Comments on Rationalist Judaism: Translation of B'Toraso Shel R' Gedaliah II

Klim quoted R' Nadel: >>“And the snake ...

2009-06-23T10:38:17.816+03:00

Klim quoted R' Nadel:
>>“And the snake was more cunning than all the beasts of the field…” – Here all the commentaries alert us to the fact of it speaking by way of allegory. Animals do not talk, and they do not engage in dialogue with people. "

>Please tell me how many commentaries say it is allegorical, and the snake didn't talk? ... Rashi ... Ibn Ezra ... Targum Yonoson ... Ramban ... Chizkuni ...Sporno ... Or Hachaim

I can add one more, with a twist.
The Ramchal. According to him, not only did the snake talk, but the words "the snake was more cunning" indicate that all the other animals spoke, too! (I heard this on a lecture by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb. He didn't name the sefer, but said it has not been translated into English.)

משל תורה שבכתב. מכנה "משל" כי המשל תמיד ...

2009-06-21T20:03:01.303+03:00

משל תורה שבכתב. מכנה "משל" כי המשל תמיד מובן אך הוא לבוש לדוגמתו וענין פלא וכן דברי תורה שבכתב הם מובנים אך נלבשו בה ענינים פלאים. זהו שצריך להבין המשל שהוא הלבוש

(Vilna Gaon, commentary to Mishlei 1:6)

G3 wrote: "Have to think about that. If so, t...

2009-06-21T05:38:05.784+03:00

G3 wrote: "Have to think about that. If so, then this would be the only story in tanach about an impersonal figure, and I guess that could justify reading this bit as non-literal."

Could it be that today's parsha had another case? I saw the word "ha-anak" during the Torah reading today.

Thanks Natan. There was just one aspect of my firs...

2009-06-18T19:46:57.395+03:00

Thanks Natan. There was just one aspect of my first comment that went unaddressed. Doesn't "formed in the sixth period of the days of Bereishis as an androgynous intelligent" imply that the "forming" came at the same time as the faculty of intelligence? That seems to contradict evolutionary theory.

G*3 - have you read The Challenge Of Creation? I d...

2009-06-18T09:29:28.387+03:00

G*3 - have you read The Challenge Of Creation? I discuss the slippery-slope issue there.

Alex: "What raw material? Atoms?" No, ...

2009-06-18T09:28:53.671+03:00

Alex:

"What raw material? Atoms?"

No, he is describing the evolutionary process.

"By "long process," does this mean that there was a special creation for each different man-like specie over time, or just one at the beginning?"

Again, he is referring to the standard evolutionary process.

"By "received," does that mean a special infusion by God, or was it just a natural development?"

I don't think he specifies. He probably meant the former.

>the whole story in Gan Eden is an allegory Is...

2009-06-18T05:54:20.620+03:00

>the whole story in Gan Eden is an allegory

Isn't that a slippery slope? How do we determine which stories in the chumash are allegories and which are literally true? Should we take the entire parshas of Berieshes and Noach, with the six-day creation, the flat Earth, the global Flood, etc. as metaphor? If we do, then who gets to determine the correct interpretation?

>I think that his view is supported by the fact that the man is not named i.e. he is the archetypical man.

Have to think about that. If so, then this would be the only story in tanach about an impersonal figure, and I guess that could justify reading this bit as non-literal.

Technically, though, pretty much all Biblical figures are archetypes in the literary sense. They tend to be two-dimensional, defined by a very narrow set of traits.

But these words from R' Nadel don't sound ...

2009-06-17T22:49:01.543+03:00

But these words from R' Nadel don't sound so allegorical:

"the species of man, which was formed in the sixth period of the days of Bereishis as an androgynous intelligent and reproducing being."

(If I can humbly ask if you would address my first post above...)

According to Rambam the whole story in Gan Eden is...

2009-06-17T18:08:51.949+03:00

According to Rambam the whole story in Gan Eden is an allegory for the eternal struggle that man undergoes. I think that his view is supported by the fact that the man is not named i.e. he is the archetypical man.

>Not really. For example: The apple is my favor...

2009-06-17T17:56:24.637+03:00

>Not really. For example: The apple is my favorite fruit. Which could be written: Apples are my favorite fruit. I certainly am not relating to one specific apple.

Yes, fine. So let's forget misleading examples and adress what the pesukim actaully say.

Bereishis 2:8
...and placed there the man...

2:15
God took the man and put him in Gan Eden...

2:16
And God commanded the man...

Do any of these seem like they're plural? Again, maybe English and Hebrew grammer are diferent, and that's where I'm mistaken, but it seems like the pesukim are refering to a specific man, "the man" rather than mankind.

>If I say, "I like the dog," you can ...

2009-06-17T16:07:11.557+03:00

>If I say, "I like the dog," you can >safely assume I am refering to a >specific dog and not all dogs, or I >would have said, "I like dogs."

Not really. For example: The apple is my favorite fruit. Which could be written: Apples are my favorite fruit. I certainly am not relating to one specific apple.

>Adam is not his name - it's always written...

2009-06-17T01:25:32.681+03:00

>Adam is not his name - it's always written Ha-adam

It could be that this is just a difference between Hebrew and English grammer, but while "the" would indicate that Adam is not a personal name, it would mean that the pasuk is refering to a specific individual and not the entire species.

If I say, "I like the dog," you can safely assume I am refering to a specific dog and not all dogs, or I would have said, "I like dogs."

xxx1:31xxx 3:21 [whoops] Va-ya'as H. El...

2009-06-16T18:48:34.484+03:00

xxx1:31xxx 3:21 [whoops]
Va-ya'as H. Elokim le-adam [instead of la-adam]

All those can be easily read as referring to mankind.

Fair enough. Agav, it still begs an explanation for the sandwich of 'le-adam' between the 'ha-adam' in each of the neighboring pesukim.

All those can be easily read as referring to manki...

2009-06-16T18:03:14.087+03:00

All those can be easily read as referring to mankind.

I believe these were the places I was looking at: ...

2009-06-16T17:30:43.921+03:00

I believe these were the places I was looking at:

1:26
Na'aseh adam

1:31
Va-ya'as H. Elokim le-adam [instead of la-adam]

5:1
Zeh sefer toldos adam [rather than toldos ha-adam; and further on there, where the implication seems to be an individual]

The only time it does not say ha-adam is when ther...

2009-06-16T17:21:01.125+03:00

The only time it does not say ha-adam is when there is a lamed prefix, in which case the hei is dropped due to rules of Hebrew grammar.

Natan Slifkin said... Absolutely, he is rel...

2009-06-16T17:16:18.449+03:00
Natan Slifkin said...
Absolutely, he is relating it to the text. Adam is not his name - it's always written Ha-adam, "the man." Chava means "lifegiver," a generic name for women.

It's not always written ha-adam. When I last looked at these passages, I was in fact wondering about the difference in light of the issue at hand, and whether it might have some relation to species vs. individual.

Is there any way to actually relate this to the...

2009-06-16T05:58:12.132+03:00
Is there any way to actually relate this to the text, or is it just speculation?

Absolutely, he is relating it to the text. Adam is not his name - it's always written Ha-adam, "the man." Chava means "lifegiver," a generic name for women.

Incidentally, in my book I explain how Rambam took a different approach.

I'm curious if R' Nadel answered the qu...

2009-06-16T05:00:52.535+03:00
I'm curious if R' Nadel answered the question on many of our minds, "but what about Bilaam's donkey?"

It's probably on fewer people's minds than you think, especially those adherents of "Rationalist Judaism". Rambam, Saadiah Gaon, and many others state that this is not a literal account of a talking donkey and that it represents a prophetic experience of Balaam via a dream state.

Is there any way to actually relate this to the te...

2009-06-16T01:49:02.512+03:00
Is there any way to actually relate this to the text, or is it just speculation? After all, you could do pretty much the same thing with any creation myth from the ancient world.

>“And the man knew Chavah his wife”… “The man” is the name of the species, and “Chavah” is also a general name for woman, as above, but here it refers to the specific man and woman who began to live outside of the Garden of Eden, and they gave birth to Kayin and Hevel.

Why stop? Let’s say Kayin and Hevel weren’t the names of actual people, but of two tribes of early humans. The Kayin were herders, and the Hevel were farmers. As often happens when herders and farmers occupy the same region, there was tension over land use, and this erupted into a war. The Hevel were wiped out.

This is fun! Let’s continue.

To say that Noach saved all the species in a boat and later repopulated the Earth has been shown to be unlikely. It must be Noach represents the people who God spared from the flood(s) that wiped out ancient population centers. Perhaps those settlements, rich from the irrigation and trade provided by their adjacent bodies of water, grew complacent and forgot God. The poor, as is often the case, stayed close to God, and there people are Noach and his “family.” The teivah represents the land that was spared. The materials described represent the produce of the areas that were spared (forests and tar pits) and the measurements given describe the number of places spared. It was in these places around the world that animals survived.

"“And the snake was more cunning than all the...

2009-06-15T22:39:56.232+03:00
"“And the snake was more cunning than all the beasts of the field…” – Here all the commentaries alert us to the fact of it speaking by way of allegory. Animals do not talk, and they do not engage in dialogue with people. The snake is the Satan, which is the Angel of Death, which is the evil inclination…"

Please tell me how many commentaries say it is allegorical, and the snake didn't talk?

Rashi - Doesn't say, and it seams literal.

Ibn Ezra - Literal (after rejecting, 1. she understood the snakes language, 2. it was only a malach)

Targum Yonoson - doesn't change the translation of snake.

Ramban - Doesn't say, but clearly indicates the snake got punished.

Chizkuni - Spoke with the same powers as bilams donkey.

Sporno - Non literal, (how can an animal talk, Yetzer Hara)

Or Hachaim - Snake spoke (because the yetzar hara entered him)

"The word “day” can also be explained as a pe...

2009-06-15T21:38:32.391+03:00
"The word “day” can also be explained as a period… There are many different scientific proofs, via precise methods that are tried and tested… that millions of years have elapsed… It is folly to think that it is all falsehood."

I'm wondering if R' Nadel commented on Gerald's Shroeder's approach of reconciling the two ages. (If not Shroeder's /specific/ approach, then something /like/ his approach.) I believe that NS has commented on that approach, unfavorably, generally.

“And the snake was more cunning than all the beasts of the field…” – Here all the commentaries alert us to the fact of it speaking by way of allegory. Animals do not talk, and they do not engage in dialogue with people. The snake is the ... evil inclination"

I'm curious if R' Nadel answered the question on many of our minds, "but what about Bilaam's donkey?"

Very interesting, thanks! A couple of brief comme...

2009-06-15T17:30:08.367+03:00
Very interesting, thanks!

A couple of brief comments:

> "The “dust” here is raw material, from which animals were also formed."

What raw material? Atoms?

> "..the creation of man in the image of God was the end of a long process, which originated in a non-intelligent being, belonging to the category of animals, which continually developed until it received human intellect"

By "long process," does this mean that there was a special creation for each different man-like specie over time, or just one at the beginning? (I'm guessing the latter.)

By "received," does that mean a special infusion by God, or was it just a natural development? In what way, exactly, was this line of animals "continually developing"? After all, later on, R' Nadel writes "the species of man, which was formed in the sixth period of the days of Bereishis as an androgynous intelligent and reproducing being." OK, if he was formed with intelligence in the sixth period, then who says that the previous non-intelligent being "continually developed until it received human intellect"? I don't want to think that R' Nadel contradicted himself, but that's what it looks like at first glance.