Rabbi Slifkin on Apparent Age 1

In his work The Challenge of Creation Rabbi Slifkin  poses several objections to the approach I call the "Apparent Age" approach.

Particularly problematic is Rabbi Schneerson's statement that they question, "Why create a fossil?" is no more valid than the question, "Why create an atom?" This is a strange statement; a fossil is directly misleading in a way that an atom is not. Asking why create an atom" is a pointless philosophical speculation, but asking "why create a fossil which appears to be a dead dinosaur if no such creature ever lived" is a very reasonable and obvious question." (page 159).

While I do believe that we can suggest theologically coherent reasons why the world would have apparent age I don't think from the standpoint of Jewish tradition we can be so bold as to demand one:

Accepting the Creation [as opposed to Aristotle's theory on the Eternity of the Universe], we find that miracles are possible, that Revelation is possible, and that every difficulty in this question is removed. We might be asked, Why has God inspired a certain person and not another? why has He revealed the Law to one particular nation, and at one particular time? why has He commanded this, and forbidden that? why has He shown through a prophet certain miracles? what is the object of these laws? and why has He not made the commandments and the prohibitions part of our nature, if it was His object that we should live in accordance with them? We answer to all these questions: He willed it so; or, His wisdom decided so. Just as He created the world according to His will, at a certain time, in a certain form, and upon a peculiar time, so we do not know why His will or wisdom determined any of the things mentioned in the preceding question. But if we assume that the Universe has the present form as the result of fixed laws, there is occasion for the above questions; and these could only be answered in an objectionable way, implying denial and rejection of the Biblical texts, the correctness of which no intelligent person doubts. (Guide for the Perplexed, 2:25, Friedlander page 199-200).

I've looked over the larger context and the Rambam's line of reasoning isn't entirely clear to me. Specifically while I think this passage is clearly and directly relevant to our topic it seems a little ambiguous why the Rambam seems to accept that such questions would be relevant given a different set of assumptions.
I believe he is saying that given the general presumption of the Biblical account of Divine Creation which allows for the supernatural all of these questions are an issue of Divine Will, which we may or may not be privy too. Conversely (as I understand it) it is not that accepting Aristotle's position which demands we "disbelieve all miracles and signs" gives us justification for asking these questions, which in turn must be "answered in an objectionable way". Rather the questions are merely rhetorical, the objectionable answers being that such things are simply not possible [in Aristotle's worldview].

At any rate, the Rambam gives a strong indication that our inability to know God's reasoning for an action is of little consequence.  This is so even though I believe he does attempt to answer some of the very questions he mentions.

"Logically admirable reconciliation of theology with the data of science"

A couple weeks back in the used book store's clearance section I noticed "Religion and Science" by Bertrand Russell for $2. Those of you who have seen some of the posts on this blog could probably guess I'd snatch that right up, but I almost didn't. But it was two dollars so I did, and it didn't take me long to find something of interest:

A curious attempt to save orthodoxy in the field of biology was made by Gosse the naturalist, father of Edmund Gosse. He admitted fully all the evidence adduced by geologists in favour of the antiquity of the world, but maintained that, when the Creation took place, everything was constructed as if it had a past history. There is no logical possibility of proving that this theory is untrue. It has been decided by the theologians that Adam and Eve had navels, just as if they had been born in the ordinary way. Similarly everything else that was created could have been created as if it had grown. The rocks could have been filled with fossils, and have been made just such as they would have become if they had been due to volcanic action or to sedimentary deposits. But if once such possibilities are admitted, there is no reason to place the creation of the world at one point rather than the another. We may have all come into existence five minutes ago, provided with ready-made memories, with holes in our socks and hair that needed cutting. But although this is a logical possibility, nobody can believe it; and Gosse found, to his bitter disappointment, that nobody could believe his logically admirable reconciliation of theology with the data of science. The theologians, ignoring him, abandoned much of their previous territory, and proceeded to entrench themselves in what remained.(Oxford Press 1997, page 69-70, bold added)

Russell seems to suggest that although internally coherent, the Apparent Age theory strikes people as implausible. I think this is a fair assessment but as we have seen the Rambam warns that if one, "reject[s] things as impossible which have never been proved to be impossible, or which are in fact possible, though their possibility be very remote, then you will be like Elisha Aher; you will not only fail to become perfect, but will become exceedingly imperfect" (Guide 1:32, Freidlander page 42, emphasis mine). At times things strike us as counter-intuitive when deeper reflection or observations demand us to accept them. Take gravity for instance. Most of us intuitively expect heavier objects to fall faster than lighter ones, and it is only through education that we learn otherwise much to our surprise. A few people seem to never really get it.

 As to his objection that "there is no reason to place the creation of the world at one point rather than the another" given such a hypothesis, this misses the point. The challenge presented by science under discussion is that it conflicted with the account found in the book of Genesis. Apparent Age demonstrates that the two are not mutually exclusive. While most of us agree that we do not have reason to believe we were created 5 minutes ago many of us feel that we do have reason to believe that the Torah is divine revelation attesting to how the world was created. One might disagree with that conclusion, or how it was reached, but that is a different discussion.

HaRav Yaakov Kaminetsky zt"l and Apparent Age

It took me a little while to find this again, but I've found the source I read that R' Yaakov suggested apparent age as a possible resolution between science and Torah:

Fully Grown Creation

    I read with interest the first-page article by Gil Student. Permit me to comment on the issue of reconciling the Torah view with that of science regarding the age of the universe.

    My rosh yeshiva, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, zt"l, had a very plausible approach to resolving this problem. The Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 11a) states, "all of creation was created with their height, with their mind and with their beauty." Tosefos adds that we see all creatures gradually developing their beauty, strength, mind, etc. At the time of Creation, however, all this happened immediately.

    In other words, the world was created fully developed. Adam was created as a fully-grown man, not as a baby who developed with time. This holds for all of creation.

    With Reb Yaakov's approach, there is no need to change the accepted meaning of the Six Days of Creation. The world was created in six days 5767 years ago, but with all the physical characteristics it has today.

Bezalel Fixler

(Via E-Mail)

(Letter to the Editor's, August 30, 2006, the Jewish Press)

Of course if anyone has anything more definitive that an e-mail to the Jewish Press I'd love to know.

"Machzikei HaDas"

A couple of years ago now, R' Micha of Aspaqlaria challenged me about the name of my blog. To paraphrase his comment that was lost when haloscan was discontinued, "Machzikei Hadas" implies those who "Hold on" or "Maintain" the faith. As such my frequent posts challenging views held by other Orthodox Jews seemed to imply they were outside of Orthodoxy ח"ו.

It was a fair criticism, but by no means my intent. While I am someone who believes that their are beliefs that are and should be considered heresy, beliefs which are mutually exclusive with Judaism, I do not believe every erroneous belief needs to be חייב כרת ר"ל, and certainly not because I believe it to be incorrect.

So to explain myself (better late than never?), my understanding, and intent, when using the phrase "Machzikei HaDas" was in the sense of faith being "strengthened" rather than "possessed". Whether "Strenghteners of the Faith" is the best (or even appropriate) English rendition of the Hebrew phrase, I'm not the only one who has understood it in this way. If those of you whose Hebrew comes a little more naturally think that this understanding doesn't hold, please feel free to let me know. While I cannot change the URL, I can change the "Title" fairly easily if necessary.

Internet

As some of you may know, I recently went an extended period without Internet in my home. I enjoyed it greatly. It was also very difficult. I have always been very sympathetic towards those who are machmir on the Internet (especially since they have always provided some room for leniency when there is real need) but I have increasingly come to feel that the tzibur is simply unable to abide by a sweeping prohibition. I feel that a more accommodating approach will be able to achieve more results.

R. Eidensohn at Daas Torah (daattorah.blogspot.com) has pointed out the following article from http://www.bhol.co.il/Article.aspx?id=32385, translated by Google with some input by me (not exactly an all-star team):

In recent months Skulen Hasidic leaders worked on a historic gathering organization - headed by Admor M'Skulen and Mashgiach HaGaon Rav M. Salomon - during which the rabbis from all ultra-Orthodox circles will discuss effects of the Internet on the haredi public in America.

The conference, which will be held today (Wednesday) at 15:00 (PST) at Newark, New Jersey, would reach hundreds of rabbis, judges, community leaders and Poskim.

Invitations which were sent to hundreds of rabbis wrote that the conference will address the spiritual dangers inherent in mobile devices and the dangers of the Internet.

The rabbis at the conference are expected to formulate an outline which would provide a solution to people who need the Internet for their work and for other purposes

One of the initiators of the conference say to B'Chadrei Haredim: "at the conference it will be decided [by] Hasidim and Lithuanian [authorities] when permission is to be given officially for Internet use, and allow anyone who needs Electronic tools to use them in a kosher and secure way. At the conference a limited operative committee will be established which will follow the dissemination of rules and establishment.

This conference is historic, because until now all the Chasidic or Haredi movements acted separately. Some allowed and others prohibited. Policies will be formulated at the conference will be accordign to all opinions. Today in modern times Hasidic and religious scholars have come to understand fully that to prohibit the Internet - this is a decree that the public is not able to stand for so it was decided to convene together the religious authorities and to formulate regulations

and

In New Jersey USA yesterday (Wednesday) a historic gathering was held, which rabbis from all circles participated in.

The purpose of this meeting was the establishment of "the United Congregations for the Purity of the Camp", to monitor and find solutions to the dangers posed by contemporary technological development headed by non-supervised Internet.

Leading the conference were Rebbe M'Skulen and Rabbi Matityahu Solomon, Mashgiach of the Lakewood Yeshiva, and was attended and addressed, among others, Rebbe M'Novminsk, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, Rosh Yeshiva of Philadelphia, Rabbi Moshe Green, Rosh Yeshiva of Monsey, Rabbi Eliyahu Rodney and more .

The conference decided to hold a global informational conference, in a few months, with thousands of participants from Orthodox communities
http://www.bhol.co.il/article.aspx?id=32436&cat=14&scat=116

This sounds like an approach that will prove much more effective in not just pointing out the problems, but b'ezras Hashem, find solutions.

We should all be mispallel that they have hatzlachah in finding a truly middle path for Chareidi sensitivities.

Although I have certainly made these points here already, I submitted this comment over at Hirhurim but it didn't post (but still flags it as a duplicate when I tried again):

I believe that it is worth pointing out that the Rambam pointed out that one may not choose a strictly allegorical interpretation just because it is "possible" but the circumstances must be such that an allegorical interpretation is better. Furthermore he points out that not every difficulty is resolved by allegorical interpretations.

Sa'adiah Gaon is another authority well known for allowing for strictly allegorical interpretations at times, but he was very critical of the practice in general and I believe that the threshold for allegorizing non-metephorical language is very difficult to reach.

I can't help but feel that for many people allegorical interpretation is seen as l'chatchilla, not b'diavad.

י~ה ~ ו~ה

Recently I involved myself in a discussion over at Hirhurim regarding the pronunciation of the Divine name of G-d, י~ה~ו~ה. Coming from a background where I was involved with groups who did pronounce G-d's name as it is spelled, or an approximation thereof, this has long been a topic of interest to me, and it was the subject of a Geocities page of mine many years ago. Going toe to toe with Hirhurim commenters is still a daunting task.

I understand that for a non-believer, for an academic, it is probably a more simple proposition to accept that this somewhat atypical practice of not pronouncing the name of God in the manner it is spelled is easiest explained as a gradually evolving taboo, perhaps influenced by surrounding cultures encountered in the Babylonian exile.

Yet, as I believe I have said here before, I find it troubling when an Orthodox Jews' belief in God and Torah isn't reflected in how he answers such questions. Here it is particularly troubling since we are not discussing a scenario which is inherently implausible, just extending the current practice known to be observed for two thousand years back another thousand years or so. If we were to suddenly discover a first Temple period writing alluding to the practice, no one's secular worldview would be challenged (although it might prove uncomfortable for some "divine name'ers").

Let us take a look at the evidence from our Mesorah:

An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee. (Exodus 20:21, Soncino).

A strong connection is built between the altar, i.e. the Beis HaMikdosh, and mentioning the Divine name. Rashi elaborates that permission to pronounce the Divine Name as spelled is only given at the Beis HaMikdash:

‘In every place where I cause my name to be mentioned’ Where I give you permission to mention My Ineffable Name, there ‘I will come unto thee and bless thee’ (i.e.) I will cause My Divine Presence to rest upon thee. Hence you learn that permission was not given to mention the Ineffable Name save where the Divine Presence comes, and that is the Temple there permission was granted to the priests to mention the Ineffable Name at the ‘lifting of the hands’ to bless the people’ (Sota 38)” (Rashi on Ex. 20:21)

This really is not a surprise when we reflect on it. Most of us familiar with the T'nakh can remember that Har HaBayis is frequently referred to as the place where God would put His Name:

It shall be that the place where Hashem,your G-d, will choose to rest His Name--there shall you bring everything I command you: your burnt-offerings and your feast-offerings, your tithes... (Deuteronomy 12:11, Stone Edition).

Insofar as this dichotomy between how G-d's name is written(and spoken in the Beis HaMikdash) with how it is generally pronounced is part of the original protocol for the use of G-d's name, the general pronunciation א~ד~נ~י does not constitute a "substitute" but is itself the proper pronunciation for י~ה~ו~ה!

R. Abina opposed [two verses]: It is written: ‘this is my name’; but it is also written: ‘and this is my memorial’? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: I am not called as I am written: I am written with yod he, but I am read, alef daleth. (Kedushin 71a, Soncino,Halakhah.com)

א~ד~נ~י, while having its own nuance, is not a mere substitute but the Divine Name as it is pronounced outside of the Mikdash. Similarly the Rambam writes:

There are seven names [for G-d]: The name which is written י-ה-ו-ה. This is [referred to as][G-d's] explicit name and is [also] written א-ד-נ-י (Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 6:2, Moznaim]

Meanwhile the pronunciation of the Divine Name as it is spelled was restricted in its use, "This Sacred Name, which, as you know, was not pronounced except in the Sanctuary by the appointed priests, when they gave the sacerdotal blessing [Bircas Kohanim], and by the highpriest on the Day of Atonement" (Rambam, The Guide for the Perplexed I:LXI (Translation by Friedlander))"It was not known to everyone how the name was to be pronounced, what vowels were to be given to each consonant, and whether some of the letters capable or reduplication should receive a dagesh. Wise men successively transmitted the pronunciation of the name, it occurred only once in seven years that the pronunciation was communicated to a distinguished disciples" (Ibid LXII).

With this in mind we can better understand the opinion found in the Mishnah, "And these are the one's who have no share in the Olam HaBa...Abba Saul says, Also, he who pronounces the Divine name as it is spelled" (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10:1). Pronouncing God's Name as י~ה~ו~ה is reserved for the Beis HaMikdash from the time of Moshe Rebbeinu, not merely as pious attempt at avoiding taking G-d's name in vain.

Teshuvas HaMinim Relaunch!

www.teshuvashaminim.com

Almost two thousand years ago Christianity emerged as a small sect of Jews. As time progressed the new belief found greater acceptance among non-Jews than among Jews, but to this day there are some Jews who become attracted to the new religion. In recent decades segments of Christianity (Hebrew Christianity, Messianic “Judaism”) have adopted styles and language which is aimed at making Christianity more inviting to people of Jewish ancestry. Ironically, while these movements have had a moderate degree of success in “evangelizing” Jews, they have perhaps been more successful in generating interest in Jewish practices and observance of Mosaic Law among non-Jewish Christians.

Teshuvas HaMinim is intended to answer the claim that Christianity, in all of its various manifestations, is a continuation and fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”).

A Quick Review of "Who Really Wrote the Bible"

Shalom Aleichem,

I no longer have Internet access on a daily basis. I have enjoyed it greatly. :)

While getting caught up on my on-line activities I have decided to do a quick review of a book Who Really Wrote the Bible, which takes aim at the Document Hypothesis.

Although I'm sure many find my views to be quaint and or gulible, I am pretty picky when it comes to apologetic material. If we are going to engage in defending our view point, we should do it right (which is what I call the way I think is right. :) ). Knowing full well that there are segments of Orthodoxy which are loathe do disagree with academic consensus, and other areas which are prone to be overly dismissive of academic opinion, I cringed when I saw the book. It is not that I do not believe a good argument could be made against the Document Hypothesis, but it is easy to go off on only slightly relevant tangents and I doubted that a quality job could be done in a popular book.

Nevertheless it was an enjoyable read. After an akward start that infused too much politics into the discussion it gave an acceptable overview of the developement of the Document Hypothesis. It continued to give some good arguments along with a few well worded, strong points. Considering that it really constitues a response to another work aimed at a popular audience, "Who Wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliot Friedman, it does as reasonable job at giving the reader reason to question the Document Hypothesis as Friedman gives reason to accept it.

The book concludes with a novel argument on a method which highlights the main theme of a given passage, which apears accross the JEPDR boundries. I confess, I am skeptical. Nevertheless, insofar as they are accurate they authors actually gave quite of few examples which makes it worth futher consideration in my mind. The plus is that it is pretty testable, although quite a bit of work would be needed to do so. It should also be tested by slightly altering the approach, in ways obvious once you've read it, to see if the results can appear valid/persuasive which might indicate that this has more to do with chance that authorship.

I think it worth a read. I was pleased with the purchase, when I hadn't expected to be. My expectations may have been low (just as it had been fro Friedman's book before them), but they did excede my expectations.

Shalom Aleichem

For the foreseeable future I will not be having (or having limited) Internet Access at home. I do hope to continue posting some what regularly, well only slightly less regularly than I ever have, I am having some some hardware issues which will make any writing difficult for a while though.

Be well,

Yirmiahu

Gezel Sheinah and the Divrei Yechezkel

"Our holy master was particular not to awaken a Jew from his sleep, even if it meant he would pass the time for prayer." (Divrei Yechezkel, Halichos v'Halachos, page 393).

Faith with astrixes

I just ran across a comment I posted at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2009/07/rav-aviner-on-dinosaurs.html and realized that 1) I liked it and 2) it reflected some idea's which I hadn't elaborated on here but thought/assumed I had:

[The] comment has a certain persuasive appeal on it's face, but is severely undermined by logical errors.

First and foremost is the problem that the late formulation of the 13 Ikkarim in no way negates the fact that the halchic status of a heretic had already existed for a considerable length of time. Accordingly his inference that we should not be/feel compelled to affirm and particular set of beliefs from the late dating of the 13 Ikkarim is a total non-sequitur.

His statement, "I promise you that almost all the observant people you know would have difficulty if they were asked to verbalize their precise true beliefs and have them compared to the "icarim"." clearly falls into the category of an ad populum fallacy. The success or failure of people to accept something does not negate it's truth, nor does people's lack of faith negate the obligation to have faith.

The truth is that, "rationally" speaking the question isn't whether one should affirm ikkarim when one finds them, well, less than compelling. The much more significant question is why on earth would someone affirm a world view which asserts numerous points which they disagree with even if they are inclined to agree with a skeleton of "fundamental" views? The question isn't whether the ikkarim are sufficient or necessary for being Jewish, it is whether it makes any sense to affirm Judaism when one disagrees with it on any issue up to [and maybe including] the ikkarim?

It is especially perplexing when there is an alternative religion, Conservative Judaism, where such a theology is normative and one's observance is considered acceptable. Don't get wrong, I guess I'm kind of a big tent guy, but that is a matter of wanting to see people closer to the truth rather than farther. From a logical standpoint I just fail to see the appeal for people to affirm a belief system when it requires so many astrixes.

I believe [the] comment raises some significant questions on how to proceed in actualizing a modern day "Rationalist" Movement envisioned. The fact is that many of those most excited by the prospect, and active in the dialectic, are those who have a tenuous relationship to fundamental principles of Yiddishkeit. I'm not talking about those who question the Rambam's enumeration, but those who have effectively dismissed the notion of heresy. This was an issue for the Rambam's version of Rationalism as well, with people who considered themselves his successors denying that which he affirmed (such as creation Yesh M'Ayin), and attributing such beliefs to him.

Such people help with momentum but compromise the theological integrity of a neo-Rationalist movement. And while it may not be exactly a logically inevitable, it is realistically inevitable that the halachic integrity will be compromised. While one might argued that committed orthodox rationalists will conform to kabbalisticly influenced halachos in anticipation of the day when a kosher Sanhedrin returns things to their "proper" order, this strikes me as highly unlikely and unattainable once we introduce a significant number of members who do not really anticipate the coming of Moshiach or are otherwise not ideologically committed. (I do not mean to limit halachic compromise to kabbalisticly influenced psak, but it would be the first.)

I guess what I'm saying is, be careful what you wish for Rationalists.

"Teshuvas HaMinim is intended to answer the claim that Christianity, in all of its various manifestations, is a continuation and fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”)."

Retroactive Retraction

Before my audience begins to think I'm just being argumentative for arguments sake I would like to take this opportunity to, for the time being at least (but probably indefinitely), retract the use of the term "retroactive existence". I think I understand R. Micha's criticism and accept it. "Retroactive existence" is a meaningless distinction from "past". While I still think that apparent age is an inherent aspect of the peshat (yes, that's a different discussion) and to dismiss the peshat because of it is circular, "retroactive age" implies more than I intended and I do not believe that it is accurate, nor do I think that it follows from apparent age (this R. Micha might disagree with me on based on his presentation and criticism of the apparent age approach). Rather than emphasizing that such "apparent age" can have meaning and relevance, the term converts "apparent age" into "age," obscuring the disconnect implied by the supernatural creation of the apparent age approach.


R. Micha, while this might not be as extensive of a concession as you might have hoped for, its the best I can do at the moment. :)

Kuzari and the Age of the Universe

Recently it was argued, off the cuff, that the Kuzari should be understood as referring to when Adam HaRishon received a soul and therefore does not speak to a literal understanding of the six days of creation. While this argument seems to have been an educated guess based on its authors understanding of similar texts, I would suggest that this hypothesis does not seem to hold up:

44. Al Khazari: It is strange that you should possess authentic chronology of the creation of the world.

45. The Rabbi: Surely we reckon according to it, and there is no difference between the Jews of Khazar and Ethiopia in this respect.

46. Al Khazari: What date do you consider it at present?

47. The Rabbi: Four thousand and nine hundred years. The details can be demonstrated from the lives of Adam, Seth and Enōsh to Noah; then Shem and Eber to Abraham; then Isaac and Jacob to Moses. All of them represented the essence and purity of Adam on account of their intimacy with God. Each of them had children only to be compared to them outwardly, but not really like them, and, therefore, without direct union with the divine influence. The chronology was established through the medium of those sainted persons who were only single individuals, and not a crowd, until Jacob begat the Twelve Tribes, who were all under this divine influence. Thus the divine element reached a multitude of persons who carried the records further. The chronology of those who lived before these has been handed down to us by Moses (Kuzari 1:44-47, 1905 translation by Hartwig Hirschfeld)

The discussion is about the "creation of the world" which would imply the six days of creation preceding and inclusive of the creation (or giving of a soul to) Adam HaRishon. I think this is further emphasized by "the Rabbi"'s response in 1:61 that reliable information that the world was older than 4900 years would challenge his faith, which at very least would be inconsistent with a view that tool wielding hominids roamed the world prior to one of them being given a neshamah.

Does this settle the matter, of course not. But I do think that the Kuzari can be included among those who see no reason for “אֵין מִקְרָא יוֹצֵא מִידֵי פְּשׁוּטוֹ” to inherently exclude the beginning of Bereishis.