http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n091.shtml
So as not to be accused of misunderstandings, can Rabbi Nossen Slifkin please confirm his views on the historicity of Gan Eden. (1) According to RNS, the scientific evidence is so compelling that the first man was not Adam HaRishon (he never existed) but rather a hominid creature (which existed 30,000 years ago or more) which itself evolved from earlier creatures (e.g an amoeba). A neshama was placed in this ancient hominid and that was the first man. (Hominids, in fact, go back millions of years according to current scientific thinking). (2) RNS also states that the whole account of Gan Eden about 5764 years ago is a non-historical allegory (mashal). There was no historical Adam HaRishon created directly from the earth on yom ha-shisi. Adam HaRishon was never expelled from Gan Eden (there was no historical Gan), and thus he never fathered Kayin, Hevel and Seth etc. Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote > I did indeed check the archives again, and found debate > concerning Rambam's position on Gan Eden. Abarbanel, Efodi > and R' Yosef Kappach interpreted Rambam as understanding it > allegorically, while you disagreed. Considering the stature > of your interlocutors, I wouldn't characterize the proposed > source in Rambam as "debatable, to say the least." > Furthermore, this previous debate on Avodah was only > regarding Gan Eden, concerning which there is some ambiguity > in Rambam's position. However, with regard to RYGB's blanket > statement that allegorization is unnacceptable, we have a > very clear statement by Rambam to the contrary: > "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) On Gan Eden and Adam HaRishon, Rambam clearly states that it is historical, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The Rambam considers the historicity of Gan Eden as part of the "yesod Hatorah" of "chidush haolam". If (2) is indeed RNS's position, it is not only untenable, but may be halachicly problematic according to Teshuvos HaRashba (on the ban on chochma chitzonis until 35 years of age, and inappropriate allegorizing). See below for sources on the Rambam. Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote: > Whoah, this [Gan Eden/AdamHarishon is non-historical] > is going much further than anything I ever wrote! > Although it is a scenario that is addressed and rated as > acceptable in Rav Kook's writings, as discussed previously on > Avodah. I have a question for you, by the way: > Where exactly is Gan Eden, and the cherubs with the flaming > twirling swords? The Sefer Habahir asked this question (I:31): Rabbi Amorai asked: where is Gan Eden? He replied: It is on earth. The Ramban (Toras Hadam, p295ff) states that even Rebbe Eliezer HaGadol (who stated that Samael was riding on the nachash) "understood [the Gan] in the literal sense as a garden". Ramban states that "all the homilies [of Chazal] clearly speak of Gan Eden as being an actual garden ...". The Ramban points out that this was also the opinion of the Rambam in Perek Chelek and elsewhere. In Perek Chelek the Rambam writes that "Gan Eden is a fertile place in the sphere of the earth ... G-d will reveal it to man in the future ...". In the MN (III:50) the Rambam writes: "It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would have doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had been added, seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the earth in different families and with different languages". Rabbenu Bechaya (Gen ch. 10) and the Ramban use this Rambam to indicate how Yaakov heard the mesora of chidush haolam from Avraham, who heard it from Noach, who heard it from Lemech, who heard it from Adam HaRishon. The Ramchal (Daas Tevunos) has a detailed and excellent description of the refined state of Adam HaRishon/Gan Eden, that is consistent with Rav Dessler's description. As Rabbi Berachiah in the Bahir states (I:160): Each day we speak of Olam Haba. Do we understand what we are saying? In Aramaic Olam Haba means "the world that already came" ... There may be some fascinating insights to be gained here. Olam Haba was the original creation, which changed into a refined version of Olam Hazeh that included Gan Eden. After the chet, that refinement was lost, and the result is our gross world. Which, lo and behold, will one day in acharis hayamim, change back into the spiritual refinement of Olam Haba. That is our task as Jews, to mend the world. Some of the sources in the Rambam (MN Friedlander translation, but see R. Kappach for interesting details) may be of interest. II:30 The following point now claims our attention. The account of the six days of creation contains, in reference to the creation of man, the statement :" Male and female created he them" (i. 27), and concludes with the words:" Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (ii. 1), and yet the portion which follows describes the creation of Eve from Adam, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge, the history of the serpent and the events connected therewith, and all this as having taken place after Adam had been placed in the Garden of Eden. All our Sages agree that this took place on the sixth day, and that nothing new was created after the close of the six days. None of the things mentioned above is therefore impossible, because the laws of Nature were then not yet permanently fixed. There are, however, some utterances of our Sages on this subject [which apparently imply a different view]. I will gather them from their different sources and place them before you, and I will refer also to certain things by mere hints, just as has been done by the Sages. I You must know that their words, which I am about to quote, are most perfect, most accurate, and clear to those for whom they were said. I will therefore not add long explanations, lest I make their statements plain, and I might thus become" a revealer of secrets," but I will give them in a certain order, accompanied with a few remarks, which will suffice for readers like you. III:50 Every narrative in the Law serves a certain purpose in connexion with religious teaching. It either helps to establish a principle of faith, or to regulate our actions, and to prevent wrong and injustice among men; and I will show this in each case. It is one of the fundamental principles of the Law that the Universe has been created ex nihilo, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam, was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would have doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had been added, seeing that the human race was spread over all parts of the earth in different families and with different languages, very unlike the one to the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the genealogy of the nations (Gen. v. and x.), and the manner how they branched off from a common root. It names those of them who were well known, and tells who their fathers were, how long and where they lived. It describes also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all parts of the earth, and to the formation of their different languages, after they had lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one language (ibid. xi.), as would be natural for descendants of one person. The accounts of the flood (ibid. vi.-viii.) and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (ibid. xix.), serve as an illustration of the doctrine that" Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily He is a God that judgeth in the earth" (Ps. lviii. 12). [Email #2. -mi] Rabbi Nossen Slifkin wrote > Unfortunately it seems that R' Jonathan Ostroff has still > misunderstood me: ... RNS has omitted so far to deal with the two objections posted earlier and noted below. > In the paragraph I cited, Rav Dessler is not addressing the > content of the six days, but rather the nature of the days > themselves, and it is with regard to this (and only with > regard to this) that I am quoting him. Of course he explains > the events that transpired on those days, at least regarding > Gan Eden, as having actually happened. But I am only quoting > him regarding the nature of the word "day" itself, with which > Rav Dessler is quite clear that they are only described as > "periods of time" > to enable a simple understanding, but that this is not their > true nature. ... > but I can certainly use Rav Dessler's explanation of > the meaning of the word "yom" even if I am not using his > explanation regarding the nature of Adam - since the two are > not neccessarily linked in any way! Here, very briefly (see earlier posts for the details), are two objections that RNS has so far omitted to deal with. Objection 1: According to RNS, Rav Dessler describes any "yom" in the 7 days of Maaseh Beraishis as non-historical allegory. If there was no "yom" historically, then there also was no "yom" ha-shishi, in which case there could not have been a historical creation of Adam HaRishon in Gan Eden on "yom" ha-shisi. But Rav Dessler does describe a historical Adam HaRishon created directly from the earth in Gan Eden on "yom" ha-shishi. Thus RNS is incorrect to attribute a non-historical and fully allegorical "yom" to Rav Dessler. Objection 2: In my earlier post, I indicated that Rav Dessler discusses "yom" and Adam HaRishon in the same shiur, intertwining his notions of "yom"/zman/bechira and the chet of Adam Harishon in Gan Eden on "yom" ha-shisi. The link between the two is obvious once you analyze the whole shiur. Finally, even if we did a "copy and paste", i.e. we decouple Rav Dessler's explanation of "yom" from its legitimate and richly-informative context, Rav Dessler still does not explicitly state what RNS attributes to him, especially since it results in an unlikely and unusual understanding of the Ramban. Far more likely is the interpretation given by RYGB and myself (see earlier posts). Kol Tuv ... Jonathan [ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version. ] [ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org ] [ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ] [ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ ] [ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
| < Previous | Next > |