tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post4244641524758287067..comments2023-05-11T04:38:06.086-04:00Comments on Analysis of the Post-chareidi Phenomenon : The Rambam’s Principle of The Illegitimacy of Extrapolating From Current Natural Processes To The Origins of ThingsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-84967139381664726772011-01-20T10:08:22.235-05:002011-01-20T10:08:22.235-05:00Rabbi Lampel, I would just like you to explain thi...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.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-1917367121987461502011-01-16T22:08:55.621-05:002011-01-16T22:08:55.621-05:00Continuation:
In face of the misleading mistransl...Continuation:<br /><br />In 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.<br /><br />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.<br /> <br />קרשקש <br />(א) זה כלו יצטרך ג"כ אליו אם ילקח הכתוב כפי פשוטו, פי' שנראה מסדר הפסוקים שיתהוה, ענין מה <br /> 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.<br /><br />אפודי<br />(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.<br /><br />שם טוב<br />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.<br /><br />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").Zvi Lampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721940201187011542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-58257894811040245292011-01-16T22:06:34.620-05:002011-01-16T22:06:34.620-05:00RNS: Finally, one should note that Rambam’s word...RNS: <i>Finally, one should note that Rambam’s words immediately following the above discussion are most significant:<br /><br /> "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."<br />Continued><br /> Rambam, Guide For The Perplexed 2:17<br /> January 13, 2011 12:22 PM </i><br /><br />This is a mistranslation. The Hebrew reads:<br /><br />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<br />אבר מבלתי אבר מכל האברים, אשר א״א עמידת האיש <br />מבלעדיהם. (א) זה כלו יצטרך ג״כ אליו<br /><b><br />אם ילקח הכתוב כפי פשוטו (כ) ואע׳׳פ שאין הענין כן כמו שיתבאר כשנדבר בזה המאמר.<br /></b><br />This means, as I translated it:<br /><br />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], <b>even though the matter is not so</b> [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].<br /><br />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.Zvi Lampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721940201187011542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-30093968417370450112011-01-13T17:28:23.772-05:002011-01-13T17:28:23.772-05:00This just seen here:
http://ohrrabbiohrrabbi.files...This just seen here:<br />http://ohrrabbiohrrabbi.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/readers-feedback-rabbi-light.pdf<br /><br /><i>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<br />geological upheavals are in reality only the effects of upheavals called forth by God when He formed the Earth.</i><br />The Pentateuch T’rumath Tzvi, The Judaica Press 1986, page 96 (commentary on Genesis 19:24)<br /><br />This comment, of course, is totally at odds with the usual portrayal of Rabbi Hirsch as a proto-evolutionist.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-12903443740947605452011-01-13T16:59:43.054-05:002011-01-13T16:59:43.054-05:00In Rambam’s worldview, the only conceivable framew...<i>In Rambam’s worldview, the only conceivable frameworks were stasis and raw primordial chaos.</i><br /><br />Where does the Rambam ever state or imply this?<br />This assertion is completely unsupported.<br /><br /><i>There was no conceivable natural mechanism by which the universe could be formed.</i><br /><br />Again, completely unfounded assertion.<br />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.<br />http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html<br />For example:<br /><i>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.) <b>The constant interplay of these elements, alternately attracting and repelling each other, had formed the universe.</b></i> <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-49202165893081002892011-01-13T16:41:22.719-05:002011-01-13T16:41:22.719-05:00However, when one sees evidence of an earlier hist...<i>However, when one sees evidence of an earlier history, one can certainly draw conclusions regarding it.</i><br /><br />You 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?<br /> <br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /> 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. <br />That imagination is precisely the Rambam's problem with Aristotle's eternal universe.<br /><br /><i> 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.</i><br /><br />Again, you are assuming its evidence of its previous condition without bothering to eliminate any alternatives. Its simple materialistic bias.Freelance Kiruv Maniac (Mr. Hyde)https://www.blogger.com/profile/10298176204317506218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-50448614797617229152011-01-13T12:22:58.433-05:002011-01-13T12:22:58.433-05:00I quote this Rambam in The Challenge Of Creation. ...I quote this Rambam in The Challenge Of Creation. Here is what I wrote about it:<br /><br />At 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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <i>necessarily</i> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Finally, one should note that Rambam’s words immediately following the above discussion are most significant:<br /><br />"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."<br />Rambam, Guide For The Perplexed 2:17Natan Slifkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04488707201313046847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-16430576919621352432011-01-12T22:01:21.290-05:002011-01-12T22:01:21.290-05:00Rafi, can't it also apply to the six-day "...Rafi, can't it also apply to the six-day "birthing period" of <i>Maasei Breishis</i>, which is what the Rambam actually says?<br /><br />True, it does not "preclude" natural development. It does not "preclude" an eternal universe, either. What it does is <i>allow for</i> 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, <b>and became such-and-such</b> from such-and-such (<i>haya kach mi-kach</i>), and <b>such was created after such.</b>" <br /><br />I would not use the expression, "undermines modern science." This principle does not warrant such a broad conclusion.Zvi Lampelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12721940201187011542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-41464137225336999252011-01-12T15:10:29.549-05:002011-01-12T15:10:29.549-05:00I assume that your point in posting this is to arg...I assume that your point in posting this is to argue that this principle undermines modern science.<br /><br />The 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Kol Tuv,<br /><br />RafiUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09263570242582568312noreply@blogger.com