Evolution and the age of the universe

[AsherO]

Rambam himself held Greek philosophers in high esteem.
Interesting because I always thought chassidus was about the opposite, being isolated/sheltered from any outside influences. Isn't that the reason for the homogeneous garb/language/way of life?

As JJ1k says, this is why there's Chassidim and there's Chabad... I can't see how you thought Chabad represents the hashkafah you mention (which for the record I respect in its own right).

[Redbull3]

As JJ1k says, this is why there's Chassidim and there's Chabad... I can't see how you thought Chabad represents the hashkafah you mention (which for the record I respect in its own right).

Makes a lot of sense - I didn't differentiate. When you mentioned you were inspired by chassidis I didn't consider it wasn't the same brand of chassidis I had familiarity with. My bad.

[Redbull3]

Achas you truly are a wiki master.

[Achas Veachas]

Achas you truly are a wiki master.

lol it's just taken verbatim from The Onion. If anyone has something original feel free to get rid of mine...

[Redbull3]

lol it's just taken verbatim from The Onion. If anyone has something original feel free to get rid of mine...

I knew that. Still!

[ilherman]

I don't want to take this thread off topic. But I'm literally crying. I just hope that some people in this thread are not Jewish, then I am totally fine. Things that are Zeides went for Kidush Hashen for and.....

Sorry for disturbing the argument. I am just giving out my feelings.

[Baruch]

I find it hard to imagine the Modern Orthodox Rabbi in the Shul I Daven in will ay such a thing...

Who argues with that Nefesh Hachaim and Tanya? Is there a source that the creation is not constant?

Show the MO Rabbi the Nefesh Hachaim and Tanya, I see no reason why he'd disagree with it.

[Achas Veachas]

Who argues with that Nefesh Hachaim and Tanya? Is there a source that the creation is not constant?

Show the MO Rabbi the Nefesh Hachaim and Tanya, I see no reason why he'd disagree with it.

I don't know if anyone argues, I'm just saying that from how well I know him I would find it surprising to hear that from him...

[Baruch]

I don't know if anyone argues, I'm just saying that from how well I know him I would find it surprising to hear that from him...

I dare u to show him the sources and see what he says. 

(And if he would disagree without a source - that is very sad IMHO)

[henche]

The leaf and the bug is Chassidic. The Gaon and his talmidim did not agree. That the world is constantly being created is a belief pretty well established across all streams of Judaism. I doubt if you'd ask your Rabbi he'd tell you differently. CMIIW.

I don't think the the Gaon and his talmidim are the only non-chassidic view. 

I am not chassidic, and I absolutely believe the bletteleh.  I don't see any other possible way for the world to work, and to say that Hashem is k'vyachol "too busy" to care about the "kleineh vermeli" seems like you are k'vyachol limiting Hashem.  Hashem is quite able to manage the entire world.

[Achas Veachas]

I don't think the the Gaon and his talmidim are the only non-chassidic view. 

I am not chassidic, and I absolutely believe the bletteleh.  I don't see any other possible way for the world to work, and to say that Hashem is k'vyachol "too busy" to care about the "kleineh vermeli" seems like you are k'vyachol limiting Hashem.  Hashem is quite able to manage the entire world.

I don't think the GR"A held that Hashem CAN'T take care of every little worm CH"V. It ties in to a deeper Machlokes between the Mekubalim whether Tzimtzum is Kepshuto (That Hashem Kvayachol removed himself from the world so that the world can exist indepently of him) or Tzimtzum Lav Kipshuto (that Hashem only hid his presence but is still very much present in this world).

The details of this Machlokes are beyond the scope of this thread. See Igros Kodesh vol. 1 page 19-21 for an in depth analysis of the different Shitos.

[good sam]

So is there no possible evidence that would convince you that the literal interpretation is wrong? Even in the face of traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal?

Just read through the thread, want to go back to this early post from Ru.

Can you point to a single traditional source that suggests the world was created in anything other than 6 days?

Even Slifkin in his argument for evolution acknowledges that there is no basis in traditional sources for his opinion (making him IMHO all the more of a chutzpinyak). So as logical as you may think it is to say that Maaseh Bereisheis is not to be taken literally, understand that you are discarding the writings of ALL the wise Jewish sages throughout the generations. If you can do that and still sleep at night, kudos.

[good sam]

For reference:

Yes, I watched the whole thing.

[kangarruu]

Just read through the thread, want to go back to this early post from Ru.

Can you point to a single traditional source that suggests the world was created in anything other than 6 days?

Even Slifkin in his argument for evolution acknowledges that there is no basis in traditional sources for his opinion (making him IMHO all the more of a chutzpinyak). So as logical as you may think it is to say that Maaseh Bereisheis is not to be taken literally, understand that you are discarding the writings of ALL the wise Jewish sages throughout the generations. If you can do that and still sleep at night, kudos.

I unfortunately don't have time to go through the thread, but I will hop in on this point.

Rashi on Bereshis bara holds that the description of the creation is at least not in literal order:

ולא בא המקרא להורות סדר הבריאה לומר שאלו קדמו, שאם בא להורות כך, היה לו לכתוב בראשונה ברא את השמים וגו . . . אם כן תמה על עצמך, שהרי המים קדמו, שהרי כתיב ורוח א-להים מרחפת על פני המים, ועדיין לא גלה המקרא בריית המים מתי היתה, הא למדת שקדמו המים לארץ. ועוד שהשמים מאש ומים נבראו, על כרחך לא לימד המקרא סדר המוקדמים והמאוחרים כלום

Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 2:29, holds that the account of Creation is nonliteral and its true meaning is hidden:

והיא שכּל מה שהוזכר בעניין מעשֹה בראשית בתורה אינו כולו כפשוטו כפי שההמון מדמה, מפני שאילו היה הדבר כך, לא היו חוששים לו אנשי החוכמה ולא היו החכמים מפליגים להסתירו ולאסור לספר על אודותיו בפני ההמון. כי אותם פשטים מביאים או לקלקול גדול של הדמיון ולחדירת דעות רעות על אודות האלוה, או לריקון62 מוחלט וכפירה ביסודות התורה63. לכן הנכון הוא שמי שהוא נטול החוכמות יימנע מלהתבונן בהם בדמיון בלבד. לא כמו שעושׂים הדרשנין והפרשנים המסכנים החושבים שידיעת פירוש הביטויים היא החוכמה, ולהרבות בדברים ולהאריך בהם נחשב בעיניהם לתוספת שלמות. אלא חובה להתבונן בהם64 בשׂכל לאמיתו לאחר שיהיה שלם בחוכמות המופתיות65 וידיעת הסודות הנבואיים. אבל כל מי שיודע דבר מזאת אין ראוי לו לגלותו, כפי שהבהרתי כמה פעמים בפירושנו למשנה66. ובפירוש אמרו: מתחילת הספר ועד כאן כבֹד אלהים הסתר דבר

[good sam]

I unfortunately don't have time to go through the thread, but I will hop in on this point.

Rashi on Bereshis bara holds that the description of the creation is at least not in literal order:

Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 2:29, holds that the account of Creation is nonliteral and its true meaning is hidden:

Go read that Rashi again in its entirety. He doesn't say creation is written out of order.

And the Rambam saying that there are mystical aspects of creation that we can't understand does not give you people carte blanche to say it didn't happen at all.

[Achas Veachas]

I unfortunately don't have time to go through the thread, but I will hop in on this point.

Rashi on Bereshis bara holds that the description of the creation is at least not in literal order:

Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim 2:29, holds that the account of Creation is nonliteral and its true meaning is hidden:

With all due respect, you did not understand the Rashi or the Rambam.

Rashi is clearly speaking only about the first 2 Pesukim of Bereishis where it mentions the creation of the heaven, earth, water and Ruach but there is no chronology mentioned. In the rest of the account of creation Rashi clearly takes a literal approach (in fact Rashi is the biggest proponent of the approach that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, in effect he is the biggest literalist amongst all the Mefarshei Hamikra).

The Rambam's meaning of מעשה בראשית is the metaphysical discussion of the makeup of the physical world and what's in it that is discussed in chapters 3-4 of Hilchos Yesodey Hatorah as he says in 4:10 of Yesodei Hatorah:

כל הדברים האלו שדברנו בענין זה כמר מדלי הם ודברים עמוקים הם אבל אינם כענין עומק פרק ראשון ושני וביאור כל אלו הדברים שבפרק שלישי ורביעי הוא הנקרא מעשה בראשית וכך צוו החכמים הראשונים שאין דורשין בדברים האלו ברבים אלא לאדם אחד מודיעין דברים אלו ומלמדין אותן:

[kangarruu]

Go read that Rashi again in its entirety. He doesn't say creation is written out of order.

ולא בא המקרא להורות סדר הבריאה לומר שאלו קדמו seems pretty clear to me. Note that I said this Rashi supports the proposition that Bereshis is not in literal order, i.e., first came this, then that, then the next. The point to take away is that Rashi's understanding is not literally what the text says.

And the Rambam saying that there are mystical aspects of creation that we can't understand does not give you people carte blanche to say it didn't happen at all.

Literally the first line of the quote: והיא שכּל מה שהוזכר בעניין מעשֹה בראשית בתורה אינו כולו כפשוטו כפי שההמון מדמה. That's a far cry from saying that "there are mystical aspects" that we can't understand. He's saying that the very account is beyond our understanding!

[good sam]

ולא בא המקרא להורות סדר הבריאה לומר שאלו קדמו seems pretty clear to me. Note that I said this Rashi supports the proposition that Bereshis is not in literal order, i.e., first came this, then that, then the next. The point to take away is that Rashi's understanding is not literally what the text says.

Literally the first line of the quote: והיא שכּל מה שהוזכר בעניין מעשֹה בראשית בתורה אינו כולו כפשוטו כפי שההמון מדמה. That's a far cry from saying that "there are mystical aspects" that we can't understand. He's saying that the very account is beyond our understanding!

I said read Rashi in it's entirety. He actually says the opposite of what you're saying. He says that because it's out of order, we are forced to translate the pasuk differently. It's not recounting events at all because the Torah wouldn't recount them out of order.

And again, the Rambam saying that we can't understand the depth of it, not that it didn't happen.

[kangarruu]

With all due respect, you did not understand the Rashi or the Rambam.

Rashi is clearly speaking only about the first 2 Pesukim of Bereishis where it mentions the creation of the heaven, earth, water and Ruach but there is no chronology mentioned. In the rest of the account of creation Rashi clearly takes a literal approach (in fact Rashi is the biggest proponent of the approach that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, in effect he is the biggest literalist amongst all the Mefarshei Hamikra).

I agree that Rashi is generally a literalist. The reason I cited this Rashi was because I was asked for traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal. Rashi, in the face of a textual difficulty, departed from his literalist approach and held that the account of Creation in the Torah is not complete and not intended to be complete. I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that departing from the literal account is not a novel view.

The Rambam's meaning of מעשה בראשית is the metaphysical discussion of the makeup of the physical world and what's in it that is discussed in chapters 3-4 of Hilchos Yesodey Hatorah as he says in 4:10 of Yesodei Hatorah:

I'm not following how this disproves my point. The literal account of Bereshis does not discuss metaphysics, and so learning metaphysics from it is necessarily nonliteral. Please let me know if I've missed the point you were trying to bring out.

[good sam]

I agree that Rashi is generally a literalist. The reason I cited this Rashi was because I was asked for traditional opinions that Bereshis is not literal. Rashi, in the face of a textual difficulty, departed from his literalist approach and held that the account of Creation in the Torah is not complete and not intended to be complete. I think this is sufficient to demonstrate that departing from the literal account is not a novel view.

I'm not following how this disproves my point. The literal account of Bereshis does not discuss metaphysics, and so learning metaphysics from it is necessarily nonliteral. Please let me know if I've missed the point you were trying to bring out.

Your butchering of this Rashi is killing me.