Here's the beginning of the '99 Avodah discussion:
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 08:59:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Flood - Introduction
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Flood
In the current issue of "Tradition" - that contains several
submissions by distinguished chaverim of Avodah/Aishdas, there is
a troubling essay about Gan Eden and the Mabul. The essay,
written by R' Shubert Spero, argues the case that these passages
are allegorical in nature. There was a significant correspondence
on the matter back in late 1994 (time flies when you are having
fun!) on Mail-Jewish. For the benefit of those who are unaware of
that correspondence, I am here posting some of the major posts.
For the benefit of those who are aware of that correspondence, I
have attempted to be brief and exclude as much of the
correspondence as possible. The selection, however, still had to
be divided over several posts. The balance is in the MJ archives:
"Dirshu me'al sefer Hashem v'kir'u."
I am not sure whether to write a Letter to the Editor of
Tradition or not. I would normally do so, but way back, I
believe, in 1991, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of "Jewish
Action" concerning R' Spero's review essay on R' Norman Lamm's
"Torah U'Madda", and I am loathe to attack him again, even in the
service of a cause that I feel integral and central to Yahadus.
As the Editor and Consulting Editor of Tradition are members of
our little society, I bring this to their respective attentions:
Perhaps the conversation that will ensue here (doubtless!) on
this point will be fodder for a reaappraisal in a subsequent
issue of Tradition.
While the names of the participants are explicit in the MJ
archives, I have nonetheless chosen to change those other than my
own to those of the Shevatim, for the benefit of those who will
consider the position opposed to my own as dubious to say the
least, and, if they choose then not to look up the MJ archives,
will be spared the knowledge of who said what when.
Although many points discussed then should probably be modified
for the purposes of discussing R' Spero's essay, I leave that for
a later date.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Flood
(Reuven Shimon)
In response to a couple of private letters, I would like to
clarify a few things I wrote in my posting re. the flood, and I
hope this will obviate the need to deal with this further, unless
there is a significant need.
First, I do not deny that God could, if he wanted, have created
the world 5755 years ago, created the fossils, signs of
civilization etc. For that matter, he could have created the
world 30 years ago and put memories into our minds and created
earlier books, buildings etc. However, the best of our religious
thinkers have taught us that we need not think in this fashion.
We need not adopt Tertullian's credo quia impossible -- I believe
because it is impossible. (Actually Tertullian really said certum
est quia impossible est -- It is certain becaaue it is
impossible).
It is preceisely because of this that great sages interpreted the
Garden of Eden story allegorically and refused to take literally
aggadot. Judaism doesn't require us to leave our intellects at
the door. E. g. Obviously it is possible for God to lift Mount
Sinai over the head of the Israelites, but must we believe this
literally. The whole endeavor to allegorize aggadot is based on
the fact that God (and the world) do not behave in a completely
outrageous fashion. We don't understand God, but we have an idea
about how he interacts in this world, at least that's was
Maimonides and his followers thought. Why else reject e. g.
demons, astrology and other superstitions. Couldn't God have made
the world this way? Obviously yes, but the real question is, is
it likely that he did so and must we believe this. Maimonides
answers no and I think modern Orthodox Jews agree, although
Haredim probably do not.
In my original posting I stated that believing in the truth of
the flood (and a 5000 year old world) is more extreme than
denying the existence of George Washington. Someone asked me if
it isn't the case that we have more evidence for George
Washington than for denying the flood. The answer is obviously
no. We know about Washington because of one type of evidence,
historical, and we have agreat deal of this. However, the entire
received body of knowledge in just about every field of human
study is dependant on the fact that the world is not 5000 years
old and that there was not a flood. These facts are the
fundamentals of biology, physics, astronomy, history,
anthropology, geology, palentology, zoology, linguistics etc.
etc. etc. Belief in a 5000 year old world and a flood which
destroyed the world 4000 years ago is a denial of all human
knowledge as we know it. It is a retreat into a world of belief,
rather than one based on any sort of fact, and one who believes
can believe anything he want to. The fundamentalist is not able
to prove that Washington lived, only to say that he believes that
Washington lives. It is because Modern Orthodox do not wish to
live in a world in which the entire accumulated knowledge of all
civilization is to be thrown out the window that they cannot take
this literally. Pay attention to what I am saying, it is
impossible to make sense of anything in this world, in any field
of science and many of the social sciences by adopting
funadmentalist position. If people wish to live this sort of
existence, fine, but one can't pretend that there is any sort of
compelling reason for anyone else to. They certainly shouldn't
try to put forth all sorts of pseudo-science to convince people
of the correctness of their view. I think that when it comes to
science, history etc. people would prefer the stated views of the
great scholars (and the not so great scholars) at every
university in the world. Since none of these people are
fundamentalists, doesn't it make sense for the fundamentalists
not even to try and touch these areas.
It is worth noting, I think, that although fundamentalism in this
country has always been accompanied by anti-intellectualism, this
has not been the case in the Jewish world. In fact, with the
exception of some hasidic trends, anti-intellectualism has no
roots in recent Jewish history. The people advocating
fundamentialist positions are the most intellectual we have.
People often say that they can hold the positions they do because
they are ignorant of science and history. This is incorrect. It
is not that they are ignorant of all these fields, it is rather
that they reject them. There is a difference. The proper word to
describe this is obscurantism. And I for one don't think it will
last forever. One can only go against the obvious facts of our
day for so long. Rabbis could declare that Copernicus's views
were heretical for only so long before the weight of evidence ran
over them. That will happen with fundamentalism, because if they
dodn't change, no one with any education will still be listening
to them.
One final point which is also relevant, since every thing I have
been saying touches on how one is to study the Torah. It appears
to me that the traditional approach of Bible study is in many
respects immature, at least in our day. What was adequate 50
years ago is now no longer so. I remember from my high school
days that to study a text in more depth meant to read more
commentators. That is, one increased the information intake, but
the method of analysis and the forms of questions asked didn't
change. When I got to college and studied the same sources again,
I was amazed at how the text could come alive, and questions and
issues were dealt with that never even entered my mind in high
school. I remember speaking to a number of yeshiva students and
they were so excited since in yeshivah Bible was taught in such
an immature, sometimes juvenile, fashion whereas Dostoevsky et al
were critically analyzed by the new approaches in literature. It
was only when they reached college and happened to take the
course we did (offered by Zevulun Yissaschar) that they saw the
depth and beauty of the Biblical stories. I realize that it is
probably impossible to implement these approaches in high school
but woudn't it be great if we could apply the same rigor to the
Torah (I am referring to the narratives) that we do to western
literature. We need not be stuck holding onto only medieval forms
of exegesis. The world of exegesis hasn't stood still, and the
same insights which modern theories of literature and modern ways
of reading text offer us about the great works, will assist us in
understanding the Torah.I think in many respects this was
Hirsch's message, that Torah, and everything about it, need not
be considered shallow when compared to secular studies. This was
also R. Hayyim's reason (or one of them) for his analytic method,
to show that Talmud study is just as rigorous as secular study.
Unfortunately, we need a new Hirsch and a new R. Hayyim since
traditional Bible study in our day does not have the rigor of
academic disciplines and we will not be able to atract the best
minds if we do not do something about it. Either they will prefer
Talmud study, which remains rigorous , or they will choose to
study Western literature (or other fields), and Bible study will
be left for the less skilled, who are only able to tell you about
one more commentary and one more peshat, those who cannot see the
forest because of the trees, that is, those who miss the big
picture of the Torah.
Reuven Shimon
Mesorah (Historical Tradition) and the Flood
(Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
In his recent posting on the "Flood" of Noach, my friend Reuven
Shimon sounds almost heroic in denying the historical veracity of
our Holy Torah. He claims that this approach has sources in
"Modern Orthodoxy." This alone is perhaps the most cogent
argument that the "Right" could muster to brand the Modern
Orthodox heretical :-). But I am sure that most Modern Orthodox
would not cross the line Reuven has unfortunately crossed.
Our sources do not sustain the allegorical interpretation of the
recorded facts of Parashas Noach. To state that God, Chazal and
the Rishonim were "pulling the wool over our eyes" with this
blatant - according to Reuven - falsification, is to accuse God
as much of caprice as to accuse Him of such were He, as Reuven
described and correctly rejects, to have created the world thirty
years ago with our intact memories.
I know that Reuven will counter that I may not like his approach,
but so long as he does accept that this "Allegory" was given by
God at Sinai he is within the traditional and normative realm of
Emunah - our core belief system. Unfortunately, this is not so.
Reuven undermines the very core of our belief system - Mesorah -
with his approach. Our entire religion is based on the Tradition
- and the accuracy that our Fathers and Mothers have vouchsafed
for it - in an unbroken chain back to Sinai. There can be much
new and original exegesis of Tanach (you are all invited to my
Wednesday Night Nach shiur, in which I think I engage in some),
but not exegesis of the sort Reuven engages in - factual
reinterpretation of Tanach that is not based on that Mesorah.
Reuven errs gravely in attributing such exegesis to RSR Hirsch.
RSRH's exegesis perhaps breaks new ground in Homiletics and
Philology, but he would never have broken with Chazal and the
Rishonim on facts. Indeed, by definition, as Torah-true, he could
not! I believe RSRH would have been horrified by the very idea
that he shed a "Secular" light on our Scriptures, as Reuven
claims.
I question if any of the luminaries that Reuven's brand of
"Modern Orthodoxy" regards in high esteem (who are they? - with
all due respect to Prof. Yissaschar, quoted by Reuven, he
certainly could not be classified as a leader of Modern
Orthodoxy) would have countenanced such breaches in the "Chomas
HaDas", the great fortification of our religion, the accuracy of
our uninterrupted historical record back to Sinai (so brilliantly
described and analyzed by the Kuzari and others), which, among
all the other great Truths it has imparted to us also imparts the
historical record of the Flood as literal and factual.
We - whom Reuven perhaps would disparagingly dismiss as
"Fundamentalists" - see no reason to raise difficulties with our
accurate (and sacred) Mesorah on the basis on the latest
scientific notion. Those of us who are somewhat beyond High
School Textbook Science know the flux and infirmity of scientific
"facts." Today it is thus, tomorrow it shall be otherwise.
It is only "Netzach Yisroel lo yishaker" - the eternal truths of
the exalted Chosen People, imparted to us by Moshe Rabbeinu,
Chazal and the Great Rishonim that have withstood the tests of
time with the resilience of the Divine.
We have been influenced by the aggresive assertiveness of the
secular world. In the service of Man's efforts to shake off the
shackles of Religious Restriction, the secular world has mounted
an unceasing attack on our Timeless Truths and Toras Emes. Let us
all take the time to contemplate the majesty of our Great Leaders
and Thinkers, and the majestic Mesorah, and the accompanying
sanctity, that they have passed down to us, and grasp, assert and
proudly proclaim and teach authentic Torah Judaism.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:01:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
Subject: Flood part 2
Subject: Reuven Shimon and the flood
(Gad Asher)
I feel surprised to come to the defense of Reuven Shimon. None
the less, it is not clear to me that his position in the matter
of the allegorization of the flood is so clearly beyond the pale.
Surely you agree that the first perek of Breishis is not to be
taken literally. Once we accept that, it becomes harder to draw
the line at the non-literal interpretation of any non-Halachic
portions of the Torah. What do you think Chazal meant, for
example, in the equation of the nachash and the yetzer hora? ,Did
the author of that maimra mean to preserve both the pshat and the
drash or to assert that the drash in this case is the pshat? I
would assert that one finds both positions among the rishonim;
this is especially the case among such Sepharadim as the Akedas
Yitzchok.
Similarly the Rambam's assertion that the 3 angels came only in a
vision, despite the simple meaning of the psukim, would be
consistent with the position that Reuven is taking. In sum, it
seems to me that there is enough evidence to let Reuven maintain
that his view is consistent with that of respectable predecessors
albeit a minority.
Personally I prefer to take the position that the Torah is
clearly not a source of scientific knowledge but of moral
instruction. I am prepared to take everyt hing literally unless
compelled to do otherwise (as is clearly the case in the first
perek) but if so compelled I would have no difficulty as long as
Halachic interpretation was unaffected. After all, Hashem could
have created us through evolution if he so chose and I have no
idea of what process he actually used.
I think evolutionary theory as I understand it is full of holes
but I could accept it if there were no alternative.
Reuven's references to the non-literal interpretation of aggados
are of course irrelevant since those discussions do not deal with
Torah Shebiksav but his case can still be made.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. I'm writing to you
privately because I don't want to appear to be lending support to
the borderline kfira that often is posted on the list. I have a
problem with your suggestion that the Rishonim can tell us what
can be seen as allegory; why not say that they had no right to go
beyond Chazal? It would seem that you would have to say (as you
do)that the allegorization of a pasuk is not strictly prohibited
(presumably if it is not Halachic - otherwise gilui panim baTorah
shelo kaHalacha). If not prohibited, why not Acharonim - couldn't
the Gra, the Ari or the Rama suggest allegorization? How about R'
Chaim Ozer? I prefer to maintain (and I think it's implied in
your use of the slippery slope reference) that the further an
idea deviates from the mekubal the more essential it is that the
wisdom of gedolei Torah be applied to the question of
entertaining it.
I remain troubled by the idea, however, that there is no
prohibition against the allegorization of Torah. It is clear to
me (I think) that any suggestion of non-literality from Lech
Lecha on (that is, from the beginning of the explicit sacred
history of klal Yisroel) is asur.
Were Reuven to suggest that Avraham Avinu never existed it seems
to me that he he would be a kofer, at least in the category of
"makchish magideha". Were he to suggest that Maaseh Breishis is
non-literal he would be following in the steps of Chazal (a la
your position, though I would deny that right to the Rishonim). I
am unsure about the intervening prokim. Chazal clearly had some
members who saw the story of the nachash non-literally but the
mabul is more of a puzzle.
I suppose that we basically agree except for my inclination to
draw the line at Chazal rather than the Rishonim. The problem
with the Rambam is not in the question of how malachim are seen
but how you reconcile the concreteness of the psukim with his
position. The Ramban, after all, doesn't question the possibility
of the Rambam's case but its truth based on the text.
Gad Asher
My Responses to Gad Asher
(Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
Me:
I have a problem with your suggestion that the Rishonim can tell
us what can be seen as allegory; why not say that they had no
right to go beyond Chazal? It would seem that you, would have to
say (as you do)that the allegorization of a pasuk is not strictly
prohibited (presumably if it is not Halachic - otherwise gilui
panim baTorah shelo kaHalacha).
I only include the Rishonim because we know that certain Rishonim
- especially Rabbeinu Chananel and his Beis Medrash - are known
to have their own Kabbalos which are not necessarily recorded in
Chazal. Even Rashi will occasionally cite a Medrash that we do
not possess, which may qualify as well. Other than those who can
thus claim that they possessed a Mesorah, I too reject any
Chiddush in "Allegory" beyond Chazal regardless of the stature of
the individual in question.
Gad Asher:
I prefer to maintain (and I think it's implied in your use of the
slippery slope reference) that the further an idea deviates from
the mekubal the more essential it is that the wisdom of gedolei
Torah be applied to the question of entertaining it.
Me:
Ah, but whom do you mean by Gedolei Torah? Shades of the old "Who
is a Gadol question" - who is qualified to provide this kind of
guidance?
Gad Asher:
Were Reuven to suggest that Avraham Avinu never existed it ,seems
to me that he he would be a kofer, at least in the ,category of
"makchish magideha". Were he to suggest that, Maaseh Breishis is
non-literal he would be following in the steps of Chazal (a la
your position, though I would deny that right to the Rishonim). I
am unsure about the, intervening prokim.
Chazal clearly had some members who saw ,the story of the nachash
non-literally but the mabul is more of a puzzle.
Me:
What sources in Chazal make you unsure about the Mabul? I don't
know of any.
I suppose that we basically agree except for my inclination to
draw the line at Chazal rather than the Rishonim. The problem
with the Rambam is not in the question of how malachim are seen
but how you reconcile the concreteness of the psukim with his
position. The Ramban, after all, doesn't question the possibility
of the Rambam's case but its truth based on the text.
The Rambam is not alone. The Ralbag, and occasionally the Radak
on Nach make the argument of visions consistently when confronted
with Angelic encounters, etc. - even if the Pasuk seems quite
concrete.
Clearly they hold tha visions are concrete things too - after
all, Nevuah is one of the Ikkarim.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Criticism of Reuven Shimon's submission on the Flood
(Levi Yehuda)
Whether one agrees with Reuven Shimon's non-literal
interpretation of the Flood or not, anyone familiar with the
broad outlines of traditional Jewish exegesis and thought must
admit that the right to such an interpretation is absolutely
within the parameters of our tradition. There have been numerous
interpretations expounded by Talmudic and Midrashic sages and our
great commentators that ran counter to what at least
superficially appears to have been the previously widely-accepted
opinion.
Reuven's example of another case of Rishonim allegorizing was the
Garden of Eden. Several additional examples will be helpful. The
Rambam, primarily because of his interpretation of prophecy as
occurring in a vision, allegorizes each of the following: G-d
taking Abraham outside and showing him the stars; the whole
passage of Abraham's three visitors; Jacob's wrestling with the
angel; the whole episode of Balaam's talking ass; Hosea's taking
a harlot wife; Ezekiel's resurrection of the dead (a Talmudic
controversy); Gideon's fleece of wool; and many other Scriptural
events (Guide 2: 42, 47). R. Yosef Ibn Caspi and others allow
allegorization of the great fish swallowing Yonah. Many Rishonim
felt science indicated that necromancy doesn't exist and rejected
a literal interpretation of the necromancer's conjuring up of the
deceased prophet Samuel and his ensuing conversation with King
Saul.
If there would have been a compelling scientific or philosophic
reason to support the Eternity of the Universe view, the Rambam
states he would have interpreted Genesis 1 in accordance with it,
but he believes Aristotle didn't truly make his point, so Mesorah
came into play. In our century R. Kook considered the doctrine of
evolution - modified to include the Creator's role - so
compelling and uplifting that he urged Torah only be taught that
way.
The "Mesorah", which some have thrown against Reuven, important
as it is, should not be glamorized into something it isn't. The
Talmudic sages and the Rishonim recognized that there are many,
many matters in Scripture that "Mesorah" even in their days did
not clarify and everybody had to do their best with whatever they
could garner from tradition, logic and available evidence. The
sages and commentaries are constantly arguing with each other
about how to understand thousands of matters of realia, events
and meaning of words, often having diametrically opposed views,
trying to reach truth. We should continue the process and use the
great tools of science, archaeology, philology, history, etc.
that are at our disposal today.
Let us not get bogged down with a misinterpretation of "Elu VeElu
- these and these are the words of the living G-d", and feel
untraditional every time we come up with an interpretation
contrary to the view of a Talmudic sage or a Rishon. Great as the
sages were, they were fallible and welcomed every opportunity to
clarify a matter. The misinterpretation of "Elu Veelu" and the
recently-developed concept of "Daas Torah" are stifling
legitimate Torah research and moving Orthodox Judaism into an
unenlightened age contrary to our glorious heritage.
Yosef Bechhofer commits a personal injustice to Reuven by
accusing him of stating that "G-d, Chazal and the Rishonim were
"pulling the wool over our eyes" with this blatant falsification"
[of an allegorical flood account], something Reuven never even
implied. Some readers may have received the impression from
Yosef's use of quotation marks around "pulling the wool over our
eyes" that those were Reuven's words. Although the marks indicate
a colloquial phrase, the sentence demonstrates that Yosef
completely misunderstands Reuven. Reuven, as great luminaries of
our tradition through the centuries, doesn't think of an allegory
as deceptive. We may say that on the contrary, Reuven is
combatting the view of those who posit literalness in the face of
overwhelming evidence, who sometimes are led to say the evidence
was put there by the Creator to fool us.
In conclusion we should recognize that a prophetic allegory is as
true and inspiring as any "actual" history.
Levi Yehuda
My Responses
(Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
From Levi Yehuda:
There have been numerous interpretations expounded by Talmudic
and Midrashic sages and our great commentators that ran counter
to what at least superficially appears to have been the
previously widely-accepted opinion.
Me:
That is of course true, but they are "Talmudic and Midrashic
sages and our great commentators," an dwe are not. Yes, we are
smaller less knowledgable and privy to less Ruach HaKodesh than
Chazal and the Great Rishonim, such as Rabbeinu Chananel, whom
other Rishonim testify had direct access to the Mesorah "shekol
devarav divrei kabbala" - "that all of his words were from the
Tradition." That doesn't mean we can't be creative - we just must
know our limitations.
Several additional examples will be helpful. The Rambam,
primarily because of his interpretation of prophecy as occurring
in a vision, allegorizes each of the following: G-d taking
Abraham outside and showing him the stars; the whole passage of
Abraham's three visitors; Jacob's wrestling with the angel; the
whole episode of Balaam's talking ass; Hosea's taking a harlot
wife; Ezekiel's resurrection of the dead (a Talmudic
controversy); Gideon's fleece of wool; and many other Scriptural
events (Guide 2: 42, 47).
I just taught Gideon's fleece of wool in my Nach class. With all
due respect to you and others who commented to me privately about
the Rambam, Ralbag and others' approach towards such events that
they say were visions or conveyed by prophets - THAT IS NOT THE
SAME AS ALLEGORY. The Rambam, who codified the reality of
prophecy as one of the 13 Principles believes that this is the
way angels appear and signs occur - in visions. The Tanach
accurately describes real events that actually transpired - in
the realm of prophecy. What I understood Reuven to have said is
that the Flood account is an allegory - i.e., it didn't take
place in the realm of vision either - it is, according to Reuven,
a symbolic story, much like a parable. Perhaps your closing
statement: "In conclusion we should recognize that a prophetic
allegory is as true and inspiring as any "actual" history" agrees
with me? (BTW, I would find the interpretation of the Flood as a
vision inacceptable. Miracles do occur - no one says, or can say,
that the Splitting of the Sea or the Giving of the Torah was a
vision, and the Flood I place in the same category. But that is a
separate issue.)
Levi Yehuda:
R. Yosef Ibn Caspi and others allow allegorization of the great
fish swallowing Yonah.
Me:
Rabbi Ibn Caspi was a controversial source. I reserve the right
to reject his interpretation as beyond the mainstream.
Levi Yehuda:
Many Rishonim felt science indicated that necromancy doesn't
exist and rejected a literal interpretation of the necromancer's
conjuring up of the deceased prophet Samuel and his ensuing
conversation with King Saul.
Me:
Again, not as allegory but as visions.
Levi Yehuda:
If there would have been a compelling scientific or philosophic
reason to support the Eternity of the Universe view, the Rambam
states he would have interpreted Genesis 1 in accordance with it,
but he believes Aristotle didn't truly make his point, so Mesorah
came into play. In our century R. Kook considered the doctrine of
evolution - modified to include the Creator's role - so
compelling and uplifting that he urged Torah only be taught that
way.
Me:
I fail to see why these points are relevant. Of course we can
accept science where it does not contradict Torah. it is where
there is a REAL clash that our debate begins.
Levi Yehuda:
The "Mesorah", which some have thrown against Reuven, important
as it is, should not be glamorized into something it isn't. The
Talmudic sages and the Rishonim recognized that there are many,
many matters in Scripture that "Mesorah" even in their days did
not clarify and everybody had to do their best with whatever they
could garner from tradition, logic and available evidence.
Me:
This is true, but it does not justify your next statement, in
which you leap to equate us with our "tools" with Chazal.
Levi Yehuda:
The misinterpretation of "Elu Veelu" and the recently-developed
concept of "Daas Torah" are stifling legitimate Torah research
and moving Orthodox Judaism into an unenlightened age contrary to
our glorious heritage.
Me:
You realize that I didn't quote either of these concepts in my
posting. I don't think they have anything to do with this
discussion, and I fear you bring them in to "pigeonhole" me as a
rabid right winger who can be dismissed out of hand. We can do
great research, and I hope that I do, and use all the tools at
our disposal. We are not discussing dispute with our
contemporaries, however, which would bring"Elu Veelu" and "the
recently-developed concept" of "Daas Torah" (as an aside, see
Rabbi Wein's article in the November "Jewish Observer" - "Da'as
Torah" is an new phrase, but not a new concept) - but our
attitude towards Mesorah and Chazal. I resubmit, one cannot
reinterpret as allegory that which Chazal - via the Mesorah -
accepted as fact.
Indeed, once you question the Mabul as fact, pray tell, what
leads you to believe that Mattan Torah and Yetzias Mitzrayim are
fact?
Levi Yehuda:
Yosef Bechhofer commits a personal injustice to Reuven by
accusing him of stating that "G-d, Chazal and the Rishonim were
"pulling the wool over our eyes" with this blatant falsification"
[of an allegorical flood account], something Reuven never even
implied.
Me:
I certainly didn't mean to insult Reuven. I generally agree with
much of what Reuven has to say and respect his scholarship. I
hope we can continue to discuss these matters unemotionally and
in a friendly fashion!
Levi Yehuda:
We may say that on the contrary, Reuven is combatting the view of
those who posit literalness in the face of overwhelming evidence,
who sometimes are led to say the evidence was put there by the
Creator to fool us.
Me:
I am not a member of the "planted evidence" shool of thought. I,
however, fail to understand the negativism against literalism
where our Mesorah dictates it, in Torah she'bi'Ksav. I do not
place science on a pedestal - it is certainly as fallible, IMHO,
much more, than the traditions of our Jewish Heritage and
History.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Subject: Flood part 4 (concluded)
Reuven Shimon and the flood
(Gad Asher)
Offhand the only source I can recall as suggesting a
less-than-fully- literal approach to the story of the mabul is
the Gemara in Z'vachim 113 where there is a machlokes as to
whether the mabul was universal (as would appear from the psukim)
or partial (not affecting Eretz Yisrael). I have wondered about
this for years - once we allow that the mabul was not universal
many problems follow. What was actually excluded? Why would such
an extraordinary miracle (the world is swamped with megatons of
water and they stop at the borders of EY) not be mentioned? What
happened to the flora and fauna of EY? etc.
Your comment about "which g'dolim" is of course correct but my
answer would be "whomever you consider a gadol to whom you would
address questions concerning kares, misa, etc." I only meant to
say that even though I come from a Bais Medrash that emphasized
individual thought and the right to think for oneself common
sense dictates that even if one does not violate a Halachic
proscription proscription one can not cavalierly deviate from
that which has been held dear and true by generations of shomrei
Torah umitzvos. In cases where one feels compelled to sanction
such deviation one should at least ascertain that substantial
torah scholars raise no serious objections. Chidush is not asur
in machshava but neither does anything go.
Gad Asher
The Flood and Mesorah
(Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
Levi Yehuda raised the issue of the Rambam's view of Aristotle's
theory that the matter of this world always existed. He states,
according to Rabbi Yehuda, that:
If there would have been a compelling scientific or philosophic
reason to support the Eternity of the Universe view, the Rambam
states he would have interpreted Genesis 1 in accordance with it,
but he believes Aristotle didn't truly make his point, so Mesorah
came into play.
In a later posting, he expanded on this point further.
Let us examine the actual Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim II:25 (p. 328 in
the Pines edition, which I quote):
"If, however, one believed in eternity... - which is the opinion
of Plato - ...this opinion would not destroy the foundations of
the Law... . It would also be possible to interpret figuratively
the texts in accordance with this opinion. And many obscure
passages could be found in the texts of the Torah and others with
which this opinion could be connected... . However, no necessity
could impel us to do this unless this opinion were
demonstrated..."
In fact, this section - paraphrased by Rabbi Yehuda - is in
regard to PLATO's opinion. In regard to Aristotle's opinion, the
Rambam writes in the previous section:
"...The belief in eternity the way Aristotle sees it - that is,
the belief according to which the world exists in virtue of
necessity,... and that the customary course of events cannot be
modified with regard to anything - destroys the Law in its
principle, NECESSARILY GIVES THE LIE TO EVERY MIRACLE, and
reduces to inanity all the hopes and threats that the Law has
held out, unless - BY G-D! - ONE INTERPRETS THE MIRACLES
FIGURATIVELY ALSO, as was done by the Islamic internalists; this,
however would result in some sort of crazy imaginings."
(The emphasis is, of course, mine.) The text, I believe, speaks
for itself. I only note that this idea is briefly and clearly
discussed by Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg in "Fundamentals and Faith"
pp. 50-52.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
The Flood, Mesorah..., and now, Gan Eden
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Until now, Levi Yehuda corrctly noted, I have dealt only with the
Flood, and not with Gan Eden. I wanted to look that up a little
before commenting. I did.
I certainly do not claim to have done exhaustive research, but I
have done what I believe to be enough to state that viewing the
Gan Eden account as allegory is not in line with the dominant
mainstream view of Chazal and the Rishonim. The one opinion I
found that holds expressly that the story with the serpent is an
allegory is the Sfornu on the episode with the serpent and the
"Efodi" Commentary on the Moreh Nevuchim (Ibn Tibbon edition,
II:30, pp. 51-52).
In my opinion, this is clearly not the Rambam himself's position,
and I invite readers to peruse the Moreh themselves, p. 356 in
the Pines English translation).
I grant that the Abarbanel mentions that the Rambam himself holds
the episode allegorical, but he clearly was influenced by the
Rambam's commentators, whom he calls the Rambam's "friends."
The Abarbanel himself, however, is critical of the Rambam
(according to his understanding of him). The Abarbanel, in fact,
uses reasoning that should be familiar to readers of my previous
postings: It is incorrect to take texts that the Torah conveys as
actual factual description and interpret them allegorically! He
does give some novel interpretations of the events in Gan Eden,
but all true to a factual perspective.
I also perused all the Chazals brought by Rabbi Kasher in the
Torah Sheleima (readers not familiar with that work should
understand that it is an exhaustive, comprehensive and
encyclopediac compilation of all Chazals and most Rishonim and
many Acharonim on Torah she'bi'ktav). I could not find any Chazal
that takes the account of Gan Eden as allegorical.
Those that equate the serpent with the evil inclination need not
dismiss its actual existence, but rather see it as "evil
incarnate" (see the Nefesh HaChaim 1:6 in the note there).
Indeed, the Ramban in his commentary 3:22 and in the "Toras
HaAdam" (Kisvei Ramban vol. 2 p. 295 in the Mossad HaRav Kook
edition) takes great pains to stress that Gan Eden and all the
events that occured therein actually existed in this world, and
that references to a spiritual Gan Eden in Chazal, refer to a
parallel spiritual realm that also really exists, and that the
events that transpired in Gan Eden below also transpired in that
Gan Eden on high.
Again, I only checked Rishonim at my ready disposal, but these
seem pretty clear. Rabbinu Bechayei takes the view of the Ramban,
of course.
The Ibn Ezra as well is adamantly opposed to allegorical
interpretation (See Nechama Leibowitz's "Iyunim" p. 14 as well).
So is R. Sa'adia Gaon.
I admit that I did not see Reuven Shimon's original posting on
Gan Eden, but so far the Sfornu is all I found. Bear in mind: a)
that he too takes the rest of the Gan Eden account as literal; b)
that he was not adverse to the surreal (see his link of "Tumah"
and demons in his "Kavanos HaTorah"; c) the Sfornu himself weaves
in and out of the allegory in 3:14.
Nevertheless, the Sfornu exists. However, in light of Chazal and
the other Rishonim, his interpretation here must be rejected.
Yet, be that as it may, the Sfornu only makes this jump here
where he can cite verses from Nach (and Chazal) in which the tern
"Nachash" is used as an express allegory for the Evil Inclination
and the Power of Fantasy. The Sfornu certainly did not take the
Flood as allegorical - there is no basis for that, even according
to the Sfornu's non-mainstream approach here.
Aggada
(Dan Naftali)
While I find the openess of the forum, and the intellectual acuity
of many of its participants exhilarating, sometimes the diversity
of opinion gets oppressive.
I wonder how people who, after all, share a profound committment
to halacha and the thirteen principles of the Rambam, can still
disagree so passionately on basic issues.
These last few weeks on mail-jewish make a traditionalist feel as
comfortable as Benjamin Hooks at a Klan reunion. We've seen the
Mabul [Flood] dry up, midrash reduced to fairy tales, Esav and
Yaakov reverse roles, and Daas Torah uncovered as the invention
of 19th century spin-doctors. I'd bet that I am not the only one
who feels frustrated for not having time to respond to all these
important points. More important, though, than the consternation
of those of us with unshakeable belief, must be the confusion of
those who did not have the zechus [merit] to spend years in a
bais medrash to be able to firmly formulate their beliefs. They
don't know whom to believe, and in some cases that there is even
another viewpoint that should be considered.
In this vein I offer the perceptions of one unabashed
traditionalist concerning the Aggada, at least in outline form. I
believe that I present nothing new, but that they are all based
on the major thrust of our literature and our mesorah of previous
centuries. I do not offer them as a doctrinal statement, but as
one traditional view, for those who wish to learn about such
views, that I received from my rabbeim, and continue to teach my
students.
1) All of Torah was authored by Hashem, including the narrative
portions.
2) Hashem had a purpose in writing every letter of the Torah.
3) Not all interpetations of Torah are created equal. One who
argues that the "pri etz hadar" we are to take on the first of
Sukkos is a papaya, is mistaken, even if most Hawaiins will agree
that its a nicer fruit than an esrog. One who maintains that the
three evocations of a Divine Name in the first line of the Shma
allude (chas v'shalom) to the Trinity has no place in Jewish
society.
4) To find the true intentions of the Author in what might
otherwise be an infinite number of good, bad, and ugly ways of
interpreting the text, we turn to the Oral Torah. This is what He
instructed us. This reliance on traditional interpretation is a
more important way that we differ with Protestantism than in the
nature of Jesus.
5) Torah She-b'al Peh [the Oral Law] did not skip the narrative
portions of Chumash. While we do not always come to binding
conclusions about Aggadic material (as we do in halacha), we
really attempt to discover within Aggada what we do in Halacha.
We try to discover what lessons Hashem wishes us to learn. He
wrote the Torah in a way that multiple truths may be wringed out
of a given text. But not all that may be squeezed out of a text
is Truth.
6) Midrashim are the earliest, and therefore most authoritative
way of discovering the approach Chazal took to a topic in
Chumash.
7) Midrashim can be more profound than halachic portions of the
Talmud. For this reason, they were not committed to writing
(Gemara Gittin) when much of the rest of the Oral Torah was.
There was greater reluctance here that the true meaning would be
lost or perverted (MaHaRaTZ Chayes). Sometimes, Chazal
deliberately couched their profundity in obscure or even bizarre
language, so that those without the proper readiness and
orientation would cast it aside, and not gain access to its
secrets (Ramchal). Those who understand the genius of the Sages
of the Talmud will understand that those same contributors are
incapable of spewing nonsense, and thus will try harder to
uncover their real intention (Rambam).
8) Not all midrashim come from the same source. Some are entirely
traditional. They contain information whose source was direct
revelation at Sinai. This is particularly likely in the case of
statements that reflect basic principles of faith (Maharatz
Chayes). Other midrashim are not traditional in this sense. They
express the opinion of the individual author. (Avraham ben
HaRambam). Even here, though, these opinions are not shots in the
dark. They incorporate a) elements of general approach that are
entirely traditional (e.g. Just how "good" were the Avos? How
trustworthy is prophecy? Were the heroes of Nach bloodthirsty
warriors, or G-d fearing, intense souls?). They also include b)
the honing of mental skills by years of incomprehensible depth of
Torah understanding.
9) Not all midrashim were meant to be taken literally. But they
are always correct. (Maharal of Prague, one of our greatest
"bulldogs" for the sactity of every letter of Chazal, is
nonetheless notoriously non-literal in his approach to countless
passages.) We often do not know which should, and which should
not. We should apply the same tools to them as we do in studying
the halachic parts of the gemara. None of us within Orthodoxy
would think seriously of opening a Shas and deliberately ignoring
Rashi in favor of our own understanding. We should treat the
Aggada the same way. We should allow greater minds than ours to
guide us to our conclusions. If we can't find that guidance, then
at least we should understand that any difficulty lies with our
comprehension, not with the product they served up.
10) Because the "real" intent of the author of a passage in the
Aggada is often ellusive, we cannot as often fix a legally
binding meaning to many passages. In particular, if a passage
seems to convey something to us that completely violates our
sensibilities, it is likely that we have missed its real thrust,
and therefore do not learn from it. This is the meaning of "Eyn
lemaydin min ha- aggados" [We do not learn from Aggados] (Michtav
Me-eliyahu). Nonetheless, there are many, many examples of
practical laws that have been codified, whose only source is the
Aggada. This is particularly likely when the source is an aggada
that was incorporated by the editors of the Gemara. (Maharatz
Chayes)
11) Chazal often used the scientific knowledge common in their
times as vehicles for expressing their wisdom. Science may
change. The task of Chazal was to know and disseminate the
timeless Torah that was revealed at Sinai, not the science that
is revealed with the passage of time. The task of the student is
to get beyond the scientific assumptions, and to the core of the
teaching they wish to convey. These teachings transcend time and
any particular cultural form of expression. (Maharal, many
places; Michtav Me- Eliyahu vol. 4)
12) Can we sometimes arrive at truths about the Torah without
their guidance? Sure. Patients can self-prescribe too, and
sometimes live to talk about it. Good medicine it isn't.
There. I feel better just writing all of this!
Dan Naftali
*********************
