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

 

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

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?

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

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

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

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, and that it thereby keeps keeps the heavens from from falling down.

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 (creation).

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,” or “the heavenly pillars.”

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).

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

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).