<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">From
the thread, “Local, Non-Global or Global Flood.”</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">ZL:
> > *The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (</span></b><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">2:30</span></b><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">) invokes the
unanimous
position<span style=""> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">>
> of---</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">>
> *[a]ll our Sages...that all of this [the creation of Eve
from Adam,
the<span style=""> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">>
> tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, and the account
of the
serpent]<span style=""> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">>
> took place on the sixth day.... None of those things is
impossible,<span style=""> </span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">>
> because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently
fixed.*</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">RMB:
Neither is the concept of day possible because time wasn't
created yet.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">ZL: Time
was not created before the sixth day?? This is actually the
exact opposite of
what the Rambam holds. The Rambam poses a <i>kushya</i>: 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, <span style=""> </span>and the means to measure
24-hour-type days,
existed from the first moment of creation:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 0.5in;">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 same<span style=""> </span>light-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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in;"><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">By the way, </span></b>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<b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">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. </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 0.5in; text-indent:
-0.5in;">The clause I place in capitals ("these terms
literally") is the culprit: <br>
<br>
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?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in;">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.<br>
<br>
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).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent:
-0.5in;">This is why the Rambam
wrote what you quoted:<br>
<br>
<b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">...I told
you that the
foundation of <span style=""> </span>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].</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">>And
[RMB continued: Note] the [passage that comes] after the one
you quote:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>There are,
however, some utterances of our
Sages on this subject</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>[which
apparently imply a different view].
I will gather them from</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>their
different sources and place them
before you, and I will refer</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>also to
certain things by mere hints, just
as has been done by the</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>Sages. ...</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">RMB
summarized: So, while it's not impossible, the Rambam finds
hints in Chazal
that</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">it's
not what the Torah teaches.<</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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.”<span style=""> </span>And the translation,
V'IM ZEH as "however"
is also misleading.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">I’ll
explain.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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.*</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">*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.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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<span style=""> </span>“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.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">He
then<span style=""> </span>talks 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.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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."</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">RMB:
And the Abarbanel on Bereishis:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>... Thus the
Rambam does not understand the
word day to be a temporal</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>day and he
doesn't read Bereishis to be
describing the chronological</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>sequence of
creation.... This is the view
of the Rambam which he</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>considered as
one of the major secrets of
the Creation. In fact he</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>tried hard to
conceal this view as can be
seen in his words in Moreh</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>Nevuchim (</span></b><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">2:30</span></b><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">). In spite of
his efforts the
Ralbag, Navorni and</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>the other
commentators to Moreh Nevuchim
uncovered his secret and</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>made it known
to the whole world....
However, despite the Rambam's</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>greatness in
Torah and the apparent support
from Chazal, this view</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"><span style=""> </span>of the Rambam
is demonstrably false....</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">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:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">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.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">RMB: The
Narvoni (as the Abarbanel notes) and the Shem Tov on the Moreh</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">understand
the Rambam this way (that it's 6 steps in logical sequence,</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">not
time), as does the Aqeidas Yitzchaq (Bereishis sha'ar 3),
Ralbag</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;">(Milchames
Hashem 4:2:8),the Alshich (Bereishis 1:1) and RJBS.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><b>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:<br style="">
<br style="">
</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 0.5in;">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in;">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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in;">Likewise, Ralbag,
Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, Part II,
Chapter 8 (conclusion) states:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">And you, the
examiner, see how we have surpassed all who
came before us in explaining this <i>parshah</i> [in accordance
with <i>Chazal</i>].
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">(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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Arial;"> </span></p>
<pre>Zvi Lampel</pre>
</body>
</html>