The following chapter from The Rambam’s Guide for The Perplexed offers an intriguing illustration of his principle that “it is quite impossible to infer, from the nature anything possesses after having been generated, and having attained its full development and attaining stability regarding its properties, what the condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced.” Following the English translation is Rabbi Yosef KPCH’s Hebrew translation of the Arabic original. This translation was chosen for the convenience of replication on this blog, although the English translation was based on the classical Hebrew translation by Ibn Tibbon. )There is no pragmatic difference between the two Hebrew translations.
MOREH NEVUCHIM, PART II, CHAPTER XVII
ANYTHING new must [by definition] come into being after not having been [what it is]. This is so even if the thing’s substance had already existed, and the thing has only changed in its form. For its nature—after the thing’s having gone through the process of genesis, full development, and stability—is still not the nature it had at the commencement of its transition from potentiality to reality. And its nature is also other than what it was before it was caused to develop [from its potential] to its actuality.
For example, the nature of a female’s seed while it is [but] blood in its vessels, does not possess the nature it has at the time of pregnancy, when it begins to develop after being met by the male’s semen. And its nature then likewise is not that of the living being after its birth when fully developed. It is therefore quite impossible to infer, from the nature anything possesses after having been generated, and having attained its full development and attaining stability regarding its properties, what the condition of the thing had been at the time this process commenced. Nor does the condition of a thing while it is developing show what its condition had been before it began its development. When you err in this, and continue to construct the proof from something’s nature as it is in actuality, for what its nature was while it was in potential existence, great problems will arise for you. You will consider things that must be true, as false; and you will consider things to be compellingly true, that are really false.
Let us imagine, continuing in the vein of our above example, that a child possessing full natural intelligence was born, but his mother died after nursing him several months; so the father alone brought him up on an isolated island, till he grew up, became wise, and acquired knowledge, [but the island is inhabited only by males,] and he has never seen a woman or any female creature.
He asks someone there, “How did we come into existence, and in what way did we develop [into what we are]?”
The man he asked replies, “Each one of us men actually came to being Man begins his existence in the belly of an individual of his own class, namely, in the womb of a female, which has such-and-such a form. Each one of us was a small body within that belly, that stayed alive, moved about, received nourishment, and grew little by little, until he arrived at a certain stage of development. An entrance-way would open for him in the lower part of that body from which he would exit. And he does not stop growing, until he is in the condition in which you see us.”
Now, this born orphan will feel compelled to ask, “This one of us, while as a small being lived, moved, and grew in the womb: did he eat and drink, and breathe with his mouth and his nostrils, and excrete?"
The answer will be, "No."
Undoubtedly, the orphan will then start throwing objections against that person’s statements, and raise proofs that all theses true facts are impossible, by bringing evidence from fully developed and stabilized beings. He will say:
· Look, when any one of us is deprived of breath for a short time, he dies, and will no longer move. How then can we imagine that any one of us has been enclosed in a bag that is surrounded by a body for several months and remained alive and able to move? If any one of us would swallow a living bird, the bird would die immediately when it reached the stomach, much more so when it came to the lower part of the belly!
· If we should not ingest food with our mouth or drink water, in a few days we should undoubtedly be dead! How then can a human being remain alive for months without taking food?
· If any person would take food and would not be able to excrete it, in a short time he would die in great pain—how then can this man survive for months without excreting?!
· If the there would be a perforation in the belly of any of us, he would die after a few days—how then can one think that the navel of the fetus has been open?!
· How is it possible for the fetus not to open its eyes, spread out its hands and stretch out its legs if, as you think, the limbs are all whole and without defect?!
.
And so the entire extrapolation will draw him to the conclusion that it is absolutely impossible for man to be produced in the manner described.
Think deeply about this comparison and test it out, you the investigator, and you will find that this matches precisely our situation with Aristotle. For we, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe that the world came into being in such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach ), and such was created after such. Aristotle comes to uproot our words, bringing proofs against us based upon the nature of how things are in their actualized, stabilized and fully developed existence. We ourselves admit to him that this is the nature of things after their having settled down and become fully developed; but we hold that these things in no way resemble themselves as they existed during their production; and we hold that these properties themselves [which existing things actually possessed during their production] had come into existence from absolute non-existence. What argument of anything they will say can stand up against us?! They have demonstrative force only against those who hold that the nature of things as at present in existence proves [not only wise planning, but also] Creation ex nihilo. But this is not my opinion.
I will now go back and return to our theme, viz., to the description of the principal proofs of Aristotle, and show that they prove nothing whatever against us, since we hold that God (a) brought the entire Universe into existence from absolute non-existence, and that (b) He caused it to develop into the present state.
Aristotle says that the materia prima is eternal, and by referring to the properties of transient beings he attempts to prove this statement, and to show that the materia prima could not possibly have been produced. He is right; [but] we do not maintain that the materia prima has been produced in the same manner as man is produced from the ovum, and that it can be destroyed in the same manner as man is reduced to dust. [Rather,] we believe that God created it from nothing, and that since its creation it has its own properties, viz., that all things are produced of it and again reduced to it, when they cease to exist; that it does not exist without Form; and that it is the source of all genesis and destruction. Its genesis is not like that of the things produced from it, nor its destruction like theirs: for it has been created from nothing, and if it should please the Creator, He might reduce it to absolutely nothing.
The same applies to motion. Aristotle founds some of his proofs on the fact that motion is not subject to genesis or destruction. This is correct: if we consider motion as it exists at present, we cannot imagine that in its totality it should be subject, like individual motions, to genesis and destruction.
In like manner, Aristotle is correct in saying that circular motion is without beginning, in so far as seeing the rotating spherical body in actual existence, we cannot conceive the idea that that rotation has ever been absent.
The same argument we employ as regards the law that a state of potentiality precedes all actual genesis. This law applies to the Universe as it exists at present, when everything produced originates in another thing: but nothing perceived with our senses or comprehended in our mind can prove that a thing created from nothing must have been previously in a state of potentiality.
Again, as regards the theory that the heavens contain no opposites [in their elemental makeup, and are therefore indestructible], we admit its correctness: but we do not maintain that the production of the heavens has taken place in the same way as that of a horse or ass, and we do not say that they are like plants and animals, which are destructible on account of the opposite elements they contain. The main thing is, the nature of things when fully developed in no way show what had been the nature of those things before their completion.
W[e are following the majority opinion of the Sages who, disagreeing with both Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, hold that the heavens and the earth were created simultaneously, as well as their components in potential form. But w]e also do not consider farfetched the statement of those [viz. Beis Shammai] who say that the heavens came into existence before the earth, or that the earth came into existence before the heavens [viz., Beis Hillel], or that the heavens have existed [since the first day of Creation] without stars [until the fourth day], or that certain species of creatures [such as the creatures of the waters and the skies] have been in existence since day five], and others [such as the land creatures] not [until day six]. For the state of the whole Universe when it came into existence may be compared with that of animals when their existence begins: the heart evidently precedes the testicles, the veins are in existence before the bones: although, when the animal is fully developed, none of the parts is missing which is essential to its existence.
If the Scriptural account of the Creation be taken at face value [that each day of Creation there was an independent creation ex nihilo, in immediate actual state, of each component of the world], all this explanation would also be necessary [and not only for showing why Aristotle’s arguments do not disprove Creation ex nihilo], even though the matter is not so [for actually—in accordance with the majority opinion of Chazal—everything was created in potential state instantaneously the first day, and only brought into actuality step-by-step each of the Creation days], as will be shown when we shall discuss [in II:30] this statement [by Chazal regarding the simultaneous creation ex nihilo of heaven and earth,].
You must strongly maintain this principle, for it is a high rampart that I have built around the Torah, surrounding it, making it able to resist the stones of all who shoot at it.
Aristotle, or rather his followers, may perhaps ask us how we know that the Universe has been created: and that other forces than those it has at present were acting in its Creation, since we hold that the properties of the Universe, as it exists at present, prove nothing as regards its creation. We reply, there is no necessity for this according to our plan; for we do not desire to prove the Creation, but only its possibility: and this possibility is not refuted by arguments based on the nature of the present Universe, which we do not dispute. Once we have established the admissibility of our theory, we shall show its superiority. In attempting to prove the inadmissibility of Creatio ex nihilo, the Aristotelians can therefore not derive any support from the nature of the Universe: they must resort to the notion our mind has formed of God. Their proofs include the three methods which I have mentioned above, and which are based on the notion conceived of God. In the next chapter I will expose the weak points of these arguments, and show that they really prove nothing.
תרגם לעברית, ביאר והכין על-פי כתבי-יד ודפוסים 
מהדורת אינטרנט מעוצבת בידי יהודה איזנברג
|
כל מחודש שנהיה אחר שלא היה, ואפילו היה חומרו מצוי, ורק פשט צורה ולבש אחרת 1 - הרי טבעו אחר חידושו וגמרו ותנוחתו, 2 זולת [=שונה מ-] טבעו בעת התהוותו, כאשר החל לצאת מן הכוח אל הפועל, וגם זולת טבעו לפני שיתעורר לצאת אל הפועל 3. [משל - לידת האדם]
אמר, כי החומר הראשון אינו הווה ולא נפסד, ובא להביא ראיה על כך 19 מן הדברים ההווים הנפסדים, ובאר מניעת התהוותו.
ואם יטען 18 נגדנו אריסטו - כלומר: התופש השקפתו 34 - ויאמר, כיון שאין לנו למידות מן המציאות הזו, במה ידעתם אתם שזה נתהווה ושהיה שם טבע35 אחר הווה אותו 36. |
| הערות: |
I assume that your point in posting this is to argue that this principle undermines modern science.
ReplyDeleteThe Rambam is playing defense in this chapter. His goal is to refute Aristotle's proof for the eternity of the universe, and show that, at the very least, creatio ex nihilo is possible.
The Rambam's principle might apply today to the question of what happened "before" the Big Bang. But it does not preclude natural development of the universe after the Big Bang; that development could be "after birth" in the Rambam's mashal.
Kol Tuv,
Rafi
Rafi, can't it also apply to the six-day "birthing period" of Maasei Breishis, which is what the Rambam actually says?
ReplyDeleteTrue, it does not "preclude" natural development. It does not "preclude" an eternal universe, either. What it does is allow for and defend against attempted disproof--through the way we see things naturally work--of what "we, the community following in the footsteps of Moses and Abraham, believe: that the world came into being in such-and-such a form, and became such-and-such from such-and-such (haya kach mi-kach), and such was created after such."
I would not use the expression, "undermines modern science." This principle does not warrant such a broad conclusion.
I quote this Rambam in The Challenge Of Creation. Here is what I wrote about it:
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, Rambam’s argument might seem to support the idea of challenging scientific arguments for the antiquity of the universe. But upon closer study, we see that Rambam is saying something quite different.
Rambam was arguing against Aristotelian “proofs” for the eternity of the universe. Their claim was that the universe and everything in it had always existed in the same form. To this, Rambam responded that one cannot conclude a past constant history from a present constant state, just as watching a frog remain a frog for a year does not preclude the possibility that it was once a tadpole.
However, when one sees evidence of an earlier history, one can certainly draw conclusions regarding it. If you find a scar on the frog, you can deduce that it once had a wound. If you find a skeleton of an animal, you can deduce that there was once a live animal. Rambam’s argument was that condition of something in this moment does not necessarily show what its previous condition has been. But in cases where we do indeed find evidence of its previous condition, there is no reason not to accept it.
It is true that Rambam did not believe that natural laws functioned during the six days of creation. However, this should not concern us. In Rambam’s worldview, the only conceivable frameworks were stasis and raw primordial chaos. There was no conceivable natural mechanism by which the universe could be formed. Today, not only are we aware of natural mechanisms by which the universe could be formed, and philosophically open to such possibilities, we also see from geology and paleontology that such was indeed the case, i.e. that natural laws have indeed been functioning for a very long time, and that natural processes were indeed involved in the formation of the world.
Finally, one should note that Rambam’s words immediately following the above discussion are most significant:
"All these assertions are necessary if the Scriptural account of the Creation is to be taken literally. But in fact it should not be taken literally, as will be explained when we shall discuss this subject at length."
Rambam, Guide For The Perplexed 2:17
However, when one sees evidence of an earlier history, one can certainly draw conclusions regarding it.
ReplyDeleteYou are already assuming that its evidence of an earlier history before you start. But this is prejudice. Maybe its evidence of a different process altogether that we've never observed?
If you find a scar on the frog, you can deduce that it once had a wound.If you find a skeleton of an animal, you can deduce that there was once a live animal.
The analogy is off because we actually see scars occurring on frogs today and recognize its physical causes. We actually see animals go from flesh to skeleton in a matter of days.
But we've never actually seen an emerging universe/galaxy/solar system or new life forms from old life forms. We imagine we see it because we like to extrapolate from a relatively narrow set of data and narrow span of observation.
That imagination is precisely the Rambam's problem with Aristotle's eternal universe.
Rambam’s argument was that condition of something in this moment does not necessarily show what its previous condition has been. But in cases where we do indeed find evidence of its previous condition, there is no reason not to accept it.
Again, you are assuming its evidence of its previous condition without bothering to eliminate any alternatives. Its simple materialistic bias.
In Rambam’s worldview, the only conceivable frameworks were stasis and raw primordial chaos.
ReplyDeleteWhere does the Rambam ever state or imply this?
This assertion is completely unsupported.
There was no conceivable natural mechanism by which the universe could be formed.
Again, completely unfounded assertion.
And in fact, the Greeks and Romans certainly believed in evolution of the universe from fundamental elements. Presumably they believed it was a natural process.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html
For example:
Another Greek philosopher, the fifth-century materialist Empedocles of Acragas (in Sicily), postulated that the universe was composed of four basic elements -- earth, air, fire, and water. These elements were stirred by two fundamental forces, which Empedocles called Love and Strife. ("Attraction" and "repulsion" might be better modern terms for what Empedocles actually meant.) The constant interplay of these elements, alternately attracting and repelling each other, had formed the universe.
In all probability, due to the Rambam's deep familiarity with ancient beliefs especially Greek ones, he was aware of such models of the development of the universe and rejected them implicitly in the Moreh.
we also see from geology and paleontology that such was indeed the case, i.e. that natural laws have indeed been functioning for a very long time, and that natural processes were indeed involved in the formation of the world.
Once again, assuming your conclusion from the evidence without first eliminating alternatives. There seems to be a deeply ingrained materialistic bias here that keeps repeating itself.
This just seen here:
ReplyDeletehttp://ohrrabbiohrrabbi.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/readers-feedback-rabbi-light.pdf
One who visits the Dead Sea region today and sees the sulphur springs and the volcanic terrain will interpret the destruction of these cities as an ordinary natural occurrence... The causes would then appear natural, without need to refer to God... But the words from God, from Heaven show that this view is incorrect... You are confusing the cause with the effect... You hold that the catastrophe was caused by the character of the terrain as you see it now, when in truth the present form of the terrain is only an effect of this catastrophe... The geological theories of the origins of the Earth are probably based on similar errors. The visible phenomena upon which these theories are based are real, but the conclusions based upon them are false. These theories, too, confuse the causes with the effects. The phenomena which they interpret as the causes of
geological upheavals are in reality only the effects of upheavals called forth by God when He formed the Earth.
The Pentateuch T’rumath Tzvi, The Judaica Press 1986, page 96 (commentary on Genesis 19:24)
This comment, of course, is totally at odds with the usual portrayal of Rabbi Hirsch as a proto-evolutionist.
RNS: Finally, one should note that Rambam’s words immediately following the above discussion are most significant:
ReplyDelete"All these assertions are necessary if the Scriptural account of the Creation is to be taken literally. But in fact it should not be taken literally, as will be explained when we shall discuss this subject at length."
Continued>
Rambam, Guide For The Perplexed 2:17
January 13, 2011 12:22 PM
This is a mistranslation. The Hebrew reads:
ועקר הענין הוא מה שזכרנוהו, כי הנמצא בעת שלמותו ותמותו לא יורה ענינו ההוא הנמצא לו על ענינו קודם שלמותו, ואין רחוק עלינו גם כן מאמר אומד שנתהוו השמים קודם הארץ, או הארץ קודם השמים, או היות השמים בלתי כוכבים, או מין ב״ח בלתי מין אחר, כי זה כלו בעת הוית זה הכלל, כמו שהבעלי חיים בעת הויתו היה הלב ממנו קודם לביצים כמו שיראה לעין, והגידים קודם העצמים, ואע״פ שאחר שלמותו לא ימצא בו
אבר מבלתי אבר מכל האברים, אשר א״א עמידת האיש
מבלעדיהם. (א) זה כלו יצטרך ג״כ אליו
אם ילקח הכתוב כפי פשוטו (כ) ואע׳׳פ שאין הענין כן כמו שיתבאר כשנדבר בזה המאמר.
This means, as I translated it:
If the Scriptural account of the Creation be taken at face value [that each day of Creation there was an independent creation ex nihilo, in immediate actual state, of each component of the world], all this explanation would also be necessary [and not only for showing why Aristotle’s arguments do not disprove Creation ex nihilo], even though the matter is not so [for actually—in accordance with the majority opinion of Chazal—everything was created in potential state instantaneously the first day, and only brought into actuality step-by-step each of the Creation days], as will be shown when we shall discuss [in II:30] this statement [by Chazal regarding the simultaneous creation ex nihilo of heaven and earth].
אין הענין כן is referring specifically to what the Rambam has been talking about: that despite appearances, based upon the consensus of Chazal, there was no creation ex nihilo after the first moment of creation; rather--as the Rambam indeed elaborates upon in chapter 30--Chazal teach us that everything was created in potential/tentavive form/location the first instant, and during the rest of the six days, everything was drawn out into actuality and/or permanently positioned in its designated place. The mashal for this is one who places various kinds of seeds into the earth all at the same time, yet one seed sprouts after one day, while another seed sprouts after another.
Continuation:
ReplyDeleteIn face of the misleading mistranslation, the Rambam is not denying that Maasei Breishis is meant to be taken literally regarding the meta-natural nature of the creation process over a period of six regular days; indeed, he insists that this is so.
The classical commentaries on the Guide are not rishonim whom we are bound to accept as authoritative, but in this case they all agree that this is the meaning of the Rambam's words.
קרשקש
(א) זה כלו יצטרך ג"כ אליו אם ילקח הכתוב כפי פשוטו, פי' שנראה מסדר הפסוקים שיתהוה, ענין מה
ביום אחד וענין אחר ביום אחר וכן בכל ששת ימי בראשית, ואמר אע״פ שאין הענין כן כמו שיתבאר שדעתו הוא שהכל נברא בעתה שהוא התחלה לזמן ואינה מן הזמן ולא היה זמן קודם לה שתהיה תכלית לזמן העובר והתחלה לעתיד ואח"כ נבדלו הדברים בכל יום ויום והוא המשיל בזה לזורע זרעים בבת אחת ואינהם יוצאים כלם בבת אחת אבל קצתם בזמן אחד וקצתם בזמן אחר.
אפודי
(כ) ואף על פי שאין הענין כן. ר"ל שלא השמים קודס הארץ ולא הארץ קודם השמים אבל בעת אחת נבראו, וכמו שיבאר בפרק שלשים מזה החלק במשל שהביא מזרעונים.
שם טוב
ועיקר הדבר מה שזכרנוהו כי הנמצא בעת שלמותו ותמותו לא יורה הענין ההוא הנמצא לו על ענינו קודם שלמותו, ולמה שבעלי החדוש ימצאו על שתי דעות , אם דעת יראה שהדברים נבראו ראשון ראשון כמו שיראה מפשטי הכתוב, או דעת שהדברים נבראו כלם כאחד כמו שהוא הדעת האמתי , והסדר הנמצא בהם הוא סדור טבעי וסדור בסבה לא סדור זמני , יאמר הרב כי שתי הדעות לא יזיקו לנו אחר שאין ראוי שילקח ראיה מהטבע המיושב לקודם שלמותו והשלמתו.
Elsewhere in 2:30 the Rambam does explain which literal interpretations are invalid, basing himself on Chazal and, as he explains in 2:29, based on the principle of dismissing literal interpretations that would lead to dangerously wrong ideas about G-d (such as regarding anthropomorphisms) or abandoning principles of Judaism. ("לבטול גמור וכפירה ביסודי התורה").
Rabbi Lampel, I would just like you to explain this http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/03/the-rambam-on-time-during-creation.shtml to me. These commentators clearly say that the Rambam did not think the 6 days of creation were literal days. Whether you want to say it was less than six or more doesn't concern me. The Rambam's approach is clear, the six days of creation WERE NOT LITERAL SIX DAYS.
ReplyDelete