Posts
[My comments are interspersed in this letter below in blue. FKM]
Rabbi Natan Slifkin
10th Elul 5766
The Jewish Observer
To the Editor:
I am writing with a question concerning Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller's recent article, "Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design." In discussing the conflict between the order of history given in Ma'ase Bereishis (where plants precede the luminaries and birds precede animals) and that concluded by modern science (which is the opposite), Rabbi Keller writes as follows:
As a result, one of this school has "allegorized" Ma'ase Bereishis and written Ein mukdam
ume'uchar beTorah – that the account of creation is not in chronological order. This is
absurd when the Torah speaks of yom echad, yom sheni – in numbered sequence.
While I have indeed used such a suggestion, and of course there are no traditional sources addressing the chronology given by modern science, the basic idea that Ma'ase Bereishis is a conceptual rather than chronological sequence is by no means my own.
[What does Slifkin mean by this phrase: "there are no traditional sources addressing the chronology given by modern science"? Does he mean that there are no statements of Chazal that explicitly mention modern scientific theories before rejecting them? That is in fact true, but quite irrelevant. What is relevant to know is if Chazal explicitly presented ANY particular view regarding the physical creation of the universe. Then we can examine how various meforshim understood this view and see if they were implicitly rejecting any alternative descriptions.
But this is not a line of reasoning Slifkin wants us to pursue. Slifkin indeed uses this idea of conceptual sequence as a license to validate the view that physical creation can indeed follow the sequence described (read: imagined) by modern science with no traditional sources in opposition. His reasoning is stated on page 200-202 in "Challenge of Creation." Slifkin writes:
"The result of this is that there is license for us today to present new interpretations of Genesis:
...With regard to many matters connected to the acts of Genesis, there are many details for which we have no clear tradition from our Sages, and permission is (therefore) given to everyone to explain and expound the explanation of the verses, for there are seventy facets of Torah.
Rabbi Menachem M. Kasher, "Shabbos Bereishis VeShabbos Sinai" Talpiot II p. 385
But let me make an elementary inference. It clearly follows from Rabbi Kasher's and similar quotes cited in this section of the book, that when there IS a clear tradition from our Sages regarding certain other matters connected to the acts of Genesis, there is NO permission given to everyone to explain verses.
Now Slifkin continues regarding the Rambam and Ralbag that:
"The hierarchy that they presented was based on an Aristotelian worldview, and their understanding of creation was that the entire universe was created instantaneously, not even taking six days. Modern science gives cause to revise both these interpretations..."
By clever juxtaposition, Slifkin gives the impression that both the hierarchy of the conceptual sequence and the view that all physical creation was completed instantaneously, are opinions of the Rambam and the Ralbag based on the Aristotelian worldview (for which they had license to adopt for their personal understanding of Genesis). Therefore, Slifkin argues, we have the identical license to reconstruct our view of physical creation based on modern science.
Sounds pretty straight forward, no?
No. This is fiction.
This is where the irony of Slifkin's letter addressed to Rav Keller comes in.]
None other than Rambam was of this view, according to the consensus of the commentators to Moreh Nevuchim who deciphered its cryptic approach:
It is in describing the hierarchy in reality (of everything in the universe) that we say Day One, Day Two—but not that they were created in a progressive sequence, as appears from the simple meaning of Scripture. Rather, they were all created simultaneously. Only as a reflection of their purpose and importance does the Torah speak of the first, second, third, and the rest of the days. Understand this. (Shem Tov to Moreh Nevuchim 2:30)
[Shem Tov and all subsequent sources below are commenting on these lines in the Moreh 2:30:
וממה שצריך שתדעהו - אמרם "כל מעשה בראשית לקומתן נבראו לדעתן נבראו לצביונן נבראו" - יאמר כי כל מה שנברא אמנם נברא על שלמות כמותו ועל שלמות צורתו ובנאה שבמקריו והוא אמרו 'לצביונם' מן "צבי היא לכל הארצות". ודע זה גם כן שהוא - שורש גדול כבר התבאר:
In other words, the Rambam's view of simultaneous physical creation is not based on any Aristotelian view, rather it is based on a specific statement of Chazal that the Rambam viewed as a great "shoresh". The Akeidas Yitzchak cited below makes this point quite explicitly.]
Rambam held that the six days were not time-periods at all, and that the sequence of "days" is therefore not a chronological sequence. Akeidas Yitzchak, while strongly disputing this view, also points out that it was indeed Rambam's position:
The Rav, the Guide, gave the reason for the mention of days in the Beginning by explaining the statement of the Sages, who said that "all the products of Creation were created in their full form" (Talmud, Chullin 60a); in other words, everything was created at the first instant of creation in their final perfect form. Thus the mention of an order of Creation is not describing the sequence of days; rather, [but the days are simply serving] to differentiate the status of [the elements of creation] and to make known the hierarchy of nature. This was [Rambam's] major esoteric doctrine concerning Creation as those who are understanding can discern from that chapter which is devoted to this extraordinary account. (Akeidas Yitzchak, Bereishis, Shaar 3)
Abarbanel likewise acknowledges that this is widely known to be Rambam's view, before he disputes it:
The Rambam believed that there were not separate creative acts on six days, but rather everything was created on one day, in a single instant. [The Abarbanel in the prior sentences to this quote likewise acknowledged and cited the Moreh's specific source in Chazal for his view of instantaneous creation.]
In the work of Creation, there is mention of "six days" to indicate the different levels of created beings according to their natural hierarchy; not that there were actual days, and nor that there was a chronological sequence to that which was created in the acts of Genesis… This is the view of the Rambam which he considered as one of the major secrets of the Creation. He tried to conceal this view with ingenuity, as can be seen in his words there. But Ralbag went and spread it, revealing his secret, as did Narboni and the other commentators to his work; they uncovered his secret and publicized it. (Abarbanel, Commentary to Bereishis, p. 10)
Ralbag was also of the view that the sequence of Ma'ase Bereishis is non-chronological, and further stated that the order of Ma'ase Bereishis is deliberately altered from the conceptual order that he accepted based on the philosophy of his day (something with far less basis than modern science):
You already know from the preceding that God's generating the universe did not occur in time, since [its generation] was from nothing to something. Likewise, our Rabbis agreed that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously… It is therefore apparent that the description of creation as being completed in six days is not in the sense that, for example, the first day was [prior] to the second as one [whole] day. Rather, they said this in order to show the priority amongst various created things…
According to the natural scheme of things, the creation of [the luminaries] should have taken place on the third day, for the heavens and the heavenly bodies are causally and ontologically prior to the elements and that which is derived from them (and yet which the Torah describes as having been created earlier)… The Torah intended through this ordering of the account of creation to awaken man through his reason to the secrets of existence… It does this by making him pause…. If it included nothing that would make a person pause, he would not study the Torah carefully, and this would be the cause that prevented him from reaping its benefits.
Indeed, the change in the ordering of creation in this matter was precisely for this reason…
(Milchamos Hashem 2:6)
[If you look up all these commentaries inside, you will find that they all cite the Moreh's statement of Chazal that all of creation was brought into existence in its final form as being the Rambam's basis for instantaneous physical creation.
Whether the Rambam's particular understanding of this Chazal is universal or not, one thing is clear. The Rambam, and many others, viewed this statement of Chazal as an example of "a clear tradition from our Sages regarding certain other matters connected to the acts of Genesis". As mentioned above, this is a revoking of the license given by Rabbi Kasher as quoted by Slifkin. In fact, the Rambam viewed this statement which implicitly contradicts all of modern cosmogony as a Shoresh Gadol which Slifkin uproots with nary a thought!]
My question is this: when Rabbi Slifkin cites all these commentators to the Moreh Nevuchim in his book, did he realize that there is no source that supplies any validity to his erroneous view that modern science can replace Chazal's understanding of physical creation?
As for Rabbi Slifkin's question posed to Rav Keller about the Rambam's alleged position via "the consensus" of his commentaries, (which to me is a minor quibble compared to the more basic issue addressed above,) stay tuned...
