<div dir="ltr"><img width="0" height="0" class="mailtrack-img" alt="" style="display:flex" src="https://mailtrack.io/trace/mail/4ef9db72074a469e6c4750e01d692a8901113597.png?u=1620389"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div></div><div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:01 PM Micha Berger <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org" target="_blank">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>RMB:<br>
:> the Ramban famously says there is no "it" to nature.<br>
<br>ZL: Famously, but phantomly. Ramban (see, for example, on Shmos 25:24) no less<br>
: than Rambam, holds that olom kiminhago noheig. Ramban repeats a number of<br>
: times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that<br>
: minhag permanent.<br>
<br>...<br>
The Ramban talks about nature being a pattern in events, but those events<br>
are /directly/ caused by HQBH.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Where does Ramban say this? As I wrote, he repeats a number of times that each "Va-yehi khein" in Breishis means that Hashem made that minhag permanent at maaseh breishis. See, for example, on Shmos 6:6. ''The posuk says 'Vay-hiH khein'' because that is the teva that was instilled in them forever...and they will remain with the first teva that was instilled in them at the time of their formation (Vayamdual haTeva haRishon asher hussam bahem bEis yetsirasam). And on Vayikra 26:11, in the passage about refuah, he uses the phrase, VaHashem Heeneecham lemikrei haTivee-im, Hashem leaves them to the natural mikrreim. How is this insisting that, contra Rambam, ''those events are /directly/ caused by HQBH''?</div><div><br></div><div>Regardless of the mechanics of seichel haPoel, etc, I see no basis to create a machlokess between the Rambam and Raman on this point. Especially since he /says/ he is in agreement with the Rambam.</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">RMB: [According to RambaM:] A homo sapien who lacks da'as is less of a person, and thus to that<br>
extent is less subject to hashgachah peratis. Instead, he is left to teva<br>
(Moreh 3:18). Not that he is left to minhago shel olam, but that HQBH<br>
delegates his fate.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div> ZL: You are making a distinction that you attribute to RambaM, between teva and minhago shel olam.</div><div>Teva is something that a daas-lacking person is left to. Through it, Hashem delegates his fate.</div><div><br></div><div>Minhag shel olam is something else.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't follow. Where is such a distinction made?</div><div><br></div><div>And I thought you maintained that contra RambaN, RambaM does /not/ hold that HQBH delegates the fate of lesser people. Only ''the RambaN talks about nature being a pattern in events... /directly/ caused by HQBH. Is there also a distinction between ''directly causing'' and ''delegating''? Do you mean RambaM holds Hashem HAD delegated their fate (by setting up the mechanisms at Creation)?</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">RMB:<br>
I tried to semi-explain by talking about the Ramban's lack of "'it' to<br>
nature". ... no metaphysical "object" to pin nature on... there is no such "thing" as nature. It's not a<br></blockquote>hypostatis.<div> </div><div>ZL: Where do you see what you are trying to explain in Ramban? </div><div><br></div><div>Regarding the shiur by Rav Bednarshom, and the point that</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>1- According to the Rambam, hashgachah is Divine Assistance; according</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>to the Ramban it includes oneshim.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2- According to the Rambam, there is a mechanism that causes the</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>relationship between the person's da'as and their recieving HP or not.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The Rambam describes it more directly as Divine Response.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>The last sentence should be about RambaN, right? And here's something to ponder: As I wrote previously, the Rambam writes that the greatest miracle of all, is nature's responding to man's behavior, favoring good behavior and punishing bad behavior. Granted, favoring good behavior is miraculous. But l-fi Rambam's shittah, what is miraculous about leaving the practitioner of bad behavior to the wiles of nature?</div><div> </div><div>Also, regarding:</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>> It was often understood that the Ramban stands in fierce opposition to</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>> the stance of the Rambam. In two places (commentary on Shemot 13:16 and</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>> his Torat Hashem Temima sermon), the Ramban writes that a believing</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>> Jew must believe that everything that happens is a miracle. The only</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>> rule of causation is that if we do mitzvot, we can expect a reward,</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>> and if we transgress the Torah we can expect to be punished by God. </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>Obviously, this is just the hava amina. The Ramban did not write that ''everything that happens'' is a miracle. His wording is that the whole [teaching of the] Torah [about reard and punishment] is a miracle. Meaning, as the maskana is, that the Torah's system of award and punishment is miraculous.</div><div><br></div><div>Secondly, the Ramban does not say that everything is a miracle,without causation, except reward and punishment. The causation between behavior and reward and punishment is an explanation of, not in contrast to, his statement that the whole teaching of the Torah is that there are miracules.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br><br>
:ZL: His point in all his famous and repeated declarations is that it is a<br>
: central Torah fact that man's deeds are rewarded or punished by the forces<br>
: of nature, and that this is miraculous. No different from the Rambam. He,<br>
: just as Rambam, is not saying that outside of this area there is no minhago<br>
: shel olom, no "it" to nature.<br>
<br>
: Which doesn't mean that creation happened by miracles we could understand<br>
: either. It justifies the Michtav meiEliyahu's position that creation is<br>
: incomprehensible by any means. And instead we pick which simplified model,<br>
: which perspective, we choose to explain the unknowable from.<br>
<br>
: Except that the Rambam speaking for himself declares,<br>
<br>
: MN 2:17 (see <a href="http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_2_17.htm</a>, note<br>
: 6, for a compilation of translations of this passage.)<br>
<br>
: For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moshe Rabbeynu and<br>
: Avraham Avinu, aleihem hashalom, believe that the world came into being in<br>
: such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya<br>
: kach mi-kach), and such was created after such.<br>
<br>
:>See pereq 30. There was no time, no 6 days. Just 6 steps in logic.<br>
<br>
: The interpretation that when the Torah says days it means levels is given<br>
: by the Ralbag, based upon, and compelled by, his take of Chazal who say<br>
: that Hashem created everything full bloom instantly and simultaneously. But<br>
: that's (just one of the possibilities) offered by Ralbag, not Rambam...<br>
<br>
It's the Ralbag's PESHAT in the Rambam, not his own shitah.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is not his peshat in the Rambam. He does not mention Rambam, much less attribute to him, the ''levels'' peshat, neither in his Torah commentary nor in his Milchamos Hashem. If you can find such a passage, please locate it for me.</div><div><br></div><div>On the contrary, here is how he addresses the question of how there could be days before the fourth day when the sun materialized. He gives two possibilities. <font color="#0000ff">And he gives the ''levels'' approach as an /alternative/ explanation to the answer that the sphere, by which time and days are produced, was in operation from the moment of creation.</font>They are two /different/ ways of answering how there could be days one through three before the existence of the stars, although both answers are predicated on the Chazal-based view that everything in the universe and earth was instantly and simultaneously created in its complete form (besides vegetation and Adam and Chava).</div><div><br></div><div>And if the virtually identical verbiage to that of the Rambam is an indication that Ralbag was intending to give peshat in the Rambam, note that he is explicitly using that verbiage in the answer granting that ''days'' are units of time, in /contrast/ to the notion of ''days'' meaning ''levels''.</div><div><br></div><div>And also remember, as I have noted before, that Ralbag explicitly says (Torah commentary, on VaYchulu) V-im nim-tsi-u rechokim meod mei-hakavana asher matzanu kahn, kmo shetireh mimah shebier bazeh haRav HaMoreh besifro hanichbad Moreh HaNevuchim, ViHachcham R. Avraham Ibn Ezra.... that his new approach is /very far/ from that of the Rambam. And he repeats this in Sefer Milchemes Hashem, Presentation VI, Part II, Chapter 8, Conclusion.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Abravanel and The Aqeidas Yitzchaq (shaar 3) on Bereishis. This is how<br>
the Rambam was understood by other rishonim. Even by a non-Aristotilian<br>
like R' Yitzchaq Arama.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But you see, you have to resort to secondary sources to support the claims about what Rambam and Ralbag held, whereas we have the first-hand sources in front of us. The fact is that the Ralbag does not attribute the ''levels''approach to the Rambam, and in fact considers the ''levels'' approach as an alternative to what the Rambam wrote..</div><div><br></div><div>Abarbanel is known to repeat ideas of his contemporary, R. Y. Arama. He is also known to have a very eclectic style. You are of course correct that in his 9th shayla he attributes the ''levels'' approach to the Rambam. But look how he does it, and explain to me how it makes sense:</div><div> </div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The 9th shayla concerns what is mentioned in the Moreh Nevuchim. Rambam notes that time cannot exist without the movement of the celestial spheres, the sun and moon. However, this raises the question as to how there could be time before the fourth day on which the celestial spheres and sun were created. The Rambam answered this question by asserting that in fact the spheres and the sun were created on the first day. Thus time existed for the first 3 days in the same manner as it existed on the subsequent days. He explained that in fact everything — both the Heavens and the Earth — were created on the first day. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Stop here. Do you not see the Abarbanel explaining Rambam as holding that the days of Breishis were units of time, and not ''levels''? Let's continue:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The Rambam cited Chazal that the word “es” indicated that the creation on the first day included everything associated with the Heavens as well as everything associated with the Earth. He also cited the gemora (Chulin 60a) that everything that was created was created in its final form. He also cited another statement of Chazal that the Heavens and Earth were created simultaneously. Thus the Rambam believed that the work of Creation happened all on one day and was not divided amongst six days. He claimed that in a single moment of creation everything came into existence.</blockquote><div> </div><div>And of course, the Rambam continues (and Ralbag includes it) that whereas all was created ex nihilo from the first instant of creation, following that was a process of separating the components of the universe, forming things, as he says elsewhere in the Moreh, kach mikach.</div><div><br></div><div>How then does the Abarbanel say in the next breath:</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> He explained that the reason for the Torah stating that there were six days of Creation was to indicate the different levels of created beings according to their natural hierarchy. 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….</blockquote><div> </div><div>Kasha reisha al sefa! </div><div><br></div><div>And note that in shayla 5 as well Abarbanel had written:</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>That which the Torah mentioned of the creation of the stars on the fourth day, made HaRav haMoreh answer, as it seems from his words, in that chapter 30 of Part Three, that on the first day the sphere was created with the stars and light. But their actions had affect on the fourth day upon the vegetation.Such is apparent from the words of the Rav...Perhaps RambaN too meant this, since he mentions this approach in the name of yeish meforshim.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>And if one is to treat this as Abarbanel changing his mind, well then consider another about-face over 80 pages later (p. 85 in our editions)</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav was ...that all that is mentioned 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 “vayechulu” have no allegory whatsoever, for everything was literal to him [the Rambam]. Therefore you will see that in this very chapter, no. 30 in the second section, in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make an allegory or a hint at all. Rather, he did the exact opposite, for he made a concerted effort to support the doctrine of creation ex nihilo and accepted all of the verses literally…</div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote>Obviously, Abarbanel was not consistent as to whether the Rambam understood the creation days to be ''levels'' rather than units of time. So he should not be cited with such certainty that he held so.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">I would also caution against uncritically accepting A’s description of B’s opinion if A goes on to lambaste it, as the Abarbanel did with his original reading of the Moreh Nevuchim.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">(The question presents itself, then, how did the Abarbanel’s contemporary, the Akeidas Yitzcahk, and the commentary of the ShemTov–who is not regarded as a rishon—as opposed to the commentary by Crescas), and the Abarbanel himself in his second take, get from (a) the Rambam’s classical rendition of a six-day meta-natural development of potential created on day one, to (b) seeing the Rambam as promulgating that “the six days are a metaphor for six levels in the hierarchy of natural objects: light/darkness, water, minerals, flora, fauna, man”?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">My theory is that the earlier commentators of the Moreh, such as Narboni, greatly influenced by the Aristotelian academia of the time, anxiously imposed their radical views on the Rambam. (We see that in the Rambam’s own time, he complained of people radicalizing his views—including those who as accused him of (or “complimented” him for) denying techiass ha-meisim). They hijacked the Moreh so efficiently that it became popular to think the Rambam thought like Narboni. This became the starting point from which later commentaries saw the Moreh (similar to, l’havdil, Rashi’s commentary being one’s first impression of what the Chumash says, and one’s natural thinking that what Rashi says is necessarily what the Chumash undoubtedly means.)<br></div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In any case, the Rambam's problem with time is because in his world (again,<br>
following Aristo) time is a property of a process. Until the spheres spin,<br>
there are no processes, no time. The notion of time as a dimension in which<br>
processes occur evolves into being through Galieleo and Newton. When the<br>
Rambam analyzes "zeman", he isn't talking about time the way we think of<br>
time.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>Not my issue.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
His problem is with zeman as a whole without spheres, not yom before<br>
the sun.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div><b style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">In the words of Ralbag the </b><b style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">problem is with zeman before the sun. His answer is that the sphere, even without the sun, produces zeman. </b></div><div><font color="#ff0000"><b><br></b></font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>The problem that bothered the early ones, with what were day one, day two and day three measured? Behold, the light-bearers were not in existence until day four! [The answer is that even though the light-bearers did not appear until day four], the heavenly sphere was in existence on day one, and each revolution of it formed approximately one day.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>Abarbanel puts it that the problem is zeman before the sphere, sun and stars. The answer is that they all existed and formed zeman from the first act of creation.<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="text-align:right" dir="rtl">רלב"ג (הקדמה, חלק א)</div><div style="text-align:right"><br></div><div style="text-align:right">(בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ (א, א-ה)</div><div style="text-align:right"><br></div><div style="text-align:right">...ונֹאמר, שכבר ביארנו בששי מספר מלחמות ה׳ (חלק א פרק כ), שהוית העולם מה׳ יתעלה ראוי שתהיה בזולת זמן, וכן ביארו רבותינו ז״ל שהשמים והארץ נבראו יחדיו; אמרו בפרק אין דורשין (חגיגה יב, א):... ׳וחכמים אומרים: זה וזה כאחד נבראו, שנאמר: ׳אף ידי יָסְדָה ארץ וימיני טִפְּחָה שמים, קֹרֵא אני אליהם יעמדו יחדו׳ (ישעיהו מח, יג). וזה יתבאר עוד אצלנו ממה שאמר בתורה: ׳אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהִבָּרְאָם ביום עשות ה׳ אלהים ארץ ושמים׳ (ב, ד) —<b> למדנו מזה כי השמים והארץ ותולדותיהם נבראו ביום אחד.</b> והנה המשילו החכמים הִגָּלוֹת ההויה בקצת הדברים קודם קצת במעשה בראשית,למי שזרע זרעים חֲלוּקים יחד בארץ, ויצמח קצתם קודם קצת</div><div style="text-align:right"> </div><div style="text-align:right"><b>.וכן נֹאמר שהיה הענין בהוית העולם, שהכל נתהוה יחד מה׳ יתעלה ו<u>נגלה קצתו <i>קודם </i>קצת</u> .</b><br></div><div style="text-align:right"><br></div><div style="text-align:right"><font color="#0000ff"><u>או</u> נאמר<br></font></div><div style="text-align:right"><font color="#0000ff"><br></font></div><div style="text-align:right"><font color="#0000ff">שכבר נתיחסה ההויה לקצת הדברים קודם קצת, להעיר על היותם קודמים <b>בעצם ובסיבה</b>, כי כוונת התורה להעמידנו על חכמת הנמצאות בזה הסיפור הנפלא, כמו שקדם</font></div><div style="text-align:right"><br></div><div style="text-align:right">ואיך שהיה הענין, הנה יסור מזה המקום <font color="#ff0000"><b>הספק אשר סופק לקודמים באיזה דבר שוער יום ראשון ויום שני ויום שלישי והנה לא היו <u>המאורות </u>נמצאים עד יום רביעי</b></font>;</div><div style="text-align:right"><br></div><div style="text-align:right">וזה מבואר</div><div style="text-align:right"><br></div><div style="text-align:right"><b>לפי ההנחה הראשונה,</b> כי [אע"פ שלא היה הכוכבים נמצאים עד היום הרביעי, מ"מ] <u><font color="#ff0000"><b>ה</b></font></u><b><font color="#ff0000"><u>גרם השמימי </u>היה נמצא ביום ראשון, והסיבוב האחד ממנו הוא יום אחד בקירוב </font></b>— היה שנשער בו אנחנו או שלא נשער בו. ואיננו זר אם נאמר שהיה ידוע אצל ה׳ שיעור הזמן בזולת שמש וכוכבים, וזה מבואר בנפשו.</div><div style="text-align:right"><br></div><div style="text-align:right"><b>ולפי ההנחה השנית </b>הוא יותר מבואר, כי היו המאורות גם כן נמצאים ביום ראשון. ואל זה כִּוְּנוּ רבותינו ז״ל באומרם: ׳מאורות הן הן שנבראו ביום ראשון ולא תלאן עד יום רביעי׳ (חגיגה יב, א), רוצה לומר שלא תלה התהוותם בזמן קודם ליום רביעי. והנה תתבאר הסיבה בזה במה שיבוא (חלק ד באה״פ הספק השני), רצוני: למה לא נתיחסה ההויה בהם קודם זה. ואי אפשר שנבין ממאמרם שיהיו נבראים ביום הראשון נפרדים ותלאן ביום הרביעי ברקיע, כי אינם תלויים בו, אבל הם בעומק הרקיע קבועים וקיימים, וזה מבואר מאד למעיין בזה הספר</div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><div>But the bottom line,to which we both agree, is that traditional Judaism holds that Creation, regardless of our issue about zeman, was not a natural process.</div><div><br></div><div>Zvi Lampel </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>