The New Round in the Torah Min Ha'Shamayim Controversy

In an essay at http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/07/18/from-openness-to-heresy/, Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer critiques an essay by Rabbi Zev Farber which crosses the line of Orthodox belief. Rabbi Farber evidently revised his essay, at http://thetorah.com/devarim-recounting-different/ to defuse some of the more explosive positions he had taken. Evidently in defense of Rabbi Farber, Rabbi Nati Helfgott published an essay at http://morethodoxy.org/2013/07/21/torah-min-hashamayim-some-brief-reflections-on-classical-and-contemporary-models-guest-post-rabbi-nati-helfgot/. This essay was subsequently taken to task - along with critiques of additional highly disturbing passages penned by Rabbi Farber - by Rabbi Gordimer at http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/07/21/torah-min-hashamayim-a-reply-to-rabbi-nati-helfgot/.

I would like to re-post here the conversations that I have online on these issues, beginning way back in '94, on Mail-Jewish, recapitulated in the review below, which appeared as a comment at http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/12/post-from-my-friend-reb-aaron-berger.html.

We discussed this issue years ago, both in MJ and on Avodah, long before the current contretemps, and again in '04 on Avodah.

Here's the beginning of the '99 Avodah discussion:

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n121.shtml

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

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n122.shtml

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

*********************

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:17:00 AM