn Ezra, for example, qualified
any differing peshat with, "if it was a kabalah, I will accept it."


In belated (but long ago posted) defense of RMB's interpretation of
Breishis 2:4, we see that this is the explanation given by Rav Saadia
Gaon and Rabbeynu Avraham ben HaRambam (see below). But don't stop
there. My position that in the context of the six days of creation, the
mesorah is clear that the six days were no longer than regular ones,
despite redefining "yom" in this posuk. And, as RMB has emphasized,
the real concern is not, in a vacuum, how the word "yom" is defined,
but how the ba'alei mesorah guide us in understanding and approaching
the Torah. Here's the entire post from long ago:

>> Yom Hashem is acharis hayamim. All of time after techiyas
>> hameisim. "Bayom hahu yihyeh Hashem echad ushemo echad." Not just
>> the day achareis hayamim begins.

> Maybe. But I thought it /did/ mean "as of that day." What's your ra'yah
> these pesukim are not referring to one day or the day that introduces
> the era? Oh, and I just found a Radak (Yoel 3:3 referring to Yoel 2:11)
> who says that the "Yom Hashem HaGadol V'HaNora" is the day of Gog and
> Magog's downfall. Sounds like a specific (V-)day.

I find it interesting that most meforshim do not care to understand "yom"
as more than one "yom," even where one might expect it. As R. Yitzchok
Zirkind pointed out concerning Bereishis 2:4 ("These are the tolodos
of the Heavens and the Earth b'yom hi-bor-om,"), Rashi, Ohr Hachayim,
Ramban, Sforno, and I add Ibn Ezra and Radak, all treat "yom" as one day,
and do not suggest that it is a way of referring to the six-day period
of Creation, although the opportunity seems to present itself. It seems
that they understood that Tanach would not use "yom" to represent a long
period of time.

On the other hand, regarding this particular posek (Breishis 2:4),
you do have a mekor from Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon and R. Avraham ben HaRambam:

In his Torah Commentary, RSG translates (according to R. KPH [fill in the
vowels as you please] "yom" as "eis" (that's ayin-suf), and R. Avraham
ben HaRambam in his Torah Commentary (cited by R. KPH) writes that it
refers to the overall six-day period. "Yom," he writes, can mean a long
period. He says this is evidenced by "All the mitzvah that I commanded
you 'ha-yom'," "referring to all the mitzvos they were commanded at the
time of mattan Torah [from Moses to Israel over 40 years, according to
R. Akiva; or even from Hashem to Moses, according to R. Yishmael? -- ZL)
which consisted of days, months and several years. And it is impossible,"
he says, "that by the word 'yom' here the intent could be a reference
to the first day of the Six Days of Creation, because the 'tolodos'
specified are those that came on the third and sixth days."

So you're right. "Yom" can (according to some) mean a longer than
24-hour period.

But -- now watch this jujitsu move -- this only proves that when a rishon
understands "day" to mean something other than a 24-hour day, he will
point it out. He would address it head on. The fact that in the case of
the six days of creation no baal mesorah redefined any of the six "yamim"
of Braishis in terms of time or even made any comment indicating that the
plain understanding is any sort of problem, proves that he understood
it kepeshuto. (On top of those few rishonim who do say or imply that
it was a 24-hour type day.) The conspicuous absence of any remark. by
even the most philisophically-inclined rishonim, redefining "day,"
(they are only concerned with /how/ the day could have been measured,
and answer how it can be measured, implicitly presuming it was a 24-hour
type day) shows that they assumed it was a 24-hour type day, and that
the shortness of the period was part of the glory of the Creation the
Torah means to reveal to us.

R. KPH puts in the appendix to his translation of Rabbeynu Saadia Gaon's
Chumash commentary the following piece from the sefer Tseyda LaDerech. He
complains that although it speaks in the name of RSG, many additions
were placed and it is therefore difficult to determine which words were
actually authored by RSG. Nonetheless, I think it's valuable to see what
I perceive to be the commonly held viewpoint of the earlier generations
of what Creation means:

"Hashem Yisborach's primary intent in informing us of Maaseh Beraishis was
not only that we should know that He created the Heavens and the Earth,
for there are many proofs for this principle. What was needed was that
which the narrative imparts....

"The fifth principle: ...if it did not tell us, we would not know what
thing preceded what in the order of Creation...

"The sixth principle: The principle of Creation contradicts those who
teach that the world is eternal. such as Aristotle and his followers...For
these masters of philosophy were great chachamim in accurate astronomy
and physics, and composed many works. And this exhorts us not to err ...

"The seventh principle Breishis teaches is that although you see the
heavens possesing vast dimensions, as is proven by the masters of
mathematics, do not think that it took a long time to create them. "I
called to them and they stood up together" (Yeshaia 48:13). This means
that in the Beginning, in the smallest amount of time, without any
effort. Likewise it says "He won't tire nor toil, there is no end to
His Understanding" (ibid., 40:28). And as it says, "'b'hi-bar'am,' --
b'hay bar'am -- at the beginning of the creation of Time, and in a short
period, the mind being unable to grasp this amount. ... "

(And please remember my focus in this post from beginning to end is
on the suggestion that by "day" in Beraishis, Hashem meant something
other than a regular earthling-perspective day. I'm not here discussing
other proposals, such as concerning the situation between Beraishis 1:1
and 1:2.)

On 11/30/2010 2:27 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> I consider the preference for primary meanings of words to
> be an a priori tendency, not an absolute rule...
> it is however not convincing to assume that words
> always mean their primary meaning, except in the most extreme
> circumstances.

So you're saying that you disagree with the authorities I quoted, 
because they only allow for non-primary interpretation in the most 
extreme circumstances? They are clear about the circumstances that 
disqualify the primary meaning. Where do you see they limit secondary 
meaning to "extreme" circumstances?

> ... I just refer to the gemara in 'Hullin, dibru
> hakhtuvim belashon havai. I agree that doesn't give me or you licence
> to just redefine things as lashon havai at will, but the presence of
> lashon havai is an established fact, in 'Humash, no less.

I'm getting confused. You consider the posuk cited there, "Cities 
fortified up to the heavens" as a non-extreme circumstance?

Zvi Lampel