tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post111405035299968324..comments2024-03-25T16:16:30.872-04:00Comments on YGB - יג"ב: Gan Eden as AllegoryYosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1115531499901647092005-05-08T01:51:00.000-04:002005-05-08T01:51:00.000-04:00Thank you for clarifying Rav Kook's position, and ...Thank you for clarifying Rav Kook's position, and also for your contextualization of it. Davar dabbur al ofanov!Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1115413431680286972005-05-06T17:03:00.000-04:002005-05-06T17:03:00.000-04:00I think R. Kook's world are a very important lesso...I think R. Kook's world are a very important lesson for us today. If we show the beauty of the torah, how the story of adam and chava fits beautifully into the rest of the chumash, what lessons we can draw from it, and likewise with creation, it will not matter to people if they then learn that the world might be older than 5756. They will intuitively have known all along that that is not why the torah told these stories, and it will not shake their faith.<BR/><BR/>On the specific example of gan eden, I was a little confused as to why R. Kook chose it. There seems little compelling reason to say it did not happen, and it also seems as if no scientific discovery could really disprove it. I think he might have meant it very hypothetically. I was just pointing it out, as it seemed relevant to your post. Good Shabbos, and may you continue in your important work.Jewish Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06718707667376734531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1115413072994864902005-05-06T16:57:00.000-04:002005-05-06T16:57:00.000-04:00OK, found it. It is in Iggerot Hare'iya Aleph, pa...OK, found it. It is in Iggerot Hare'iya Aleph, page 163. The focus here is not that he actually thinks gan eden is allegorical, nor is he necessarily ready to advance that as pshat. His focus if different, and his comment regarding gan eden is in the following context: "..with regards to the knowledge that comes from new research, which mostly contradict the simple meaning of the words of torah. My opinion is that anyone who "deyotav yesharot" should know that even though there is not necessarily truth to all of these new findings, nevertheless we are not at all obligated to contradict them totally and stand against them, because the "ikkar" of the torah is not at all to tell us simple facts or stories. The "ikkar" is the inside, the inner explanation of the things, and this will become loftier specifically in the places where there is an opposing force that we are struggling against...." He then gives as an example the story of Adam. Essentially, he seems to be trying to shift the debate. It seems like a waste of time to debate with the scientific community; on the other hand, if we accept the truth and divinity of the torah, we can move on to finding what these stories teach us, and what they tell us about G-d's desires for mankind.Jewish Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06718707667376734531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1115412203822655912005-05-06T16:43:00.000-04:002005-05-06T16:43:00.000-04:00But don't trust my rendition of it; I will try to ...But don't trust my rendition of it; I will try to find it, bli neder. R. Kook's writing in particular lends itself often to misinterperetation.Jewish Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06718707667376734531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1115412089642330942005-05-06T16:41:00.000-04:002005-05-06T16:41:00.000-04:00I did not mean R. Kook said anything about the flo...I did not mean R. Kook said anything about the flood, by the way. That was my own question. In terms of where he talks about taking gan eden literally, I will try to find it. I beleive it is somewhere in iggerot. His specific language is very hypothetical: if it were to be the case that it was proven that adam/chava/gan eden did not happen, that would not be a problem for us, because the lesson it teaches about the potential spiritual heights that man can reach, and how easily he can fall from those heights, ruining it for himself and his progeny, is the focus of the torah, and the important thing that we come away from the torah with. His point, I think, is to redefine the argument. At the end of the day, it is not the torah's "job" to tell us exactly how the world was created, but to tell us how to act. Why is it out of line for a Gadol Hador to say such a thing?Jewish Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06718707667376734531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1115315819819005812005-05-05T13:56:00.000-04:002005-05-05T13:56:00.000-04:00I do not recall if Rav Kook said that, but if he d...I do not recall if Rav Kook said that, but if he did, he was out of line.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure why it is "pretty clear" that we cannot believe a world-wide flood took place. But, in any event, it is a great jump from a flood that was "not world-wide" to a flood that was "non-literal."Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1115268252711671332005-05-05T00:44:00.000-04:002005-05-05T00:44:00.000-04:00And yet despite this, Rav Kook was willing to cons...And yet despite this, Rav Kook was willing to consider the possibility as a hypothetical, if the it were to be proven somehow that the Gan Eden story did not happen. Though that has not really happened, it is pretty clear that we can't beleive a worldwide flood; if we are to take it literally, we will have to limit the flood to the "cradle of civilization," and if we take it non-literally we can look at it as a parallel and renewed creation of the world, perhaps...Jewish Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06718707667376734531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1114095370698462662005-04-21T10:56:00.000-04:002005-04-21T10:56:00.000-04:00If Chazal tell us something is allegorical it is n...If Chazal tell us something is allegorical it is not sheker. They did so with Iyov as well, saying that it is a grand mashal.Yosef Gavriel Bechhoferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264311760560329892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425001.post-1114093186729171742005-04-21T10:19:00.000-04:002005-04-21T10:19:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com