The following is the first in a series of posts designed to address Rabbi Slifkin’s latest attempt to support his approach to brain death and also to human evolution. The current blog entry deals with Rabbi Slifkin’s post entitled Philosophy, Torah or Science? and points out several errors therein. The relevancy of these mistakes will become apparent shortly.
Rabbi Slifkin quotes Ramban (Bereishis 2:7) as follows: "Know that of those who investigate philosophical inquiries regarding the components of man, some of them say that man is composed of three souls: a vegetative soul with the power of growth... an (animalistic) soul with the power of motion... and the third is the soul of the rational intellect. And others say that all these three forces are found in the soul that is contained in man from the Mouth of the High One."
Rabbi Slifkin’s first sentence is mistranslated. The proper translation is: "Know that those who delve in analytic investigation have distinguished [categories] in man[’s] [soul]; some of them say that man is composed of three souls…" (My translation)
He then goes on to claim that Ramban was referring to an ancient feud between Plato and Aristotle (which conveniently accords with his mistranslated verse). Unfortunately he does not provide any support for his interpretation of the Ramban. And while he may be correct, none of the commentators on Ramban claim such a thing. Rabbi Dr. Shevel attributes the unified soul position to Rambam. The Tuv Yerushalayim edition of the Ramban also makes no mention of Plato and Aristotle. In any case, it is highly unlikely that when Ramban says "And others say that all these three forces are found in the soul that is contained in man from the Mouth of the High One" that he is referring to Plato!
As it happens Rambam does make reference to secular thinkers but he refers to them as "the greatest of doctors", not philosophers, and Rabbi Y. Kapach conjectures that the "three individual souls" position is attributable to either Galen or Hippocrates (footnotes to Shimoneh Perakim), not Aristotle.
Now, the above criticism may appear picayune but a further perusal of Rabbi Slifkin's post proves otherwise. Rabbi Slifkin finally let’s the cat out of the bag and reveals to his readers precisely what he is after.
"The aspect that I would like to focus on today is the very nature of the question regarding whether the human soul is tripartite or indivisible. It is a question which affects our reading of the Chumash, and which Rishonim had differing views on. Yet Ramban also notes that this is an ancient dispute in natural philosophy - which would indicate that it can theoretically be resolved via natural philosophy. Note that this is not the only time where Ramban says that natural philosophy can alter our understanding of Chumash; Ramban also relies upon Greek science to reject traditional understandings of the rainbow (see Bereishis 9:12) and Chazal’s understanding of human conception (Vayikra 12:2)."
As Yogi Berra would say "this is déjà vu all over again". Rabbi Slifkin is attempting to promote his Haskala-type mandate once again, this time by appealing to Ramban for support. Unfortunately for him, his attempt fails.
1) RNS writes: "Yet Ramban also notes that this is an ancient dispute in natural philosophy - which would indicate that it can theoretically be resolved via natural philosophy. "
False. Ramban does not note that this is an ancient dispute in natural philosophy and therefore RNS’s "indication" does not follow.
2) RNS writes: "Note that this is not the only time where Ramban says that natural philosophy can alter our understanding of Chumash; Ramban also relies upon Greek science to reject traditional understandings of the rainbow (see Bereishis 9:12)"
False. Ramban makes no reference to a "traditional" understanding of the rainbow. He explains that logically we must follow the idea that the rainbow is formed via the moisture in the air which filters the sun’s rays and thus must have existed from the time of creation. He comments that initially this might seem to contradict the pashtus of the pesukim (which seem to indicate that the rainbow was created subsequent to the Flood) but further study reveals that, on the contrary, it accords with the pesukim even more than the "created after the Flood" scenario. Notably, the Ramban ends his presentation by saying "and whether the rainbow was formed now or whether it was formed at Creation, its message is the same". So, he wasn’t rejecting anything! Both scenarios are possible according to the Ramban. His main point is that the Rainbow must be understood as a message from Heaven.
3) RNS writes: "…to reject traditional understandings… and Chazal’s understanding of human conception (Vayikra 12:2)."
False. Nowhere does the Ramban reject Chazal’s understanding of human conception. The Ramban merely delineates two opinions (Chazal and the Greeks) and endeavors to show that the verses of the Torah are capable of accommodating both models.
Rabbi Slifkin’s ongoing and strident attempts to undermine Chazal are truly unfortunate.
No comments:
Post a Comment