Analysis of Slifkin's Rationalist Blog

Torah/Science Authority

2011-12-11T03:14:00.001-05:00

Before I begin I would like to apologize to our readers for my extended absence. Unfortunately my father-in-law was niftar shortly after Succos and this threw our family for a loop. Rabbi Slifkin has penned several note-worthy posts in the past month or so but one stands out from all the rest. Here are some comments in response to Rabbi Slifkin’s post entitled "The PerfectTorah-Science Authority" - Fact or Fiction?

Note: I have never met Rabbi Meiselman nor have I ever discussed his particular views on ma’aseh bereishis with him. In keeping with the mandate of this blog, the following comments are directed solely at Rabbi Slifkin’s stated views.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

2. "Rabbi Meiselman posits that no Rishon ever understood the details of the Creation given in the Torah to be anything but literal."

This, of course, is absolutely correct. Anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the commentaries on ma’aseh bereishis understands the truth of this statement. Of course this does not mean to exclude the fact that ma’aseh bereishis possesses an endless amount of esoteric wisdom but all this is in addition to the literal sense of the words.

Then Rabbi Meiselman is wrong. Rambam explicitly writes that: The account of creation given in Scripture is not, as is generally believed, intended to be literal in all its parts. (Guide For The Perplexed, 2:29)

This passage from the Rambam is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The qualification “in all its parts” refers to certain specific events that occurred to Adam and Chava in Gan Eden on the sixth day of creation as Rambam goes on to explain in the following chapter. It does not detract from the literalness of the Creation process itself.

Furthermore, according to the explanation of Shem Tov, Akeidas Yitzchak, and Abarbanel, Rambam was of the view that the "Six Days" are not time periods at all.

This too is irrelevant, as shall be explained shortly. However it must first be pointed out that Rabbi Slifkin’s quotation from Abarbanel comprises his initial view of Rambam. Ultimately Abarbanel admits that all of the details of the Creation process itself as delineated in the first perek of Bereishis were taken literally by the Rambam. Here is Abarbanel’s final opinion regarding Rambam:

"Behold you see that the opinion of the Rav (the Rambam) was not that all of ma'aseh bereishis was an allegory, rather, only a small part of it (some elements in the second chapter of Bereishis, not the first), and that all which is mentioned [in the Torah] regarding the activity of the six days, from the creation of the heavens and the earth, and all of the phenomena, and the creation of Adam and his wife, up until [the passage of] "va'yichulu", have no allegory whatsoever for everything was [understood as] literal to him and therefore you will see that in this very chapter, #30 in the second section, in all which the Rav has explicated regarding the activity of the six days, he did not make [of ma'aseh bereishis] an allegory or a hint (pirush tzurayi oh remez) at all. (Pirush Abarbanel al haTorah, Sons of Arbael Publishing, Jerusalem 1964, Bereishis pg. 86)

So, Rabbi Slifkin’s attempt to lump Abarbanel with Akeidas Yitchak and Shem Tov is obviously flawed.

As far as Akeidas Yitzchak and Shem Tov, this author has several issues with Rabbi Slifkin’s reliance on these two commentaries as proof of Rambam’s opinion. Nonetheless, we choose not to discuss them here and instead grant Rabbi Slifkin his position. But as we mentioned above, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

The Gemara in Chagiga (12a) and the Medrash Rabah (Bereishis 1:14) both state that Shamayim, Aretz and everything in them were really all created on the first day. This is Chazal’s opinion and is based on solid derashos in the pesukim themselves. Chazal’s description must be accepted as part of the Torah’s description of ma’aseh bereishis. So although the pesukim seem to tell us that there was a brand new creation on each one of the six days, Torah she'baal peh informs us that this was not so. Does this mean that when the pasuk says Yehi Ohr this is to be understood allegorically? Or when the pasuk says Yishritzu haMayim, that it is to be understood allegorically? Of course not! Chazal understood that Hashem directly created each and every one of the phenomena mentioned in ma’aseh bereishis. There is absolutely no doubt about that. If so, why are they differentiated out into six days?

Rambam explains this clearly in the Moreh (2:30) based on Chazal’s description in the medrash (MR Bereishis 12:4). The six days of creation mark the appearance of the various phenomena that would ultimately function in the way envisioned by Hashem. The example the Rambam gives is to a farmer who plants a variety of different seeds. Some products appear on one day while others appear on another. So the six days themselves are also literal according to Rambam. However he follows Chazal’s opinion that the six days did not mark brand new creations but rather established the “seeds” of the various phenomena which already existed from the first day.

However, there is another way to understand the “six day conundrum”. Everything was indeed created on the first day as Chazal sate, and everything was fully functional on the first day too. The reason the Torah distinguished between the various phenomena of the universe is to inform us that certain phenomena possess a logical precedence to other phenomena. The Torah provides us with an hierarchal description of creation in order to stimulate our understanding of the structure of the universe. Ralbag (beginning of his pirush on Bereishis) offers both explanations, the farmer-seed explanation and the hierarchal explanation and considers both acceptable. And as Rabbi Slifkin points out, Akeidas Yitzchak and Shem Tov attribute the latter explanation to the Rambam. But all this is irrelevant.

Every Rishon maintains that the creative process described in ma’aseh bereishis is literal. Every Rishon maintains that Hashem was directly responsible for the creation of all of the phenomena of our world. Every Rishon maintains that ma’aseh bereishis was a recent and supernatural event. The only issue here is the status of the six days themselves. Did everything appear on the first day or did the phenomena slowly appear and become organized as Hashem desired over six days. The only reason there is even an issue with the status of the six days is because Chazal themselves inform us that everything was created on the first day. Within context of the aforementioned, Rabbi Meiselman’s position that “no Rishon ever understood the details of the Creation given in the Torah to be anything but literal” is perfectly valid.

Rabbi Slifkin believes that the world is billions of years old. Rabbi Slifkin believes that Adam and Chava are not the progenitors of all mankind. The fact is, Rabbi Slifkin believes that the physical description of ma’aseh bereishis as depicted in the Torah never happened! Rather, he believes that the entire episode is purely allegorical and refers to some kind of spiritual infrastructure. All this is in direct contradiction to our unanimous mesorah of 3000 years as depicted in Chazal and Rishonim. All Rishonim…

It is one thing if Rabbi Slifkin feels justified in rejecting our mesorah in favor of the current scientific view. It is another thing entirely for him to justify his position by challenging the unanimity of our mesorah with the Akeidas Yitzchak and the Ralbag. The former, while misguided, can at least be understood whereas the latter is wholly untenable.

In the following post we will deal with Rabbi Slifkin’s issue from the “mud-mouse” bi’ezras Hashem.

Open Orthodoxy - Part 2

2011-10-30T03:17:00.001-04:00

We wrote a bit about Open Orthodoxy in our previous post but I feel that more needs to be said. As per the mandate of this blog we will use Rabbi Slifkin’s comments from his post on this topic as a springboard, simultaneously analyzing his reaction to Open Orthodoxy’s feminist dogma while offering some of our own insights regarding Jewish feminism in general.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

There is a raging controversy regarding "Open Orthodoxy" and especially its changes to the role of women in Judaism. I must confess that I am really, really not "up" on it.

This author makes the same confession. Nonetheless, the comments that will be made here which relate to halacha have been researched.

Rabbi Slifkin:

With that introduction, let me draw your attention to a source that recently crossed my path, and to an observation.

First, the source. Embarrassed apologies if I am late to the party with this one, but the idea that only a modern feminist Reformer would be dissatisfied with the berachah of shelo asani ishah appears to be neatly refuted by this Italian woman's siddur from 1471, which changes the berachah of she-asani kirtzono to she-asisani ishah ve-lo ish:

Rabbi Slifkin is committing an error of conflation. Let’s delineate Open Orthodoxy’s claims re the aforementioned bracha and compare them with the brachos found in this Italian siddur.

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky, a prominent exponent of Open Orthodoxy, YCT advisory board member, and a member of the RCA, justifies his omission of the bracha shelo asani isha as follows: “Each morning we actually reinforce the inherited prejudice that holds that women possess less innate dignity than men… I cannot take God’s Name in the context of this blessing anymore. I suspect, at this point in history, that it constitutes a desecration of the Name, God forbid. In time-honored rabbinic tradition, "better to sit and not do.”

Now let’s compare this to Rabbi Slifkin’s Italian siddur. If you notice, there are three brachos there which do not appear in our siddur, and all relate to women. 1) that You made me a woman and not a man 2) that You did not make me a slave or maidservant 3) that you did not make me a female gentile.

This siddur was obviously written specifically for women! It doesn’t just omit shelo assani isha. It also omits shelo asani goy and shelo asani aved.

Kanefsky has a problem. He would like to imagine that there is perfect equality between men and women and therefore he would like to eliminate the bracha of shelo assani isha entirely. The Italian Siddur makes no such attempt. In fact the printer makes it clear that there are differences between men and women and some of those differences reflect positively in women’s favor. That’s why the woman says shelo assani Ish!

Now, from a halachic perspective the Italian siddur is not so bad. The gemara in Menachos (43b) mentions the obligation of stating three berachos each day, that He didn’t make me 1) a gentile, 2) a slave, 3) a woman. All three berachos are expressed in lashon zachar. Apparently the Italian Siddur attempted to modify the grammar of these berachos such that they accurately reflect the female condition. Admittedly its initial modification, “that You made me a woman and not a man”, is interesting. But it should, be noted that our standard nusach, “sh’asani kir’tzono”, is not found in the gemara. It was a subsequent addition. In fact, R’ Yaakov Emden in his siddur feels that women should not make this bracha with shem u’malchus because it does not appear in Chazal. Also, he feels the brachos of shelo asani goy/eved should be modified to reflect lashon nikeiva, just as it appears in the Italian Siddur, but a woman shouldn’t say it with shem u’malchus because, once again, it does not appear in Chazal.

Of course, I am not advocating that women should follow the nusach in the Italian Siddur. But it is a fact that many Jews over the course of history attempted to add brachos to the accepted seder. Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 46:8) makes reference to such people and claims they are mistaken but that’s it. Adding is not so bad. Deleting is an entirely different story!

Open Orthodoxy would like to see the bracha of shelo assani isha deleted from the siddur. They are attempting to be meshaneh mi’mat’beah she’tavu chachamim (see Berachos 11, Yad Hil. Kerias Shema 1) and this is entirely unacceptable, both halachically and philosophically.

Our next post will deal with Rabbi Slifkin’s remark re the prayer Hanosein Teshua L’mlachim.

Open Orthodoxy

2011-10-28T15:05:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Slifkin wrote a bit about Open Orthodoxy here. I’m jotting down some of my musings. Indented paragraphs are quotes from Rabbi Slifkin's blog.

Personally, I am fairly conservative, with a small "c," from a halachic standpoint. I believe that in order for Orthodoxy to survive, it must follow the approach of Rav Glasner and Rav Herzog, whereby we accept the authority of Chazal regardless of whether we agree with their reasoning. I believe that, in the face of contemporary challenges to the halachic lifestyle and ideology, a certain amount of stubborn rigidity is required…

This is a highly curious statement. Rabbi Slifkin has made it his life’s career to demonstrate the fallibility of Chazal while simultaneously mitigating the authority of their most distinguished and effective promulgators i.e. our gedoley Yisrael. If he truly believes that the only way Orthodoxy can survive is by accepting the authority of Chazal, perhaps he should consider modifying his career a bit.

I see God as undeniably and necessarily unequal in His distribution of opportunities.

I agree, but only partially. There is no question that men possess a lot more opportunities than women and that this is a necessary arrangement. But “more” in this context refers to quantity, not quality. When it comes to a qualitative distribution of opportunities, women are almost on par with men. Some say even more. I personally wouldn't say that because men have the mitzvah of Talmud Torah and women don’t. And Chazal even go so far as to ask “nashim ba’mai ka’zachu”? But there’s no question that from a functional standpoint they are basically equals inasmuch as their respective roles are indispensable to eachother, to the family unit as a whole and to the ongoing perpetuation and welfare of mankind in general.

So if from a functional perspective a women’s role is just as important as a man’s, why do men make the bracha of shelo asani isha? Is it simply because they get the opportunity to do more mitzvos? Maybe. But I’m in kiruv and I know this response rings hollow in the ears of many of the teenage girls and women in my audience. Here’s a response I developed based on the teachings of my rebbi, one which I believe is emes l’amito (although not necessarily the only reason).

If you take a look at the birchos ha’shachar you will notice that each and every bracha constitutes a form of our expression of hakaras hatov to Hashem for the physical benefits He bestows upon us! We thank Him for our eyesight, we thank Him for our balance, we thank Him for our strength and we thank Him for our clothing. We even thank Him for our alarm clocks (first bracha).

What about the more ethereal blessings? Well, even they possess a physical connotation. Ozer Yisrael b’gvura refers to our belts. Oter Yisrael b’sifa’ara refers to our hats. She’asah li kol tzorki refers to our shoes. It all relates to the physical benefits Hashem bestows upon us on a daily basis.

In view of this, the bracha of shelo asani isha is simple to understand. How so? Let’s delineate some physical benefits men have over women.

Men are stronger than women. Men are taller than women. Men are faster than women. Men are more capable of defending themselves than women. In general, men are more independent than women. A bachur can walk to shul at night for a late ma’ariv. A girl cannot (or at least should not) venture outside on the street at night alone. Men do not undergo the physical pains of child-birth. If a man wants to have a child(ren), he does not have to undergo the pains of child-bearing. He doesn’t experience morning sickness. His strength doesn’t wane. His emotional state remains stable (as stable as it normally is anyway) and his ankles don’t bloat. Women are generally dependant on men for their physical well-being and their societal status. Women are generally subjugated to the will of their husbands (at least they should be). These are only a few of the physical benefits men enjoy over women.

In this world men have it better than women. Accordingly men are obligated to thank Hashem for this benefit. Hence the bracha shelo asani isha. You might ask, why state the bracha in the negative? The answer is two-fold. Practically it is too time-consuming to thank Hashem for each and every physical benefit we enjoy over women. When would we find time to eat breakfast? A bracha stated in the negative covers all the details (although every man should have a particular benefit in mind when he makes the bracha).

Second of all, sometimes things stated in the negative serve to enhance our appreciation of the positive. By stating shelo asani isha we start thinking of all the physical encumbrances women possess and this helps us realize how grateful we as men need to be to Hashem for what He gave us. There is a kabbalistic concept in Chazal referred to as “yisron ha’or min ha’choshech”; the superiority of light when contrasted with darkness. A flashlight is not appreciated during the day as much as it is at night…

But what about the intrinsic value of women in comparison to men? Does all this make a man more important than a woman? Of course not! Does it make his Neshama superior to that of a woman? No way. Is his chelek l’olam haba any more assured? Not at all. In fact, Chazal state that the “promise” to women (of a share in the world to come) is greater than that of the promise to men (see Maharal in his dissertation to Shabbos Shuva). In the world to come men and women will be perfectly equal. We will all sit together and sing to Hashem. No mechitzos in olam habba. No problems with kol isha...

I see it as being perfectly reasonable, as well as strongly supported by modern science, to state that the differences between men and women extend beyond their physical differences.

Amen!

And I am way too suspicious of the transient nature of contemporary morality to demand that Judaism conform to it.

Actually Rabbi Slifkin should never demand that Judaism conform to outside morality, even non-contemporary morality. The old morality of the umos ha-olam was no better than today’s morality. Besides, our morality is divinely revealed and transmitted via our mesorah. It doesn’t have any competitors…

Good Shabbos to our readers!

Shabbat Shalom u’mevorach!

Chareidi Judaism

2011-10-09T21:52:00.001-04:00

In a recent post entitled Charedi Judaism at a Crossroads, Rabbi Slifkin discusses certain issues in the Chareidi world which he considers problematic. I’ve jotted down a few random musings which came to mind. The truth is, I thought long and hard before writing this post. I don’t like to write about politics. Too much subjectivity; too many variables to account for, too much fluidity associated with its fundamental premises. And on the flip side, we have Rabbi Slifkin.

Rabbi Slifkin is an expert in politics. Ever since his books were banned he has gone on a political campaign to clear his name. And while I can’t say that I blame him for his initial response, the fact that he chooses to maintain his campaign on an ongoing basis has caused him to adopt and promote ideas and ideologies that are not only foreign to our traditions, but oftentimes undermine the very fabric of our religion. But this is not the topic of our post. Our topic is politics. So let’s talk politics.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

What should the Orthodox rabbinate do about the Charedi far-right?

Charedi far-right? To my mind that’s a buzz word used by Modern Orthodox (MO) pundits to imply disparity amongst the Orthodox. But is there really a fundamental division in the ranks of Traditional Orthodox Jewry (TOJ)? Like any other conglomeration of individuals united by a common goal, TOJ enjoys a wide spectrum of personalities and backgrounds, chasidish, litvish, heimish, yekish, yeshivish, etc. They like to bicker amongst each other and they like to consider their personal Rabbi/Rebbe/Rosh Yeshiva as one of the most important leaders of klal Yisrael. But after all is said and done there are some minimum requirements which must be satisfied in order for one to consider himself a member of TOJ. Chief amongst them is reverence for our Torah leaders.

You know why Rabbi Slifkin refers to certain individuals as “Charedi far-right”? Because these individuals are most vociferous in upholding the authority of our gedolei Torah. What he doesn’t seem to understand is that this attitude is a fundamental dogma which undergirds the very essence of TOJ. (There is of course an alternative possibility. Rabbi Slifkin does indeed understand this state of affairs and is trying his best to undermine it.) Every individual who associates himself with TOJ accepts this principle, more or less. Some do it sincerely. Some only pay lip service. And some are somewhere in between. But if you want to be a member of the TOJ club, acceptance of Torah authority is a minimum requirement.

Rabbi Slifkin:

The question threatened to split the Orthodox world after the bans on Kamenetzky, Slifkin and Lipa, the silence on Tropper, the neglect of the abuse issue, and the economic collapse of the Charedi world.

“Threatened to split”… Doubtful. I happen to be a card-carrying member of the chareidi world and I did not sense any impending split amongst our ranks. The fact is there is no split. Sometimes however, there is, unfortunately, a defection from our ranks. This occurs for several reasons chief amongst them the influence of Western culture and ideology. And sometimes we are even undermined from within. Rabbi Slifkin considers himself an explicator of rational Judaism but unfortunately his approach is not seen that way by our gedoley Yisrael. They see it as a form of undermining rational Judaism. The fact that Rabbi Slifkin chooses to take on the vast body of gedoley Torah puts him squarely outside the confines of mainstream Orthodox Judaism and makes his personal theology very tenuous indeed.

Rabbi Slifkin:

Even if no further changes are contemplated, doesn’t the approach suggest an understanding of mesorah fundamentally at odds with the rest of the Orthodox world, whereby mesorah means "what we do" as opposed to "what was traditionally done"?

It sure does! According to TJO, “what we do” must always be informed by “what was traditionally done”. This is not to say that Judaism cannot invent new customs or respond to new challenges with innovative approaches. But everything must be within the spirit of our mesorah. If not, all is lost…

Rambam and Chazal - Part 2

2011-10-06T22:06:00.000-04:00

In his post entitled Musta Jew Believe Anything?, Rabbi Slifkin endorses M. Kellner’s view that Maimonidean theology considers the refinement of the intellect as the goal of Judaism whereas the “normative” approach to Judaism considers the physical performance of mitzvos as the ultimate achievement of mankind. And while this author strongly disagrees with this characterization, the purpose of this blog entry is not to point out the fallacies inherent in this attitude. Rather, its function is the analysis of the evidence Rabbi Slifkin delineates in support of his position. Here’s what he writes:

The most striking example of the difference between Rambam's view and that of classical Judaism emerges from comparing the Talmud's discussion of conversion to Judaism with that of Rambam.

Rabbi Slifkin then juxtaposes the following two quotes, the first from the gemara, the second from the Rambam.

The Rabbis taught: If someone comes to convert, we say to him: “Why do you see fit to convert… If he says, “I know, and I am unworthy,” we accept him immediately. We inform him of a few light mitzvot and a few serious mitzvot… we do not overwhelm him, and we are not exacting with him… (Yevamos 47a)

And here is how Rambam paraphrases it:

How do we accept righteous converts… When a gentile comes to convert… we say to him, “Why do you see fit to convert… If he says, “I know, and I am unworthy,” we accept him immediately. And we inform him of the fundamentals of religion, which are the unity of God and the prohibition of idolatry, and we dwell upon this at length. And we inform him of a few light mitzvot and a few serious mitzvot, but we do not dwell upon this at length… (Hilchos Issurei Biyah 14:1-2)

Rabbi Slifkin then makes the following comment:

Look at the sentence that Rambam inserted! One might quibble with the degree to which Kellner sets Chazal and Rambam at odds with each other, but there can be no denying that there was a tremendous gulf between them…

There can be “no denying” the “tremendous gulf”… all due to the insertion of one sentence… amazing.

First of all, any seasoned yeshiva man understands that Rambam’s halachos often contain subtle variations from the text of the Talmud. In fact, one of our largest bodies of literature is dedicated specifically to the explication of the Rambam when he seems to diverge from the pashtus of the gemara. The underlying idea which weaves its way through this unique corpus of scholarship is the awareness that Rambam must ultimately be reconciled with the gemara. There are over three hundred books written on the Yad HaChazaka and all of them adhere to this principle. Accordingly, the first place Rabbi Slifkin should have looked is in the mifarshei haRambam. Had he done so, he would have found the following:

1) Rambam Hil. Issurei Biya 14:1-2 – Informing a potential convert of the fundamentals of religion is not the only thing Rambam added in paraphrasing the Braisa in Yevamos. He also added the halacha of hatafas dam bris for a ger who is born mahul (making a cut and drawing a small amount of blood in a case where the potential convert is born without a foreskin). This clearly blunts the force of Rabbi Slifkin’s argument from Rambam’s other addition.

2) Magid Mishna (ad loc.) – Magid Mishna explains that although Rambam’s dictum (delineating at length the prohibition of idolatry) is not found in the Braisa, Rambam added it because he felt that it was pashut. The process of conversion entails a fundamental change of attitude, the adoption of a brand new theology. Naturally the basic tenets of Judaism must be explained at length. Anyone reading the MM can clearly see that his explanation is specifically designed to reconcile the Rambam with the Gemara, not to put the two at odds.

3) Keser Mishna (ad loc.) – Keser Mishna not only concurs with Magid Mishna’s interpretation of the Rambam, he presents an indication that MM is correct from the gemara itself (the following is a Talmudic line of reasoning).

Maharsha (ad loc.) questions the necessity of informing a potential convert of the prohibition of idolatry (Naomi and Rus – Yevamos 47b). After all, gentiles are already prohibited from same. Based on this question, Keser Mishna concludes that the implication of the gemara is that the Oneness of Hashem (i.e. the rejection of idolatry) must be explained to the convert at length (as opposed to a discussion of the physical mitzvos which requires brevity). According to Keser Mishna the gemara itself is a plausible source for the Rambam’s halacha. The conclusion MM arrived at is actually indicated in the very words of Chazal.

4) Aruch La’ner (ad loc.). AL broaches Rabbi Sifkin’s question. In fact he expands on it. Not only is the obligation to discus the fundamentals of Judaism absent from the Braisa, the very notion that one must expand upon them (at length) contravenes the spirit of the Braisa which enjoins brevity. AL posits the following.

During the course of discussion, the Braisa suddenly inserts the injunction that we must inform the potential convert that the Jewish nation is unable to receive an abundance of affliction. What is this doing in the middle of the Braisa? The answer is, since we have frightened the potential convert by telling him so much about our afflictions (afflicted, harassed, downtrodden, oppressed etc.) we switch tracks and console him. We let him know that there is a limit to the afflictions of our nation. This idea is in line with the other words of consolation the Braisa lists (e.g. reward for mitzvos).

This pattern, claims AL, is the source for Rambam’s assertion. The gemara (47b) explains that the reason we are brief with a potential convert is because we learn from Naomi and Rus and in that case Naomi was warning Rus, not encouraging her. From this we see that the concept of brevity applies only to negative reinforcement. The implication is that speaking positively about our religion, speaking words which explain its tenets and compel the convert to keep them is exempt from the injunction of “brevity”. On the contrary, it is encouraged. This is why Rambam maintains that we should speak at length to the convert about the fundamentals of our religion.

5) Rashi states openly that the injunction of brevity applies solely to words of “warning” (47b s.v. v’ein).

In view of the preceding shakla v’tarya, in view of the fact that the Rambam adds more than just the injunction for teaching fundamentals, in view of the opinion of the Magid Mishnah, the Keser Mishna, the Aruch La’Ner, Rashi, and the implication from Maharsha’s question, it would seem clear that Rambam can easily be aligned with Chazal.

The preceding presentation was a standard Talmudic analysis of the sugya at hand. It was not too complicated and did not require the invocation of “deep reasoning powers” (pilpul). Rabbi Slifkin could have easily researched the sugya just as we did. Instead he chose to draw the most outlandish conclusions based on an extra sentence in the Rambam without any research whatsoever. Had he investigated the sugya properly, he would have never claimed that the supposed gulf between Rambam and Chazal is “undeniable”, at least not on the heels of his quotation from the Rambam in Hil. IB.

This concludes our treatment of the Gemara in Yevamos and the Rambam in Hil. Issurei Biya. Comments welcome…

Rambam and Chazal - Part 1

2011-10-06T05:31:00.000-04:00

This post is a continuation of our recent post entitled The Heart of the Matter and is written specifically for the purpose of responding to one of the remarks found in the comments section of the aforementioned post.

In his post entitled “Must a Jew Believe Anything?”, Rabbi Slifkin discusses some of M. Kellner’s views on the philosophy of Maimonides. Since Rabbi Slifkin enthusiastically endorses Kellner’s ideas, it behooves us to analyze the Kellner/Slifkin approach to see if it satisfies the rigorous standards of mainstream Torah scholarship.

Rabbi Slifkin, quoting M. Kellner, avers that Rambam’s primary theological focus is the status of the mind. According to Rabbi Slifkin, Rambam understood the goal of Judaism as the perfection of the intellect. Accordingly, it would seem to follow that the commandments of the Torah which enjoin physical activity do not possess independent qualities of goodness. In and of themselves they do not serve to increase the quality of the human condition; rather, they are vehicles for the refinement of the human mind, the intellect.

And while there is certainly room to dispute this notion, on a certain level it seems valid, enjoying support both in the works of Maimonides and Chazal. For instance, the Medrash Tanchuma (Shemini 8) asks:

Does the Holy One, Blessed be He really care if we slaughter an animal and eat it…or does He care if we eat pure [animals] or impure?... Behold the commandments were given only to perfect mankind…

But then Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

Kellner then proceeds to discuss Rambam's view of the role of belief in Judaism and how it differs from the normative view. For Rambam, influenced as he was by Greco-Muslim philosophy, perfecting the intellect (which requires correct beliefs) is the goal of Judaism. Thus, those who believe in a corporeal God have utterly failed as Jews, no matter how many mitzvos they perform; whereas Ra'avad, reflecting the normative position, considered such people to be fine Jews, some of them even greater than Rambam (albeit mistaken).

Here’s where the Kellner/Slifkin approach begins to deteriorate. Ra’avad is clearly not disputing Rambam’s inclusion of Divine Corporeality into the categories of Heresy because he believed that people who do mitzvos are fine Jews despite their beliefs, and even better than the Rambam. If this was so, he would have disputed all five categories of heresy, not just corporeality. Ra’avad explains his position! The reason he disputes the specific category of Corporeality is because both the Torah and Chazal consistently use anthropomorphic descriptions of God. As such, Ra’avad considered the adoption of corporeality a legitimate error as opposed to the adoption of a heretical belief. See Kesef Mishna ad loc. who concurs with this understanding of the Ra’avad. Also, see Sefer haIkkarim for an alternative (and vastly toned down) version of the Ra’avad’s comment and an in-depth treatment of the machlokes between the Rambam and Ra’avad. Anyone studying these sources will immediately discern the erroneousness of the Kellner/Slifkin approach to the comment of the Ra’avad.

Unfortunately we have not yet addressed the concerns of the commenter mentioned at the beginning of this post. Accordingly, part 2 of this post will B’H continue with an extensive treatment of Rabbi Slifkin’s assertion that the contrast between the Braisa in Yevamos (47a) which outlines the parameters of proper conversion and the Rambam’s paraphrasing of that Braisa in the Yad serves as “the most striking example of the difference between Rambam's view and that of classical Judaism”.

Stay tuned…

Rambam and Greek Astronomy

2011-10-06T01:55:00.000-04:00

In our previous post, we wrote as follows:

Furthermore, he [Rambam] makes countless scientific type statements (i.e. statements which relate to various laws of nature such as ein bishul achar bishul etc.) that are based entirely on Chazal with nary a twitter of dissent. This alone should be an obvious indication of the Rambam’s opinion regarding not only the halachos of Chazal but also their science.

Although, as I mentioned, when it came to almost all disciplines the Rambam was machniya himself to the view of our sages, when it came to astronomy it seems that he leaned towards the wisdom of the Greek astronomers and their writings. This is most apparent in the Rambam’s writings on Kiddush haChodesh and seems puzzling in view of the Rambam’s normal modus operandi. In fact, this aberration is so uncharacteristic of the Rambam that he himself senses it and states as follows: (my translation)

and it should not be strange in your eyes that the view of Aristotle (which the Rambam accepts) is opposed to the view of our sages of blessed memory in this matter, for this view, that is, if they [the heavenly bodies] make noise is associated with the view of a fixed sphere and moving stars and you already know that the wisdom of the gentiles was decisive, in the matter of astronomy, over the wisdom of our sages as the sages themselves openly state ‘and the sages of the gentiles have triumphed’… (Moreh 2:8 Kapach ed. pg. 180)

Now before we go on it is important to note that in order to dismiss the view of the sages the Rambam first appealed to a direct quotation from Chazal. Thus, he supported his approach to astronomy by illustrating that Chazal themselves admitted defeat in this matter.

However, notwithstanding the Rambam’s hisnatzlus in this matter, Chazal’s seeming lack of knowledge in the field of astronomy when compared to that of the Greek's seems incongruous with the Rambam’s characterization of our sage’s wisdom. After all, wasn’t it the Rambam himself who stated in Pirush Mishnayos that:

All of the lofty concepts and profound verities that the greatest of wise men concealed in their teachings, all of the conclusions that the philosophers toiled over throughout the generations, all can be revealed in their [Chazal’s] words…

The implication is that our ba’alei mesorah were somehow aware of the greatest truths that all of the naturalists, all of the philosophers, all of the sages of the nations were able to reveal. If so, how could the wisdom of astronomy have escaped them?

But the mystery is cleared up once one reads the Rambam in the Yad Hilchos Kiddush haChodesh. The truth is our nation did have a tradition regarding astronomical calculations which originated with the biney Yisaschar and was passed down during the times of the neveim. Unfortunately, this discipline was lost during the Babylonian exile and thus our sages had no choice but to rely on the calculations of the Greek astronomers. (Rambam Hilchos Kiddush haChodesh 17:24)

Do not think it was strange that Chazal relied on the Greeks for astronomy. The Greeks were incredibly accurate with their calculations. For example, W.M. Feldman in his 1931 text (page 131) reports that Hipparchus, an ancient Greek astronomer, recorded the time between an eclipse measured by the Babylonians and one measured by himself less than 400 years later. He found that there were 4,267 lunations and that the exact duration was 126,007 days and 1 hour. Thus, the average lunation in terms of days would be 3,024,169 hours divided by 24 divided by 4,267 lunations equaling 29.53059 days. This is astounding as it is only one half second off from present day calculations for the average Sinodic month!

(To the reader: I do not have a copy of Feldman’s book. If memory serves, I was informed of this calculation by one of my colleagues. I double checked the math and it works but if someone has access to Feldman’s book (Rabbinical Mathematics and Astronomy) I would appreciate verification of the above.)

In conclusion, the fact that the Rambam accepted one or two statements of the Greek astronomers over those of Chazal is an aberration. It is an extremely rare exception and can in no way be used as an indication of how the Rambam felt regarding the status of Chazal’s scientific knowledge. Unfortunately, the academic world loves to tout this instance as an example (of supposedly many more examples) of the Rambam’s general attitude to Chazal. What is even more unfortunate is that they’ve managed to infiltrate our ranks. They’ve managed to generate a whole deal of obfuscation and even managed to influence one of our more talented Chareidi (former) brethren to adopt their views and make it the clarion call of his Rationalist Blog. Chaval al di’avdin…

The Heart of the Matter

2011-10-05T02:57:00.000-04:00

In his most recent post, Rabbi Slifkin gives the nod to Menachem Kellner’s book Must a Jew Believe Anything. In so doing, Rabbi Slifkin once again brings into sharp focus the raison d'être of this blog. Rabbi Slifkin writes that “One might quibble with the degree to which Kellner sets Chazal and Rambam at odds with each other, but there can be no denying that there was a tremendous gulf between them”. This, of course, is the fundamental premise which informs the field of “Maimonidean studies” in Western academic scholarship. It is also the furthest thing from the truth. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Rambam’s works understands the absurdity of such an assertion.

First of all, a simple appeal to common sense reveals the fallacy of Rabbi Slifkin’s approach to the Rambam. The Rambam’s most important work, the Yad haChazaka, is based entirely on the words of Chazal (other than the first four chapters of Hilchos Yesodei haTorah where the Rambam takes some of his ideas from Greek philosophy). Now, as a free and independent thinker, what are the statistical probabilities that the Rambam would concur with Chazal’s opinions in each and every one of his myriad halachos? If the term ‘impossible’ could ever be employed, this scenario would surely be a prime candidate. And yet the Rambam never digresses from Chazal. The entire Yad is the Rambam’s expressed opinion based solely on what he understood as the final conclusions of our sages both in matters which pertain to actions and matters which pertain to attitudes of the mind.

Furthermore, he makes countless scientific type statements (i.e. statements which relate to various laws of nature such as ein bishul achar bishul etc.) that are based entirely on Chazal with nary a twitter of dissent. This alone should be an obvious indication of the Rambam’s opinion regarding not only the halachos of Chazal but also their science.

The truth is the Rambam’s opinion of Chazal was so elevated that he annulled himself entirely to their view. If one wishes to understand the ‘essence’ of the Rambam in these matters, to understand the underlying premise which pervades all of his writings, the following select quotations from the Rambam’s preface to his Pirush HaMishnayos are edifying. The translation is mine and is based on Kapach’s edition of Pirush HaMishnayos l’Harambam.

“And this fourth matter, that is, the exegetical sayings found in the Talmud, should not be considered trivial or of little benefit, for they are of enormous benefit in that they encompass within them the most profound allusions and wondrous ideas. When an appropriately deep examination of these sayings is conducted, the absolute good which cannot be surpassed can be gleaned from them. All of the lofty concepts and profound verities that the greatest of wise men concealed in their teachings, all of the conclusions that the philosophers toiled over throughout the generations, all can be revealed in their [Chazal’s] words…” (Kapach ed. pg. 19)

“And therefore, we must establish the truth of their (Chazal’s) words in our hearts. We must delve deeply into them and not hurry to dismiss a single saying of theirs. Rather, if something is found in their words which seems strange in our eyes, we must orient ourselves in the appropriate [corresponding] disciplines until we understand their meaning in this particular topic, assuming that we are even able to comprehend [their words] in the first place. For even our [latter] sages of blessed memory, despite the fact that they delved exceedingly into their studies, were clear of mind, were appropriately fit for the comprehension of wisdom, attached themselves to great people and entirely detached themselves from material pursuits, [and yet despite all this they] attributed a ‘lacking’ to themselves when comparing themselves to previous generations…so much more so ourselves…how can we not attribute a lacking to ourselves in comparison to them. And since they [the latter sages] knew that all of the words of the sages are well established from every angle, they were very protective of them and enjoined against slandering them and stated ‘whomsoever blandishes the words of the sages is judged in boiling feces’ and there is no worse ‘boiling feces’ than the foolishness that leads one to denigrate [the words of our sages]. And therefore, you will never find one rejecting their words but one who chases after lust, who favors materialism, who never enlightened his mind with any illumination whatsoever.” (Kapach ed. pg. 20-21)

Well, there we go. This is what the Rambam really felt about our sages. Those who portray the Rambam as an avant-garde thinker who forged a new path in the explication of Judaism even when it contradicted the opinions of the sages are far from a proper understanding of the Rambam’s true weltanschauung. The Western academic view of the Rambam amounts to nothing more than intellectual sophistry if not outright dishonesty. Dovid haMelech’s saying comes to mind: “lo yadu, v’lo yavinu, ba’chasheicha yis’halachu”.

Now to be fair it is well-known that Rambam was criticized by many gedolim for his involvement in philosophy. The Gra asserts that philosophy caused the Rambam to err in some of his Torah conclusions and the truth is the Rambam himself bemoans the fact that whereas initially he set out to make philosophy a handmaiden to the Torah, ultimately it became a competitor. But none of this detracts from what we are saying v'hameivin yavin.

Credible Science

2011-09-26T02:39:00.002-04:00

Recently a group of scientists with the European Organization for Nuclear Research reported that over a three year period they had fired 15,000 neutrino beams approximately 750 kilometers away to a lab in Italy and found that the beams arrived 6 billionths of a second faster than the speed of light. Before announcing what they had found, the physicists working on the experiment claim that they checked and rechecked their findings over many months eliminating anything that could have produced a misreading. They then presented their findings to a room full of skeptical scientists.

Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

A number of people wrote to me about last week's report that a group of scientists at CERN tentatively claimed to have measured neutrino particles traveling faster than the speed of light - which modern science, based on special relativity, deems impossible. "If scientists were wrong about this, then maybe they were wrong about everything!" Maybe the universe isn't really 14 billion years old - maybe it's only 5771 years old!

To this question, Rabbi Slifkin offers the following sagely response.

Of course, the correct view is that some scientific facts are better grounded than others. Scientists might have to change their mind one day about the universe being 14 billion years old, but they are not going to discover that it is only a few thousand years old… For the non-specialist, it might be difficult to determine how well-established different scientific facts are. But it should be relatively easy to find out that the issues which concern (some) Jews - the antiquity of the universe, the common ancestry of living creatures, the non-existence of a global Flood… are very well grounded and will not ever be overturned.

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief, or perhaps, despair. For those interested in the truth, here are some facts.

Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has been tested thousands of times in the past hundred years. It is hard to find a more solidly based “scientific fact” than Special Relativity (SR). The CERN report is startling! And if it turns out to be true, it has the potential of overturning the entire science of Physics as we know it.

Here’s another fact. Evolutionary Common Ancestry (ECA) has never been tested, not even once! The entire theory is based on wild and un-testable speculation, nothing else. Furthermore, there isn’t even a shred of evidence for ECA. On the contrary, the fossil record reveals the sudden appearance of life-forms, a scenario that is diametrically opposed to that of ECA.

Here’s yet another fact. The age of the universe (13.7byr) is based on a theory which is entirely speculative. Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) is based on assumptions that have never been proven. Its fundamental tenets are opposed by contradictory evidence which can only be reconciled by inventing hypothetical entities which have never been observed to exist.

To equate SR with ECA and BBC is the height of scientific folly. The former is founded on solid evidence and extensive experimentation. The latter two are not. The fact that Rabbi Slifkin is able to equate SR with ECA and BBC, indeed even consider the latter two more well-founded than the former, clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding regarding the level of scientific evidence attributable to these theories. The truth is Rabbi Slifkin’s readers are right. If even Special Relativity can be questioned this should serve as a wake-up call to people like Rabbi Slifkin who allow silly theories like ECA to mold their theology in direct contradiction to our well-supported and rational traditions.

As far as the non-existence of the global flood, I would love to know how scientists are absolutely sure this phenomenon never existed. I would also like to know how Rabbi Slifkin accounts for the presence of marine fossils on the tops of mountains all over the world. This, of course, is only one of many lines of evidence for a global flood. The Christian creationists have done a lovely job documenting the evidence for a global flood and the evidence is compelling. And although they deserve a big yasher koach for their efforts, it’s really too bad. We should be the ones on the forefront of defending the Torah. Instead, we are doing our best to align ourselves with the speculative drivel of the atheistic scientific community in direct contradiction to our ancient and well-founded traditions. Shame on us...

Esrogim – More of the Same

2011-09-25T04:50:00.001-04:00

In response to our previous post, Rabbi Slifkin posted a clarification of his original position. Unfortunately his elucidation did not provide any clarity. In fact, it had the complete opposite effect. Here are his words followed by our analysis.

Rav Ettlinger was well aware that there is no absolute frame of reference. Indeed, in formulating his question, he himself says that the same question applies the other way around… But in my view… this sort of question would not be asked today. It would be inconceivable to us to be concerned about the position of the tree in Australia relative to Israel, and vice-versa… This question was only asked by Rav Ettlinger because people at that time were still in the process of internalizing the knowledge of the shape of the world…

As they say in the colloquial, this is bubba maasos! Rabbi Etlinger penned his teshuva over 350 years after mankind became aware that the world was round! On the contrary, it was this awareness, and its internalization, that was the very cause of Rabbi Etlinger’s halachic quandary. Since the world is round, therefore the derech gidul is different in Australia than it is in Israel and we now have a sha’ala; which frame of reference should be used to define the halachic requirement of derech gidulo? Should we use the geographical growth of the lulav, or should we use the geographical location of its owner? Without a round world, an upside-down lulav sha’ala would be incoherent.

All this is obvious to the unbiased individual. Unfortunately Rabbi Slifkin is on a mission. He is constantly on the lookout for examples which, to his mind, demonstrate the fallibility of our ba’alei mesorah. His eagerness to demonstrate the advanced sensibilities of the modern man over his predecessors is what caused him to pen his original erroneous post. And it is precisely this eagerness which caused him to defend his position with an argument that is as equally erroneous as his initial one.

Please note: It is not my intention to highlight Rabbi Slifkin’s personal failings chs’v. This blog is above that (I hope). The purpose of this blog is to defend the validity of our mesorah against its attackers, foreign (goyim) or domestic (yidden). Rabbi Slifkin is a young, talented rabbi and a prolific writer. Unfortunately, he is on the wrong side of the fence.

Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

even we today have still not entirely internalized the correct view, and we feel uncomfortable with an "upside-down" map of the world.

This has nothing to do with the mandate of this blog but I’d like to comment on this statement.

First of all, we will always be uncomfortable with an upside-down map of the world. It is no different than trying to read a book upside down. We are used to seeing maps with North on top and South on the bottom. If one day they decide to make maps with South on top, then our previous comfort level will eventually change to conform to the new convention.

Second of all, I think I can offer an explanation as to why North was chosen as an absolute frame of reference (the other cardinal directions are defined as degrees from North) while simultaneously explaining why North is considered up and South down.

There are many stars in the sky and their seeming position changes over the course of the night as they appear to rotate around the earth’s celestial axis. Imagine a pole which travels through the center of the earth and upon which the earth rotates. This imaginary pole goes way up into the sky and the stars seem to change their positions at night as they rotate around this pole. Actually the earth is rotating and the stars are stationary but this is what appears to be happening. However, there is one visible exception to this rule.

The star Polaris remains relatively fixed above the North Pole. It is defined as the prominent (i.e. visible to the naked eye) star which lies directly overhead when viewed from the North Pole. Historically the North Star has served as an indispensible tool for purposes of navigation. This explains why North was chosen as an absolute frame of reference for the four cardinal directions and it also explains why North is synonymous with an upwards direction. How? Since North is identified as the direction which possesses a fixed star above it, it is thus used as the absolute direction from which the other directions flow. And since the defining element of the direction North is a star which is fixed above it in space, any point on earth below the North Pole is considered further below this star thereby making the direction North on earth an upwards direction.

I’m not such a chacham. I’m sure I read this somewhere, sometime. I just can’t find it right now. Maybe I’m wrong… comments welcome…

Lulavim and Rationalism

2011-09-23T04:05:00.000-04:00

In his most recent post, Rabbi Slifkin tries to explain his rationalist approach to the statements of Chazal. He justifies this approach by pointing out that just because someone errs does not make him stupid. The adoption of this attitude is supposed to make it easier for the reader to swallow his rationalist approach to Chazal. It goes without saying that the authors of this blog possess a radically different opinion of the concept of "Rationalism" and how it interfaces with the statements of Chazal. But now is not the time and place. What I’d like to focus on is Rabbi Slifkin’s example. In his eagerness to demonstrate his point, he commits a serious blunder while simultaneously contravening his very own justification for Rationalism.

In reference to the halachic question of which direction an Australian lulav should be held by one who is celebrating Succos in the northern hemisphere, Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

No less an authority than Rav Yaakov Ettlinger, famed author of Aruch LaNer and a university graduate, discussed this question. He suggested that it was more reasonable that they should be held in the normal position. Others, however, apparently disagreed. To the modern reader, this sounds ludicrous. Australians are not "upside-down"! There is no absolute frame of reference! This case exemplifies the challenge that I have faced many times in teaching the rationalist approach to Chazal. Very few people are able to appreciate that errors made by people in very different eras and cultures do not reflect any sort of stupidity.

Wait a minute! R’ Yaakov Etlinger lived in the nineteenth century! He died just before Albert Einstein was born. He was aware of the law of gravity, he was aware of the vastness of space, and he was aware that the world was round. Concordantly, he should have been aware that people in

Australia

were not “upside down”. If his shaa’la hinged on the fact that Australians are "upside-down", it sounds pretty stupid, doesn’t it? According to Rabbi Slifkin, any “modern reader” understands the ludicrousness of this position. Why didn’t Rabbi Etlinger understand it?

The answer is, Rabbi Etlinger was not stupid at all. On the contrary, anyone who believes that Rabbi Etlinger committed such a serious faux pas is lacking in plain common sense. Rabbi Etlinger was not talking about Australians; he was talking about Australian lulavim and the direction they grow. When it comes to the concept of derech gidulo, there most definitely is an absolute frame of reference. It’s very simple. The direction a lulav grows in

Australia

is diametrically opposed to the direction a lulav grows in Alaska. Thus, an individual holding an Australian lulav in Alaska derech gidul of Alaska is holding the lulav upside down in reference to the derech gidul of

Australia

. This concept is simple. It requires a minimum of thought to grasp. So why didn’t Rabbi Slifkin pick up on it? There is a saying amongst our sages: ha’ahava mikalkeles es ha’shura. Loosely translated, "personal involvement corrupts common sense".

Last of the hyrax

2011-08-28T21:14:00.003-04:00

Slifkin writes "we should not be viewing the Torah as some sort of ultimate scientific text reflecting perfect Divine knowledge of the physical universe". It is an imperfect flawed document and thus although the hyrax does not practice classical rumination, caecotrophy, and possibly not even merycism, Slifkin writes that nevertheless the hyrax is the shafan because: “Rumination-style movement of the mouth of the animal in a way which would lead the people who were living in the times of Matan Torah to believe that the animal is a true ruminant (brings up the cud) would be enough for that animal to be considered Maaleh Gerah”.

Slifkin’s approach is puzzling. As I stated earlier, he is asserting a metaphysical falsehood. G-d is the transcendent Creator of the universe. In the context of the four types of animals that have only one sign of kashrut, the Talmud describes G-d as the שליט בעולמו the Ruler of His world, the One Who knows the animals that He Created and Who has codified His Divine Wisdom for us in the Torah. The Ramban talks about the wisdom of King Solomon to whom “G-d had given wisdom and knowledge, derived it all from the Torah, and from it studied until he knew the secret of all things created” (see Ramban’s introduction to the Chumash).

In this context, it would not be surprising that the Torah might be talking about rabbits, whether they were native to the land of Israel or not. In fact the Torah and the Tanach do refer to animals apparently not native to the land of Israel (such as the elephant, giraffe, monkey and peacock). What is surprising is that Slifkin, as a believing Jew, finds all this difficult, given that the Rishonim and Rav Hirsch describe shafan as a rabbit, and given that the Targum uses a word for shafan whose root meaning is a hopping/dancing rabbit-like species. Now to Slifkin’s latest blog aptly titled Last of the hyrax (August 28, 2011). He writes:

Jonathan/Yoel Ostroff is a follower of Rav Shlomo Miller from Toronto, and a passionate advocate of the idea that the universe was created 5771 years ago.

Slifkin might well want to look at his kesuva for the date of the world at the time of his marriage. So what is the intention of his above remark? How does it add to the shafan discussion? Yes, I have looked into modern dating dating methods and have found them to be based on many untested suppositions and inconsistent with each other (readers may want to look into some older debates on Avodah). Slifkin believes in a 13.7 billion year “big bang” universe. Perhaps he is not aware of how many unsubstantiated assumptions that commits him to. See here for six of them. Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg, a believer in big bang cosmology writes:

“Nevertheless, there is one great uncertainty that hangs like a dark cloud over the standard model. Underlying all the calculations described in this chapter is the Cosmological Principle, the assumption that the universe is homogenous and isotropic. (By homogenous we mean that the universe looks the same to any observer who is carried along by the general expansion of the universe, wherever that observer may be located; by “isotropic” we mean that the universe looks the same in all directions to such an observer.) … However, we have no
evidence that the Cosmological Principle was valid at earlier times.
[WEINBERG, S., The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Basic Books, New York, 1993. page 119-120.]

I would be happy to debate big bang cosmology with Slifkin. So here is an open challenge! Natan -- would you like to debate big bang cosmology? There are now more problems than I identified in my earlier article and this would make a good test of your “rationalist” pressuppositions. If you do not wish to debate your embrace of big bang cosmology then kindly refrain from entering the dating game!
So yes, I take our mesora seriously and we are in the year 5771 according to Maimonides and our baalei mesora (see here). Slifkin writes:

He is also known to to readers of this blog as someone with bizarre debating tactics who consistently distorts my views regarding both the science and theology of evolution.

See the post “R. Slifkin and mental illness” here for more on his debating style (also here). Slifkin continues:

He has now entered the hyrax fray, with a post for which the commenting feature appears to be currently disabled. As a result, I am responding to his comments here.

So far as I can tell comments are enabled and Slifkin is free to comment as always. Slifkin continues:

1. The fact that Alexander Kohut, Marcus Jastrow and other such scholars of language explained the shafan to be the rabbit is irrelevant. It is knowledge of animals, not Aramaic, which is relevant here. The European Rishonim and many later European scholars were entirely unfamiliar with the hyrax. So of course they would translate shafan and its Aramaic translation of tafza into an animal that they knew of - they could not and would not translate it with a word that would have no meaning for them or their readers! This is just as they mistakenly thought that the tzvi was a hirsch (deer) - in spite of the Gemara which says that its horns are not branched. (Is Ostroff going to argue that the tzvi is in fact the deer?) In fact, what Ostroff - significantly - does not mention is that Jastrow presents the alternative translation of "coney" - itself a term which was sometimes used for rabbits and sometimes for hyraxes - and he may well have meant the latter, in light of his presenting it as an alternative to rabbit.

The Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan ben Uziel translate shafan as טפזא. Now what does that mean? For that we go to experts in Aramaic such as Jastrow and Kohut who say it is a rabbit (Jastrow) or hopping animal similar to the hare (Kohut). How does Slifkin know that Kohut, for example, who was in contact with German scholarship, did not know of the hyrax? Can Slifkin produce an Aramaic expert in the Targum who translates טפזא as hyrax?

2. Having personally owned both rabbits and hyraxes, and having spent many hours observing them in captivity and in the wild, I can attest that the hyrax is much more of a tafza/ jumper than the rabbit! Rabbits rarely jump in the wild; hyraxes do it all the time, in order to get from rock to rock, and they are much better at it than rabbits. The hyrax is also much LESS of a sheretz than the rabbit.

Hyraxes used to play in the veld near where I grew up (a flat grass area with very few rocks). I do not recall them having the characteristic hopping action of rabbits, although they are good at jumping from rock to rock. Their normal gait is waddle/creep as I recall it.
Aruch HaShalem refers to the fact that the טפזא has unequal legs. Their large hind legs may be what gives the rabbit their characteristic hopping motion. The link here describe hyraxes as having "short legs" (as I recall it too), and perhaps it is more a sheretz than a chaya, and hence not even a candidate for shafan. Dr Betech has referred me to "The behavior guide to African mammals: including hoofed mammals, carnivores", Richard Estes, 1992, page 252 which describes hyraxes as “moving in a creeping walk”.

Slifkin is free to bring sources that support his observations.
The rabbit fits all the criteria of the Talmud and meforshim. The hyrax does not. Here are six problems with identifying the shafan as the hyrax.
It seems to me that Slifkin’s post is aptly named “Last of the hyrax”.

3. Ostroff cites the the example of monkeys and peacocks, mentioned in Tenach, as examples of Tenach speaking about non-local animals. But these were brought as royal gifts, and are highlighted as such. What evidence is there that rabbits were brought? Furthermore, the pesukim in Tehillim and Mishlei specifically describe the shafan in its natural habitat. Is it possible that David was told about that, or knew it by ruach hakodesh? Sure, it's possible. But is it remotely reasonable, in comparison to saying that he was talking about a local animal with which everyone was familiar and was known in other dialects by the same name? Only if one is an extremely irrational person. When David speaks about the aryeh roaring, is it possible that he is actually speaking about a Tyrannosaurus rex, which he knew about via ruach hakodesh? Sure. (And if the aryeh is really the T-Rex, perhaps you can resolve the Gemara which gives a gestation period for the aryeh that is different from that known with lions!) But is it remotely reasonable to say this?
4. Ostroff writes that "The Radak and Malbim explain that Borchi Nafshi is talking about the whole of creation as is obvious from even a supeficial reading of the psalm." But what does that even mean? Yes, it makes mention of the sun, which shines over the whole world. But does it talk about octopi or supernova or quarks? If so, I must have missed that passuk! Barchi Nafshi is speaking about the entirety of creation - from the perspective of its author!

The lion as T-rex example is just silly! To be more serious, how does Slifkin know that King David was not familiar with the rabbit? Perhaps some were brought to Eretz Yisroel as in the days of Shlomo when monkeys and peacocks were brought from Tarshish (possibly Cathage, North Africa). Why is it not relevant to know that animals were brought to Eretz Yisroel from faraway places? If monkeys and peacocks could arrive from Tarshish, why could rabbits not come from Tarshish or Spain?. Perhaps King David was told about these animals by others who had seen them. Or perhaps he and King Solomon (see Ramban above) knew through ruach hakodesh. The Radak and Malbim explain that Borchi Nafshi is talking about the whole of creation as is obvious from even a superficial reading of the psalm. I don't know how Slifkin knows for a fact that this psalm is limited to phenomena in Eretz Yisroel?
And yes, the Borchi Nashi reviews parts of the meta-natural creation of the world in six days as also described in the Torah. This is not something that any human observed. And this psalm does address the entirety of creation (see Radak and Malbim).

5. Ostroff writes that "As you say, of course, He knows about the rabbits in Spain and elsewhere. So what is so difficult about Him writing about them in His Torah of Truth?" Because nobody would have had a clue what He was talking about. That's why He doesn't say the halachos of electricity or donor IVF (which would have been EXTREMELY useful), or describe anything else with which the ancient Jews were not familiar. Is there a single counterexample? And there is also the matter of Tehillim and Mishlei.
6. Ostroff makes the following incredible statement: "Your position is based on just too many suppositions."
That is too funny!
My position is based on translating shafan as the animal which is called by a similar name in local languages, which matches the descriptions given in the pesukim better than any other animal, which was very familiar to the Jewish People, and which is identified as such by those (such as Saadiah) who actually lived in the region, as well as by virtually every other researcher of this topic (without an anti-rationalist perspective).

Dr. Betech has researched Rav Saadiah use of the word "wabar" (meaning "hair or wool"). A few observations. 1. Rav Saadia's did not describe any specific characteristic of the animal that would force us to recognize its identity; he just called used the word "wabar", meaning hairy. Although this word is the modern common name in certain Arabic countries to name the hyrax, nevertheless we have not seen any proof (yet) that this was his intended meaning one thousand years ago. This is opposed to the case of Jastrow and Kohut who were experts in the Aramaic language of the Targum and who added additional qualities not found in the hyrax. 2. There is the possibility that Rav Saadia Gaon z"l was referring to the rabbit, which is no less hairy than the hyrax, and has wool no less valuable than the hyrax. 3. Ibn Ezra questions the reliability of Rab Saadia Gaon’s translations of the animals mentioned in the Torah.
אבן עזרא בראשית ב' י"ב
...רק שתרגם החוילה כפי צרכו, כי אין לו קבלה. וכן עשה במשפחות, ובמדינות ובחיות ובעופות ובאבנים. אולי בחלום ראם. וכבר טעה במקצתם כאשר אפרש במקומו. א"כ לא נשען על חלומותיו, אולי עשה כן לכבוד השם, בעבור שתרגם התורה בלשון ישמעאל ובכתיבתם, שלא יאמרו כי יש בתורה מצות לא ידענום.

Ostroff's position is based on the idea that David and Shlomo were speaking about a South African animal (the European rabbits don't hide in rocks) which they happened to know about via a hypothetical and inexplicable import, or by ruach hakodesh (even though there is no precedent for ruach hakodesh being used in this way), and then mentioned its behavior in its natural habitat to their readers/listeners even though none of them had seen one, and even though there is no other such case of the natural habits of foreign animals anywhere in Tenach - and they did so with a name that just so happens to be used by other peoples in the area to refer to a local animal that matches the description in the pesukim, and which lives together with the ibex that are mentioned in the same passuk! Furthermore, it means describing an unfamiliar animal in place of a familiar one which would be much more meaningful for them to tell the Jewish People about! If you want the nation to ponder God's wisdom as manifest in animals that hide in the rocks, why neglect describing the local animal which does that, in favor of describing a Southern African animal that none of them have ever seen - especially when in every other case that you mention animals, you describe familiar ones? (Honestly, does anyone think that ancient Jews in Israel saying Tehillim would have said "Hey, this is interesting, it's talking about a South African rock rabbit!") And Ostroff's alleged reasons for doing this are flimsy in the extreme - based EXCLUSIVELY on European translations by people who lacked knowledge of animals of Israel!
It is especially ironic that Ostroff claims to be "open to all reasonable possibilities"!
I know, I really shouldn't waste my time with Ostroff. Still, this topic is very dear to me, so I couldn't resist

Slifkin’s remarks are puzzling.

Dismiss experts in Targum translation without bringing opposing experts who demur.
Ask us to trust to his observations on the characteristic hyrax gait over that of the rabbit without sources to back his claim and in opposition to sources that appear to indicate that the hyrax is a sheretz rather than a chayah, i.e. that it has short legs and creeps.
Assume that our mesora (Targum, Rishonim, Rav Hirsch) is wrong.
Assume that there were never rabbits in the Middle East, or that they were never imported or at least described, even though they existed in Spain, North Africa etc.
Assume that the psalm Borchi Nafshi is limited to phenomena in the land of Israel (contra Radak and Malbim) and was not written with ruach hakodeh.
Assume that Hashem did not write about rabbits, even though the Talmud with respect to our very discussion calls Hashem שליט בעולמו the Ruler of our World, the one who knows all the animal that He created.

Puzzling indeed. If that is what “rational Judaism” is then count me out.
Now there is much more to say on this whole topic and Slifkin would not be wasting his time following up on the issues that we raised. Otherwise he will have to wait for Dr. Betech to publish his manuscript (still in the research stage at this point), and that might take some time. The best is yet to come, but the wait will be worth it.

Today is Shafan Day

2011-08-26T17:11:00.014-04:00

Slifkin writes (Thursday, August 25, 2011):

Two of my readers told me last week that whenever they see the word "hyrax" in a post, they stop reading. I am sympathetic to that, but if you are such a person, I urge you to make today an exception! This post is more about the general idea of Rishonim having ruach hakodesh; the hyrax is only appearing incidentally.

Today is Hyrax Day - the day that Daf Yomi studies Chullin 59b, which launches the discussion of the camel, the hare and the hyrax. There are those who suggest that the shafan is not the hyrax, but instead is the rabbit. Previously, I noted that the reason why some Rishonim (medieval Torah scholars) believed that is that they lived in Spain, and were thus familiar with rabbits, but not with hyraxes. The shafan of the Chumash, Mishlei and Tehillim, on the other hand, must have been an animal from the Land of Israel - and in Israel there are plenty of hyraxes (there is one ten feet away from me right now!) but no rabbits.

Slifkin writes that "we should not be viewing the Torah as some sort of ultimate scientific text reflecting perfect Divine knowledge of the physical universe". Slifkin's statements are both a scientific (see previous posts by Dr. Betech) and a metaphysical falsehood. Here are some of the problems with his statement quoted above.

1. It is not only the Rishonim who translated shafan as rabbit. The authors of the Targumim were familiar with our mesora (and with the Middle East) and they translate Shafan as טפזא (jumping). The Aruch Hashalem in one translation of טפזא has springhasse, i.e. jumping rabbit. Jastrow also translates טפזא as rabbit.

2. David Hamelech in Tehillim (also inspired by ruach Hakodesh) is addressing all of creation, not just the land of Israel. See for example how Radak and Malbim explain Borchi Nafshi. In the Tanach we are told about new animals brought to Eretz Yisroel in the times of Shlomo Hamelech.

The Talmud in Chulin 59a describes Hashem as Shalit beolamo, i.e. the Ruler of the His World, the One Who knows that only the camel is maaleh geira and yet tamei. ... So, of course, Hashem knows all the animals of this world. Who could think otherwise?

I wish all our readers Shabbat Shalom. This week's parsha (and this week's daf yomi) are indeed providential. There is an additional mitzvah in learning about all the signs of kosher animals, to know how to distinguish between those animals that are tamei and those that are tahor.

The Day of the Rabbit

2011-08-25T00:47:00.002-04:00

B”H

Today, in the daf yomi cycle, Chulin 59a was studied, where the Gemara mentions certain rules regarding the shafan, i.e. the rabbit.

Additionally, this week we are in Parashat Ree where also the shafan (rabbit) is mentioned and described as “maale gerah”.

Some people who believe that the hyrax may be the biblical shafan, are conscious that the hyrax does not practice classical rumination, nor caecotrophy, not even merycism, so I asked them the following:

Please provide a definition of maale gerah that includes the hyrax and all the animals the Torah called maale gerah.

Trying to save their position, they published recently in the Jewish blogosphera the following answer:

Rumination-style movement of the mouth of the animal in a way which would lead the people who were living in the times of Matan Torah to believe that the animal is a true ruminant (brings up the cud) would be enough for that animal to be considered Maaleh Gerah.

Which I refute B”H by the following:

The Torah wrote that the gamal, shafan and arnebet are maaleh gerah. Could it be that it meant to say that they only give an appearance of having this characteristic?

I.That couldn’t fit into the plain meaning of the pasuk which clearly calls them “maaleh gerah”.

ויקרא פרק יא

(ד) אַךְ אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה אֶת הַגָּמָל כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:

(ה) וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם:

(ו) וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם:

II.The gamal (mentioned in the same verse[1] as similar to shafan and arnebet) is actually “maaleh gerah”.

III.The Midrash speaks of the shafan as an animal who indeed has Tahara (“purity”) signs:

ויקרא רבה (וילנא) פרשה יג ה' ד"ה א"ר שמואל

את השפן זו מדי, רבנן ור' יהודה ברבי סימון, רבנן אמרי מה השפן הזה יש בו סימני טומאה וסימני טהרה, כך היתה מלכות מדי מעמדת צדיק ורשע, אמר רבי יהודה ברבי סימון דריוש האחרון בנה של אסתר היה טהור מאמו וטמא מאביו.

So the shafan is “maaleh gerah”, and not just appears to be, as was suggested by some.

[1] Deuteronomy 14:7

The Eternity of the Torah

2011-08-22T02:15:00.003-04:00

In a recent post entitled Ever Changing Morality, Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

It does weaken our ability to claim that the Torah's amazing morality is evidence of its truth/ superiority. For by what measure can we assert that the Torah is perfectly moral? We can only do so by claiming that it agrees with our own sense of morality…

This assertion is false. From a historical perspective, the Torah is the most dominant work mankind possesses. This alone is a demonstration of its superiority. The two largest systems of morality practiced today (Christianity and Islam) are fundamentally based on the Torah. Without the Torah mankind would lack many elements of societal harmony and self-preservation. Rambam writes that with the advent of matan Torah, a great light descended upon the gentile world. Although the goyim took the Torah and, in many cases, warped its teachings, it still serves as the most influential element in the civilization of mankind.

But the flip side of this is that it also means that those who claim that the Torah is immoral, in its attitudes to homosexuality, women, etc., are also severely weakened in their case. How can they judge the Torah to be lacking vis-a-vis their own modern Western standard of morality, when their own standard is so transient?

This makes no sense. If standards of morality are indeed transient, than what’s wrong with judging the Torah?

The truth of the matter is, the term “transient morality” is a misnomer. As soon as morality becomes transient, it loses its ability to act as an intrinsic standard for human behavior.

Yet, on the other hand, there is a school of Torah thought which claims that there is an ethic independent of Torah –

There’s obviously no such school of “Torah” thought. The Torah is the expressed Will of G-d and as such is the ultimate representation of Truth. Its guidelines are absolute. As it happens, the universe is also the expressed Will of G-d. Consequently, an astute observer of nature might be able to glean some of the truths of the Torah, perhaps even the majority. Our father Avraham followed such a system and, according to our sages, managed to glean all of the basic tenets of the Torah! But his conclusions were not independent of the Torah. The claim that there can be an ethic “independent” of the Torah, meaning, an ethic which is capable of expressing a conclusion or idea which is not in conformance with the Torah, is clearly anti-Jewish. To claim that there is a “school of Torah thought” that promotes such an idea is sheer folly.

How I Came To Reject Evolution - Part 3

2011-08-07T06:41:00.001-04:00

(This is the final post in a series entitled How I Came To Reject Evolution)

In an attempt to justify his adoption of evolutionary theory in contradiction to our mesorah and the plain meaning of the pesukim, Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

Wherever I looked in the animal kingdom, things made so much more sense in light of common ancestry than in light of special creation. Emu wings, goose bumps, whale and bat physiology, archeopteryx - sure, the anti-evolutionists could always contrive some sort of ad hoc just-so story, but it seemed forced. Common ancestry was a simple principle that neatly explained everything. Just look at the picture of the bat skeleton. Why make a creature that functions as a bird, and is even classified with birds in the Torah, yet is physiologically similar to mammals? Bats did not share any fundamental similarities with birds; contrary to what Chazal thought, bats do not lay eggs. Why make whales that function as fish, but with the anatomy of land mammals and without the extremely useful (sometimes life-saving) ability to breathe underwater, like fish? Either Hashem made bats and whales from land mammals, or He was really out to fool us!

Anyone who thinks about this paragraph for a minute can see the glaring fallacy in Rabbi Slifkin’s logic. Let’s deal with his two questions.

He asks: “Just look at the picture of the bat skeleton. Why make a creature that functions as a bird, and is even classified with birds in the Torah, yet is physiologically similar to mammals?”

OK Rabbi Slifkin, what’s the answer? Why did Hashem make such a creature? Evolution? But you admit that it is Hashem Who is functioning through evolution. So in what way does your question indicate evolution any more than special creation?

Rabbi Slifkin asks: “Why make whales that function as fish, but with the anatomy of land mammals and without the extremely useful (sometimes life-saving) ability to breathe underwater, like fish?”

His answer: “Hashem made bats and whales from land mammals”!!

How does that answer the question? Why did Hashem choose to make the whale in such a way that it would not possess the “extremely useful (sometimes life-saving) ability to breathe underwater”?

Rabbi Slifkin’s questions are entirely irrelevant. One can ask “why” on everything in the beriah. Why make flying creatures? Why make creatures which live in the sea? Why make insects? Why make plants? When considering Torah versus Evolution, these are not the questions one should be asking. As Rabbi Slifkin originally stated, the proper question is, what does the evidence tell us regarding evolution? And the answer is clear as discussed in the past two posts. There is absolutely no evidence that bats or whales descended from land mammals. They appear suddenly in the record with no transitional fossils linking them to their supposed terrestrial antecedents. And that’s all that counts.

How I came To Reject Evolution - Part 2

2011-08-07T04:34:00.007-04:00

(This post is a continuation of a previous post entitled How I Came To Reject Evolution.)

As we saw in the previous post, Rabbi Slifkin claims that when one investigates the Torah/Evolution loggerhead, the proper approach is to determine whether the existing evidence better supports the Torah or, li’havil, Evolution. I agree.

Rabbi Slifkin then writes that the existence of “millions of extinct species that are intermediate in form to surviving species - fit far, far better with the evolutionary model than with the special-creation model.” Tentatively, I would have to say that I agree with that too. I write “tentatively” because I find it difficult to even envision the idea that the metzius should be different than what the Torah writes. But I think that intellectual honesty would force me to admit that Rabbi Slifkin’s scenario at least seems to indicate, if not prove, the idea of evolutionary speciation, or what is known as macro-evolution. (If any of my chaveirim or readers wishes to explain to me why I would not have to admit this, I would be thrilled).

So why am I an anti-evolutionist? Here’s what happened. As readers of this blog know, I am a talmid of Rav Avigdor Miller. I have been listening to his shiurim for close to 40 years now. As anyone who is familiar with the Rav knows, one of his biggest themes is how all of the phenomena of the beriah openly testify to the Greatness (i.e. Power), Wisdom and Kindliness of Hashem. As I listened, the theme of evolution came up over and over. He demonstrated repeatedly that the sheer complexity and design-like properties of life on earth made evolutionary theory preposterous. But I always had a nagging thought in the back of my mind. Evolutionists are scientists. They must have evidence for what they are saying. So even though Rabbi Miller sounded reasonable, perhaps the scientists could show him that the evidence simply disproved his arguments?

And then Hashem had rachmanus on me. I listened to Tape #78 entitled Evolutionists Speak and my world was turned upside down! Rabbi Miller began the tape by saying just what Rabbi Slifkin said. In order to assess evolution we must examine the evidence. He then went on to explain that the only place one can obtain information about the existence of evidence is from evolutionists themselves. After all, they are the ones who are in the field. They are the ones who have made a career of studying the fossils. He then went on to do the impossible, or so I thought. He began to list one source after the next, all evolutionists, all leading scientists in their fields. He began with an examination of paleobotany (the study of fossils of extinct plants) and went on to fish, animals and birds. He listed literally dozens of sources. He noted the author, the name of the book, and the page number. He read out the quotation and explained them in plain English along with the context in which they were found. And every single evolutionist quoted there, every single one without exception, admitted that – as one evolutionist wrote – “essentially continuous transitional sequences are not merely rare, but they are virtually absent”. It was as if a bomb had dropped. It was literally unbelievable!

Of course, I took Rabbi Miller at his word and now became utterly convinced in the falseness of Evolutionary theory. But as I grew older I began to lecture and write on this topic and ran up against constant criticism. Maybe Rabbi Miller was misquoting? Maybe he was quoting out of context? Maybe he obtained the quotes from some Creationist list but the quotes actually did not exist? Eventually I got sick and tired of people challenging the integrity of my Rebbe. So I went online and hunted down each and every author and each and every book quoted by Rabbi Miller in that tape and purchased the books! All of them! And then I went to work. I looked up each and every source quoted by Rabbi Miller. And every single quotation outlined by Rabbi Miller was right there, chapter and verse and page number. And in none of the cases was he quoting the author out of context.

Rabbi Miller’s tapes and books are full of scientific evidence disproving evolution but eventually I expanded my studies in this field and was amazed to find that there are hundreds of sources in the published scientific literature which demonstrate the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. Rabbi Miller’s quotations were just a smattering of the available information out there.

So, why do I reject evolution? Simple. Because the available evidence disproves it while simultaneously proving sudden special creation. As one of the most authoritative neo-Darwinian evolutionists wrote: “The facts are that many species and genera, indeed the majority, do appear suddenly in the record, differing sharply and in many ways from any earlier group, and that this appearance of discontinuity becomes more common the higher the level, until it is virtually universal as regards orders and all higher steps in the taxonomic hierarchy.” (George Gaylord Simpson)

This is exactly what the Torah writes! Species appeared suddenly on earth! What more do I need than that? Indeed, what more does Rabbi Slifkin need than that? What right does he have to accept evolutionary theory when the evolutionists themselves concede the lack of fossil evidence? He writes that the proper thing to do is to evaluate the evidence but then ignores his own advice and accepts evolution despite the evidence!

Of course this is not a ta’anah because, as we’ve seen, Rabbi Slifkin is convinced that there are “millions of extinct species that are intermediate in form to surviving species”. So I am here to inform him, and anyone else who wishes to listen, that he is wrong, horribly wrong.

First of all, scientists have not documented millions of extinct species. In fact, biologists today have documented the existence of approximately 2 million species in total but only about 10% of all known species are documented in the rocks! There are only about 250,000 species captured by the fossil record and not all of them are extinct. And practically none of them qualify as transitional fossils as any paleontologist worth his salt will admit to you.

According to Rabbi Slifkin, the truth about the evidence from the fossil record should cause him to reconsider his position on the theory but will he? Highly doubtful. The obvious question is, why? Rabbi Slifkin loves to level accusations of religious bias against individuals like me and he's probably right. But what he consistently fails to see are his own biases in favor of the scientific community. Is it this bias which simply does not allow him to accept the evidence which stares him in the face? I think the answer is clear.

To be continued…

How I Came To Reject Evolution

2011-08-05T06:00:00.007-04:00

In a post entitled How I Came To Accept Evolution, Rabbi Slifkin tries to explain to his readers the step by step thought process which led to his ultimate adoption of the Evolutionary paradigm for ma'aseh bereishis. Ironically the element that served as the critical turning point for him was the same one that caused me to adopt the exact opposite conclusion. The following are a few selections from his post with my comments interspersed.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

The final critical component was my realization that I was looking at the entire topic in the wrong way. As mentioned earlier, I had solely focused on the problems with evolution - the kashyas. This was exactly what Denton and Johnson had done in their books. As far as I was concerned, the existence of these problems showed that evolution was bogus. But I realize that this wasn't the correct way of looking at things. The correct way was to ask whether the existing evidence better supported evolution or special creation. And this radically changed my perspective on it.

I have two comments to make.

1) In a sense I understand Rabbi Slifkin. In fact, I actually agree with him. I am aware that some individuals may take exception to the following, but I too believe that it is important to investigate the existing evidence. For those who would protest that it is theologically problematic to grant "physical evidence" the same validity as our accepted Torah traditions, I would respond as follows.

The Torah was given to us via the asseres ha’dibros, the Ten Utterances. The Torah constitutes the Will of Hashem. Studying it causes one to become increasingly aware of the Creator’s presence, which, according to the Ramban, is the ultimate purpose of all Torah u’mitzvos (parshas Bo). But there are another set of utterances which preceded those at Sinai.

B’assara ma’amaros nivra ha’olam – The world was created via the Ten Sayings. As such, creation itself is also a revelation of Hashem’s Will, just like the Torah. Studying the beriah for the purpose of becoming aware of Hashem is no less an Avodas Hashem than studying the Torah. People who get into the habit of dismissing physical evidence as a source of True Knowledge are making an error. This is not to say that we should dismiss our Torah traditions each time we come across a problem but I feel it is crucial to at least know what the physical reality is. This leads me to my second comment.

2) Rabbi Slifkin claims that Denton and Johnson focused only on the problems with evolution without taking the existing evidence into account. I too read Denton and Johnson’s books and I can tell you that Rabbi Slifkin is wrong, dead wrong. Their books are all about the existing evidence. More on this shortly.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

For example, previously, I had only thought about the fossil record in terms of hoaxes (such as Piltdown man), and in terms of missing links. But now I realized that the fossils that we do have - primitive hominids, and the remains of millions of extinct species that are intermediate in form to surviving species - fit far, far better with the evolutionary model than with the special-creation model. The missing links were much less significant than the present links!

This paragraph hit me like a ton of bricks. It was like an epiphany, a “eureka”, a revelation. I have known Rabbi Slifkin for over seven years now and have been operating under the assumption that he was aware that there was a dearth of fossil evidence. In fact, in his book The Science of Torah (pages 149-150) he seems to admit so openly. But now Rabbi Slifkin has finally let the cat out of the bag. One of the “critical components” that turned him into an evolutionist was the presence in the fossil record of “millions of extinct species that are intermediate in form to surviving species”. If there are indeed millions of extinct species that are transitional in structure to currently existing life forms, I myself would have a difficult time dismissing such evidence. No wonder Rabbi Slifkin is an evolutionist!

Oddly enough it was my study of the fossil record that caused me to conclude exactly the opposite.

To be continued…

Placing Things Right Side Up - Part 2

2011-08-03T05:50:00.001-04:00

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

I find it particular interesting that you mention Intelligent Design. Those who subscribe to it do not suffer from the atheist bias, right? And yet those scientists who do subscribe to ID all accept that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

This is no doubt false. Rabbi Slifkin did not interview every ID scientist. There is no way he could know such a thing. The reason ID scientists do not take issue with common ancestry is because they do not have a scientific argument to disprove it. But that doesn’t mean they all believe it.

Rabbi Menken writes:

Yes, we believe the world is 5771 years old, however this may be defined (there are multiple schools of thought on this point). Yet I am unaware of even one Orthodox person with an education in the hard sciences who believes that, from a scientific perspective, the world appears to be 5771 years old rather than roughly 15 billion.

To which Rabbi Slifkin responds:

Agreed. Now I challenge you to write an article for Mishpachah or Ami or Dialogue elaborating on this - that the scientific evidence itself clearly shows the world to be billions of years old, and that nobody with an education in the hard sciences would reasonably say otherwise. (And you can add your detailed explanation of why evolution, although being scientifically unfounded, is not at all theologically problematic.) Then we'll see if the Orthodox community is really okay with this.

Rabbi Slifkin is correct. The Orthodox community wouldn’t be too happy with Rabbi Menken’s attitude. The question is, why? And the answer is simple. The term “scientific perspective” is nebulous. If “scientific” perspective means “materialistic” perspective then yes, the world does indeed seem old. As the Rambam notes in Moreh Nevuchim, a naïve observation of the world could reasonably result in the conclusion that huge periods of time elapsed in its development. But there is an opposing “theory”.

Once one assumes the presence of a Grand Designer (or even the possibility), the term “scientific perspective” vis-à-vis the age of the universe adopts, per force, an entirely different definition. It means “evidence-based perspective”. And according to the “Orthodox world”, the “evidence” is not any more consistent with the evolutionary view than it is with the design view.

The truth is, the design view is far more consistent with what we see than the materialistic view but this is not for now…

Placing Things Right Side Up

2011-08-03T04:46:00.005-04:00

(This post continues our analysis of Rabbi Slifkin’s attitude to Rabbi Shafran’s article in Cross-Currents)

In a follow up post entitled Turning Things On Their Head, Rabbi Slifkin takes Rabbi Menken to task regarding his defense of Rabbi Shafran’s article. The following are some comments on this interchange.

Rabbi Menken wrote as follows:

Nonetheless, and contrary to Rabbi Slifkin’s assertions, it is true that a theist is capable of an impartial view of evolution, while anyone unwilling to entertain the idea of a Creator is incapable of the same.

To which Rabbi Slifkin responds:

That is not contrary to my assertions. In fact, it is entirely consistent with what I wrote. But theists who truly have an impartial view of evolution all accept that the evidence supports it!

Ahh… “truly have an impartial view”. Why didn’t someone say so? Sounds like a No True Scotsman argument to me. Rabbi Menken makes an assertion that is internally sound logically, and Rabbi Slifkin responds with an ad hoc attempt to maintain his position by invoking a logically fallacious counterargument. In English this means that according to Rabbi Slifkin any theist who concludes that evolution is unsupported is automatically considered partial because, according to Rabbi Slifkin, all impartial theists consider evolution proven. The fallacy of such an argument is self-evident.

Rabbi Slifkin challenges Rabbi Menken as follows:

By the way, if you have evaluated the evidence for evolution and found it lacking, then I assume this means that you considered the question of why marsupials are concentrated in Australia, why whales are not able to breath underwater like fish, and why every species that is discovered, live and extinct, can be neatly fitted into a nested hierarchal family-tree taxonomy - (for example, there are numerous species with characteristics of dinosaurs and birds, but no intermediates between birds and mammals). Can you share with me the answers that you came up with?

Well, I don’t know if Rabbi Menken ever responded to Rabbi Slifkin (I only skimmed his original article in Cross-Currents for the purpose of writing this post, I did not look in the comment section) but I have a response if anyone is interested.

This “nested hierarchy” argument Rabbi Slifkin is so fond of quoting (he adopted it from the famous PE evolutionist Niles Eldridge) is equally consistent with “Design” theory. Let’s consider the following.

For reasons known only to Him, the Designer decided to Create animal life on earth. He began, like any design engineer would, li’havdil, by designing a small number (50 to 100) basic body plans (referred to as “Phyla” in Linnaean taxonomy). The Designer wanted to create millions of different types of life forms on earth but He chose to stick to the original basic body plans because, after all, they were perfectly functional designs. So, He went on to Design several subcategories to the original category (class, order, family, genus, species) and at each stage He added various additional features in order to achieve the desired variety. To be sure, each additional category was as perfectly designed as the original category because, after all, the Designer is obviously endlessly Wise as is clearly evidenced from His handiwork.

The above, albeit a grossly oversimplified biological depiction of ma’aseh bereishis, suffices to demonstrate that the presence on earth of “categories of life” hierarchaly nested in each other is perfectly consistent with the idea that they were designed.

To be continued…

Materialism Blinds - Part 2

2011-08-02T05:08:00.002-04:00

(This post continues our analysis of Rabbi Slifkin’s critique of Rabbi Shafran’s article.)

Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

Then there is Rabbi Shafran's sole "scientific" objection to evolution - that "the appearance of a new species from an existing one, or even of an entirely new limb or organ within a species... has never been witnessed or reproduced." First of all, that's not actually true. Second, evolution takes place over many millennia, so we would not expect to see such dramatic changes in the few years that we have been watching for such things.

Putting aside the fact that Rabbi Slifkin’s “first of all” actually contradicts his “second of all”, his argument is irrelevant. Rabbi Shafran is making a simple point. Evolutionists cling tenaciously to a materialistic theory despite the lack of evidence. This type of behavior more closely resembles faith than it does science. It is impossible to refute this point. The only thing Rabbi Slifkin can say is that they do have evidence in which case he is disputing Rabbi Shafran’s premise, not his argument. But he doesn’t do that. So his counter-argument is meaningless.

Rabbi Slifkin continues as follows:

Most ironic is Rabbi Shafran claiming that there is no observational evidence for "an organism emerging from inert matter," which he refers to as “spontaneous generation." (In fact, the origins of life don't really have anything to do with evolution, but let's ignore that for now.) But it is vastly, overwhelmingly more reasonable to accept that an extremely primitive life-form developed from primordial soup, than to accept that lice spontaneously generate from sweat, that mice spontaneously generate from dirt, that worms spontaneously generate from fruit and fish, and that salamanders spontaneously generate from fire. And yet the latter are all accepted as unquestionable fact by Rabbi Shafran's charedi religious authorities - along with numerous claims of nishtaneh hateva that are more extreme forms of evolution than anything ever proposed by scientists.

The preceding quote is particularly distasteful to me as it obviously strives to make our gedoley Torah look like simpletons and fools while simultaneously aggrandizing the “enlightened” opinions of those who adopt evolution as a viable option for ma’aseh bereishis. But personal feelings aside, Rabbi Slifkin’s comment is sheer nonsense for one very simple reason.

Assuming everything Rabbi Slifkin says about spontaneous generation in the gemara is true (which it is not), Chazal believed in spontaneous generation for only one of two reasons: either they observed it themselves or they relied on the testimony of others who observed it. The point is, there was observational evidence. People saw sweat ostensibly turning into lice. People saw worms coming out of apples etc. Their beliefs can be justified. But does that mean that now we must believe that apes turned into humans? Where’s the evidence? Rabbi Shafran’s point is that there is no evidence to justify the belief in evolution. Incredibly, this point just flies right over Rabbi Slifkin’s head…

As far as what the Chareidi gedolim believe, Rabbi Slifkin doesn’t know what he’s talking about. My Rabbeim (e.g. Rabbi Miller, Rabbi Dessler) did not believe in spontaneous generation and either interpreted the gemaros brought down by Rabbi Slifkin such that they were aligned with the current metzius or, when this was difficult to do, conceded that the scientific explanations offered by Chazal were based on what science observed in their times but were not necessarily the driving force behind the halacha in question. Many of the gedolim today would accept such approaches. I am personally familiar with several. But even if Rabbi Slifkin is right and some gedolim believe unreservedly in the pashtus of the gemaros in question, this is only because they trust that Chazal relied on observational evidence, not empty superstitions or highly improbable “just so” materialistic theories…

Finally, Rabbi Slifkin comments as follows:

Finally, we have Rabbi Shafran's description of evolutionists employing "militant insistence on its truth." Surely he can't be serious. "Militant insistence"? Like banning books by their opponents from being purchased, and using positions of authority to condemn their opponents, without even reading their material or allowing them any opportunity to defend their viewpoint?

Precisely! All this has, and continues to happen in the hallowed hallways of academia as anyone in the know can testify. Actually, you don’t have to be in the know. All you need to do is read once in a while and you’re bound to stumble into examples of the above-noted (mis)behavior. If anyone is interested, I can gladly furnish plenty of material.

Materialism Blinds

2011-08-02T02:23:00.013-04:00

About a month ago Rabbi Slifkin began a series of posts criticizing Rabbi Avi Shafran’s article Science, Blinded regarding bias in the academic world. Personally I was happy to see such an article appear in Cross-Currents but apparently this small piece offended Rabbi Slifkin. This post (and several future ones) analyzes Rabbi Slifkin’s comments regarding this article.

In his introductory paragraph, Rabbi Slifkin writes as follows:

That's why I put a warning at the beginning of "The Challenge of Creation," stating that the book is not appropriate for those with little exposure to science and who are opposed to the Maimonidean approach. Besides, while recent special creation is not a core belief of Orthodox Judaism…

Absolutely amazing. On the one hand Rabbi Slifkin strives to impart to his readers that his book is aligned with the “Maimonedian” approach. Yet in his very next breath he states that “recent special creation is not a core belief of Orthodox Judaism”. Anyone familiar with the works of Maimonides understands how absurd this is. It is hard to find a belief which the Rambam held as “core” more than recent special creation.

Rabbi Slifkin takes issue with Rabbi Shafran as follows:

First of all, and most obviously, the idea that religious figures who oppose evolution "can truly perceive the world with clarity," as a result of having "overcome the preconceptions, desires and imperfections of character to which we all play host," is ludicrous. Overcoming imperfections of character is a fine thing, but it does not assist one in evaluating evolution.

It most certainly does. Rabbi Shafran explains in the next few sentences that essentially evolution does not possess any empirical evidence. The implication is obvious. Those scientists who maintain an uncompromising conviction in evolution only do so as a consequence of their desire to believe in it, nothing more.

Rabbi Shafran’s message is simple. To the extent that an individual is able to refine his character, to let go of false preconceptions, to eliminate erroneous attitudes, and to cleanse himself of base desires, so too will he be able to see the truth about the nature of the material world. Why? Because he is no longer predisposed to explain the material in necessarily material terms. He is open to all options. On the other hand, evolutionary scientists are biased by their a priori adoption of a Materialist worldview and thus see nothing! They ignore the open lack of evidence and see only what they want to see. They are the last people who can be trusted to weigh the merits of evolution.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

On the contrary; since those who oppose evolution inevitably subscribe to a religious worldview in which evolution is theologically problematic at best and usually entirely unacceptable, they are overwhelmingly, critically biased against any evidence supporting it.

This may have been true at one time but it is clearly not true today. There are plenty of religiously unaffiliated scientists who challenge evolution on its face. David Berlinski comes to mind…

In the same vein, it should be pointed out that amongst the ranks of those who do believe in evolution, you will find both atheists and devoutly religious

Vastly, overwhelmingly atheistic with a tiny smattering of devoutly religious. The latter are the odd men out, trying desperately to reconcile a patently atheistic theory with the uncompromising truth of Creation.

In the interest of brevity, we will bring this post to a close. More to come shortly bi’ezras Hashem.

Natan Slifkin’s 10 questions

2011-08-01T18:43:00.001-04:00

B”H

NS published today a pilpul around the Torah understanding of the animal world and the profound motivations of his ideological opponents.

This is explicitly related to my approach to this issue, as he mentions my name many times.

Interestingly, he did not answer the questions I posted recently in our blogspot, even the most elemental one, i.e.

NS: wrote:

“…In fact, the hyrax appears to be more of a maaleh gerah than the hare.”

I asked:

In which page in NS’s book (first or second edition) did he write what is his definition of “maaleh gerah” and the sources on what he based his definition?

As far as you do not define a category, you cannot include or exclude any animal.

I am still waiting…

Now he wants to distract the readers with his 10 questions:

Are the lama, alpaca, vicuna and guanaco to be classified as being of the same min (type) as the camel?
Is the rabbit classified as being of the same min as the hare?
Does cecotrophy (the reingestion of special fecal pellets) by hares and rabbits rate as ma’aleh gerah?
Do we believe those zoologists who say that the capybara practices cecotrophy?
Is the capybara considered to be a sheretz or a chayah?
Is the shafan the hyrax?
Does the hyrax practice merycism?
Is merycism considered to be maaleh gerah?
Is the alleged merycism of koalas and proboscis monkeys the same as that of the hyrax?
Is it likely that the shafan and arneves are extinct, unknown animals?

I have to acknowledge that after reading these 10 questions I am very happy bechasde Hashem Yitbarach, because the first 9 questions are frontally approached in our B”H forthcoming book “The enigma of the biblical shafan” (with more than 500 Torah and science sources).

Question number 10 was not addressed in our book because I did not consider it relevant to our approach.

Special attention was invested B”H in defining all the relevant concepts and checking that the answers to the 9 individual questions are consistent with each other.

Meanwhile, I would like to ask in which page of his first or second edition, a scientific source was provided for the purported hyrax merycism.

Otherwise, please specify any definition of “maaleh gerah” that includes the hyrax.

Natan Slifkin surprised by the disfavored hyrax

2011-07-29T01:43:00.002-04:00

B”H

Natan Slifkin (NS) after acknowledging his surprise by the publication of the new letters supporting the identification of the biblical shafan as the rabbit and not the hyrax, he presents a few points.

You can see more details on this on a previous post: Hyrax out of favor

Let’s try B”H to analyze briefly some of his points.

An extensive elaboration appears in the book “The enigma of the Biblical shafan”.

1. NS acknowledges that many Spanish Rishonim identify the Biblical shafan as the rabbit.

2. NS claims that when Rav Saadiah Gaon translated shafan as the “wbr”, he intended the hyrax; but as written in the book, after our extensive research we can say that there is no conclusive evidence that this was Rab Saadia’s necessary opinion, because of the 4 points explained there.

3. NS wrote: “rabbits do not live anywhere near Eretz Yisrael…”

The relevance of his statement is questionable, but nevertheless it would be convenient if the facts are checked again.

4. NS wrote: “The only rabbits which hide under rocks are the African rock hares, which only live in Southern Africa, and are in any case so similar in appearance to the hares of Israel (the arneves) that it is hard to imagine that they would be rated as a separate min”.

Again, facts should be checked.

Regarding the “separate min” we explained it in the book with many Torah sources and many science sources why they are considered to different minim.

5. NS wrote: “…if one is going to consider the hyrax as a sheretz, then kal v’chomer that the rabbit, which is much smaller…”

In which page in NS’s book (first or second edition) did he write what is his definition of “sheretz” and the sources on what he based his definition?

6. NS: wrote: “…In fact, the hyrax appears to be more of a maaleh gerah than the hare.”

In which page in NS’s book (first or second edition) did he write what is his definition of “maaleh gerah” and the sources on what he based his definition?

As far as you do not define a category, you cannot include or exclude any animal.

Meanwhile, if you have not read the original letters, you can find them in the following links.

www.tovnet.org/shafan/ShafanHaskamaRavYisroelBelsky19Tamuz5771.jpg www.tovnet.org/shafan/ShafanHaskamaRavYisraelMeirLevinger18Tamuz5771.pdf www.tovnet.org/shafan/ShafanHaskamaRavAmitaiBenDavid16Tamuz5771.pdf

The Nature of "The" Rakia, Part Eight--A Superior Understanding of Pesachim 94b?

2011-07-25T17:15:00.004-04:00

As promised, I shall deal with the passage in Pesachim 94b that describes the sun as travelling behind the rakia at night.

Now, it is of course true that the unidentified “Chachmei Yisroel” of Gemora Pesachim 94b (taken literally) posit that at night, when we do not see the sun, the sun travels “behind the rakia.” And one would reasonably intuit that this indicates they thought the reason we do not see the sun at night is that the rakia (or rather, the back layer of the rakia) is opaque..

But the following question arises: Must we say that this passage shows that Chazal thought of the celestial-rakia as opaque, rendering it at odds with

(a) the Midrash we cited about Avraham Avinu viewing the stars from the back of the rakia, and

(b) the fact likely recognized by Chazal, and certainly by rishonim, that the sun lights the moon?

My answer: Not at all! I will propose, with support from the text, another explanation for how the Gemora Pesachim understands why, at night, when the sun is above the rakia, it cannot be seen.

We note the following:

(a) The Pesachim 94b passage about the path of the sun behind the rakia does not actually say that our inability to see the sun at night is due to any intrinsic opacity[1] or solidity of the celestial rakia

(b) Indeed, no talmudic passage, including this one, actually says that the celestial rakia is either solid or intrinsically opaque.

(c) The expression “עובי הרקיע,” usually translated “thickness of the rakia,” does not in itself inform on the rakia’s texture or transparency. Both the Rambam[2] and the Ralbag[3] also speak of the “עובי” or “עבי” of the spheres, yet they describe the spheres as being ethereal, weightless and colorless. The term “עובי הרקיע” simply refers to the depth—the distance—the rakia spans, whatever texture or substance it may have.[4]

(d) Thus the only feature the Gemora Pesachim 94b does ascribe to the rakia is vast depth.

(e) The preceding Gemara passage describes each of the thousands of the stars we see as specks in the sky to actually be many times the size of earth.

I humbly suggest on this basis that Pesachim 94b is working with the observable fact that distance diminishes the apparent size of objects, to the extent of their ultimate disappearance from sight. This is why those stars, each thousands of times the size of earth, appear to us as mere specks. Now, if the sun travels above the entire vast area of stars, even beyond those stars so far away they can barely be seen, this would account for, and indeed necessitate, that the sun at night must be so far away that it should be impossible to see it at all. We cannot see the sun at night, when it’s behind the rakia, because it is so distant, not because of any opaqueness. The transparent character of the entire celestial rakia, as described by the rishonim, remains intact.

This would fully explain how Chazal could have visualized Avraham seeing the stars from behind the most distant celestial sphere, whereas we cannot see the sun that is behind the dome at night. This would assume there are more stars we cannot see that are further from the earth, as the Gemara implies. (Absence of a filtering atmosphere in space would also contribute to better visibility, but this is not spoken of in the Talmud.)

And this would also explain how the sun’s rays, coming from one side of the rakia, could be seen as illuminating the otherwise dark moon, at an angle at which it would be lit in phases by the sun’s rays. (I am speculating that the moon at night does not join the sun behind the dome.[5]

I venture to call this a superior explanation of the passage in Pesachim, because this explanation uses only the very components and features that Gemora passage (together with its contextual surroundings) itself explicitly mentions, without introducing extraneous and speculative factors and components (such as solidity and opaqueness) that, as we have shown, contradict other talmudic and midrashic sources[6] (—although it still remains at odds with the shita that the sun at night travels beneath the earth).

And this would eliminate a machlokess between Chazal, with them all agreeing that the substance within which the stars are located does not have an opaque back.

All the above is following the basic understanding that the Gemora Pesachim 94b is indeed speaking about the daily path of the sun’s body. This is indeed how Rabbeynu Chananel, referencing a “Braissa D’Rabbeynu Shmuel,”[7] takes it.[8] I am also working on another altogether different possibility. ב”נ I will post it in the future if it turns out to be good enough for presentation.

[1] I say “intrinsically,” because the sky, one of the suggested definitions of rakia, turns opaque colors—blue, gray, orange and red due to the action of the sun’s rays upon it. This, despite the fact that the atmosphere itself is intrinsically transparent. When Chazal say the sky is the color of the sea, it is no more indicative of intrinsic opaqueness than it is indicative of opaqueness when we say the sky is blue.

[2] Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 3:14 speaks of עבי הגלגל, and treats it synonymously with the word for “distance”:

וגם כן היותי שומע תמיד מכל מי שידע דבר מחכמת התבונה, שהוא חושב לגוזמא מה שזכרוהו החכמים ז"ל מן הרחקים, שהם אמרו שעובי כל גלגל מהלך ת"ק שנה , ובין כל גלגל וגלגל מהלך ת״ק שנה

--and indeed, in Moreh Nevuchim 1:57, he describes the spheres as consisting of non-earthly, indescribable material: “[N]otwithstanding all the efforts of the mind, we can obtain no knowledge of the essence of the heavens—a revolving substance which has been measured by us in spans and cubits, and examined even as regards the proportions of the several spheres to each other and respecting most of their motions—although we know that they must consist of matter and form; but since the matter is unlike sublunary matter, we can only describe the heavens in terms expressing negative properties, but not in terms denoting positive qualities. Thus we say that the heavens are not light, not heavy, not passive and therefore not subject to impressions, and that they do not possess the sensations of taste and smell: or we use similar negative attributes. All this we do, because we do not know their substance.”

Likewise, in Mishneh Torah Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 3:3 he describes the galgalim as weightless, tasteless, and lacking any aroma, since such properties only exist in the sublunar world.

[3] Ralbag in his Breishis commentary refers to the rakia’s thickness as a fact in the name of Chazal yet simultaneously describes the rakia as weightless and transparent.

[4] Also relevant:

מדרש רבה דברים פרשה ב

... ד"ה ב לג: “ויתפלל אליו [מנשה] ויעתר לו ויחתר לו." מלמד שהיו מלאכי השרת מסתמין את חלונות של רקיע שלא תעלה תפלתו לשמים. מה עשה הקב"ה? חתר את הרקיע מתחת כסא הכבוד וקיבל את תפלתו וישיבהו ירושלים למלכותו..

Chazal here speak of the “windows” of the rakia, and the “piercing of the heavens,” in an obviously poetical, non-physical way.)

[5] This speculation must also be made in the approach that the reason the sun cannot be seen at night is that the rakia’s back layer is opaque—which does not solve the problem pointed out, that this would prevent the moon from being lit by the sun.

[7] The Sefer Hashavas Aveida identifies this braissa with Pirkei D’Rebbi Eliezer.

[8] Rabbeynu Chananel on Pesachim 94a

ופירש רבינו שמואל בברייתא שלו כי הרקיע עשוי ככובא, הגלגל קבוע והמזלוח חוזרין, ותניא כדבעינן למימר קמן, כי החמה מהלכת בלילה למעלה מן הרקיע מן המערב למזרח, וכשמגעת לחלון שזורחת ממנו, לאלתר עולה עמוד השחר, והחמה מהלכת בעוביו של רקיע, וכשתגיע לסוף עביו של רקיע לצד הנראה לבני אדם, מיד מנצח על הארץ ומהלכת ביום כולו ממזרח למערב. וכן בשקיעות, מהלכת בעביו של רקיע, וכשתצא מעובי הרקיע כולו--מיד הכוכבים נראין.

Hyrax out of favor

2011-07-25T17:10:00.002-04:00

B”H

Recently Natan Slifkin announced the publication of the 2nd edition of his book on the hyrax = the biblical shafan.

In that new book, as well as in the previous one, I could not find any biological reason that justifies calling the hyrax “maaleh gerah”.

If the hyrax is a “non-ruminant, non-cecotroph, non-merycist species” how could the Torah call the hyrax “maaleh gera”?

So the obvious alternative is to say that the hyrax is not the biblical shafan.

Indeed, Natan Slifkin already made a partial concession in his blogspot on 18 Jul 11 when he wrote:

“The hyrax is not as perfect a candidate for the shafan as many would like…”

An interesting coincidence, the timing of Natan Slifkin’s publication of his new book with the moment I received B”H 3 significant letters:

1. An approbation letter to the new book "The enigma of the Biblical shafan" from HaRav Amitai Ben David shlit"a, author of the famous book "Sichat Chulin" on Masechet Chulin, where he acknowledges that the biblical shafan is not the hyrax.

2. An approbation letter from HaRav Yisrael Meir Levinger Shlit"a, author of the famous book "Maor LeMasechet Chulin", where he acknowledges that the biblical shafan is not the hyrax.

3. An approbation letter from HaRav HaGaon Rav Yisroel Belsky Shlit"a, Rosh Yeshivat Torah Vadaat and one of the chief experts for the Orthodox Union, where he acknowledges that the biblical shafan is not the hyrax.

Please remember that Natan Slifkin stated in his first edition, page102 that

“…the shafan is the hyrax. This is also the preferred conclusion of the contemporary Torah scholars who have published works specializing in animals of the Torah, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Levinger and Rabbi Amitai Ben-David…”.

The same statement appears in the second edition pages 90-91.

But now, after these two “contemporary Torah scholars who have published works specializing in animals of the Torah” have read and studied the arguments why the hyrax cannot be the biblical shafan, they acknowledged.

As HaRav HaGaon Rav Belsky שליט"א wrote in his approbation letter, I also hope B”H that many more will reevaluate this issue and arrive at the same conclusion.

P. S. You can find a copy of the above mentioned letters in the following links.

The Nature of “The” Rakia, Part Seven--Chazal Did Not [at] All Think the Celestial Rakia is Opaque

2011-07-15T15:13:00.001-04:00

Rabbi Slifkin’s final mistake pertains to what he claims Chazal held about the opacity, or lack thereof, of the celestial-rakia. He points to the Gemora in Pesachim 94a as proof that Chazal universally held that the celestial rakia has an opaque surface (in addition to being a solid dome), such that would block the sight of anything behind it, specifically the sun in its imagined travels.[1] That this is erroneous—i.e., that not all Chazal held this, and perhaps none held this—can be plainly seen from a Midrash about Avraham Avinu with which Rashi has made us all familiar:

מדרש רבה בראשית פרשה מד

אמר רבי יהודה בשם ר' יוחנן העלה אותו למעלה מכיפת הרקיע הוא דאמר ליה הבט נא השמימה אין הבטה אלא מלמעלה למטה

Said Rebbi Yehudah in the name of Rebbi Yochonon:[2] [When Hashem wanted to impress Avraham with how numerous his descendents will be, he had him look at the stars—but not up at the stars.] He raised him above the כיפת הרקיע, the rakia’s sphere [or “dome,” and Avraham gazed down from there and saw the stars]. This is why it says “הבט נא השמימה”, “Gaze [down] at the heavens—for the term “הבט” connotes gazing from a higher vantage point towards something at a lower level.

Chazal (or at least those individuals among Chazal who promulgated this teaching) did not visualize the part of the rakia behind the stars as opaque, such that it would block our sight of anything on the other side of it (such as the stars, or the sight of the sun in its imagined course). In describing Avraham’s prophetic vision,[3] when Hashem wanted him to see the uncountable number of stars, Chazal visualized Avraham as being positioned above the dome of the rakia—the same place that the Gemora Pesachim places the sun at night—and looking downwards to see the stars. Now, to look down from the back of the rakia and see the stars—and certainly to see more stars than what are visible from earth—requires visualizing the rakia as being transparent, not opaque. Indeed, if the back of the rakia were opaque, it would be the worst place from which to see the stars!

(Furthermore, we note that Avraham is not depicted—neither literally nor even poetically—as shattering anything on his way up through the rakia, and nor is Hashem depicted as “opening the heavenly spheres” for him to pass through them. This again indicates that Chazal visualized the rakia as a non-solid substance—meaning no more solid than, say, the atmosphere; and probably, as the rishonim took it, as even less solid.)

Secondly, Chazal understood that the moon’s light is only due to the sun’s.[4] If at night the sun is behind an opaque surface that prevents us from seeing it, how can one account for the moon’s lit surface? And of course, there is the admission made by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai that we simply do not know if the movement of the stars are indeed related to any celestial spheres. [5]

These questions would all be answered by accepting that at least some of Chazal, if not all of Chazal, did not think of the rakia as intrinsically opaque or solid. And indeed, we have seen that there are statements from Chazal indicating that at least some of them, if not all of them, thought of the rakia as non-solid and transparent. These facts certainly belie Rabbi Slifkin’s claim that Chazal had a universal mesorah that the earth is covered by a solid, opaque dome.

In the next posts, I will suggest that even according to the Gemora Pesachim that deals with the sun’s path at night, we need not say the reason the sun is unseen at night is due to any opacity of the rakia.

[1] Even if they would have held that the celestial sphere is opaque, they may have envisioned it as a some substance such as a thick cloud (dark or otherwise) that blocks out the sun—not at all necessarily a solid, impenetrable material. Regardless, all this investigation would be irrelevant if not for the assertion (unwarranted, not only in my opinion, but obviously in that of the rishonim) that since the rakia is something mentioned in the Torah, whatever Chazal said about it must have been their mesorah of what the word meant. The fact is, Rambam and many others deny that the sayings of Chazal that touch upon the celestial region’s makeup were matters of mesorah (facts transmitted by the prophets), which would render them incontrovertible.

[2] This teaching was also reported by Rebbi Yehuda bar Rebbi Seemone in the name of Rebbi Chanin (Sh’mos Rabbah 38), Rebbi Shmuel Bar R. Yitzchak (Bamidbar Rabbah 2) and Rebbi Levi (Yalku Shimoni, Breishis 18: § 76.

[3] We are consistently following the Rambam’s “rationalist” perspective, which includes the view that all this episode was a prophetic vision, and not a physical occurrence.

[4] מדרש אגדה בראשית פרק א ד"ה [טז] ויעש אלהים

וגזר עליה שלא תהא מאירה אלא מכח השמש.ס

Midrash Aggada Breishis on Breishis 1:16

Hashem decreed that the moon could only shine through the power of the sun

זהר במדבר קפא

דהא לא אנהיר סיהרא אלא מנהורא דשמשא.ס

Zohar on B’Midbar 181

For behold, the moon only shines through the shining of the sun

Also, see Philo: (91) … it is on the fifteenth day that the moon is rendered full of light, borrowing its light from the sun at the approach of evening, and restoring it to him again in the morning [if meant literally, not quite our take—ZL] so that during the night of the full moon the darkness is scarcely visible, but it is all light.

[5] בראשית רבה ו:ח

"ויתן אותם אלהים ברקיע השמים." כיצד גלגל חמה ולבנה שוקעים ברקיע? ר' יהודה בר אלעאי ורבנן. רבנן אמרין מאחורי הכיפה ולמטה. ור' יהודה בר אלעאי אמר מאחורי הכיפה ולמעלה. א"ר יוחנן נראין דברי ר"י בר אלעאי--דהוא אמר מאחורי הכיפה ולמעלה--בימות החמה, שכל העולם כולו רותח ומעיינות צוננין. ומילהון דרבנן--דאמרינן מאחורי הכיפה ולמטה--בימות הגשמים, שכל העולם כולו צונן ומעיינות פושרין. אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אין אנו יודעין אם פורחין הן באויר ואם שפין ברקיע ואם מהלכין הן כדרכן הדבר קשה מאד ואי אפשר לבריות לעמוד עליו

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, We do not know if they fly in the air, if they glide in the rakia,, or if they go on their own way; the matter is exceedingly difficult and it is impossible for humans to determine.

The Nature of “The” Rakia, Part Six—Mistranslation…Again—“חזק” Means “Strong,” Not “Hard”

2011-07-10T00:43:00.001-04:00

“Chazal (and most of the Rishonim) universally interpreted various words in the Torah to be describing the heavens as a solid firmament above us. This was the universal, uncontested, view of Chazal, based on Pesukim such as that in Iyov 37:18: ‘Can you spread out the heavens with Him, hard as a mirror of cast metal?" as well as various other usages in Tenach of the root רקע.’ ”

--Rationalist Judaism Blog, “How the Firmament was understood by our Sages,” Monday, November 22, 2010

Rabbi Slifkin’s resorting to mistranslation to support his thesis makes the weakness of his case all the more transparent.[1] In the above passage, to make a case for his more-solid-than-air-dome-thesis, he translates the word “חזק”, a reference to the rakia’s strength, as “hard:”

Now, even had the text used a Hebrew word that specifically refers to hardness, it would not necessarily imply that Chazal thought that the sky is literally a hard and impenetrable substance. All the less does it imply this, in view of the fact that the actual word used—חזק—refers only to the characteristic of strength. We have seen previously that this “strength” is taken to mean characteristics other than “hardness.”

Denial

In the previous parts of this series, we have seen the explicit statements by the rishonim who—sometimes citing the Iyov verses and the “congealing” Midrashim in their own names and/or in the name of Chazal—do not consider “the” rakia to be something hard. How then can one excuse Rabbi Slifkin’s repeated assertions (The Big Picture of the Firmament) that:

… the unequivocal mesorah that there is … a dome above the earth, made of some sort of substance (i.e. not air or space), …. This was the universal, uncontested, view of Chazal, based on Pesukim such as that in Iyov 37:18: "Can you spread out the heavens with Him, hard as a mirror of cast metal?" as well as various other usages in Tenach of the root רקע. …

And again:

The words of Chazal in the Bavli, Yerushalmi, and Midrash about the nature of the rakia, in terms of it being a firm substance with a particular thickness, in turn based on pesukim such as that in Iyov and others which use the root רקע in other contexts, and the words of Chazal concerning the sun's passage on both sides of the rakia, are explicit. Nowhere in Chazal or the Rishonim is there anything to indicate that any of Chazal held differently. January 18, 2011 12:40 AM

Yes, indeed, “explicit” are the words of Chazal about the nature of the rakia based on pesukim such as that in Iyov [mistranslated by Rabbi Slifkin as saying that the rakia is “hard”] and others which use the root רקע in other contexts.” But the claim that “Nowhere in Chazal or the Rishonim is there anything to indicate that any of Chazal held differently” “in terms of it being a firm substance with a particular thickness” in the sense of being hard, is absolutely false.

In a telling dialogue, called on this fact by Dr. Jonathan Ostroff, the “Rationalist”[2] reacted explosively:

Do not trust Ostroff's citation of the Rishonim[3]….Ostroff has been extremely selective in his citation from Rambam…this blog is not a worthy forum for such a discussion”),[4]

—and immediately made still another wild assertion that is false:

RambaN is likewise clear that there is a solid firmament - just read his commentary to the Chumash.[5]

—as if oblivious to the Ramban’s concept of the substance of the galgalim and the stars therein as being an unearthly, ethereal one—and then shifted gears again, reverting to the Gemora Pesachim to prove that Chazal as a body considered the rakia to be a solid.

When Rabbi Slifkin does finally concede (temporarily, of course) that despite his original claim, the rishonim did not understand Chazal to hold that the rakia is a hard solid, he is not at all fazed. When caught denying that the rishonim say what they say, he simply goes on to assert that the rishonim, by attributing ethereality to the rakia, were actually arguing against or “ignoring” Chazal’s “unanimous” opinion that the rakia is a hard solid:

Now, much later, during the time of the Rishonim, Ptolemaic cosmology had already become widely accepted, and some of the Rishonim reinterpreted Tenach to suit it. It is possible that some of them did not believe the rakia to be a substantive firmament (the best general discussion that I have found on this topic is Edward Grant's paper "Celestial Orbs in the Latin Middle Ages"). But all this would mean is that the Rishonim were ignoring Chazal… and reinterpreting Torah in light of science. ("The Big Picture of The Firmament," Jan., 2011)

The “Rationalist” holds that the rishonim disingenuously claimed to be explaining Chazal. But they were actually ignoring them. In contrast to the disingenuous rishonim, only The “Rationalist” is honest, unbiased and sincere enough to know and teach what Chazal “really” meant in these texts. Only he, in contrast to the rishonim, is really faithful to Chazal’s intent.

This is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusations made by the Karaites and Saducees. They accused Chazal of claiming to be loyal to the Torah but actually knowingly perverting what the Torah “really” means. I realize this is a damning comparison. But how less damning can one be with someone who attempts to promulgate the illegitimate ideas that (parts of) the mesorah can be rejected, and that the rishonim were disingenuous in claiming to be interested in accurately conveying the intents of Chazal when they said they were?

In the next and final posts in this series, I will bli nedder and b’ezras Hashem deal with the issue of the alleged opacity of the celestial-rakia, and treat the passage in Gemora Pesachim 94b that deals with the path of the sun at night.

[1] Mistranslation of sources is a repeated feature of the “Rationalist’s” “evidence.” For another example, in his Monograph, “The Sun’s Path at Night, he translates Midrash Bereishit Rabbah (6:8):

“R. Shimon b. Yochai said: We do not know if they fly up in the air and scrape the firmament, or if they travel as usual; the matter is exceedingly difficult and it is impossible for humans to determine”

—whereas it actually reads:

We do not know if they are flying in the air or if they are sliding in/along the rakia…

אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אין אנו יודעין אם פורחין הן באויר ואם שפין ברקיע ואם מהלכין הן כדרכן הדבר קשה מאד ואי אפשר לבריות לעמוד עליו:

Similarly, he uncritically accepted a published mistranslation of a passage from the Guide For The Perplexed to support his view. My bias about the Rambam’s likely stance alerted me to scrutinize Friedlander’s faulty translation, whereas Rabbi Slifkin’s bias caused him to accept it uncritically.

[2] http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/01/slifkin-solid-dome-thesis_17.html?showComment=1295412175689#c3393643353690798595

[3] Reminiscent of, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

[4] A Freudian slip? I think Rabbi Slifkin meant to assert that such a discussion is not worthy of his blog’s forum.

[5] Well, if you do read the Ramban’s commentary on the Chumash, you will see that he says that the celestial region’s substance is more ethereal than the earth’s:

רמב"ן בראשית פרק א פסוק א

ודע, כי השמים וכל אשר בהם חומר אחד, והארץ וכל אשר בה חומר אחד. והקב"ה ברא אלו שניהם מאין, ושניהם לבדם נבראים, והכל נעשים מהם. והחומר הזה, שקראו היולי, נקרא בלשון הקדש "תוהו", ... והצורה הנלבשת לחומר הזה נקראת בלשון הקדש "בהו"...ואם כן יהיה פשט הכתובים על נכון, משמעותו: בתחלה, ברא אלהים את השמים, כי הוציא חומר שלהם מאין, ואת הארץ, שהוציא החומר שלה מאין. ו"הארץ" תכלול ארבע היסודות כלם, כמו ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם (להלן ב א), שתכלול כל הכדור התחתון...והנה בבריאה הזאת, שהיא כנקודה קטנה דקה ואין בה ממש, נבראו כל הנבראים בשמים ובארץ... וכן אמרו רבותינו (ב"ר א יד) את השמים לרבות חמה ולבנה כוכבים ומזלות, ואת הארץ, לרבות האילנות ודשאים וגן עדן. ואלו כלל כל הנבראים בעל הגוף:

רמב"ן בראשית פרק א פסוק ח

ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שמים... בעבור שירצו החכמים עוד להעלות החומר הראשון עד תכלית ולעשותו דק מן הדקים, לא יראו שהשמים--שהם גוף מתנועע בעל חומר וצורה--הם הנבראים מן האי. אבל אור הלבוש הוא הנברא הראשון, וממנו יצא חומר הממש בשמים. ונתן לארץ חומר אחר ואיננו כדקות הראשון, והוא "שלג שתחת כסא הכבוד", כי כסא הכבוד נברא, וממנו היה "השלג שתחתיו," וממנו נעשה חומר הארץ, והנה הוא שלישי בבריאה.

Natan Slifkin again attacks… but did not respond.

2011-07-06T14:16:00.002-04:00

B"H

Recently NS published Religion, Blinded where he wrote:

I was once challenged by some such people to have a debate on the merits of evolution.

I responded by asking what kind of evidence, hypothetically speaking, would make them accept it.

They dodged and hedged and would not answer the question. This was because no evidence would make them accept it - for them, evolution is a religious issue.

So I sent to his blogspot the following:

If one of "them" would answer clearly your question, are you going to accept the challenge?

Dr. Yitzchak Betech.

Natan Slifkin did not publish my comment, nor answered me by any other way.

I retried 24 hours latter and obtained the same results.

Ten days ago, when he posted on the republishing of his book about the shafan=hyrax issue, I sent to his blogspot the following:

B”H

Dear Natan:

Now that you are announcing the publication of your new book on the Shafan = Hyrax, I am wondering if you would like to answer the 6 reasons I wrote on why the Hyrax can not be the Biblical Shafan.

http://slifkin-opinions.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-cant-hyrax-be-biblical-shafan.html

Regards

Natan Slifkin did not publish my comment, nor answered me by any other way.

I retried 24 hours latter and obtained the same results.

I am wondering if this is what is expected from a “Rationalist Jew”?

Unresponsiveness to his intellectual challengers!

The Nature of “The” Rakia, Part Five—The Rakia and The BiasSphere

2011-07-04T17:37:00.003-04:00

No, “BiasSphere” is not a misspelling;[1] just a new coinage. In this post, I will analyze the Malbim’s comments on the passage “יהי רקיע,” in which he cites the Abarbanel’s comments on the same, and then Rabbi Slifkin’s representation of the Malbim. This will in turn provide some interesting insight to the sphere of “bias,” specifically regarding statements made about the celestial spheres.

The Malbim on this passage ("יהי רקיע") is a marvelous read, in which he brings strong evidence from Scriptures and Chazal that the rakia is the upper part of the atmosphere where clouds form.[2]

His method of presentation is to cite the Abarbanel’s comments, offer his criticism, and then offer his own interpretation with proofs. Let us first see what the Abarbanel says.

Abarbanel

Abarbanel cites five interpretations by bible commentators[3] on the identity of the rakia, critiques them, rejects them, and then offers a sixth, his own. (He initially attempts to find a single definition that fits every reference to rakia in Scriptures and Chazal, but he concludes that Chazal differed with one another.)

1. Interestingly, he first cites the interpretation of “some of the ancient non-Jews,” that the rakia is “the uppermost sphere that surrounds all” the universe.

2. He then describes a second opinion, which he says Rashi, Ramban, Rabbeynu Nissim and Ralbag “apparently lean toward,” that the rakia formed on Day Two is the general sphere really consisting of all the celestial bodies. It is the same thing as the shamayim created on Day One, but more solidified.

3. Next is the opinion promoted in a work called, “Y’sod HaOlam” by a Rabbi Yitzchak Yisraeli. This posits that the rakia is “the sphere of earthly substance[s] that exist between the earth and the moon.”

4. The fourth opinion is that the rakia is the אויר, the air, or atmosphere, consisting of the biosphere, the cloud region, and the thinner air above it. This, he notes, was the opinion of the Rambam (he later includes the Ibn Ezra) “followed by Ibn Tibbon, Ibn Caspi, Ibn Letov, Narboni, Al Balag and others.” [4]

5. The fifth opinion is that of Rav Saadia Gaon and some non-Jewish scholars, that the rakia is an imperceptible but strong sphere “made on the Second Day within the element of water, placed between the space of the world, waters placed above it and other waters beneath it.” The Abarbanel notes that the Ibn Ezra wrote that “the Gaon said things about the rakia that are not so,” and he sees no value in such a vague and unverifiable definition.

6. Abarbanel finally offers his own opinion, backed by Scripture and Chazal . It is basically the same as the second opinion above—which he attributed to Rashi, Ramban, Rabbeynu Nissim and Ralbag—that the Day Two rakia consists of the celestial spheres and bodies. The difference is as follows: Abarbanel maintains that the Day Two entities were first broken off from part of the originally thicker great shamayim Sphere created on Day One. What remained of the original Sphere is what is referred to as the “Waters” above the rakia. Rashi, etc., held otherwise: that all the entities had already existed, albeit in a more ethereal state, on Day One; on Day Two, they merely “solidified.”

Abarbanel then matches each of those opinions with one of the various opinions of Chazal as to the meaning of “יהי רקיע—Let there be a rakia.” There is but one exception which, he maintains, has no basis in Chazal: the fourth one—held by Rambam, Ibn Ezra, the other “Ibn’s,” etc.—that the rakia is the atmosphere.

Malbim

Malbim,[5] in turn, rejects all the opinions cited by Abarbanel, and rejects the claim that they represent any of Chazal’s opinions. But one must pay close attention to his presentation. He says, “במהות הרקיע הזה נבוכו בו המפרשים, והרי"א הביא חמש שטות”—The commentators are in confusion over the nature of the rakia, and R. Yitzchak Abarbanel cites five opinions,” and then he lists five opinions, including Abarbanel’s.

Now, as we’ve seen, the Abarbanel actually listed a total of six, not five opinions. The Malbim omitted mention of one opinion—the opinion that differs in kind from all the others, and is backed by the Rambam, Ibn Ezra, and several other commentators. Why he omitted that one (and was only saying, in effect, “the following are five of the opinions listed by Abarbanel, but not all of them”) becomes apparent from the first words of his rejection of the others:

וכל אלה הדעות נבנו על קורי עכביש שערגו הראשונים שיש גלגלים במציאות אבל בימינו התברר היטב שכל צבאות השמים שטים באויר ספירי ודק מאד הנקרא איתר ואין גלגך במציאות.

And all these opinions are built upon cobwebs the ancients wove, that there are actual celestial spheres in existence. But in our days it has been well clarified that all the heavenly hosts glide in the transparent and extremely thin air called “ether,” and no celestial sphere exists.[6]

The reason the Malbim omitted that opinion is that, in saying the rakia is the atmosphere, it is not subject to his criticism that it is built upon the belief on celestial spheres. On the contrary, it is relatively close to his own conclusion. Namely, that while the rakia of Day Two is not the entire atmosphere excluding the clouds, it is nevertheless a part of that atmosphere. It is the cloud region. The Malbim nevertheless emphasizes the difference between his explanation and that of the Rambam et al.[7]

It should also be noted who the Malbim meant by the “rishonim” who took “rakia” to mean the celestial spheres. He was not talking about the Rishonim such as Rashi and the Rambam. He was referring to the “ancients,” the philosophers who, to explain the heavenly bodies’ perceived movements, contrived the existence of spheres that carry the stars.

Furthermore, we note that the rishonim who identified the “rakia” as the atmosphere rather than any alleged celestial sphere, nevertheless did go along with the science of the day that considered the existence of celestial spheres undeniable. Their identifying the rakia with the atmosphere was a result of objective analysis of Scripture and Chazal, not a result of disbelief in the existence of the spheres.

Rabbi Slifkin, lehavdil

Bearing all this in mind, one can clearly see that Rabbi Slifkin misunderstands the Malbim’s comments. He gives the impression that all the Rishonim believed the rakia to be a solid firmament, that the Malbim was the first to interpret rakia differently, and that the real reason he did so was not because of an objective study of Scriptures and Chazal (of which the unbiased Rabbi Slifkin is capable), but because, despite what Chazal taught, modern science forced him to do. Here is what he writes [with my comments in bold inserted]:

The important point to recognize for now is that Chazal (and most of the Rishonim) universally interpreted various words in the Torah [by “various words,” I suppose Rabbi Slifkin means rakia and shamayim] to be describing the heavens as a solid firmament above us. [This “solidity” claim, denoting a harder-than-atmosphere texture, has been repeatedly refuted elsewhere.] And yet, nobody today believes that such a structure exists.
Malbim was sensitive to this problem. In his commentary to Bereishis 1:6, Malbim rejects the view that the rakia is a solid firmament. [No, Malbim does not mention or imply “solidity.” However, following the academia of his day, Malbim dismissed the idea that celestial spheres carry the stars, in favor of the idea that the stars move independently within the “ether.”] He argues that it refers to the atmosphere [but so did the Rambam and Ibn Ezra, as the Malbim himself notes, and many other commentators long before the Malbim!] - an argument that we shall analyze in a later post. Malbim acknowledges that all the Rishonim believed it to be a solid firmament, [Again, no. In fact, he explicitly refers to the Rambam, Ibn Ezra, et al who identified the rakia with the atmosphere; and by the word “rishonim,” the Malbim is referring to the ancient philosophers] and declares them mistaken. However, he claims that the Sages were also of the view that there is no solid firmament, citing R. Shimon bar Yochai as saying that the stars move through the air. But this is deeply problematic. First of all, Malbim does not adequately deal with all the passages in the Talmud which speak of a solid firmament [There are none—ZL] (his novel explanation of Pesachim 94b [Where?] is not shared by anyone else at all). [And the “Rationalist’s” assault on the mesorah is shared by others? On the contrary, it is condemned by all classical authorities.]
Second, the words of R. Shimon bar Yochai cited by Malbim do not exist in our version of Bereishit Rabbah 6:8, which reads quite differently; apparently Malbim had a corrupted text. [No, the Malbim is clearly pointing out that one of the possibilities Rashbi offered was that the movement of the stars was not related to any galgalim. All the Malbim says is, “ורשב"י במדרש אמר שהכוכבים שטים באויר".”—“Rashbi said [as one of his possibilities] the stars fly in the air.” Our version of the Midrash indeed reads: אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אין אנו יודעין אם פורחין הן באויר ואם שפין ברקיע ואם מהלכין הן כדרכן הדבר קשה מאד ואי אפשר לבריות לעמוד עליו. The Malbim paraphrased “פורחין הן באויר” as “שטים באויר.” Both phrases mean the stars fly in the air, independent of something carrying them. The claim of “a corrupted text” to dismiss the Malbim’s well-taken point is a red herring.]
Third, even if R. Shimon bar Yochai did speak of stars moving through the air, [“if”? Is Rabbi Slifkin insinuating that there is another version in which R. Shimon bar Yochai does not say so?!] this in no way denies the existence of a solid firmament [Yes it does, because the whole imagery of ethereal spheres, especially if taken literally, was a speculation concocted by the ancients in order to explain what makes the stars move; no scriptural verse attempts to explain the means by which Hashem makes the stars or planets appear to move as they do; R. Shimon bar Yochai says “we cannot know” how to explain the motions of the stars, and they may move through the rakia (“air” or space) on their own, independent of any spheres, and the entire matter is one of speculation, not mesorah. The burden of extraordinary proof lies on Rabbi Slifkin who—in order to build his extraordinary case that contrary to all Torah scholarship since its inception, it is legitimate to reject any of the mesorah—maintains that Chazal, including R. Shimon bar Yochai, universally held there was a mesorah that saw the rakia as a solid, opaque entity.]

Back To The BiasSphere

Now the question arises: When the Malbim wrote, “וכל אלה הדעות נבנו על קורי עכביש שערגו הראשונים,” why did Rabbi Slifkin miss what the Malbim meant by “rishonim”? Why didn’t he notice the Malbim explicitly referring to rishonim who, long before him, understood the rakia to be the atmosphere? Why did these words become invisible to him? Answer to all three questions: bias.

Why can’t Rabbi Slifkin see the baselessness to depict the definition of rakia as a mesorah? Why does he habitually revert to thinking that despite no such statement, and despite statements from rishonim to the contrary, Chazal considered the rakia to be harder than the atmosphere, and that this was a mesorah? Again, one word: bias.

The Malbim cited the Abarbanel as offering five opinions about the rakia’s identity, omitting any opinion of the rakia meaning the atmosphere. Why did Rabbi Slifkin run with that, and declare that “Malbim acknowledges that all the Rishonim believed it to be a solid firmament”? Why did he not go on to check the Abarbanel, where he would have seen that he actually quotes six opinions, spending three columns discussing the opinion that it refers not to celestial spheres, but to the atmosphere? Why did he not at least see that farther on, the Malbim himself mentions that opinion?

And why did I?

Answer: When Rabbi Slifkin came across a statement by the Malbim “וכל אלה הדעות נבנו על קורי עכביש שערגו הראשונים שיש גלגלים במציאות” that at first sight may appear to be saying that all the Rishonim believed the rakia to be a solid firmament, he perceived a validation of his rejecting (part of) the mesorah, and he ceased further investigation.

When Zvi Lampel came across that statement, he remembered learning that the Rambam, among others, took the rakia to be the atmosphere, and was perplexed over how the Malbim could say otherwise about the Rishonim. He was also motivated by his sharing—together with all the rishonim and acharonim and all the Torah literature that exists—the bias to uphold the mesorah and to be skeptical of academic claims of its being compromised. Therefore, Zvi Lampel investigated further, checked the Abarbanel, re-read the Malbim and continued reading his commentary further, and came to the realization that Malbim’s use of the word “rishonim” was the less usual one, referring to the ancient philosophers, and that it was to make his point, that the Malbim tentatively omitted the widely held opinion that the rakia is the atmosphere, although he was aware of it.

Hashem’s Torah and mesorah are our guideposts to the truth. As B’nei Yisrael, we are privileged to have experienced Mattan Torah and to have received a mesorah from the prophets that, among other things, Creation was a meta-natural process. Am I biased? You bet I am! And that bias is the guiding yoke that has aided the Jewish People’s ma’aminim and b’nei ma’aminim to see the truth. It has repeatedly saved me from slipping into circular reasoning, uncritically accepting and adopting mistranslations and misconstruals, and from the episodes of cognitive dissonance I’ve seen others experience, all of which obstruct the recognition of the truth. That, with, of course, an objective study of what the mesorah is, leaves us in good stead.

The opposite bias is what leads the others to the opposite.

“Now We Know…”

I’ve always found it ironic that after he dismisses the speculations about celestial spheres, the Malbim states in effect that now we know that the stars are really encompassed by … the “ether.” Now, the Malbim is not to be faulted for thinking that the scientists really had valid proofs for what they said, and basing his explanations of the pesukim upon them. We do this as well, as long as it does not contradict the mesorah,[8] and as long as we realize what is mesorah and what is speculation. Why not? And concerning practical issue, as long as the pragmatic results seem to be helpful, why not utilize them? But I cannot help but wonder if—after our long historical experiences of going through what was “known” and “undeniable” by paganism, Aristotelianism, and then science’s confidence in the existence of “ether”—we might have matured enough to feel justified in exercising a healthy skepticism—a wait-and-see attitude—before wholeheartedly accepting (on the level of convinced belief) whatever the science of the day claims is undeniable fact, even if it does not contradict the Torah.

In any case, it must be pointed out that whatever “facts” or interpretations of the Torah all our commentators adopted, they considered legitimate only those views supportable by Chazal; and they consistently strove to show how the specific statements of Chazal endorsed, or better, impelled, their conclusions.

The Malbim—as all our Torah giants—was a staunch follower of Chazal, and did not and would not attribute to Chazal a faulty mesorah.

[1] The biosphere (spelled with an “o” after the “i”) is the sphere consisting of the substance within which earth’s inhabitants exist.

[2] Scientists currently classify five parts to the atmosphere, the lowest of which is the part we live in, called the troposphere. Fog is of course formed in the lower part of this troposphere, and rain-producing clouds form in its upper section.

[3] Abarbanel on “Rakia”

אברבנל

הדעת הא' שהוא גלגל העליון המקיף בכל, ולזה צטו קצת מקדמוני האומות.....

הדעת הב' הוא שהרקיע הזה נאמר על כללות הגרמים השמימיים כגי הם כלם יקראו כדור אחד ורקיע אחד ולזה יראה שנטה רש"י באומרו הם השמים שנבראו ביום הראשון אלא לחים היו ונקרשו בשני. ולכן פירש יהי רקיע יחזק הרקיע מדברי ב"ר....ולזה גם כן נטה הרמב"ן ורבינו נסים...וגם הרלב"ג מזה הדעת ברקיע הזה.

ג) שהוא שטח הקערורי מגלגול הלבנה...הדעת הר' יצחק ישראלי בספר יסוד עולם

ד) הוא שלא נאמר רקיע אלא על האויר שהוא נחלק לג' חלקים...העליון...ולא יתילגו בו...עננים ומטר...האמצעי...יתילדו בו העננים והמטר...התחתון מהאויר הקרוב אלינו…ס

ה) הוא שהרקיע הנזכר כאן הוא גוף כדורי חזק נעשה ביום ב' בתוך יסוד המים. והוא ממוצע בחלל העולם. ומים קבועים עליו ומים אחרים תחתיו. אלא שבני אדם לא ירגישו בו. וזה היה דעת רב סעדיה גאון וגם מחכמי האומות אמרו כן…ס

אומר אני שהשמים שנבראו ביום הא' היה גלגל אחד בלבד, עב וגדול מאד...ואמנם אותו הרקיע שנעשה ביום השני הם כלל הגלגלים...והם נעשו מאותו כדור גדול שנברא ביום הא'ס'

[4] The others besides the Rambam and Ibn Ezra are not considered “Rishonim,” but merely philosophers and Bible commentators who happened to live in the era of the Rishonim. I am not citing them for their authority, but to demonstrate that identifying the rakia as the atmosphere was a widely-held opinion, both among Rishonim and non-Rishonim of the era, long before the Malbim, and not dependent upon the disbelief in celestial spheres.

[5] Malbim on “Rakia”:

ויאמר אלקים יהי רקיע בתוך המים. במהות הרקיע הזה נבוכו בו המפרשים, והרי"א הביא חמש שטות

א) שהוא גלגל העליון המקיף בכל.

ב) הוא כללות הגרמיים השמימיים.

ג) שהוא שטח הקערורי מגלגול הלבנה.

ד) שהוא גוף כדורי חזק שנעשה בתוך יסוד המים והוא קבוע ממוצע בחלל העולם.

ה) דעתו שהוא אשר מצא חן בעיניו שגלגל גדול עב וכבד נעשה ביום הראשון. וממנו נעשו ביום השני שאר גלגלים המקיפים.

וכל אלה הדעות נבנו על קורי עכביש שערגו הראשונים שיש גלגלים במציאותת אבל בימינו התברר היטב שכל צבאות השמים שטים באויר ספירי ודק מאד הנקרא איתר ואין גלגך במציאות.

[6] I will for now put aside the irony of his dismissing as baseless the ancient belief in spheres in favor of the existence of the “ether” that the 19^th century science of his day confidently considered “well clarified”—unaware that 20^th century science would soon declare that belief wrong as well (and insist that it’s conclusions are the ones to be confident about).

[7]

יהי רקיע בתוך המים. שיטתנו רחוקה מאד משיטת הרמב"ם. שדעתו שהרקיע הוא יסוד האויר, ושההבדלה בין מים למים--היינו בין מי הימים והנהרות, למים שהם בעבים ועננים...אבל לדעתי, שם רקיע הונח על מקום העבים והסגריר...

Our opinion is very far from the Rambam’s. To his mind, the rakia is the element of air, and that the “separation between waters and waters” is [the intrinsic distinction in nature, not a localized separation—ZL] between the sea and river waters and the waters of the thick and thin clouds….But to my mind, the noun rakia refers to the cloud and rain region of the sky.....

[8] From: Voice From The Wilderness: Critiques of Reshimu Part IV: Rabbi Sedley's Mischaracterization of Rationalist Rishonim and Chareidi Hashkafa

As Rav Saadia Gaon formulates it, the conclusions of human reason are valid insofar as they confirm the true knowledge received by tradition. When human investigation veers from the tradition of the Prophets and Sages, it is a signal that an error is being made:

But we, the Congregation of the Believers in the Unity of God, accept the truth of all the three sources of knowledge, and we add a fourth source, which we derive from the three preceding ones, and which has become a Root of Knowledge for us, namely, the truth of reliable Tradition…Our answer is this: it cannot be thought that the Sages should have wished to prohibit us from rational inquiry, seeing that our Creator has commanded us to engage in such inquiry in addition to accepting the reliable Tradition.…

He also informed us that by speculation and inquiry we shall attain to certainty on every point in accordance with the Truth revealed through the words of His Messenger. In this way we speculate and search in order that we may make our own what our Lord has taught us by way of instruction.

Rav Saadia Gaon, Sefer Emunos V’Dei’os

The Nature of “The” Rakia, Part Four—How Hard Is The Sky?

2011-06-26T07:39:00.001-04:00

We have pointed out that some of Chazal’s descriptions of “the” rakia refer to the atmosphere, and some refer to the celestial spheres. Sometimes it is not easy to determine which are which, and rishonim differ. However, there definitely are scriptural and rabbinical descriptions that are indisputably about the cloud region of the sky. And among these are some that clearly use terms associated to texture. Let us see, when they speak of the sky being like one or another texture, whether the terminology is meant in the unsophisticated sense Rabbi Slifkin imputes to the same kind of terminology when it is applied to “the” rakia of the sun, moon and stars.

The Chumash Describes the Rakia’s Texture

Here is what pesukim say about the sky’s texture:

וְשָׁבַרְתִּי אֶת-גְּאוֹן עֻזְּכֶם וְנָתַתִּי אֶת-שְׁמֵיכֶם כַּבַּרְזֶל וְאֶת-אַרְצְכֶם כַּנְּחֻשָׁת

ויקרא כו:יט

And I shall shatter your proud strength, and I shall put your heavens like iron, and your land like copper (Vayikra 26:19).

Now, even if, ala Rabbi Slifkin, one were to take the reference to “iron” as an attribution of hardness—which we shall show is specifically here not the case—it would only show that this hardness is precisely not the normal, default or original state of the rakia. “Iron-like” is only a consistency with which Hashem endows the rakia at times that the people neglect the Torah. Otherwise the rakia is not “iron-like”—not hard; or not, at least, as hard as iron!

The default status of the rakia, also called shechakim is, as the word connotes, an area of the sky that looks like “pulverized” water and fire—one might say steamy or misty.[1]

As for Chazal, The Sifri comments on the verse:

ועצר את השמים"--שיהו עננים טעונים גשמים ואין מורידים גשמים אפילו טיפה אחת. ומנין אפילו טללים ורוחות? ת"ל: “ונתתי את שמיכם כברזל” (ויקרא כ"ו). (אינו אלא) בית השלחין יהיה עושה פירות ת"ל "ואת ארצכם כנחושה" (סיפרי פרשת עקב פיסקא מג). ס

[The Torah says: “If you will not keep the commandments] Hashem will stop up the heavens (shamayim)…” This means that the clouds[2] will be bearing the rainwater, but not let them fall as rain—not even one drop. And not even dew or winds, for it says, “And I will make your heavens (shamayim) like iron. Nor will your irrigated areas produce fruit, for it says, “… [and I will make] your land like copper.”

In this passage, Chazal take “shamayim” to refer to the “lower rakia,” the one of the clouds.—and its rainwaters normally have no trouble flowing through the rakia to earth.

So in reality, in what aspect do we see that the pesukim and Chazal saw the shamayim, or clouds, when “turned into” iron, to be like iron?—in the aspect that they will not exude water; not in the aspect of their material consistency or texture.

The concept is repeated with more detail by Chazal in their comments on the frightening tochacha passage (Vayikra 26:19) where Hashem tells us that if we refuse to repent,

וְשָׁבַרְתִּי אֶת- גְּאוֹן עֻזְּכֶם וְנָתַתִּי אֶת-שְׁמֵיכֶם כַּבַּרְזֶל וְאֶת-אַרְצְכֶם כַּנְּחֻשָׁה

I will shatter the glory of your strength, and make your shamayim like iron, and your land like copper.

Chazal explain:

(ג) ... ונתתי את שמיכם כברזל ואת ארצכם כנחושה. שלא יהא השמים מזיעים כדרך שאין הברזל מזיע. והארץ תהא ממזיע כדרך שהנחושת מזיע. והיא מאבדת פירותיה.
“…I will place your shamayim like iron, and your land like copper.”—Meaning, the shamayim [the region of the sky from which rain forms, or the clouds] will not sweat, just as iron does not sweat. And the land will sweat, just as copper sweats, and ruin its produce.

Again, the aspect to which the iron-like or copper-like refers is not texture. Here, again, it refers to the aspect, or lack thereof, of exuding liquid. The point being, the result will be absence of rain. (The commonality of result in a metaphor does not compel the commonality of cause. If one says that another’s brain is hard as a rock, the accuser’s point is that his message is not being processed by the accused’s thinking; it does not mean to accurately describe the texture of the accused’s brain, or even the means by which thoughts are processed or blocked.)

When metaphors and similes are made, one must investigate the aspect in which the equivalency is meant. When Yaakov calls Yehuda a “young lion (גור אריה), or Binyamin a “wolf,” one realizes he did not think his sons were animals, and one strives to understand what aspect of a lion or wolf he had in mind.—His facial appearance? His strength? His method of attack? His royalty? His cunning? His ferociousness? So too, when the rakia is referred to as “like brass,” “strong,” “like a mirror,” “a plate,” “a tent,” etc., one must ascertain in what aspects the equivalence is meant, and not attribute equivalence in other aspects.

This is of course elementary, and should not be forgotten when dealing with pesukim and Chazal, despite one’s agenda. And the place to go to see what aspect Chazal or pesukim intended by their similes and metaphors, is Chazal and pesukim themselves, guided by the rishonim—not Christian evangelists.

[1] See Addendum for an interesting suggestion that the word “sky” is related to the Hebrew “shechakim.”

[2] The Rambam has already pointed out that the Torah uses the words shamayim and rakia interchangeably regarding the two rakias. Here we have a passage in which Chazal clearly identify shamayim with the clouds.

===================================

ADDENDUM

Interesting Suggestions about the Etymology of the Word “Sky” From the Hebrew “Shechakim” (from http://www.edenics.net/english-word-origins.aspx?word=OBSCURE)

It has been suggested that the English word “sky” ultimately derives from שחק: Latin obscurus is from ob (toward) + the Indo-European “root” (s)keu (to cover, conceal).

שחק SHaK[H]aQ is a cloud (Psalms 77:18); the plural שחקים SHiK[H]aKiM means clouds, heaven or "skies" (Deuteronomy 33:26) .

סכך SaKHaKH is to screen or cover over. שחר SHaK[H]oaR is dark or "black" (Leviticus13:31); The link to SKY is OBSCURED by the fact that ש-ח-ק Shin-Het-Koof originally meant cloud of dust

The connection is clearer when considering that SKY, from Germanic skeu-jam (cloud), is a cognate of OBSCURE. Sky in Danish and Norwegian. Similar in Icelandic, means “cloud.”)

Fair is Fair

2011-06-22T06:12:00.002-04:00

In this post, Rabbi Slifkin draws attention to the questionability of certain modern day segulos and for this he should be commended. It is not often that members of this blog find common ground with Rabbi Slifkin and his approaches to yahadus. But this blog is dedicated to an analysis of Rabbi Slifkin’s views and fair is fair. In this case, I happen to identify with his attitude to modern day segulos (I do not speak for the other members). Accordingly, I felt it should be noted.

To be sure, segulos are an important part of Talmudic literature and are discussed in halachic works such as Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. Sometimes the rationality behind them can be detected; sometimes it is difficult (see, for instance, Shabbos 67). But that’s Chazal. Modern day segulos do not possess anywhere near the level of reliability (or rationality) as Chazal’s suggestions. There is a plethora of Torah literature on this subject. I have reviewed much of the material but at this time am not inclined to examine the sugya in depth, at least not publicly.

I’d like to focus on a troublesome statement Rabbi Slifkin made in the aforementioned blog entry. He writes:

Furthermore, one person's segulah is another person's fundamental religious belief. How much more inherently irrational are segulos than, say, tefillas haderech (which I am extremely makpid about)? True, one can draw distinctions, but the efficacy of petitionary prayer may be difficult to justify on a solely rational level.

I find this statement difficult. The entire middle part of our shemoneh esrei is written b’lashon bakasha (supplication). But while it remains true that the purpose of segulos is to effect a change in the current condition, this is not the primary purpose of tefila at all. Chovos Levavos supplies five reasons for the purpose of tefila and none of them relate to "the efficacy of petitionary prayer". Even in instances where the seforim ha'kedoshim discuss tefila in the role of changing the status quo, these cases can be understood rationally. (Rav Dessler speaks about this at length). To my mind, there is no comparison whatsoever between modern day segulos and tefilos bakasha. IMO, Rabbi Slifkin pulled his punches unnecessarily.

Why can’t the hyrax be the biblical shafan?

2011-06-20T11:00:00.006-04:00

BS"D

Update on this issue: Hyrax out of favor

Additional update: Natan Slifkin surprised by the disfavored hyrax

As the beginning of Mashechet Chulin on Daf Yomi approaches, we have been researching once again the difficult issue of the identification of the biblical animals.

Unfortunately in many books, Chumashim and Gemarot, it is written and/or illustrated with pictures, that the biblical shafan mentioned in Parashat Shemini and Ree is the hyrax.

In my humble opinion this is not correct because of the 6 reasons explained in the linked document.

Any comment or suggestion will be greatly appreciated.

VeHashem yetakenenu beetza toba milefanav.

Dr. Yitzchak Betech.

P.S. Please feel free to redistribute the linked document at your discretion.

Dialogue – The Hoax of Geology: Final

2011-06-19T21:52:00.003-04:00

This post is the final submission in an ongoing series of posts relating to Geology.

Rabbi Slifkin writes:

Prior to the eighteenth century, geology did not exist as a historical science. The world was universally agreed to have been created several thousand earlier by God, using a dramatic process that could not be fathomed by mortal man…Additionally…it was assumed that the Deluge had wreaked havoc upon the world subsequent to creation.

But in 1793, a canal digger by the name of William Smith made a startling discovery, as described in the superb book The Map That Changed The World. He found that the same strata of rock are always found in the same order of superposition, and they always contain the same fossils. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Certain types of rock contained certain types of fossils that were unique to those beds. The layers of rock always appeared in the same order. This pattern held true everywhere that Smith checked…And thus the Meiselman theory was abandoned, and the modern science of geology was born.

Two comments are in order.

First of all, the "Meiselman theory" was not yet abandoned. The early geologists were all catastrophists. They believed that the superposition of strata occurred rapidly and was caused by major geological upheavals in earth’s past such as the biblical deluge. Only later was the science of geology harnessed in the service of the nascent theory of evolution. It is important to understand that the neat superposition of strata one on top of the next is not any more consistent with evolutionary theory than it is with "catastrophe theory".

Second of all, contrary to Rabbi Slifkin’s claim, the significance of William Smith’s discovery cannot be understated. Smith checked in England. That’s it! England, at its longest point, is less than 400 miles long. The fact that the strata are uniform in this relatively small geographical locality is entirely insignificant in the greater scheme of things. Yes, Smith’s discovery launched the current branch of science known as Historical Geology but as this science progressed, it was discovered that Smith’s observations did not necessarily hold true in other localities. One hundred years later, in the late 1800’s, professional geologists already knew that Rabbi Slifkin’s statement "the layers of rock always appeared in the same order" was simply false! But the apikorsus of evolutionary dogma is so insidious, so pervasive, so ubiquitous, and so all-encompassing, that even well informed laymen such as Rabbi Slifkin still believe, 120 years later (!), that the layers of rock always appear in the same order.

Rabbi Slifkin continues to write:

Geology is an extremely useful science; it's not an ivory-tower philosophy. All kinds of industries and activities, as well as those investigating natural disasters, employ geologists. Because geology works. The patterns that are found in the rocks, the processes that are inferred from them and are still seen happening today, can all be relied upon to be applicable universally - throughout the planet, and throughout history. Billion-dollar industries prove it so! The constancy of nature over long periods was not an assumption - it was a discovery.

And therein lays the rub. This paragraph constitutes the very essence of what is wrong with Rabbi Slifkin’s assumptions about science and all those who follow in his path. These assumptions have been the bane of our mesorah! They have even managed to lead astray some of the greatest of our nation. Yes, geology is an extremely useful science and yes it is not an ivory tower philosophy. But it depends which branch of geology is being discussed. "Historical Geology", as Rabbi Slifkin calls it, has nothing to do with the billion dollar industries Rabbi Slifkin makes reference to. These industries utilize operational geology.

Operational science is governed by an entirely different set of rules. Its theories must be tested. The results must be confirmed. Its conclusions must be based on empirical evidence. These industries, by definition, are incapable of relying on ridiculous, unproven (and actually false) assumptions such as the uniformity of rock beds over the globe. Industrial geology could care a wit if Rabbi Slifkin’s claim that "Certain types of rock contained certain types of fossils that were unique to those beds" was true or false. It is simply irrelevant to their branch of scientific endeavor.

The truth is Evolution has invaded practically every branch of science, from paleontology and geology to biology and chemistry. Even physics and astronomy have not been spared. Its theories have sullied practically every academic field with the possible exceptions of fields such as mathematics and computer science. The result is that Evolution has managed to generate a whole new branch of science. This branch of science is referred to as "historical science". (I adopted this term from ID author and scientist Stephen Meyer)

The academic world tries its hardest to conflate these two branches of science – operational science and historical science – and thus blur the distinction between them. By doing this they generate the false assumption that just as operational science is proven so is historical science. Just as operational science is dependable, so is historical science. If Rabbi Slifkin understood, truly understood, the fundamental distinction between these two branches of science, he would think twice before investing all of his faith in the materialistic, ivory-tower philosophies of the "global scientific community".

If frum Jews understood the inherently speculative nature of the historical sciences, many of the anti-masoretic "reconciliations" offered by people like Rabbi Slifkin would become obviated. If frum Jews understood the true philosophical underpinnings of historical science, they wouldn’t hesitate to scoff (our forefather’s name, Yitzchak – he will scoff) at the materialism of the savants. If they understood the categorical lack of scientific evidence which typically attends the origins-based sciences, they wouldn’t even dream of abandoning their mesorah in favor of science or distorting the verses of the Torah in the service of needless apology. The problem is, most people don’t understand and unfortunately, even when informed, are incapable of breaking free of their preconceived notions. As one of my esteemed colleagues is frequently in the habit of stating, "people simply don’t know how to think".

This concludes our treatment of the evidence, or lack thereof, for evolution from the science of geology. Comments are encouraged.

Inventing Sources

2011-06-19T11:35:00.002-04:00

In a follow up to this post, Rabbi Slikfin writes as follows:

Yesterday, I noted how Chasam Sofer was of the view that the Sanhedrin may be mistaken in their rulings, and yet they must be obeyed, due to the importance of a centralized rabbinic authority. In this, he was following the approach of Sefer HaChinnuch (and, arguably, some others). Rav Yosef Caro, as explained by Rabbi Shlomo Fisher, takes the same approach to Chazal. Chazal could indeed be mistaken; nevertheless, we never dispute their rulings. This is because the Jewish People canonized the Gemara; we accept its binding authority, regardless of whether or not Chazal were correct. (Cases involving matters of life and death are an exception to this, as discussed previously).

Now Rabbi Slifkin has stooped to inventing sources in support of his thesis. R’ Yosef Caro does not say that "Chazal could indeed be mistaken; nevertheless, we never dispute their rulings." What he says is that although normally a latter Beis Din may dispute the halachic rulings of a former Beis Din, the chasimas haMishana and chasimas haTalmud are apparent exceptions to this rule. And he certainly does not say that matters of life and death are exempt from the "canonization" of the Talmud. Rabbi Slifkin’s blatant misrepresentation of the sources reveals the depth of his prejudice in these matters.

(For Rabbi Caro's treatment of this topic, please see Kesef Mishnah to Rambam Hil. Mamrim 2:1)

The Nature of “The” Rakia, Part Three—Accusations of Primitive Ideas

2011-06-19T10:47:00.000-04:00

Rabbi Slifkin is wont to cite the writings of a Christian evangelist, Paul Seeley. We have already seen that Seeley claimed that standard Hebrew lexica understand the rakia to be a solid dome, as opposed to an atmospheric expanse,[1] apparently oblivious[2] to the Radak’s classic Sefer HaShorashim, which defines the “strength” of the rakia in the Iyov verse otherwise, and the commentaries of other rishonim. He also asserts that Hebrew understanding of the heavens was perhaps even more naïve and primitive than that of all others.[3] The holy texts of the Jews, he asserts, show they considered the rakia to be a hard, solid entity.[4] He takes such texts literally.

Those who want to read into Chazal’s words that they thought the rakia is a solid, metallic-like material would be happy to see the following Chazal that considers the rakia “silver”:

מדרש רבה במדבר פרשה יב:ד
"עמודיו עשה כסף" (שם י:ג) זה הרקיע כמה דתימא (איוב כו) "עמודי שמים ירופפו."

B’midabar Rabbah 12:4
“His pillars He made כסף (usually translated, “silver”) (Shir HaShirim 3:10). This [reference to “pillars”] is [a reference to] the rakia (sky), as you see it says in Iyov (26:11), “the pillars of the heavens will weaken.”

The Chazal-literalists and mesorah-rejectionists would no doubt bring this as clear evidence that Chazal, along with the ancient Hebrews, naively and primitively thought that the sky is made of silver, or that it is kept from falling by the support of unseen silver pillars.

However, they will be disappointed when they see the continuation of this passage. And—if they will be unbiased enough to study Chazal’s words with the proper mindset the Rambam and others insist we utilize—they will realize that Chazal did not understand the metaphors and similes of the pesukim the crude way asserted by the Seeleys and Slifkins of the world.

ס”עמודיו עשה כסף" (שם י) זה הרקיע כמה דתימא (איוב כו) "עמודי שמים ירופפו." ולמה קרי ליה כסף—שהוא מכסף על כל מעשה בראשית.ס

“His pillars He made כסף (usually translated, “silver”) (Shir HaShirim 3:10). This is the rakia (sky), as you see it says in Iyov (26: ), “the pillars of the heavens will weaken.”
And why are they called “כסף”? —because they cover (מכסף) over all of maaseh breishis.

Note that Chazal did not understand the “pillars” to be things that support the heavens, but a poetical reference to the heavens themselves. Accordingly, "עמודי שמים" is not to be translated, “the pillars of the heavens,” but rather: “the pillar-heavens.”

More to our point, we see that when it came to applying the word "כסף" to the sky, Chazal deviated from the typical translation of כסף as “silver;” and we see how far away from the meaning of anything metallic or solid they took its meaning to be.

We should also note that Chazal speak of the “windows” of the rakia, and the “piercing of the heavens,” in an obviously poetical, non-physical way:
מדרש רבה דברים פרשה ב
... (ד"ה ב לג) “ויתפלל אליו [מנשה] ויעתר לו ויחתר לו." מלמד שהיו מלאכי השרת מסתמין את חלונות של רקיע שלא תעלה תפלתו לשמים. מה עשה הקב"ה? חתר את הרקיע מתחת כסא הכבוד וקיבל את תפלתו וישיבהו ירושלים למלכותו ...
Devarim Rabbah 20
…the angels closed up the windows of the rakia so that his prayer would not go up to heaven…So the Holy One blessed-be-He ripped open the rakia from under the Throne of Glory and received his prayer …
I think we can agree that by “prayer” Chazal meant the thoughts, intentions, desires, etc. of the person behind the spoken words—nothing physical, not even sound waves, that would require the literal opening of “windows of the sky” to “arise” to Heaven.

And these are not Greco-Arabic- or Renaissance-influenced rishonim rationalizing Chazal. These are Chazal themselves.

—Although academics, if they would admit to this, would no doubt turn around and proclaim that this is Aristotelian-Chazal rationalizing Scripture! But at least we can dispense with Rabbi Slifkin’s claim that Chazal thought the rakia is a hard, solid dome, and the kind of “proofs” he brings for that assertion.

[1] “Standard Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars have defined the raqia(רקיע "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome over the earth.Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse” (The Firmament and the Water Above, The Westminster Theological Journal 53 [1991] p. 227).

[2] Although he didn’t actually say “all standard Hebrew lexica defined the rakia of Gen. 1:6-8 as a solid dome over the earth.” But on the other hand, I’m not aware of any that do so.

[3] “Scientifically naive peoples everywhere have believed the sky was solid, and there is no reason to believe the Hebrews were any less scientifically naive than their neighbors…[O]ne might gather that the early Hebrews were possibly more scientifically naive than their neighbors, but certainly not less so.Similarly, the fact that it was not the Hebrews but their neighbors who led the technological advance from the use of bronze to the use of iron (cf. Josh 17:18; Judg 1:19) suggests, if anything, that the Hebrews were more scientifically naive than their neighbors. It certainly does not suggest that they were less so. Nor do we know of any evidence from biblical times that suggests the Hebrews were ever more scientifically sophisticated than their neighbors.Accordingly, it seems most probable that so far as the physical nature of the sky is concerned, the Hebrews, as a typical scientifically naive people, believed the raqia was solid” (Seeley, p. 234).

Seeley does not mention (at least not here) the acclaimed superior scientific wisdom attributed to King Solomon.

[4] Jews … tried to figure out how thick it was by employing biblical interpretation (Gen. Rab. 4.5.2). Most tellingly they even tried to calculate scientifically the thickness of the firmament (Pesab. [sic.] 49a [sic.—no doubt a typographical error, the reference should be Pesah. 94a).

Irrelevant Conclusions

2011-06-19T06:16:00.001-04:00

In his latest post Rabbi Slifkin attempts to recruit none other than the Chasam Sofer (CS) in his ongoing attempts to demonstrate the fallibility of Chazal.

He quotes a long portion of the CS from the hashmatos in chelek hey and triumphantly concludes that Sanhedrin is indeed capable of erring in their halachic rulings. Apparently this gives him immense satisfaction. What remains to be understood is why he needed to run to the CS for this revelation. Anyone who was ma’avir sedra this week would be able to glean this "gem" directly from the chumash (Bamidbar 15: 22-26).

For those who did not have time to peruse the CS in question, the CS maintains that the Torah was given by Hashem specifically in accordance with the opinion of the Beis Din haGadol and therefore even if they happened to err Hashem is "behind" their error, meaning, He backs them up. Their opinion becomes Torah; it becomes the Ratzon Hashem. In other words, their opinion becomes the truth! I think Rabbi Slifkin missed this point.

The Nature Of The Rakia, Part Two

2011-06-17T18:27:00.001-04:00

A Mirror’s “Strength” Is Not Always In Any “Hardness”

Rabbi Slifkin seems to think that it is self-evident that passages ascribing “strength” (Hebrew: חזק) to the rakia connote hardness and solidity. But this is not so. “Strength” has many aspects, many of which do not relate at all to hard texture.[1]

Indeed, the Targum on Sefer Iyov, a Tannaitic work [2]—directly on the verse Rabbi Slifkin cites—understands the rakia’s similarity to “a cast metal mirror” in its “strength” not in the aspect of hardness, but in the aspect of the sky’s intensity of clarity or brightness:

תרקע עמיה לשחקיא תקיפין דחזותהון כאספקלריא סנינה

—Not: “the shechakim that are strong, and [in addition] whose appearance is like clear glass;” but:

“the shechakim that are strong/intense, in [the aspect] that their appearance is like a bright looking-glass.”

This Targum alone refutes Rabbi Slifkin’s claim that all Chazal thought this verse in Iyov was saying the rakia is a literally solid substance; and that it was only in the time of the rishonim—who “were ignoring Chazal”!—that the verses were “reinterpreted” otherwise.[3]

And so, unsurprisingly, the talmudic sources bear out the classical commentators, who likewise never say that the terms “congealing,” “strengthening” and “strong as a cast metal mirror” ascribed to the rakia (whether taken to mean the cloud or celestial region) are meant to convey anything to do with “hardness.” Rather, they say these expressions are meant to convey one or more of the following:

(a) the process of the materialization of the rakia on Creation’s second day, from the more ethereal state to the more physical,[4]

(b) the rakia’s stabilization and/or its nature being made permanent,[5]

(d) the strong degree of its transparency,[7]or

(e) the intensity of the rakia’s brightness[8]—as, we have seen, the Targum translates it.

Mizrachi

Another illustration of a Torah mindset regarding what Chazal meant by the rakia’s “frosting” and “congealing”: The Mizrachi[9] (Breishis 1:6) brings 4 proofs for the opinion that the Midrash about the "congealing" and "strengthening" of the rakia cannot be referring to the atmosphere, and must be referring to the galgalim. It is noteworthy that not one of the 4 proofs claims the idea of "frosting" or "congealing" cannot apply to the atmosphere! This shows that, to the mind of the Mizrachi, the terms "frosting" and "congealing" are easily consistent with the atmosphere and do not imply hardness or solidity.

In particular, note this proof of his that does involve texture:

וכן ממה שאמר, "לחים היו ביום ראשון ובשני קרשו", לא יתכן זה רק על הגלגלים, לא על הרקיע האויריי, כי לדברי הכל לא נברא ביום ראשון.

The concept "לחים היו ביום ראשון ובשני קרשו" is "only possible as referring to the galaglim," not the atmosphere--why? Not because the concepts fit the galgalim but not the atmosphere, but only because the atmosphere was first created on day 2, so it couldn't have been what was "לח" on day one!

It did not occur to the Mizrachi that these terms indicated that the object spoken of was considered a hard solid! Why? Because whether applied to the atmosphere or the galgalim, they simply do not connote hardness!

Yes, the rishonim knew their Bible and Talmud—better than did 2nd century Christian monks or do 20^th century Christian evangelists the likes of Paul Seeley (the latter who thinks that the idea of the rakia being the atmosphere originated with 18^th century conservative scholars).[10]

====================

[1] Just to provide a few familiar expressions from the Siddur as examples:

בחוזק יד

כי חיזק בריחי שעריך

ובידך לגדל ולחזק לכל

כי גואל חזק אתה

אז בקול...חזק משמיעים קול

חזק ויאמץ לבך

חלומותי...אם טובים הם--חזקם

[1] “Strength” denotes many aspects other than hardness. This is true in English usage as well as in scriptural usage. See Addendum.

[2] The online Jewish Encyclopedia dates the work’s composition to before the fall of Rome in 476 A.C.E.

[3] Temporarily backtracking from his mantra that the rishonim universally believed the rakia to be a hard, solid sphere, the Rationalist (The Big Picture of the Firmament) writes, “[D]uring the time of the Rishonim, Ptolemaic cosmology had already become widely accepted, and some of the Rishonim reinterpreted Tenach to suit it. It is possible that some of them did not believe the rakia to be a substantive firmament… But all this would mean, is that the Rishonim were ignoring Chazal (as Rambam and Ibn Ezra did on several occasions) and reinterpreting Torah in light of science…”

[4] The Rambam, taking the rakia of day 2 to be the atmosphere, and the Ramban (See Addendum on previous post) understanding it to be the non-earthly-physical star region of the sky, both quote the very Midrash describing the rakia as having been "frosted/solidified/congealed" and explain that Chazal meant by these terms the transformation of more ethereal substance into more physical, although still ethereal substance.

[5] The Ibn Ezra (בראשית שיטה אחרת - פירוש פרק א), identifying the rakia of Day Two as the atmosphere, citing the Midrash’s comparison of the rakia to a “stretched out cloth tent:

והנה הרקיע הוא זה האויר ועוף תעופף עליו. ועליו כתוב וימתחם כאהל לשבת האדם תחתיו (ישע' מ, כב) כמשפט האהלים. ונקרא שמים בעבור היותו עליון על כל הארץ

The Ralbag on Breishis explains that, in saying the rakia became “frosted/solidified/congealed," Chazal meant that Hashem endowed it with “עמידה וקיום”—permanence.

The Radak (Sefer Shorashim, under יצק) offers this as his first explanation of the Iyov verse as well:

יצק

ויתכן להיות בצקת עפר למוצק [איוב לח, לח], ענינו חזק כלומר בהתוך העפר להיותו חזק וקבוע. וכן אמר אחריו ורגבים ידבקו. וכן לבו יצוק כמו אבן (איוב מא, טו) ויצוק כפלח תחתית (שם), כלומר חזק קבוע וכן דבר בליעל יצוק בו (תהלים מא, ט) וכן והיית מוצק (איוב יא, טו) חזק, וכמוהם חזקים כראי מוצק (שם לז, יח) כלומר חזק, ואף על פי שבזה יש לנו טעם טוב מזה שיהיה מהענין הראשון, וכן פירושו אומר על השמים כי הם חזקים וברורים ומזהירים כמראה המותך כי כן עושים מראות מהנחשת המותך יפה שהוא זך ובהיר ומזהיר כמו "ויעש את הכיור נחשת ואת כנו נחשת במראת הצבאות (שמות לח, ח). ויש לפרש כראי שם שלא יהיה מענין במראות הצובאות אבל יהיה ראי מראה ממש ופירושו בהירים ומזהירים כמראה הדבר המותך שהוא מזהיר בשעת התכתו אבל לאחר ימים הוא מעלה חלודה אבל השמים הם בהירים בכל יום כבהירת הדבר המוצק בשעת יציקתו

[6] Ralbag directly on the tarkia verse in Iyov explains the “strength” of the shechakim to be referring to the non-fragmentizing of the storm clouds, which prevents the sky’s light from shining through:

רלב"ג על איוב סוף פרק לז

האם תרקיע עמו השמים שהם חזקים בתכלית החזוק עד שלא יתפרד דבוקם בשום פנים והם ספירים כמו הראי הנתך ר"ל הזכוכית שיעבור האור בו...שבקצת העתים יהיה הענן חזק עד שלא יראה האור אשר הוא בהיר וזך בשחקים....

[7] Radak, directly on the Iyov tarkia passage (see note above) and Ralbag.

[8] Ralbag (ibid.)

[9] I thank Dr. Jonanthan Ostroff for showing me this Mizrachi.

[10] “Standard Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars have defined the raqia(רקיע "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome over the earth.Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse” (The Firmament and the Water Above, The Westminster Theological Journal 53 [1991] p. 227). It is a pity and a shame that Rabbi Slifkin relies upon the limited scholarship of an evangelical Christian unfamiliar with classical Jewish sources, as a basis for delegitimizing the mesorah that the Creation process was a meta-natural, 6-day event.

=============================

ADDENDUM

IN ENGLISH, TOO, “STRENGTH” HAS MANY OTHER MEANINGS BESIDES “HARD”

–adjective

1. having, showing, or able to exert great bodily or muscular power; physically vigorous or robust: a strong boy.

2. accompanied or delivered by great physical, mechanical, etc., power or force: a strong handshake; With one strong blow the machine stamped out a fender.

3. mentally powerful or vigorous: He may be old, but his mind is still strong.

4. especially able, competent, or powerful in a specific field or respect: She's very strong in mathematics. He's weak at bat, but he's a strong fielder.

5. of great moral power, firmness, or courage: strong under temptation.

6. powerful in influence, authority, resources, or means of prevailing or succeeding: a strong nation.

7. aggressive; willful: a strong personality.

8. of great force, effectiveness, potency, or cogency; compelling: strong reasons; strong arguments.

9. clear and firm; loud: He has a strong voice.

10. solid or stable; healthy; thriving: The banker predicted a strong economy.

11. well-supplied or rich in something specific: a strong hand in trumps.

12. having powerful means to resist attack, assault, or aggression: a strong fortress; a strong defense.

13. able to resist strain, force, wear, etc.: strong walls; strong cloth.

14. decisively unyielding; firm or uncompromising: She has strong views about the United Nations. He has a strong sense of duty.

15. fervent; zealous; thoroughgoing: He's a strong Democrat.

16. strenuous or energetic; vigorous: strong efforts.

17. moving or acting with force or vigor: strong winds.

18. distinct or marked; vivid, as impressions, resemblance or contrast: He bears a strong resemblance to his grandfather.

19. intense, as light or color.

20. having a large proportion of the effective or essential properties or ingredients; concentrated: strong tea.

21. (of a beverage or food) containing much alcohol: strong drink; The fruitcake was too strong.

22. having a high degree of flavor or odor: strong cheese; strong perfume.

23. having an unpleasant or offensive flavor or odor, especially in the process of decay: strong butter.

24. of a designated number: Marines 20,000 strong.

25. Commerce . characterized by steady or advancing prices: The market resumed its strong pace after yesterday's setback.

26. Grammar .

a. (of Germanic verbs) having vowel change in the root in inflected forms, as the English verbs sing, sang, sung; ride, rode, ridden.

b. (of Germanic nouns and adjectives) inflected with endings that are generally distinctive of case, number, and gender, as German alter Mann “old man.”

c. belonging to the morphophonemically less regular of two inflectional subtypes.

27. (of a word or syllable) stressed.

28. Optics . having great magnifying or refractive power: a strong microscope.

–adverb

29. strongly.

—Idiom

30. come on strong, Slang . to behave in an aggressive, ardent, or flamboyant manner: When you're interviewed for the job, don't come on too strong.

World English Dictionary

strong (strɒŋ) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj , stronger , strongest

1. involving or possessing physical or mental strength

2. solid or robust in construction; not easily broken or injured

3. having a resolute will or morally firm and incorruptible character

4. intense in quality; not faint or feeble: a strong voice ; a strong smell

5. easily defensible; incontestable or formidable

6. concentrated; not weak or diluted

7. a. ( postpositive ) containing or having a specified number: a navy 40 000 strong

b. ( in combination ): a 40 000-strong navy

8. having an unpleasantly powerful taste or smell

9. having an extreme or drastic effect: strong discipline

10. emphatic or immoderate: strong language

11. convincing, effective, or cogent

12. (of a colour) having a high degree of saturation or purity; being less saturated than a vivid colour but more so than a moderate colour; produced by a concentrated quantity of colouring agent

13. grammar

a. denoting or belonging to a class of verbs, in certain languages including the Germanic languages, whose conjugation shows vowel gradation, as sing, sang, sung

b. Compare weak belonging to any part-of-speech class, in any of various languages, whose inflections follow the less regular of two possible patterns

14. (of a wind, current, etc) moving fast

15. (of a syllable) accented or stressed

16. (of an industry, market, currency, securities, etc) firm in price or characterized by firm or increasing prices

17. (of certain acids and bases) producing high concentrations of hydrogen or hydroxide ions in aqueous solution

18. ( Irish ) prosperous; well-to-do (esp in the phrase a strong farmer )

19. have a strong stomach not to be prone to nausea

— adv

20. informal in a strong way; effectively: going strong

21. come on strong, to make a forceful or exaggerated impression

Word Origin & History

strong

O.E. strang "physically powerful, powerful in effect, forceful, severe," from P.Gmc. *strangaz (cf. O.N. strangr "strong," Du. streng "strict, rigorous," O.H.G. strang "strong, bold, hard," Ger. streng "strict, rigorous"). Originally compared strenger, strengest (cf. old/elder/eldest ). Grammatical sense, of noun and verb inflections, is first attested 1841, translating Ger. stark, used in a grammatical sense by J. Grimm (the terms strong and weak better fit Ger. inflections). Strong suit (1865) is from card-playing. Strong man “man of great strength" (especially one who displays it professionally) is recorded from 1699; meaning "dominating man in a political organization" is from 1859.

Dialogue – The Hoax of Geology Part 6

2011-06-13T00:41:00.001-04:00

In Part 3 of this series, we made the following assertion:

Assertion #3: If fossils from disparate time-periods (according to evolutionary theory) are found in the same beds, the beds are arbitrarily cut up, horizontally, and sometimes vertically(!), in order to conform to the theory. Thus, the evolutionists can never lose!

This assertion, if true, clearly demonstrates the inability of geology to serve as proof for the theory of evolution. Here are a few quotes from the literature.

This first quote describes a geological survey performed in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. I have interspersed some comments for the benefit of the reader. Comments appear in brackets.

East of the main divide, the Lower Carboniferous is overlain in places by beds of Lower Cretaceous age [meaning that a bed that is 100 million years older than the one below it lies in perfect conformity above it], and here again, although the two formations differ so widely in respect to age [the author is confident that they differ in age because of the diversity of fossils found there], one overlies the other without any perceptible break [meaning that if it were not for the diversity of fossils, it would be impossible to distinguish between the supposedly different beds], and the separation of one from the other is rendered more difficult by the fact that the upper beds of the Carboniferous are lithologically [i.e. structurally] almost precisely like those of the Cretaceous. Were it not for fossil evidence, one would naturally suppose that a single formation was being dealt with. (Annual Report – Geological Survey of Canada, Volume 2, page 8. Available online here)

Well, there we go. This survey was taken over one hundred years ago which means that over a hundred years ago Geologists were already admitting that fossils which belong to evolutionary periods of time separated by hundreds of millions of years appear in what would otherwise be considered exactly the same strata!

Here’s another quote from the early 1900’s by Sir Archibald Giekie, one of the foremost geologists of the time

The strata could scarcely be supposed to have been really inverted, save for the evidence as to their true order of succession [in other words, evolutionary order of succession--sc] supplied by the included fossils…Portions of Carboniferous strata appear as if regularly interbedded among Jurassic rocks, and indeed could not be separated save after a study of their enclosed organic remains. (Sir Archibald Giekie, Textbook of Geology, p. 678)

So, once again we see that fossils normally associated with the Carboniferous period of evolution are found together in the same beds as fossils from the Jurassic period. The only reason the rock has been split up is because the theory of evolution demands it. And lest someone suspect that this type of formation is rare, Giekie goes on to state:

These examples of deceptive conformity are not merely local, but are persistent over wide areas… and are traceable over wide regions (ibid p 842)

All this demonstrates conclusively that the geologic column provides absolutely no evidence to support evolution or the antiquity of the world.

I have much more to say on this subject but I would like to hear from some readers first before composing my final post on this topic.

To be continued…

Dialogue - The Hoax of Geology Part 5

2011-06-12T17:09:00.001-04:00

Note to reader: This post is the latest addition in an ongoing series. In order to gain the maximum benefit, all of the posts should be read in proper sequence. Latter posts take the familiarity of data from previous posts for granted.

In this post, we made the following assertion:

Assertion #2: If the composition of the strata in question does not conform to evolutionary theory, it too is ignored.

Stratigraphic material is not directly associated with specific life-forms. In other words, any kind of fossil can be found in any kind of stratum. The beds can vary from hardened crystalline conditions to unconsolidated sandstone or shale of the loosest material. They can even be soft mud and clay. Incredibly, the aforementioned soft beds have sometimes been identified as Cambrian simply because of the fossils contained in them. One quote will suffice to demonstrate our point.

The Ordovician rocks over a large part of Russia consist of very recent-looking sediments, for the sands and clays are as soft and incoherent as the similar rocks of Tertiary age are in the south of England (Britannica Vol. 20 p. 236)

In the following post we will address our Assertion #3 and Rabbi Slifkin’s claim that contemporary species are never found together with ancient species.

To be continued…