Are we obligated to believe that the Mabul actually happened as described in the Scriptures? is the suggestion that some people have put forward that the Mabul was a Moshol or that it never happened but the Torah was referencing a secular fable that was popular in the days of Noach, using the rule of Dibra Torah kelashon bnei adam?
The Mabul
Started by
Catechizer
, Jun 06 2011 08:56 PM
22 replies to this topic
#2
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 06 June 2011 - 09:07 PM
We are obligated to believe everything the Torah says. That means the Torah Shebiksav as explained by the Torah Shebal Peh. That means the Mabul happened just as the Pesukim and Chazal say it did. The suggestions above are Kefirah, plain and simple. Not to mention silly. That's not what דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם means.Are we obligated to believe that the Mabul actually happened as described in the Scriptures? is the suggestion that some people have put forward that the Mabul was a Moshol or that it never happened but the Torah was referencing a secular fable that was popular in the days of Noach, using the rule of Dibra Torah kelashon bnei adam?
And, how is it possible that the whole world was under water for 40 days and the resultant geological devastation that must have taken place is not there?
#3
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 12 June 2011 - 02:49 PM
If the reason for concocting the “Mabul didn’t really happen as we know it” distortion is in order to conform the Torah to the alleged current geological evidence against the real Mabul story, then such a distortion is not necessary because, as we will see shortly, there is no way to anticipate what the geological aftermath of the Mabul should look like to geologists; if the reason for the distortion is to change the Torah to conform to the scientific “evidence” of an uninterrupted civilization, then the distortion is useless, because it is clear from Torah Shebal Peh that the Mabul literally obliterated all of mankind except for Noach and company.
To begin with, the glaring omission from Torah Shebal Peh and our Mesorah of even a hint to any of the above interpretations of the Mabul makes it clear that such interpretations are simply not the way our sages understood this entire Parsha in the Torah. But although sufficiently conclusive, it’s not only proof by omission that tells us how Chazal Torah Shebal Peh understood the Mabul story:
Chazal tell us that R. Chiya and R. Yehuda saw actual physical effects of the Mabul on Mt. Ararat. Mesholim do not leave physical effects (Zohar 58, 80).
The Mabul water was not water as we know it. It was not fluid like water but had a thicker consistency (Sanhedrin 108a), and came from both the ground and the sky. And it didn’t merely rain and bubble up. The air and the ground themselves turned into water (according to the Ran – see Abarbanel (7:17) who has a different interpretation). The water that came from the ground was boiling hot (Zevachim 113a, Pirkei R. Eliezer 22) - hot enough to obliterate the flesh of the animals (Zohar 1:48). The flood waters caused the flesh of the people and animals to turn into water (Ramban 7:18). The water that came from the sky was cold as snow (Zohar 202). Each drop that fell from the sky was heated in Gehennom (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 53a – Note: There is such a thing as a Gehennom of cold [shel sheleg] as well as a Gehennom of heat [shel aish] – the Mabul waters contained both – Zohar ibid). But although the waters were hot enough to burn the flesh off the wildlife, they did not harm Noach in the Tevah, nor Og who was hanging on to it, because miraculously, when the waters neared theTeivah they were cool enough to protect the occupants of the Teivah from the heat that was devastating the rest of the world (Zevachim ibid).
The “waters” surgically destroyed what Hashem wanted them to destroy – but that which Hashem did not want hurt, remained untouched. This miraculous liquid, whatever its physical makeup, was treated with an other-worldly heat and an other-worldly chill that were designed to enforce the Heavenly verdict by means of the two types of Gehinnom. This Hellwater punished the humans and it punished the animals. It spared the fish because there was no heavenly verdict to punish the fish (Kiddushin 13a, Zevachim 113a). And it spared Noach and his company as well.
But it wasn’t only the Hellwater that was unnatural. Nature was turned on its head. The sun rose from the west and set in the east (Avos D’Rav Nosson 32, Sanhedrin 108a); the roles of the sun and the moon were altered (Yalkut Reuveni Noach) ; the entire earth tilted off its axis – cold climates found themselves near the equator and hot climates were suddenly freezing (see Malbim 7:22). The lifespan of creatures, and the productivity of the world itself changed after the Mabul (Bereishis Rabbah 34). The Maharitz Chiyus in Nidah (23a) says the Mabul caused geologic upheavals that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none.
The entire world was obliterated by the Midas Hadin that reigned, except Noach, his company, and his Teivah, which had a power like the Heavenly Teivah that can withstand intense Din. Had Hashem not prepared theTeivah, the entire world would have been destroyed (Zohar Tetzaveh 143).
Noach’s sacrifice after the Mabul repaired (nisbasem) the world, but not completely – when the Jews accepted the Torah on Har Sinai they fixed the world and the Destroyer [that was active during the flood] was permanently gone (Zohar Pekudei 115).
All flesh was destroyed but the flesh of humans was the first to be obliterated. Even though some animal bones remained undestroyed, they were still obliterated “from the earth” -- they were forced deep into the ground by the tremendous pressure of the waters (Malbim 7:23).
This Mabul was not merely “local.” It destroyed all humankind. Pharoh mistakenly decided he needn’t worry about Hashem bringing a Mabul down on his nation, because Hashem swore never to bring another Mabul. His mistake: “Hashem [promised] not to bring a Mabul on the entire world, but on one nation, He could still bring a Mabul” (Sotah 11a). In other words, when Hashem promised never to make another flood, He did not include in that promise not to make local floods. He only promised not to make another flood like the one he made, which was not local, but universal.
Also: “When judgment was made against Sedom, it had been determined to destroy only Sedom but not the entire world, because Rachamim was mixed with Din, as opposed to the Mabul, which destroyed the entire world and all those living in it.” (Zohar Noach124).
“’And [Hashem] destroyed everything in existence on the face of the earth, except for Noach etc.’ (Bereishis 7:23). And except for Og Melech haBashan … and except for Eretz Yisroel” (Pirkei R. Eliezer 23)
“Even the foundation of the millstone was destroyed [in theflood] … even the dust of Adam HaRishon was destroyed [in the flood]” (BereishisRabbah 28:3). See Ramban 8:11.
When the flood was over, “the water that came from up above was swept away by the wind (air); the water that came from down below was swallowed [back] into their place.”(Seder Olam 4 – see Ramban 8:1). The waters still had an effect on the earth until Shlomo HaMelech built the Bais Hamikdash (Tanchuma 17).
This is but a small sampling. The Mabul waters were other-worldy; the way the flood came was supernatural; the way the flood dissipated was supernatural as well. What geological effect this miraculous destruction and miraculous restoration had on the earth is impossible to anticipate. Was there tremendous pressure? Radioactivity? Changes in the atomic structure of some physical aspects of nature?
And it is very likely that there was much more to the story than our Medrashim tell us. When Hashem returned the earth to an inhabitable state, did He simply reverse the effects of the flood? There is no way to know. Did the Hellwaters and upheaval of nature cause a change the geology of the earth that would later be interpreted as an ice-age that happened millions of years ago? Did it create fossils that seem to have been formed eons ago? Did the fact that different types of flesh were destroyed at different intervals and their bones forced into the ground create different fossil strata? Who knows.
But to say with any accuracy whatsoever that the earth lacks the expected physical evidence of a Mabul is impossible, until, of course, someone can identify what physical evidence exactly we should be expecting. And I don’t see how that can be done.
To begin with, the glaring omission from Torah Shebal Peh and our Mesorah of even a hint to any of the above interpretations of the Mabul makes it clear that such interpretations are simply not the way our sages understood this entire Parsha in the Torah. But although sufficiently conclusive, it’s not only proof by omission that tells us how Chazal Torah Shebal Peh understood the Mabul story:
Chazal tell us that R. Chiya and R. Yehuda saw actual physical effects of the Mabul on Mt. Ararat. Mesholim do not leave physical effects (Zohar 58, 80).
The Mabul water was not water as we know it. It was not fluid like water but had a thicker consistency (Sanhedrin 108a), and came from both the ground and the sky. And it didn’t merely rain and bubble up. The air and the ground themselves turned into water (according to the Ran – see Abarbanel (7:17) who has a different interpretation). The water that came from the ground was boiling hot (Zevachim 113a, Pirkei R. Eliezer 22) - hot enough to obliterate the flesh of the animals (Zohar 1:48). The flood waters caused the flesh of the people and animals to turn into water (Ramban 7:18). The water that came from the sky was cold as snow (Zohar 202). Each drop that fell from the sky was heated in Gehennom (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 53a – Note: There is such a thing as a Gehennom of cold [shel sheleg] as well as a Gehennom of heat [shel aish] – the Mabul waters contained both – Zohar ibid). But although the waters were hot enough to burn the flesh off the wildlife, they did not harm Noach in the Tevah, nor Og who was hanging on to it, because miraculously, when the waters neared theTeivah they were cool enough to protect the occupants of the Teivah from the heat that was devastating the rest of the world (Zevachim ibid).
The “waters” surgically destroyed what Hashem wanted them to destroy – but that which Hashem did not want hurt, remained untouched. This miraculous liquid, whatever its physical makeup, was treated with an other-worldly heat and an other-worldly chill that were designed to enforce the Heavenly verdict by means of the two types of Gehinnom. This Hellwater punished the humans and it punished the animals. It spared the fish because there was no heavenly verdict to punish the fish (Kiddushin 13a, Zevachim 113a). And it spared Noach and his company as well.
But it wasn’t only the Hellwater that was unnatural. Nature was turned on its head. The sun rose from the west and set in the east (Avos D’Rav Nosson 32, Sanhedrin 108a); the roles of the sun and the moon were altered (Yalkut Reuveni Noach) ; the entire earth tilted off its axis – cold climates found themselves near the equator and hot climates were suddenly freezing (see Malbim 7:22). The lifespan of creatures, and the productivity of the world itself changed after the Mabul (Bereishis Rabbah 34). The Maharitz Chiyus in Nidah (23a) says the Mabul caused geologic upheavals that created mountains and valleys where previously there were none.
The entire world was obliterated by the Midas Hadin that reigned, except Noach, his company, and his Teivah, which had a power like the Heavenly Teivah that can withstand intense Din. Had Hashem not prepared theTeivah, the entire world would have been destroyed (Zohar Tetzaveh 143).
Noach’s sacrifice after the Mabul repaired (nisbasem) the world, but not completely – when the Jews accepted the Torah on Har Sinai they fixed the world and the Destroyer [that was active during the flood] was permanently gone (Zohar Pekudei 115).
All flesh was destroyed but the flesh of humans was the first to be obliterated. Even though some animal bones remained undestroyed, they were still obliterated “from the earth” -- they were forced deep into the ground by the tremendous pressure of the waters (Malbim 7:23).
This Mabul was not merely “local.” It destroyed all humankind. Pharoh mistakenly decided he needn’t worry about Hashem bringing a Mabul down on his nation, because Hashem swore never to bring another Mabul. His mistake: “Hashem [promised] not to bring a Mabul on the entire world, but on one nation, He could still bring a Mabul” (Sotah 11a). In other words, when Hashem promised never to make another flood, He did not include in that promise not to make local floods. He only promised not to make another flood like the one he made, which was not local, but universal.
Also: “When judgment was made against Sedom, it had been determined to destroy only Sedom but not the entire world, because Rachamim was mixed with Din, as opposed to the Mabul, which destroyed the entire world and all those living in it.” (Zohar Noach124).
“’And [Hashem] destroyed everything in existence on the face of the earth, except for Noach etc.’ (Bereishis 7:23). And except for Og Melech haBashan … and except for Eretz Yisroel” (Pirkei R. Eliezer 23)
“Even the foundation of the millstone was destroyed [in theflood] … even the dust of Adam HaRishon was destroyed [in the flood]” (BereishisRabbah 28:3). See Ramban 8:11.
When the flood was over, “the water that came from up above was swept away by the wind (air); the water that came from down below was swallowed [back] into their place.”(Seder Olam 4 – see Ramban 8:1). The waters still had an effect on the earth until Shlomo HaMelech built the Bais Hamikdash (Tanchuma 17).
This is but a small sampling. The Mabul waters were other-worldy; the way the flood came was supernatural; the way the flood dissipated was supernatural as well. What geological effect this miraculous destruction and miraculous restoration had on the earth is impossible to anticipate. Was there tremendous pressure? Radioactivity? Changes in the atomic structure of some physical aspects of nature?
And it is very likely that there was much more to the story than our Medrashim tell us. When Hashem returned the earth to an inhabitable state, did He simply reverse the effects of the flood? There is no way to know. Did the Hellwaters and upheaval of nature cause a change the geology of the earth that would later be interpreted as an ice-age that happened millions of years ago? Did it create fossils that seem to have been formed eons ago? Did the fact that different types of flesh were destroyed at different intervals and their bones forced into the ground create different fossil strata? Who knows.
But to say with any accuracy whatsoever that the earth lacks the expected physical evidence of a Mabul is impossible, until, of course, someone can identify what physical evidence exactly we should be expecting. And I don’t see how that can be done.
#4
Chaim613
-
- Members
- 75 posts
Member
Posted 17 June 2011 - 01:42 PM
Thank you for discussing this subject. I am fascinated with Rabbi Miller's look at the bones in high places and the flood story in other cultures. I wanted to ask you some questions for further clarity, which the critics write about:
1. Why does it seem as though many cultures have UNBROKEN histories, or that there are documents that predate flood, or in tree-ring dating which shows uninterrupted and over 4000 years? (I know that scientific dating systems are flawed, but I believe they track them in other ways.)
2.Fitting all the animals in (are we to just believe it was a nes, or is there any rational explanation)?
3. Kind of an aside, but curious... When did the continents split? Sources? Is there any mention in Midrashim about the supposed lost continent of Atlantis?
thank you,
Chaim
1. Why does it seem as though many cultures have UNBROKEN histories, or that there are documents that predate flood, or in tree-ring dating which shows uninterrupted and over 4000 years? (I know that scientific dating systems are flawed, but I believe they track them in other ways.)
2.Fitting all the animals in (are we to just believe it was a nes, or is there any rational explanation)?
3. Kind of an aside, but curious... When did the continents split? Sources? Is there any mention in Midrashim about the supposed lost continent of Atlantis?
thank you,
Chaim
#5
Aurbach
-
- Members
- 6 posts
Member
Posted 21 June 2011 - 11:26 AM
Rabbi Joel B. Wolowelsky has proven to the satisfaction of all Modern Orthodox rabbis and scholars that I have spoken to, that it is possible that the Mabul story in Genesis is actually referring to the Gilgamesh epoch, a pagan narrative. The Torah speaks in the language of man. This is also the consensus knowledgeable Orthodox Jews who have discussed this online at length. You can download the article for free.We are obligated to believe everything the Torah says. That means the Torah Shebiksav as explained by the Torah Shebal Peh. That means the Mabul happened just as the Pesukim and Chazal say it did. The suggestions above are Kefirah, plain and simple. Not to mention silly. That's not what דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם means.
Can you therefore please explain your sweeping assertion that such a well-received essay is ... "kefirah"? Which of the 13 Ikarim does it violate?
#6
Guest_Zecharia Holzer_*
Guest_Zecharia Holzer_*
-
- Guests
Posted 22 June 2011 - 03:02 PM
Perhaps if the people you spoke to knew the facts they would have a different opinion. Here are the facts, you can check them up in books and verify them with Gilgamesh experts.
The Gilgamesh epic is an old epic (I would need to check up the exact year it is first found, but let us say 1800 BCE). However, the earliest versions of the story DID NOT INCLUDE THE FLOOD STORY. The flood story [which is what the whole discussion is about] was added to the epic later on in time. When was the flood story added?
FACT: No one knows.
Later tradition attributed the flood story to a person named Sin-leqi-unninni, we know nothing about him other than that. When did he live? When did he incorporate the Flood narrative into the Epic? To quote the Assyriologist and Gilgamesh expert Andrew George [Professor of Babylonian, Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East at the University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. Author of The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 996pp, Oxford University Press (England)(2003). The Epic of Gilgamesh: A new translation, 228pp, Penguin Classics (UK),(2000)] (email correspondence 2/5/10, quoted with permission, emphasis mine):
“We know nothing about Sin-leqi-unninni, other than that later tradition attributed the poem to him. The rest is pretty much educated guesswork. It is conventional to suppose that he incorporated the Flood narrative into the poem, but we don't actually get any hard evidence for its inclusion until the 7th century, which is when most of our sources for the Standard Babylonian poem come from.”
To reiterate, we have no evidence of the existence of the Flood story in the Gilgamesh Epic until: the 7th century (BCE).
Furthermore:
“Recently an early Neo-Assyrian (9-8 century) manuscript of Tablets X-XI came to light that seems to have other text (broken) instead of the flood story”
In other words, recently they found a manuscript of the Gilgamesh Epic from the 9th or 8th century BCE which, instead of having the flood story, has other text! Now, for Assyriologists that manuscript is not conclusive enough proof, because who knows, maybe it was a fluke copy of an old text before the Flood narrative was added. If they do find additional manuscripts from that time period lacking the Flood narrative obviously that would change their “conventional” assumption.
So, as Torah Jews, let us think logically. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the Flood narrative in the Gilgamesh Epic until the 7th century BCE. Conventionally, Assyriologists assume it was added sometime between 1300-1000 BCE. Let us even imagine they are correct in that assumption. That means anywhere in that time period. Mattan Torah took place at 1313 BCE (Based on “Codex Judaica” by Rabbi Mattis Kantor), well before the year 1000 which may have been when the Flood narrative was added. [Maybe someone will choose to date Mattan Torah a hundred or maybe even 200 years later, I don’t know of anyone offhand, but let’s imagine. That is 100 years before the “conventional” time to assume the flood narrative was addedUpon a friend’s insistence, I confronted a certain professor [who is a proponent of the Gilgamesh Bible link] with this point. The professor told me that those who date the Flood story in the Gilg. epic between 1300-1000 date Moses "very very late" yet he refused to give me a rough estimate because he "can't put words into the mouths of Assyriologists”. This professor I argued with was utterly ridiculous, and I am still waiting for reply to most of my questions (others not mentioned here). Nonetheless a number of months later I told Professor George exactly what the professor had said to me regarding this point, to see if it had any bearing. Professor Geoge’s answer (10/12/10) was rather short and to the point: “In regard to Moses's date, the flood story is a red herring” .
Now, why on earth would an Orthodox Jew choose to assume that the Torah, which well predates any hypothesis of the Flood narrative in the Gilgamesh Epic (and well predates any actual evidence [7th century BCE] of the Flood narrative in the Epic), would be immitating a story which did not exist at the time?
The point is that there is no basis to say the Flood Narrative in the Gilgamesh Epic predated the Torah, and all current evidence implies the exact opposite.
It is worthwhile to point out that even if there would have been some evidence that the Gilgamesh flood story predated the Torah, the article would still be totally inappropriate. Aside from the facts mentioned above, there are some very basic logical problemsTo name one: If the jews received the Torah at Har Sinai thinking the Mabul story was true, as they had no reason to think otherwise at the time, then why would their descendants, 500 (or more) years later, suddenly change their minds and their beliefs just because at that time the nations around them have some sort of similar story? The jews were supposed to realize that since they have a similar story to the goyim that means the story their ancestors heard at Mattan Torah was a copy of the Goyish story? Read the article that is exactly what it believes took place. with Dr. Wolowelsky’s article , as well as very grave HalachicTo recommend such a change in children’s curriculum is not just a principal’s whim, it is a serious halachic issue (for just one relevant source see Rama YD 246:4). and Hashkafic Aside from the fact that these types of explanations should be left to those who have first filled themselves with Shas and Poskim (see Rama mentioned above), those who would believe the Gilgamesh article would soon find themselves believing other such nonsense regarding other parts of the Torah. issues.
Lastly, I do not know which Modern Orthodox Rabbis (and scholars?) espouse such a view. But you should know that Dr. Wolowelsky did not invent the wheel, the Gilgamesh Epic was well known many years ago. Let me tell you what one major Modern Orthodox rabbi, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik (a.k.a. the Rav) had to say about ideas such as Dr. Wolowelsky’s. And I quote (emphasis mine):
“They stole from us our ethic; they stole from us our morality; they stole from us our religion. You know I am referring to both Chrsitianity and Islam. Even the Koran copied our thoughts. The morality in Christianity of goodness and sympathy and compassion was borrowed or stolen, I don’t care what verb you use, from Yahadus… Did anyone give us thanks for it? On the contrary, they stole everything from us and then they say that we stole it from the Assyrians and Babylonians. What do the Bible critics say? Exactly that.”
(from: The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bereishis, page 322 (Holzerseforim.com, 2010), Verbatim quote from a lecture given in Boston, 1974)
The Gilgamesh epic is an old epic (I would need to check up the exact year it is first found, but let us say 1800 BCE). However, the earliest versions of the story DID NOT INCLUDE THE FLOOD STORY. The flood story [which is what the whole discussion is about] was added to the epic later on in time. When was the flood story added?
FACT: No one knows.
Later tradition attributed the flood story to a person named Sin-leqi-unninni, we know nothing about him other than that. When did he live? When did he incorporate the Flood narrative into the Epic? To quote the Assyriologist and Gilgamesh expert Andrew George [Professor of Babylonian, Department of the Languages and Cultures of Near and Middle East at the University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. Author of The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, 996pp, Oxford University Press (England)(2003). The Epic of Gilgamesh: A new translation, 228pp, Penguin Classics (UK),(2000)] (email correspondence 2/5/10, quoted with permission, emphasis mine):
“We know nothing about Sin-leqi-unninni, other than that later tradition attributed the poem to him. The rest is pretty much educated guesswork. It is conventional to suppose that he incorporated the Flood narrative into the poem, but we don't actually get any hard evidence for its inclusion until the 7th century, which is when most of our sources for the Standard Babylonian poem come from.”
To reiterate, we have no evidence of the existence of the Flood story in the Gilgamesh Epic until: the 7th century (BCE).
Furthermore:
“Recently an early Neo-Assyrian (9-8 century) manuscript of Tablets X-XI came to light that seems to have other text (broken) instead of the flood story”
In other words, recently they found a manuscript of the Gilgamesh Epic from the 9th or 8th century BCE which, instead of having the flood story, has other text! Now, for Assyriologists that manuscript is not conclusive enough proof, because who knows, maybe it was a fluke copy of an old text before the Flood narrative was added. If they do find additional manuscripts from that time period lacking the Flood narrative obviously that would change their “conventional” assumption.
So, as Torah Jews, let us think logically. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the Flood narrative in the Gilgamesh Epic until the 7th century BCE. Conventionally, Assyriologists assume it was added sometime between 1300-1000 BCE. Let us even imagine they are correct in that assumption. That means anywhere in that time period. Mattan Torah took place at 1313 BCE (Based on “Codex Judaica” by Rabbi Mattis Kantor), well before the year 1000 which may have been when the Flood narrative was added. [Maybe someone will choose to date Mattan Torah a hundred or maybe even 200 years later, I don’t know of anyone offhand, but let’s imagine. That is 100 years before the “conventional” time to assume the flood narrative was addedUpon a friend’s insistence, I confronted a certain professor [who is a proponent of the Gilgamesh Bible link] with this point. The professor told me that those who date the Flood story in the Gilg. epic between 1300-1000 date Moses "very very late" yet he refused to give me a rough estimate because he "can't put words into the mouths of Assyriologists”. This professor I argued with was utterly ridiculous, and I am still waiting for reply to most of my questions (others not mentioned here). Nonetheless a number of months later I told Professor George exactly what the professor had said to me regarding this point, to see if it had any bearing. Professor Geoge’s answer (10/12/10) was rather short and to the point: “In regard to Moses's date, the flood story is a red herring” .
Now, why on earth would an Orthodox Jew choose to assume that the Torah, which well predates any hypothesis of the Flood narrative in the Gilgamesh Epic (and well predates any actual evidence [7th century BCE] of the Flood narrative in the Epic), would be immitating a story which did not exist at the time?
The point is that there is no basis to say the Flood Narrative in the Gilgamesh Epic predated the Torah, and all current evidence implies the exact opposite.
It is worthwhile to point out that even if there would have been some evidence that the Gilgamesh flood story predated the Torah, the article would still be totally inappropriate. Aside from the facts mentioned above, there are some very basic logical problemsTo name one: If the jews received the Torah at Har Sinai thinking the Mabul story was true, as they had no reason to think otherwise at the time, then why would their descendants, 500 (or more) years later, suddenly change their minds and their beliefs just because at that time the nations around them have some sort of similar story? The jews were supposed to realize that since they have a similar story to the goyim that means the story their ancestors heard at Mattan Torah was a copy of the Goyish story? Read the article that is exactly what it believes took place. with Dr. Wolowelsky’s article , as well as very grave HalachicTo recommend such a change in children’s curriculum is not just a principal’s whim, it is a serious halachic issue (for just one relevant source see Rama YD 246:4). and Hashkafic Aside from the fact that these types of explanations should be left to those who have first filled themselves with Shas and Poskim (see Rama mentioned above), those who would believe the Gilgamesh article would soon find themselves believing other such nonsense regarding other parts of the Torah. issues.
Lastly, I do not know which Modern Orthodox Rabbis (and scholars?) espouse such a view. But you should know that Dr. Wolowelsky did not invent the wheel, the Gilgamesh Epic was well known many years ago. Let me tell you what one major Modern Orthodox rabbi, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik (a.k.a. the Rav) had to say about ideas such as Dr. Wolowelsky’s. And I quote (emphasis mine):
“They stole from us our ethic; they stole from us our morality; they stole from us our religion. You know I am referring to both Chrsitianity and Islam. Even the Koran copied our thoughts. The morality in Christianity of goodness and sympathy and compassion was borrowed or stolen, I don’t care what verb you use, from Yahadus… Did anyone give us thanks for it? On the contrary, they stole everything from us and then they say that we stole it from the Assyrians and Babylonians. What do the Bible critics say? Exactly that.”
(from: The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bereishis, page 322 (Holzerseforim.com, 2010), Verbatim quote from a lecture given in Boston, 1974)
#7
Guest_Ploni_*
Guest_Ploni_*
-
- Guests
Posted 23 June 2011 - 06:02 PM
Joel B. Wolowelsky is a PhD, not a rabbi. He has proven nothing, to any Orthodox rabbis. In fact, a full discussion of how the position he suggests is kefira was published by Rabbi Holzer in The Rav Thinking Aloud: Sefer Bereishis. You can download that section for free here.
You'll note that the position outlined in that book is fully supported by no less an authority than Rabbi Herschel Schachter, the Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshiva University and Posek for the Orthodox Union. I guarantee you there is no Orthodox rabbi who is qualified to argue with Rabbi Shachter in these matters who would argue with this position. If you have a Rabbi of Rabbi Shachter's caliber who is prepared to argue on this yesod of emunah with him, please say who exactly you're talking about, instead of vague, anonymous references.
You'll note that the position outlined in that book is fully supported by no less an authority than Rabbi Herschel Schachter, the Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshiva University and Posek for the Orthodox Union. I guarantee you there is no Orthodox rabbi who is qualified to argue with Rabbi Shachter in these matters who would argue with this position. If you have a Rabbi of Rabbi Shachter's caliber who is prepared to argue on this yesod of emunah with him, please say who exactly you're talking about, instead of vague, anonymous references.
#8
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 23 June 2011 - 09:17 PM
1. You'll have to be more specific please.Thank you for discussing this subject. I am fascinated with Rabbi Miller's look at the bones in high places and the flood story in other cultures. I wanted to ask you some questions for further clarity, which the critics write about:
1. Why does it seem as though many cultures have UNBROKEN histories, or that there are documents that predate flood, or in tree-ring dating which shows uninterrupted and over 4000 years? (I know that scientific dating systems are flawed, but I believe they track them in other ways.)
2.Fitting all the animals in (are we to just believe it was a nes, or is there any rational explanation)?
3. Kind of an aside, but curious... When did the continents split? Sources? Is there any mention in Midrashim about the supposed lost continent of Atlantis?
thank you,
Chaim
2. You mean after all the animals from everywhere in the world, in precisely the right numbers (depending if they were kosher or non-kosher) all came on their own to Noach and entered the Teivah, where they would sit out a 40 day-and-night total upheaval of nature where violent, Hellish water-like stuff that incinerated flesh but didn't harm the Teivah rained down upon them, destroyed the entire world as we know it, then miraculously receded - you are telling me there are "critics" that have some reason to be disinclined to the idea that their fitting into that Teivah was any less of a miracle than anything else that happened then? Yes, our Seforim say it was a Ness, and never mind the animals - the food they all needed was in that teivah too.
One thing though - you don't mean to ask for a "rational" explanation - you mean "natural" explanation. Rational means reasonable. There is nothing irrational about miracles happening, unless of course you don't believe Hashem can make them. In fact, considering the whole Mabul episode, expecting that life in the Teivah should have been non-miraculous is fairly irrational.
3. I don't know anything about any Atlantis. As far as the creation of the continents goes (it didn't have to be by the land "splitting" - the land could have reassembled -splitting or otherwise - or the sea level could have risen), we have Rashi in Chumash (Bereishis 6:4) that in the days of Enosh the ocean rose and engulfed much of the earth - if I remember right it was Rav Yaakov Emden who explained that before then there was only one ocean and this rise in sea level created continents (this was of course before the Dor HaMabul); the Maharitz Chayis in Nidah (23a) says that once upon a time there were no mountains or valleys anywhere in the world, but during the Mabul and afterwards mountains and valleys developed (I assume that could include creation of continents as well); and of course in the Gemora Shabbos (56b) R. Yehuda quotes Shmuel that Italy was created in the time of Shlomo HaMelech.
#9
Aurbach
-
- Members
- 6 posts
Member
Posted 24 June 2011 - 07:06 AM
Rabbi Herschel Schachter? Is he your rav? Do you hold milk is kosher? If so then you are selectively following him when it is convenient for you.Joel B. Wolowelsky is a PhD, not a rabbi. He has proven nothing, to any Orthodox rabbis. In fact, a full discussion of how the position he suggests is kefira was published by Rabbi Holzer in The Rav Thinking Aloud: Sefer Bereishis. You can download that section for free here.
You'll note that the position outlined in that book is fully supported by no less an authority than Rabbi Herschel Schachter, the Rosh HaYeshiva of Yeshiva University and Posek for the Orthodox Union. I guarantee you there is no Orthodox rabbi who is qualified to argue with Rabbi Shachter in these matters who would argue with this position. If you have a Rabbi of Rabbi Shachter's caliber who is prepared to argue on this yesod of emunah with him, please say who exactly you're talking about, instead of vague, anonymous references.
Rav Schachter is a Talmudist, not a scientist. Science can never be kefira – just ask the Rambam. How could the Mabul have happened the way you and Rav Shapiro understand it if science clearly states it did not? Does Judaism not value truth? Dr. Wolowolsky is trying to help his students from throwing Judaism into the garbage by giving them something they can believe in. Rabbi Holzer's essay was already discussed to death on the blogs.
#10
Guest_Ploni_*
Guest_Ploni_*
-
- Guests
Posted 24 June 2011 - 03:06 PM
Rabbi Herschel Schachter? Is he your rav? Do you hold milk is kosher? If so then you are selectively following him when it is convenient for you.
Rav Schachter is a Talmudist, not a scientist. Science can never be kefira – just ask the Rambam. How could the Mabul have happened the way you and Rav Shapiro understand it if science clearly states it did not? Does Judaism not value truth? Dr. Wolowolsky is trying to help his students from throwing Judaism into the garbage by giving them something they can believe in. Rabbi Holzer's essay was already discussed to death on the blogs.
In other words, no you don't have anyone of his caliber who argues. Which is what you first claimed. Retracting that?
And what, Dr. Wolowolsky is your Rav? What actual halachic authority do you respect, other than some professor? If you have none, that's very unfortunate, but it could explain why you're so misguided.
And if science says there's no God, or he's divisible, or there's nothing special about nevuas Moshe, or there's no techias ha'meisim, that's all not kefira? All miraculous events mean a temporary suspension of the standard, natural, scientific world.
#11
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 26 June 2011 - 10:06 AM
First, for the record, something does not have to violate any of the Ikarim to be Kefirah. A person has to, in order to be called a Kofer. See Sefer HaChinuch on Lo sasuru acharei levavchem, and MIshna Brura, Biur Halachah 1. Also see Brachos 12b and Rashi DH "Minus" and "Vechein hu omer."Rabbi Joel B. Wolowelsky has proven to the satisfaction of all Modern Orthodox rabbis and scholars that I have spoken to, that it is possible that the Mabul story in Genesis is actually referring to the Gilgamesh epoch, a pagan narrative. The Torah speaks in the language of man. This is also the consensus knowledgeable Orthodox Jews who have discussed this online at length. You can download the article for free.
Can you therefore please explain your sweeping assertion that such a well-received essay is ... "kefirah"? Which of the 13 Ikarim does it violate?
But Wolewelky's piece does in fact violate the 13 Ikarim, specifically #8 that states we are obligated to believe everything in the Torah - as understood by our sages - is true. Wolewelsy claims that the Mabul did not actually happen as described in the Torah. To him, the word "Mabul" the way the Torah describes it and the "Mabul" as he says it happened are merely homonyms, but according to him, what it says in the Torah happened did not happen. it's that simple. And as was posted above, Rabbi Holzer clearly and correctly pointed this out in detail, here.
But it goes further. Wolowelsky's recommendation is not just Kefirah againt a certain Parsha in the Torah. it is much worse than that.
Wolowelsky claims that the Mabul story is really a deformed version of a pagan fairy tale, that Hashem inserted into the Torah. There is no question that is not how Chazal viewed it. There are dozens of statements in Chazal describing details of what happened in the Mabul that cannot be reconciled with Wolowelsky's version of it. None of the Rishonim understood the Mabul the way Wolowelsky does. Nobody ever did, in fact, until Wolowelsky.
This means that according to Wolowelsky, when Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe on Har Sinai, Moshe of course understood that the Mabul as we know it never happened, and presumably he taught that to all of Klall Yisroel. Indeed, why should they ever think the Mabul - the traditional version of it - ever happened? And even if they believed such a fiction as a world-wide flood, Moshe surely explained to them that they are mistaken!
Yet somehow, between then and not long thereafter, the plain meaning of that entire Parhsa in the Torah was completely forgotten. Completely. Instead, every single possessor of the text - Jewish or otherwise - decided that this fictitious world-wide flood that wiped out everything in the world actually happened. Historically, of course, nobody could have known such a thing, since it didn't happen, and of course, once upon a time all of us knew that the Torah was only talking about the Gilgamesh fable. But somehow, this was all misconstrued, and instead of the correct understanding of this Parsha in the Torah, which of course Moshe Rabbeinu taught, Chazal and all our sages that ever wrote or said anything still on record one way or the other, said the wrong thing. An entire world-wide historical event, plus and entirely fictitious understanding of an entire Parsha in the Torah were concocted and passed on unanimously by our sages. This error was never caught by any Torah scholar in history, until Paul Wolowelsky wrote his essay in Tradition.
Well, that's not really entirely true - before Wolowelsky, the Bible Critics have put forth this theory, intending to falsify the truth of the Torah. Wolowelsky merely says that we Orthodox Jews can accept what they say without qualms.
But we can't. Because if what he is saying is true, then our entire Mesorah has been proven unreliable, our Chazal have been proven to be completely unaware of the simple meaning of an entire Parsha in the Torah, and not only unaware of it, they built a historical fiction around it that never happened, that Moshe taught the Jews never happened, and they passed it down unanimously for all generations.
The Ramban (Toras Hashem Temimah) writes about Moshe Rabbeinu: "In the presence of magicians, wizards, and astrologers, he publicly proclaimed: 'My father told me that his grandfather, witnessed the creation of the world," [i.e. the re-creation of the wold after the Mabul] ... doubtlessly, if that were not true, everyone would have known, and it would have been contradicted by many elders and scholars among the people who knew the history of the world. .. All of us know from our elders the events of 2 or 3 generations ago ... events are remembered. Therefore, nobody can deny these events [i.e. the flood and the creation]. In addition, the Torah publicized the names of all the people, their genealogies, and the development of their countries, as is detailed in Sefer Bereishis. So writes the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (3:50)."
According to Wolowelsky, all this is baloney. Understand, the problem here is not the fact that the Ramban says this per se. It is that according to Wolowelsky, the integrity of our Mesorah has not only been compromised, it has been utterly falsified. If a fiction of such magnitude can become concocted and accepted and passed down by those who, if you contradict what they say you are considered Makchish Magideha and are a heretic, if this is the level of understanding that those who produced Torah Shebal Peh had of the Torah, we can all close up shop.
If Wolowelsky were correct, Judaism falls apart at the seams. Nothing left. Considering how much we rely on our Mesorah (it is the basis for our entire religion), if such fiction of such magnitude and such immensity could have been passed down undetected, then everything our religion says is equally unreliable c"v.
And for what? Why does Wolowelsky make this claim? Because in 1865, if I am not mistaken, they discovered this Gilgamesh story. There is, to this day, not a single Torah authority that has suggested such an understanding of the Parsha from the Torah itself. It is not even a hava aminah. Not a remez.
And what makes the whole thing comical is that Wolowelsky claims we should teach this in order to keep people believing in the integrity of our Torah! Because if this is not pshat, then there are questions that arise, such as how did kangaroos get to Australia, etc. Because of that, we should do a chain saw massacre on the very basis of our religion - i.e. Chazal and our Mesorah - such that nothing they say can ever really be trusted. That is going to keep people believing in Judaism?
Wolewelsky's "idea' is worse than kefirah; it is Kefirah because it contradicts the historicity of the Mabul episode. It is worse than kefirah because if he would be right, Judaism would c"v be a fake religion and a joke.
#12
shaya
-
- Members
- 108 posts
Member
Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:38 AM
about "dibrah torah k'loshon bnei odom", how do we choose what is and what is not?.
if "byod chazakah" is why not the mabul?
is it also a part of our mesorah? (to say that "b'yod chazakah" is dibrah torah k'loshon bnei odom"?)
if "byod chazakah" is why not the mabul?
is it also a part of our mesorah? (to say that "b'yod chazakah" is dibrah torah k'loshon bnei odom"?)
Start with God - the first step in learning is bowing down to God; only fools thumb their noses at such wisdom and learning.
#13
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:39 PM
We don't choose. It's already been thousands of years since the Torah was given. It's already been decided by Chazal. If someone wants to say Chazal understood the Torah that way, fine, we can discuss it. But for someone to say that Chazal understood something to mean one thing and we know that it means something different, that's ridiculous. Not to mention Apikorsus.about "dibrah torah k'loshon bnei odom", how do we choose what is and what is not?.
if "byod chazakah" is why not the mabul?
is it also a part of our mesorah? (to say that "b'yod chazakah" is dibrah torah k'loshon bnei odom"?)
And so, Yad Hashem does not mean a physical hand, because non-physically was the way it was understood throughout the generations. (For the record, a non-physical hand may be the literal meaning of the word "Yad" - see Rashi.)
Besides which, we cannot take the Torah's Pesukim out of context. "Yad Hashem" is not the only thing it says in the Torah about Hashem. It also says כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם כָּל תְּמוּנָה - which means Hashem has no physical hand. So taking the Posuk "Yad Hashem" to mean that he does have a physical hand is like taking the Posuk וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים to mean "Thou shalt worship other gods." It's out of context. The context of each Posuk is the entire Torah and you need to consider every Posuk within that context. So Yad Hashem cannot mean a physical hand.
Besides, דברה תורה כלשון בני"א doesn't mean what Waolowelsky is trying to make it mean. It applies to expressions, a word here and there, and it means that the Torah sometimes uses human language-expressions. And even then, we only say it when forced to. It doesn't apply to the content of an entire narrative. To say that the Mabul story is merely a kosher rendition of a fictitious story that was going around some places a long time ago, that's not the same thing as the Torah sometimes uses expressions that are figures of speech. Such an application of דברה תורה has no basis, source, or parallel anywhere.
#14
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 26 June 2011 - 09:07 PM
כתב התנצלות לרבי אברהם בדרשי:
אמנם מאמר היות שנים עשר בני יעקב אבינו עליו השלום הם שנים עשר מזלות זה לא שמענוהו מעולם ולא הוגד לנו בו דבר אבל שמענו פעמים רבות מקצת הדרשנים ההפך שהם אמרו כמשיבי' את אפיקורוס החולק על התור' באמ' שגם אנחנו תחת ממשלת מערכת המזלו' והמשרתי' כשאר האמות וראיתו הפחותה על זה היות מספר השבטים כמו מספר המזלות והשיבו על זה החולק שאם כן לא היה ראוי שיהיו השבטים כלם יחד בהצלחה או בשפלות בזמן אחד כמו שנראה והתפרסם פעמים רבות וזה כי המזלו' לא יסורו מסבוב והאופק אשר היא העגלה המחלקת בין הנרא' לראותנו והנסת' מעגלת הגלגל מחלק אותם ר"ל המזלות לשני חציים שוים תמיד ומפני תמידות סבובם יתחייב לעולם כי כשהחצי האחד נגלה על האופק שיהיה החצי האחר נסתר תחתיו והיה ראוי לפי זה שיהיה חציינו בשפלו' כל זמן שיהיה החצי האחר בהצלחה אי זה משני החציין שיזדמן זהו ששמענוהו בזה הענין והוא נאה ומקובל בחזוק האמונה שאין מזל להם לישראל ושאין אצטרובלין מתקיימים ביחודים ואיך יהיה בעל זה הדעת הרע אשר זכרתם יותר רע ויותר מגונה מן האפיקורסים כי גם האפיקורס ההוא אינו אומר שהשבטים לא נבראו ושמשל היו לשנים עשר המזלות אבל יודה בלי ספק על מציאותם בדורם וסדר בריאתם אלא שישעבדם מצד כיון מספרם לאותם המערכות העליונות ואיך יאמן באנשים אשר מבני ישראל המה ושעמדו אבותיהם על הר סיני שיעקרו כבודם וכבוד בית אביהם בעקור בריא' האבות והשבטים מן העולם שהיא יותר מפורסמת ממאור ניצוץ השמש בצהרים וכל ספרי הנבואה מלאים מהם וגם אם הנחנום כיוצאים מן הכלל לבלתי האסר בעבותות אהבת הנבואות הנה מראית העין יוכיח בראותנו היום בתוכנו הבדלי היחס בכהונה ולויה וישראלים כי לא נשאר מהתיחסות השבטים באלו הדורות רושם אחר בלתי זה וישוב הכרח בזה הענין כמודה מקצת:
#15
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:25 PM
An alert reader has sent me, via private email, more information on the creation of the mountains, taken from the Sefer מגדים חדשים עמ"ס חגיגה, who apparently has a lengthy discussion on the topic. He has many relevant Mekoros. I am citing here just the most important for our discussion:3. I don't know anything about any Atlantis. As far as the creation of the continents goes (it didn't have to be by the land "splitting" - the land could have reassembled -splitting or otherwise - or the sea level could have risen), we have Rashi in Chumash (Bereishis 6:4) that in the days of Enosh the ocean rose and engulfed much of the earth - if I remember right it was Rav Yaakov Emden who explained that before then there was only one ocean and this rise in sea level created continents (this was of course before the Dor HaMabul); the Maharitz Chayis in Nidah (23a) says that once upon a time there were no mountains or valleys anywhere in the world, but during the Mabul and afterwards mountains and valleys developed (I assume that could include creation of continents as well); and of course in the Gemora Shabbos (56b) R. Yehuda quotes Shmuel that Italy was created in the time of Shlomo HaMelech.
- Netziv in haamek davar (7:19) - changes occurred to the mountains due to the mabul,
- Contradictions in the malbim (tehillim 95:4, 75:7, Yirmiya 4:23. Mishlei 8:25)
- Ibn Ezra and other Meforshim on the Posuk בטרם הרים יולדו
#16
Alexander
-
- Members
- 8 posts
Member
Posted 09 October 2011 - 05:19 PM
Dear Rabbi Shapiro,
Thanks for such an excellent analysis on the Mabul. While I heard before that it wasn't rain but supernatural fire, I haven't quite heard it in such a detail yet. I guess it answers a question I had which was "how did Kangaroos end up in Australia?"
I do have another question. So Mabul was around less than 5,000 years ago. What about .
?מגדל בבל
(1) Is it fair to say that it was about 2,500 BC? So in 2,500 BC say Chinese people moved into the territory known as China and started talking in their vastly different language? (1.a) So all of their historical accounts dating them to much earlier than that time are innacurate?
Speaking of the Chinese, they seem to have a different culture than from Europe and Middle East in that they barely have interacted with western cultures over the centuries. As far as their culture is concerned, a few hundred years ago there may have been many people who have never even heard of Israel and its existence.
Say for the sake of argument, an educated Chinese man who has never heard of Israel or Jews comes to a personal conclusion that there exists a First Cause. How would he then make a connection that the All Powerful First Cause that created the vast and infinite universe placed everything in His creation into one goal: a small nation called Klal Israel that has 10000 rituals (as far as the Chinese guy in concerned just like Amish or [insert religion here]) that he has never heard of, and that thinks of him, the Chinese man, as a person with a lower soul than theirs?
Thanks.
Thanks for such an excellent analysis on the Mabul. While I heard before that it wasn't rain but supernatural fire, I haven't quite heard it in such a detail yet. I guess it answers a question I had which was "how did Kangaroos end up in Australia?"
I do have another question. So Mabul was around less than 5,000 years ago. What about .
?מגדל בבל
(1) Is it fair to say that it was about 2,500 BC? So in 2,500 BC say Chinese people moved into the territory known as China and started talking in their vastly different language? (1.a) So all of their historical accounts dating them to much earlier than that time are innacurate?
Speaking of the Chinese, they seem to have a different culture than from Europe and Middle East in that they barely have interacted with western cultures over the centuries. As far as their culture is concerned, a few hundred years ago there may have been many people who have never even heard of Israel and its existence.
Say for the sake of argument, an educated Chinese man who has never heard of Israel or Jews comes to a personal conclusion that there exists a First Cause. How would he then make a connection that the All Powerful First Cause that created the vast and infinite universe placed everything in His creation into one goal: a small nation called Klal Israel that has 10000 rituals (as far as the Chinese guy in concerned just like Amish or [insert religion here]) that he has never heard of, and that thinks of him, the Chinese man, as a person with a lower soul than theirs?
Thanks.
#17
Rabbi Shapiro
-
- Administrators
-
- 1,423 posts
Member
Posted 09 October 2011 - 07:10 PM
Well, according to this, Chinese recorded history started with the Xing Dynasty which started around 2100 BCE, so there would be no problem.Dear Rabbi Shapiro,
Thanks for such an excellent analysis on the Mabul. While I heard before that it wasn't rain but supernatural fire, I haven't quite heard it in such a detail yet. I guess it answers a question I had which was "how did Kangaroos end up in Australia?"
I do have another question. So Mabul was around less than 5,000 years ago. What about .
?מגדל בבל
(1) Is it fair to say that it was about 2,500 BC? So in 2,500 BC say Chinese people moved into the territory known as China and started talking in their vastly different language? (1.a) So all of their historical accounts dating them to much earlier than that time are innacurate?
It doesn't say anywhere that all non-Jews are obligated to figure out any of that. He either can or he can't. If he can't he is not held responsible for not knowing. But all humans are obligated to be intellectually honest and use reason to the extent that they can. So the non-Jew needs to ask: What is the purpose of the world? Why did the First Cause create it? And continue from there. If for some reason he is not capable of ending his quest with the fact that he is obligated on the 7 Mitzvos, then he is no worse than a Jew who knows nothing about Yiddishket.Say for the sake of argument, an educated Chinese man who has never heard of Israel or Jews comes to a personal conclusion that there exists a First Cause. How would he then make a connection that the All Powerful First Cause that created the vast and infinite universe placed everything in His creation into one goal: a small nation called Klal Israel that has 10000 rituals (as far as the Chinese guy in concerned just like Amish or [insert religion here]) that he has never heard of, and that thinks of him, the Chinese man, as a person with a lower soul than theirs
#18
Benjamin
-
- Members
- 13 posts
Member
Posted 30 March 2012 - 02:07 AM
Are we obligated to believe that the Mabul actually happened as described in the Scriptures? is the suggestion that some people have put forward that the Mabul was a Moshol or that it never happened but the Torah was referencing a secular fable that was popular in the days of Noach, using the rule of Dibra Torah kelashon bnei adam?
Here's the problem with these people. First, they believe that the universe is billions of years old. But it really is less than 6000. So of course many other events in the Torah will not match up since their original assumptions were messed up. Garbage in, garbage out.
I used to be one of those people who believed that it was OK to say the universe was billions of years old according to the Torah. I read Challenge, Schroeder, Rabbi Kaplan, etc. Everything seemed to fit sortakinda until I hit the next perek in Bereishis and the next and compared that with modern science. None of these books addressed the issue of the Mabbul. Now they finally realize they have a big problem and I hate to say this, but they are going to have more and more problems with this approach until they end up denying the entire Torah c'v because they thought it was OK to 'kabbalize' just the first perek of Bereishis.
#19
Benjamin
-
- Members
- 13 posts
Member
Posted 02 April 2012 - 12:40 AM
How did kangaroos get to Australia? First of all, the mabbul uprooted all the plants. This resulted in large floating rafts.
Also, if sealevel was lower by a few hundred feet after the Mabbul, Australia would be connected to Asia by a 1,000 mile wide land bridge.
But even without the science, note that Hashem told Noah and company to fill the land after the mabbul (8:15-19, 9:1). If it was acceptable to allow for a nes so that everything from around the world was able to enter the teva, why should we exclude the possibility for a similar nes to accommodate this command to leave?
Also, if sealevel was lower by a few hundred feet after the Mabbul, Australia would be connected to Asia by a 1,000 mile wide land bridge.
But even without the science, note that Hashem told Noah and company to fill the land after the mabbul (8:15-19, 9:1). If it was acceptable to allow for a nes so that everything from around the world was able to enter the teva, why should we exclude the possibility for a similar nes to accommodate this command to leave?
#20
Benjamin
-
- Members
- 13 posts
Member
Posted 02 April 2012 - 12:50 AM
First, for the record, something does not have to violate any of the Ikarim to be Kefirah. A person has to, in order to be called a Kofer. See Sefer HaChinuch on Lo sasuru acharei levavchem, and MIshna Brura, Biur Halachah 1. Also see Brachos 12b and Rashi DH "Minus" and "Vechein hu omer."
But it goes further. Wolowelsky's recommendation is not just Kefirah againt a certain Parsha in the Torah. it is much worse than that.
This means that according to Wolowelsky, when Hashem gave the Torah to Moshe on Har Sinai, Moshe of course understood that the Mabul as we know it never happened, and presumably he taught that to all of Klall Yisroel. Indeed, why should they ever think the Mabul - the traditional version of it - ever happened? And even if they believed such a fiction as a world-wide flood, Moshe surely explained to them that they are mistaken!
If people go according to Wolowelsky, if the mabbul can be based on a pagan myth, the story of Matan Torah could also be based on a pagan myth (and yad Hashem according to this twisted version of "dibrah torah k'loshon bnei odom" means that Hashem is the metaphor, not the yad!!) and they will all end up like Mendelssohn's descendents.
